Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SIR Philbutt]

I would also note that it is EU in or out not Europe and concur with SIR tig's post

It is known that this is a complex question for most. When it comes down to it people will vote based on the main issues of the time. As can be seen from the latest change in the poll's as a reaction to the Paris massacre, New Year sex attacks, increase in the Syrian exodus and the Calais migrant camp. In other words,and IMO, it will be the media stories in the final build up to the vote that will affect the swing

On This Week on Thursday, for whatever you might think of him, Mr Portillo made a good point on how to decide which way to vote. I could type out my version of it but here it is starts at 02.30 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06wkj4q/this-week-14012016

Basically we will not get a good 'deal' so should vote OUT , as the Irish did, then the EU will not accept this, offer us a deal that will get a YES, then there would be another vote, as the Irish did. The politicians know this and are trying to counter by saying this is the 'only' vote, Yeah right 

I have always been an "OUTy" and still waiting to be convinced otherwise, and yes I heard all the regular arguments to stay and they don't wash

[Entwood]

IMHO a somewhat pointless question at this point in time .. and I REALLY wish the press/media etc would realise this .....  I explain ...

The in/out referendum/question will be based not on where we are now or where we were in the past, but on any reforms that the UK manages (or not) to negotiate.

It is not known what those reforms are, although it is known what has been "asked" for, so making a decision now is a bit like deciding exactly what you are going to eat in a restaurant before they even publish their menu .....

Why not wait until the "changes" are announced and THEN have a sensible debate ?? nah .. media like to stir things up as they now try and MAKE the news rather than REPORT it like they used to... and this thread seeks to do the same ... IMHO

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

We know that Cameron has asked for almost nothing. I think its safe to assume he will be lucky to get even that, and certainly wont be offered even more than he has asked for.
We know (and the powers that be in the EU know) that he will argue in favour of staying in no matter what he "negotiates".
We know (or should, unless we live on the moon) that the EU is a political union of member states which requires ever closer union - without the the consent of the voters in member states being given.
So, what is there to wait for ? 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Portillo had a view on us leaving on  'This Week', last week.

If we want to stay we should all vote to leave.

According to Mr P this is the only way there would be any 'meaningful' changes to how Europe is run.

Portillo believes that a 'no vote' would not be the end of the matter. regardless of what Cameron says.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

He may be right. Each time a member state has had the audacity to have a vote and get the "wrong" result, they made them vote again to get the "right" result.
Trouble is, the EU is way beyond reform. Reforming from the inside is one of the few arguments the "remainers" have left to argue with. It doesn't hold water imo.
I believe that everyone who intends to vote has a duty to do some research on the EU, from its inception to the present day.
I honestly fail to see how someone who has done that would want to stay, unless they have a serious vested interest, such as a politician, or chief of a huge conglomerate.
 There really is nothing to recommend it apart from the scare stories about how we cant survive without it.-

[Varche]

That is a valid point Entwood. However if our PM manages to negotiate something then there are three major problems.

1. Will the negotiated agreement actually come into law? That process could take years. My belief is it wouldn't.

2. My concern is that any negotiation (and the current sacrificial crumbs being talked about) will not, quite rightly, satisfy the Naysayers. Put bluntly they will not actually address the main problem which is do we want to be ruled, governed, taxed and have the euro from Brussels or Strasburg.(depending on the month)? Some headline grabbing rubbish about borders, benefits will just be inconsequential.

3. Scotland, in the grips of the SNP, have said in no uncertain terms that an out vote would mean yet another once in a lifetime vote on independence, as the SNP are committed to staying in Europe. When crude oil is 20 dollars a barrel I do wonder just how they would balance the books but principles are principles and by then the rich countries in the EU would send tax revenue to them and support them.

Long term members of the forum may have spotted a complete volta-face (about turn) from me. Ten years ago I was actually quite keen on sharing the cost of armed forces over EU members and having an EU armed forces. 

I also disagree with your suggestion of waiting till nearer the time. The sheeple need to be thinking about the issues now not two minutes before a snap vote. As I said earlier there are three camps. The ones that are absolutely crucial are the "haven't a clue/never thought about it till now/where is this EU country anyway"  types who rightly will have a vote. This vote is actually the most important thing we will ever vote on.

[Entwood]

That is a valid point Entwood. However if our PM manages to negotiate something then there are three major problems.

1. Will the negotiated agreement actually come into law? That process could take years. My belief is it wouldn't.

2. My concern is that any negotiation (and the current sacrificial crumbs being talked about) will not, quite rightly, satisfy the Naysayers. Put bluntly they will not actually address the main problem which is do we want to be ruled, governed, taxed and have the euro from Brussels or Strasburg.(depending on the month)? Some headline grabbing rubbish about borders, benefits will just be inconsequential.

3. Scotland, in the grips of the SNP, have said in no uncertain terms that an out vote would mean yet another once in a lifetime vote on independence, as the SNP are committed to staying in Europe. When crude oil is 20 dollars a barrel I do wonder just how they would balance the books but principles are principles and by then the rich countries in the EU would send tax revenue to them and support them.

Long term members of the forum may have spotted a complete volta-face (about turn) from me. Ten years ago I was actually quite keen on sharing the cost of armed forces over EU members and having an EU armed forces. 

