Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

  • Remain a member of the European Union

    Votes: 794 45.1%

  • Leave the European Union

    Votes: 965 54.9%
  • Total voters
    1,759
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris Wilson said:
Because leaving the EU is a necessary first step to leaving the EEA, and then we can be away from the craziness of the ECHR stopping us kicking the scum out that enter here with criminal history, criminal intent, or committing crime. The defence to being here as undesirables is so often based on ECHR appeals.


http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/3/2/2044.pdf
Click to expand...

How does any of that stop people wanting to illegally enter the UK? They already don't care about the rules.
 
Tefal said:
Why is the EU governence set up so complicated with that many different comisions/councils/plarliments all doing differnt things.


Why not just a parliment that proposes and passes laws like most countries use
Click to expand...

Because that would take more power away from national governments which they're obviously not keen to give up.
 
Well nothing like playing on fear by Brexit:

o0J8W8A.jpg


From The Times:

The lead Brexit campaign group was embroiled in a fresh race row last night as it emerged that one of its board members had resigned for retweeting anti-Muslim material on social media.

Vote Leave confirmed that it had accepted the resignation of Arabella Arkwright, a businesswoman, after being made aware of tweets that it said did not reflect the campaign’s views.

Mrs Arkwright, who runs health clinics and is a partner in a visitor attraction and pub, has been removed from the campaign’s website and her Twitter account has been deleted. According to The Guardian it included a retweeted image of a white woman surrounded by burkas captioned: “Britain 2050: why didn’t you stop them Grandad?” Another reply posted from her account stated: “No to sharia law” to a tweet calling for “seventh-century barbaric savagery” to be driven out of Britain, the newspaper reported. A third retweet is said to show “Yazidi women fleeing Isis” with a “stop Islam” logo.
Click to expand...
 
Tefal said:
Why is the EU governence set up so complicated with that many different comisions/councils/plarliments all doing differnt things.


Why not just a parliment that proposes and passes laws like most countries use
Click to expand...

Because is a cartel of corporations and banks. It was based on a cartel from the 1950s and build up.

The more complicated the structure the more difficult to dig through it.

As for the EU Parliament, doesn't have the right to avoid passing legislation. It has the option to pass or ask for MINOR amendment. Has less power than our House of Lords. And go figure how to move votes around when there are hundreds of EMPs speaking different languages.


On page 176 there is a very good pro-Leave video from one of the Spectator's authors about all these. Watch it.

Also watch Varoufakis video he gave to Sydney Political Economy university class last week. You will see how unscrupulous the EU is, passing their own bank debts to countries like Greece and asking from the other country tax payers to pay for them.
(and Varoufakis is a Europhile)

That is the EU.
 
EU referendum: Cameron 'told migration target was impossible'

Steve Hilton: "Making promises that clearly can't be kept is not a good way to build trust in politics"

Civil servants told David Cameron in 2012 that it was "impossible" for the government to meet its flagship immigration pledge, the PM's former director of strategy has claimed.

Steve Hilton said Mr Cameron was told "explicitly and directly" that EU free movement rules meant net migration could not be reduced below 100,000

In the BBC news today at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36582391
 
Amp34 said:
What does that have to do with us being in or out of the EU?

The reason they are sat in Calais and frustrated about not being able to get here is because we are not letting them in as they aren't EU citizens.
Click to expand...

Why should we let thugs like that in, 'desperate' to get here but shouting **** the UK and attacking people? If the EU had collapsed or the schengen zone didn't exist, if countries protected their boarders and were able to actively deport people then they would not be there.
 
Amp34 said:
What does that have to do with us being in or out of the EU?

The reason they are sat in Calais and frustrated about not being able to get here is because we are not letting them in as they aren't EU citizens.
Click to expand...

Because they are in an EU country already. They didn't arrive in that EU country - they arrived in the EU in a different country but due to no borders they've been able to make it to our doorstep. No borders is such a bad, bad idea and yet the EU has pursued that notion despite the warnings and lo and behold - they've now got yet another a crisis of their own making on their hands. Why might you ask doesn't France just detain and deport these people? They are illegal immigrants after all. Because the European Court of Justice says they can't.
 
The talking heads of the IMF and OECD support Remain. Their databases don’t.

The IMF Direction of Trade database allows us to compare the goods exports of the UK to the other members of the European Union with those of all the countries have traded with the European Union under WTO rules, meaning they are not helped by any kind of trade agreement. The Chancellor, the Treasury, and the OECD, reckoned this to be ‘the worst possible option’ for the post-Brexit UK. It was on the back of this judgement that they made their predictions about falling GDP, productivity, lower incomes in post-Brexit UK.

There are more than 100 countries which export to the EU under these supposed disadvantages, and forty of them exported goods valued at more than $1 billion in 2015. These larger exporters may be ranked in terms of the rate of growth of their exports to the EU from the inauguration of the Single Market in 1993 to 2015. When the UK is added to the rankings of these 40 countries, its rate of growth puts it in 37th position, meaning there are 36 non-member countries, including Canada, New Zealand, the BRIC countries, the United States, Malaysia, Singapore and host of emerging countries whose exports to the EU have grown at a faster pace than those of the UK over the years 1993-2015.

From this evidence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify either the benefits of EU membership for UK exports, or the disadvantages of non-membership for 36 of them who have been exporting to the EU under WTO rules. Why then UK should worry about leaving the Single Market and joining them? It can hardly do much worse than it has been doing for the past 23 years.

The OECD database shows the same is true of services. The services exports of sixteen non-member countries to the EU have grown faster than those of the UK over the years 2004-2012. Can helping to make the rules possibly be as important as Mr Cameron says it is, if non-members have benefited from the Single Market in Services more than its members?

