I'll be voting 'in' on the basis that the hated bureaucrats need strengthening against the hated capitalists, multinationals being larger than nations and corporate capitalism ruling the world almost unchecked. — unenlightened

But the EU is a capitalist club (originally designed to allow the expansion of member states' capitalist operations without the tedious inconvenience of another war). It is no enemy of the multinationals. The idea that bureaucracy is essentially opposed to capitalism is an enduring myth (enduring on both the Left and Right).

But at the margin, the EU is more democratic than Megashite Industries ltd, and Dodgy Dave's bullingdon bullies. — unenlightened

In what way is the EU more democratic than the Conservative government?

And as you may have noticed, what David Cameron has done to Britain is nothing compared to what the EU has done to Greece (and others). The country has been brought to its knees, the policies on which Syriza was elected have been overruled by an outside power, and the desires of the Greek people expressed in the bailout referendum have been ignored. How anyone can think that socialist politics or democracy can benefit from the EU is beyond me.

My objection isn't due to nationalist pride, but due to a reasonable wariness of the sort of political power structure that you're endorsing. — Sapientia

Why are you wary of centralised power?

You say that "we" would become stronger, but who really is "we"? I don't think that "we" are, or should be, bureaucrats in very high up, powerful, positions of authority. I don't want a President of Europe. — Sapientia

Maybe you don't, but I do ;)

Lol joking. But if Europe was one country, we would be able to increase and regulate better our trade globally, bring more security to our people, and spur development and growth through all the current countries of Europe through more integrated collaboration.

Because I'm against the centralisation of power on that kind of scale. — Sapientia

Why?

Out of those countries, only Poland is a member state of the European Union and of NATO. And a threat isn't the same thing as a direct threat. But, yes, I'm not denying Russia's aggression, nor that it should be a cause for concern. And I'm glad that there have been sanctions. I just think that you're going overboard with the whole thing. — Sapientia

Are you serious? Don't you see how Putin is dividing Europe? What is he doing with Viktor Orban in Hungary? Why do you think he's getting in bed with him? That guy is a wanna-be dictator - he has severely restricted the freedom of the Press in Hungary already. Putin met with the Greek leaders as well, and has encouraged them to leave EU and join him based on receiving help with the Greek debt problems. He has encouraged conflicts among European nations. Why has he threatened all countries where missile shields are being built, including Poland and Romania (BOTH of which are NATO AND EU members)? Why have there recently been many signs that an invasion of Estonia (NATO member) is prepared? If UK exits EU, he'll be so happy - big party at Moscow that day!

It seems to me that many Western Europeans have no idea what is going on, on the Eastern front... this is exactly what a brilliant strategist and general like Putin needs. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the anti-EU voices in the UK are Russian agents ;)

War is not an inconvenience to capital.

The EU is a capitalist club, but so is the labour party, by and large, and so is the Bullingdon club. It is largely a deckchairs on the Titanic thing for the left, which seems to find the GMC on its radical wing these days. :-$

https://www.facebook.com/theguardian/videos/vb.10513336322/10154112914426323/?type=2&theater

War is not an inconvenience to capital. — unenlightened

It's the concerns of the people who engineered the European Union that I was referring to, not capital in the abstract. My point was that they wanted to ensure the expansion of national capitalist economies without the kind of national competition that would lead to war. This was quite a good thing, but it doesn't follow that the EU is in any way opposed to capitalism, even if it is opposed to outright war. And right now, the EU is not doing a good job of ensuring unity.

Simply, the EU is not a bulwark against capitalism, and strengthening the European bureaucracy makes it more difficult for national electorates to opt for anti-capitalist policies, not less.*

*I wouldn't at this time count myself as anti-capitalist except in my utopian mode, so for me it's not an argument for leaving the EU that it's pro-capitalist (it's the kind of destructive, financialized, stagnant capitalism they foster and enforce that I have a problem with). But the wider point is about the ability of people to decide on the policies that govern them, for which I think national parliaments need strengthening.

As for Yanis Varoufakis and Owen Jones, they both have good arguments against the EU and very little positive to say about it, and Varoufakis's campaign to hold the EU together is a mainly negative one: he fears what would happen if it broke apart and thinks it needs to be completely reformed on a new basis.

Why are you wary of centralised power? — Agustino

Because the further away the power from the people, the less likely the interests of the people will be represented. I say, to some extent, cut out the middle man and move closer to direct democracy. If there are similar problems on a national level, which there are, then greatly increasing the scope will greatly increase the problems. Just look at the US. The Bush era, for example, was bloody awful. No thanks. If there was to be a President of Europe, I'd want there to be so many checks and balances that the job would almost be redundant.