I also disagree with your suggestion of waiting till nearer the time. The sheeple need to be thinking about the issues now not two minutes before a snap vote. As I said earlier there are three camps. The ones that are absolutely crucial are the "haven't a clue/never thought about it till now/where is this EU country anyway"  types who rightly will have a vote. This vote is actually the most important thing we will ever vote on.

I totally agree with your last sentence. But the worry for me is the previous sentence ... do we REALLY want the "sheeple" as you describe them deciding NOW on the basis of uninformed media chatter, on how they will vote ?? They MUST decide on the KNOWN facts.. when they emerge ... and not the posturing of those who think they are mind-readers/clairvoyants/or simply more important than the rest of us.

[Sir Tigger KC]

I admire your optimism Mr Entwood that there will be some facts substantially different to what we already know. 

Like you say we must wait and see what transpires, but can anyone really see Cameron coming away with serious reforms to the EU?    I can't to be honest, there might be some minor adjustments which will be presented to us as a great victory and that will be about it.  The sheeple (Love that term!  ) will fall for it and it will be business as usual! 

Cameron will resign on a high, hand over to Osborne and then will be shooed in as the next President of the European Council or Commission as a reward! 

Cynical? Moi?     

[Varche]

Perhaps sheeple is too blunt but I have an English aunt inlaw living in Scotland who voted yes because that was what all her Scottish neighbours wanted.

In my first post I made the point that the vast majority of people will not have a clear understanding of the issues and that includes most of the politicians. However in a democracy we all have a vote. What is important is to exercise that after making some informed judgement and not thinking about it only on the way to the polling booth. As to the facts emerging we are never going to get the facts or unbiased info. There is too much at stake with the establishment being firmly for staying in Europe.

Living in Spain, I talk to my Spanish neighbours about the EU. Not a single one of them has anything bad to say about it. Reason being they were in abject poverty with years of hunger in most of our lifetimes, then they joined the EU. For sure things haven't always gone smoothly but they are all much better off. Fabulous new Road Network, the second best high speed rail network in the world after China and so on. Mostly paid for with help from the EU (us taxpayers). Despite this, dole is scarce and amounts to about £380 a month for the household for a year. Then it is grandparents state pension that keeps many going. Unemployment , partially due to the Euro, is around 25% and there is a lost generation of kids who will not get a job for maybe yet another ten years, can't have a family, can't buy a house. Their only hope is to go to a rich country like Britain and get a job in the NHS or a bar earning fabulous wages even on the minimum compared to here.

The EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU.

[Broomies Mate]

Well said Varche, particularly your final sentence.

I predict the EU will not last another decade.  France, Germany, the UK..... we are all getting itchy feet.  Once those three member states decide enough is enough, the rest will either be left to rot, or have to go their own separate ways too.

I believe the UK leaving the EU will just be the start. 

[gbh]

I'm glad I raised the issue on this forum and there have been some very intelligent comments,which has come as a bit of a surprise to me.The interest that is!! I personally would vote  OUT but i'm sure the voters will think differently as lots of people don't change their bank through fear or laziness.But in saying that UKIP did very well in the Euro elections which is interesting and something the IN campaign must be worried about!!

[05omegav6]

The EU already owns Scotland... certainly they've rebuilt most every road up there in the last 25 years The only reason for Scotland staying in would be to receive more cash... they would have no choice in this as the oil that flows through the Northern Isles won't be going anywhere near an independent or European Scotland

Leaving the EU might mean closer parity with the US and Commonwealth. Exactly what this might entail I couldn't say, but by comparison I can't see it as a bad thing. Be different though

[Lagondanet]

Out.   

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Out. They need us more than we need them. The 'EU' was initially the effective brainchild of Churchill (and others) as a way of maintaining peace in mainland Europe, by allying all countries both politically and financially, tieing them together so as to avoid any future European wars. But with Britain separate, simply overseeing the transition, retaining the Empire/Commonwealth. It was British Lawyers which drafted the original constitution, so I'm told.

Cannot see why we 'can't' buy wine from France if we're not part of the EU, yet we seem perfectly able to buy wine from California, which, last time I checked wasn't in any way 'tied' with the UK since 1776. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why... a fair few things get bought by the UK from China, which isn't part of Europe.... I checked on a map, and everything 

[LC0112G]

Cannot see why we 'can't' buy wine from France if we're not part of the EU, yet we seem perfectly able to buy wine from California, which, last time I checked wasn't in any way 'tied' with the UK since 1776. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why... a fair few things get bought by the UK from China, which isn't part of Europe.... I checked on a map, and everything 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. Its not about what we will be allowed to buy if we leave the EU. Everyone will happily sell us whatever we want providing we can pay for it.

It's about what we (the UK) would be able to sell to others. The UK takes 11% of EU exports. The EU takes 50% of UK exports. If we ended up trading with the EU under "rest of the world" rules then the EU buyers would be free to buy much of what we sell from others, and that decision is usually made on price. The UK isn't a cheap source of goods so would lose out. Some sectors are protected by quotas and tariffs - farming is the prime example. You can expect the French farmers to promptly put a stop to UK exports into the EU if we leave.

Many people say we should trade with the EU under the same rules as Norway or Switzerland - neither of these are in the EU. However both countries currently pay about 90% of what the UK does to the EU (on a per capita basis) to be allowed to do so. They also have to comply with all EU directives applicable to the goods they sell within the EU, and accept the "free movement of labour", but have no say on any EU rules.