There are other past predictions and promises about the benefits of EU membership and the Single Market which can easily be checked and disproven in the OECD database. Those referring to increased productivity and employment are perhaps the most notable examples. Productivity in the EU 12 has grown more slowly than in most other OECD countries since 1993, and unemployment has been consistently higher than in all of them for over 20 years.

Full article here:

http://civitas.org.uk/2016/06/15/th...and-oecd-support-remain-their-databases-dont/
 
Chris Wilson said:
EU referendum: Cameron 'told migration target was impossible'

Steve Hilton: "Making promises that clearly can't be kept is not a good way to build trust in politics"

Civil servants told David Cameron in 2012 that it was "impossible" for the government to meet its flagship immigration pledge, the PM's former director of strategy has claimed.

Steve Hilton said Mr Cameron was told "explicitly and directly" that EU free movement rules meant net migration could not be reduced below 100,000

In the BBC news today at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36582391
Click to expand...

Which of course begs the question; why did Mr Cameron include that target in the Conservatieve Party manifesto in 2015? Making a promise you know you can't keep is lying is it not? So if he lied then, what else is he lying about now?
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
But you said that was "not what my ancestors have fought for" - you cannot make a blanket statement like that and then try to poo-poo someone from that generation when they are not necessarily pro Brexit by quoting a Roman.

That guy fought in WW2,received a Distinguished Flying Cross and lived during a time of great instability,which you or I have never experienced. You are talking about a theoretical viewpoint,he is talking from a life one. Europe had two massive wars within 30 years which killed tens of millions driven by massive nationalism,so he is does not take the stability for standard which younger people like us do.

So,please don't try to make it sound like older generations support Leave by default - it is not as black and white as you are trying to make it look. Just like younger folk are divided over the issue,the same applies to older folk too.
Click to expand...

Mr Badger said:
"I am a very angry old man.

Angry because of the lies peddled by influential Brexit campaigners, reproduced in right-wing newspapers which one-sidedly fail to report the wealth of sound economic, social and political advice that Britain should remain in the EU.

Angry because of the lack of passion and drive shown in “remain” campaigning by the leadership of the Labour Party, a party which I have supported for years because of its commitment to international peace and solidarity.

Angry because of the appeal Brexit makes to the racist, anti-foreigner “little England” mentality which is still part of the national psyche.

Angry because, at the age of 91, as someone who 72 years ago this month landed in Normandy with the liberation forces, I remember vividly the old Europe of warring factions and am convinced that the EU, for all its need of reform, remains a power for good in the world. For Britain to leave it would open the door to European disintegration and a return to the dangerous nationalisms of the past.

I hope many of my Facebook friends share my anger and will vote accordingly next week."

https://www.facebook.com/eric.jay.737?pnref=story
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ish-post-Leave-vote-fighting-country-end.html

It seems like there are many people who fought in WWII who are backing Brexit for exactly the reasons I suggested...
 
scorza said:
Which of course begs the question; why did Mr Cameron include that target in the Conservatieve Party manifesto in 2015? Making a promise you know you can't keep is lying is it not? So if he lied then, what else is he lying about now?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the faux outrage is here, we all know manifestos aren't binding and that all political parties make outrageous promises in their own ones at every election, which if they come into power, they then change, modify or drop under the pretext of 'We didn't know how bad things were until we got in' and now we can't do X,Y,Z even though we really wanted to.....honest.

If you want pre-election lies, then the 'We have no intention on raising VAT' was about the biggest whopper the Tories have done, but funnily enough, we still keep voting them in.

And then, you want to give these shower of muppets unilateral control over us again :D

Oh yea, I forgot, we can vote them out (which we don't) every 5 years for the binary choice of the other shower of muppets :p

 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
The talking heads of the IMF and OECD support Remain. Their databases don’t.

The IMF Direction of Trade database allows us to compare the goods exports of the UK to the other members of the European Union with those of all the countries have traded with the European Union under WTO rules, meaning they are not helped by any kind of trade agreement. The Chancellor, the Treasury, and the OECD, reckoned this to be ‘the worst possible option’ for the post-Brexit UK. It was on the back of this judgement that they made their predictions about falling GDP, productivity, lower incomes in post-Brexit UK.

There are more than 100 countries which export to the EU under these supposed disadvantages, and forty of them exported goods valued at more than $1 billion in 2015. These larger exporters may be ranked in terms of the rate of growth of their exports to the EU from the inauguration of the Single Market in 1993 to 2015. When the UK is added to the rankings of these 40 countries, its rate of growth puts it in 37th position, meaning there are 36 non-member countries, including Canada, New Zealand, the BRIC countries, the United States, Malaysia, Singapore and host of emerging countries whose exports to the EU have grown at a faster pace than those of the UK over the years 1993-2015.

From this evidence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify either the benefits of EU membership for UK exports, or the disadvantages of non-membership for 36 of them who have been exporting to the EU under WTO rules. Why then UK should worry about leaving the Single Market and joining them? It can hardly do much worse than it has been doing for the past 23 years.

The OECD database shows the same is true of services. The services exports of sixteen non-member countries to the EU have grown faster than those of the UK over the years 2004-2012. Can helping to make the rules possibly be as important as Mr Cameron says it is, if non-members have benefited from the Single Market in Services more than its members?

There are other past predictions and promises about the benefits of EU membership and the Single Market which can easily be checked and disproven in the OECD database. Those referring to increased productivity and employment are perhaps the most notable examples. Productivity in the EU 12 has grown more slowly than in most other OECD countries since 1993, and unemployment has been consistently higher than in all of them for over 20 years.

Full article here:

http://civitas.org.uk/2016/06/15/th...and-oecd-support-remain-their-databases-dont/
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm thinking this right but does that take into account we are one of the country's purchasing those products
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom