Thursday, June 02, 2016

The #EURef explained

The Out side will not have a problem in getting their Out vote out.

The In side will have some difficulty in getting their In vote out to vote In.

If the In vote does not get out in sufficient numbers then the Out vote will be more likely to outvote the In vote.

If you are minded to be In then you need to get out to vote In.

On the day, Thursday 23 June.

If you are not in when the canvasser calls you will be marked as out.

If you are in, but are for Out then you will be marked as Out even though you were in.

Is that clear?


  1. I remember hearing something like this about cricket. 'They toss a coin and the team that is in goes out and the team that is out goes in to get them out.' Does anyone know it?

    1. You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
      When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game

    2. Brilliant! Thank you. Makes perfect sense (if you already understand the game).

  2. A bit like the lies peddled by Bonzo Jojo ...

    "We pay £x to the EU and get £y back" then ignores £y and keeps telling us that we will save £x if we leave the EU ...

    Sorry, Bonzo - no vote from me!

  3. Whatever the result as of June 24th. , the UK will still be in the EU as it is now. The legislation for us to leave will take two years to draft, another three years to enact and further five years after that (i.e. ten years from now) for anything to happen.

    The difficulty in terms of voting whichever way is that the "Brexiteers" or "Leavers" are for the most part conducting the sort of campaign to persuade us not to join the EU if we were not in it - which we are. The "Remainers" seem to telling us what happens if we leave but not why we should stay - because they can't think of enough good reasons.

    What will happen?

    One thing that both sides have achieved is to point out all the things that are wrong with the EU as it is and other countries would agree but have been sidetracked by Austerity and Migration.

    Watch out for other countries wanting their own referendum and being much more ready to challenge Merkel and Hollande and actually give us the changes that the PM asked for but didn't get. There will be a new "Treaty" to stop the EU disintegrating and we will still be in it (as indeed we are anyway!)

    1. In other words, if we vote to leave then some other countries may vote to leave and with the prospect of losing a number of members, the EU will be minded to make the changes that those countries have been pressing for. So we and others will be in the process of leaving a reformed EU which we probably would not have wanted to leave if it had been reformed already, but the reforms would not have happened without the leave vote. The remaining countries get reforms which they don't want (as they have already blocked them) and that we and others have triggered, and we don't because by then we are well into the process of leaving. Sounds like an episode of 'Yes Minister'.

    2. "The European Community Act" of 1972 will first need to be repealed. Pro-EU MPs could attempt to delay this and it may not happen until just prior to the next Election (2020). "The Times", "The Guardian" & "The Independent" have all recently featured Leading Articles on the subject of increasing "Euroscepticism". The article in "The Times" was entitled "Sceptics Rising" and included the following:

      "Whatever the result of the referendum there is a growing clamour for reform of EU Institutions".

      According to "The Times" there has been a recent upsurge in scepticism in Spain & Greece (perhaps not surprisingly) but also in Germany (more surprisingly!).

      Our PM may yet be vindicated!

      When David Cameron went begging at the end of last year (and was humiliated, by and large) the great fear was Austerity and how to deal with it. That has now changed and the great fear is Migration - and the perceived failure to deal with it.

      Whatever you may think of their public images, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are not fools and are well-in with EU politicians, be they big city Mayors or MEPs. Both of these shrewd politicians (yes, they are!) are saying that if there is a narrow majority for Brexit then almost immediately there will be a lot of horse-trading to stop the UK actually leaving. Given the next 'deadline' of the repeal of the 1972 Act, there is time enough to do it.

  4. Or they might just call our bluff.

    In any case, if there is a majority in favour of leaving, I don't think people will take kindly to politicians dragging their heels once 'the people have spoken'. And they will be even more suspicious if they see the EU countries scurrying around trying to stop us from leaving after being so dismissive of Cameron's attempts to bring home something substantial to support his case. If it goes to the next election and little or no progress has been made, I suspect there will be plenty of hay for UKIP to make and I wouldn't blame the British for supporting them, if they feel they are being manipulated by the other main parties.

    In my opinion the government will probably do an 'Irish', i.e. ask us again in a couple of years and hope for a different result.

  5. NeighbourhoodWatcher8:37 pm, June 12, 2016

    It's all about unanimity v. qualified majority.

    A limited number of policies judged to be sensitive remain subject to "unanimity" voting (all 28 countries have to agree and thus one against can effectively veto the change) and these are:

    taxation, social security or social protection, the accession of new countries to the EU, foreign and common defence policy and operational police cooperation between EU countries.

    The first ones (taxation, social security & protection) are at the root of issues about parliamentary sovereignty of individual nations.

    Other areas of legisation require basically a two-thirds majority to go through. Either system, while designed to encourage consensus, can inhibit necessary change. It's a good question as to how anything ever gets changed.

    The fundamental changes that Cameron was asking for were mostly in the areas requiring unanimity which is probably almost impossible if changes are deemed too radical (it's easier to say no).

    It may be possible, however, for a "qualified majority" to push through legislation requesting changes to areas requiring unanimity (which would then be voted on separately) but the four largest countries in the EU (Germany, France, Italy, UK) now account for only c. 40% of the majority voting power (assuming they all agree!) so no chance of getting two-thirds without the co-operation of at least 6 or 7 other countries. The largest countries should have seen this coming.