But if Europe was one country, we would be able to increase and regulate better our trade globally, bring more security to our people, and spur development and growth through all the current countries of Europe through more integrated collaboration. — Agustino

The countries in Europe have the right of self-determination, meaning that it's up to them how they're governed. Each government differs in important ways from the others. You can't just sweep those differences under the rug and attempt to enforce uniformity, unless you're a proponent of totalitarianism. Also, it's bad enough that we have the US acting as a global police force, and interfering in other countries. We don't need another superpower. It would, on the contrary, only serve to increase tensions, and make us less secure as a result.

Because the further away the power from the people, the less likely the interests of the people will be represented. — Sapientia

Not necessarily.

The UK, vis a vis the EU, is in no way the equivalent of an American state vis a vis the federal government, but... The distant federal government has generally been the enforcer on civil rights, environmental protection, fair trade, and the like while the local school boards, cities, counties, and state have quite often been the perverter of the same.

Also, larger corporations -- as effective as they are in congress -- are even more effective at the state level, in getting the kind of tax deals and local regulation (always less of both) that they desire.

It would seem like it should be the other way around. But local governments (especially in the smaller states) just don't have the same muscle the the federal government has. New York and California are able to take on corporate power better, but even there... the feds are stronger than the states.

Not necessarily. — Bitter Crank

Yes, not necessarily. But that's one risk I don't want to take. Although I approve of those EU laws which protect important rights, I don't like the lack of democracy or some of the political and economic acts that the EU has taken upon itself to enforce. I wouldn't want that bad side to get worse by further empowerment.

I think I may have made my mind up. I will vote to stay. Although the EU could do with some reform, I think that it is better to remain a part of it. For me, it has to do with things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/jan/24/europe-legacy-uk-workplaces

I added a poll. I don't know why I didn't think to do so at the time I created this discussion, but there's one there now.

I think I may have made my mind up. I will vote to stay. Although the EU could do with some reform, I think that it is better to remain a part of it. For me, it has to do with things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/jan/24/europe-legacy-uk-workplaces — Sapientia

Is a good king better than a bad Parliament? See Tony Benn on democracy and the EU.

Not a Brit, but if I were I would go along with Varoufakis for "in". Lesser of two evils.

UK Government vs. EU on Google's tax avoidance

UK Government

Several [international companies] have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills.

In Google's case, its tax structure allows it to pay tax in the Republic of Ireland, even when sales appear to relate to the UK.

In January, it struck a deal with UK tax authorities to pay an extra £130m in tax for the period from 2005, but that deal was heavily criticised.

The UK Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the £130m settlement "seems disproportionately small", compared with the size of its UK business. — BBC News

European Union

Europe's competition authorities have been examining whether some deals struck by big companies with national tax authorities amount to illegal state aid.

In April, the EU unveiled plans to force large companies to disclose more about their tax affairs.

They will have to declare publicly how much tax they pay in each EU country as well as any activities carried out in specific tax havens.

The rules on "country-by-country reporting" would affect multinational firms with more than €750m in sales. — BBC News

Coming down to the vote and polls are either too close to call, with maybe an edge for BREXIT.

It seems clearer to me, not that it matters, that BREXIT will be a mistake for the UK in both the short and long run. True, the stock markets aren't going crazy, but that may be for what reason? God only knows.

Europe is better off solidly united, and the UK is part of Europe culturally, geologically, economically, historically (the empire not withstanding) and militarily. Fortunately, Olde England seems to be on stable crustal bedrock, so it won't be going anywhere soon. It can't get away from Europe. The French will always be on the other side of the narrow channel.

From what little I can tell, the Stay campaign has not done a fabulously great job of presenting its case, but I haven't been there to hear it, I just get reflected noise.

Your post presumes that for Europeans to be united is for them to remain in the EU, that to leave the EU is to "get away from Europe". This is a misunderstanding of the EU (although it's a common one even in the UK). Europe under the EU is not "solidly united".

The stay campaign seems to have done a better job of presenting their case than the leave campaign, in my opinion, and I think it's mainly because they--the remainers--have the vast bulk of the political and economic establishment behind them. The interesting thing is that, looking at some of the polls, the electorate might be becoming immune to the establishment's propaganda: a recent article in the Guardian described the popularity of Brexit as a working-class revolt. I'm on their side.

The way the main media are constructed, together with the fact that all the main political parties went for a Remain campaign, has meant that the Leave campaign has been right-wing, with strong whiffs of xenophobia. The leftist case for leaving has not had an airing. The quality of the debate has been poor because mainstream politicians of the centre and left have been so restrained, leaving the field to Tory versus Tory.

I'm still for Leaving: the UK belongs in a trade pact with Europe, including a deal about free movement of people, but it would be better off out of a corporatist, centralised quasi-State which now takes big political decisions - like what macro-economic policy its members are allowed to pursue if they get into big debt - that should be taken by the countries themselves. The way politics is going in some European states is worrying, and our Conservatives, in the European parliament, are allied with such dangerous people as the Polish Law and Justice party, and not with Merkel and mainstream conservatism.

corporatist, centralised quasi-State — mcdoodle

"Quasi-state" - neither fish nor fowl. "State" in Europe has the heavy substantial meaning that "state" in the United States doesn't. Germany, France, Holland, Spain, Italy, and so forth all have ancient histories as States. Europeans have been (more or less) consistently peopled since the early medieval period--unlike American territory which cleared and re-peopled territories and then formed states--and relatively recently.

Sovereignty has been a long-term property of European states, so the European Union is much different than the federal union of American sates.

The implementation of the European union seems (based on my really fragmentary knowledge here) to have begun, and continued, as a complex bureaucracy. Analogously. it would be like the American Federal Civil Service rising to its present prominence as the continuing government without a Declaration and subsequent War of Independence.

If this all holds water at all, I can see why there would be a strong feeling within the electorate for not being an integral part of the bureaucratic structure of the EU, while remaining an important peripheral part of the EU.

Either outcome has upsides and downsides. Wish you all all the best

Germany, France, Holland, Spain, Italy, and so forth all have ancient histories as States — Bitter Crank

I agree with the tenor of what you're saying. But just to mention, both Germany and Italy are not so ancient, as they only became unified states in the 19th century, which helps to explain the strong regionalism in both their forms of administration.

Rule Britannia, get out. I'm cheering for you guys!

both Germany and Italy are not so ancient, as they only became unified states in the 19th century — mcdoodle

You are right. The contradiction flitted through my brain as I described these two countries as ancient. It didn't find a perch. But the component parts out of which they are constituted do go back quite a ways.

The implementation of the European union seems (based on my really fragmentary knowledge here) to have begun, and continued, as a complex bureaucracy. Analogously. it would be like the American Federal Civil Service rising to its present prominence as the continuing government without a Declaration and subsequent War of Independence.

If this all holds water at all, I can see why there would be a strong feeling within the electorate for not being an integral part of the bureaucratic structure of the EU, while remaining an important peripheral part of the EU.

Either outcome has upsides and downsides. Wish you all all the best — Bitter Crank

I think your fragmentary knowledge is largely correct (and is probably much less fragmentary than mine). Although I wasn't around when Britain joined the EU, I have heard (without challenge) from several people, who voted at the time, that we joined the EU with the understanding that it was merely an economic amalgamation for the purpose of common trade. They were offered a single market, and they gave their vote for it in return.

Since then, however, they have seen the EU grow from a single market into an entity that has "all the trappings of statehood"; a flag, a parliament, several presidents, a currency, its own borders, and a supreme court. I'm probably forgetting a few too. There's also no doubt that this was the (not-so-hidden) intention from the start, if you read some of the quotes from proto-EUnionists after WWII.

So a lot of British people feel they were deceived into a contract, but one where the other side has been constantly revising its terms and conditions to the point where it ends up being the exact thing they were cautious to avoid in the initial agreement. The other side has slowly crept into the deal all the things that would have been a deal breaker had they been on the table from the start. And they feel there's been nothing, up until the referendum, that they could do to opt out of this contract.

This is why the polls show that it is mostly the older generation (who were present for the initial in vote) who are for leaving. They remember the original deal, and the bitterness has fuelled their euro-scepticism. And this would also explain why the younger generation is for remaining; because they are simply unaware of the historical dodgy dealing that got them into the position they take for granted as the status-quo.

Rule Britannia, get out. I'm cheering for you guys! — The Great Whatever

Then we'd no longer be bound to those EU laws which are beneficial, and which the Tories (the current government) do not seem keen to replace. Hurrah.

The good news is that the referendum is only advisory and not legally binding. Hopefully even if we vote to leave Parliament opts to stay regardless. ;)

Is that a joke?

That it's not binding? Nope. The government/Parliament have no legal obligation to follow through on the result.

Are you defending being a vassal state? Grow some backbone!

I was obviously referring to the second part.

I'm all for staying. From what I understand it's better for the economy.

That's fair enough. But would you still be keen for parliament to defy the will of the people if the vote was to remain?

Of course not. I want us to stay.

Ah, I understand you now. With such antidemocratic tendencies it's no wonder you want to stay in the EU.

I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. ;)