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

[Burnsy2023]

We all know what direction the EU is headed - the words 'ever closer union' are embedded in every single treaty. I know Cameron thinks this won't apply to the UK in future, but even if the thin gruel deal does get signed I can't help but think of that time Tony Blair came back from somewhere (Rome?) saying he'd got an opt-out for the UK over the disastrous Charter or Fundamental Rights, only for the ECJ to rule some years later that the opt-out wasn't legally enforceable.

At the end of the day, any PM can decide not to sign a treaty. They have the final decision and all member states must agree unanimously for a treaty change to be enacted. One of the things that the PM got from the negotiations was that the UK could opt out of this closer integration and that gives him bargaining power to get concessions for the UK if he decides that's right.

We can still access the single market without having to be governed by Brussels. One thing I can guarantee is that even if we do vote to Leave, we'll be selling stuff to the EU and buying stuff from the EU - all tariff free.

The European commission has been very clear that this will not be the case. We cannot be part of the single market without freedom of movement, indeed the four freedoms are what defines the single market.

The EU has no incentive and all the reasons not to make any exception on this.

 

[Burnsy2023]

We're only allowed X amount of representatives. And it won't go higher but lower as more countries join.
Read the facts.

And yet France and Germany dictate much of the EU's policy. This is diplomacy and politics at the end of the day and the best people at that have solid relationships with partners.

 

[Burnsy2023]

... and yet they sign up to treaty after treaty, sometimes with specific opt-outs for the UK which turn out not to be legally binding. Didn't Cameron promise us a referendum on any further treaty change, then signed up to Lisbon regardless?

Well that's a question for the PM rather than the EU.

Firstly, I don't believe them - the EC has a position which is for the UK to stay in, so of course they're going to say anything that makes that more likely. Secondly I said access to the single market, not be part of it.

The EC has no incentive to make concessions. If anything they have a motivation to prevent other member states from thinking of leaving too, so don't expect any easy negotiations. As for access to the single market, it's effectively the same. Both Switzerland still has freedom of movement requirements for access to the single market.

What does it say about the EU if their biggest supporters think that they're going to be so spiteful as to cut us out of the single market if British voters decided they wanted to leave? Why would we want to be part of an organisation like that?

If we're going to create a load of financial and political hardship for the rest of the EU, we've hardly got the moral high ground.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Free trade with the world's fifth largest economy isn't an incentive? They have every incentive. If being in the EU is as good as you say, why would other members even want to leave?

It's not as simple as that, if it's put a trade barrier and help shore up the stability of the EU, it's an easy choice. Other EU members don't want us to leave, it serves nobody except for some of the UK.

Switzerland is a sovereign nation and have made their own trading arrangements with the EU, but what is right for Switzerland may not necessarily be right for us.

You're assuming they had a choice.

Moral high ground - what? How is leaving the EU, which the Treaty of Libson acknowledges is the right of every member state, an immoral action?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Burnsy2023]

You don't know how the EU system works even though you've had hard facts.
And I don't think you ever will. I think it's called BLIND love for something.

Or perhaps your agenda is stopping you seeing another perspective?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Well if we weren't in the EU then British MPs in our Parliament could block 100% of the legislation they don't want to become law. That's the kind of influence I expect us to have.

So you expect us to be the only country to have full veto over everything? So much for being democratic.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Are you suggesting Switzerland didn't freely agree to free movement in a deal that gave them access to the free market but some kind of secret military threat was made against them unless they enacted it?

That really is tinfoil hat stuff.

Err, don't be silly.

I expect that freedom of movement was likely to be high on the EU agenda to pass before anything else could be negotiated. Switzerland wouldn't have been able to make any progress on any other issue until this was resolved.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Cheaper rented, better pay, NHS standards rising, the ability to kick people out of the country, less chance of a terror attack, more secure boards. Better run schools. Higher level of illiteracy, less welfare spending my list goes on.

We can still trade with the Eu by joining the European free trade association, which has free trade with Canada back door to US.
I'd much prefer to join the efta than be a member of the Eu.

Yeah, and we'll also ride to work on environmentally responsible unicorns who have rainbows coming out of their arse. Peace will reign and we'll buy everything using pink marshmallows.

You're in a fantasy land - bar perhaps the higher levels of illiteracy.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I'm sure it is, but it's the reality of working for a firm that has currently structured its workforce in such a way that it can take advantage of free movement internally without worrying about borders.

Indeed, ultimately these are the realities of the consequences of deciding to leave. They can be scary for people because this directly affects them, rather than more fluffy topics like sovereignty.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Before we join the common market NHS standards were the best in the world, education standards were the best in the world. before the explosion in new member states and free travel house prices and rents were lower, and wages were higher in the 90s.
The EU is just a medium for companies to get there way, it does not care about its people, it just focus on the consumer

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Burnsy2023]

These days there is no double pay.

That's nothing to do with the EU though, that's due to changing consumer habits and the fact that more stores are open 24 hours most days.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Nothing to do with a labour pool so vast you don't have to pay more because you can almost guarantee someone will do the same for less?

Genuine question: did supermarkets have issues with filling vacancies previously? Was the labour pool already large enough that they didn't need to pay unsocial hours premiums?

 

[Burnsy2023]

It was an agreement by stores or any other company if they wanted late night workers they would need to pay for unsociable hours, eu directive changed that by suggesting the only over time could be paid time extra.

Source please.

 

[Burnsy2023]

End of the British Army? EU plots ‘scandalous’ military merger if UK votes to stay in

Sorry, who was complaining about scaremongering?

More military cooperation makes as lot of sense, the idea of subsuming individual armed forces is fanciful.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Would you agree with EU using British troops being if it was against out national interest?

I think that any offensive military action would need to be agreed by all member states before going ahead, or at least by all the member states taking part and dedicating assets on a case by case basis.

 

[Burnsy2023]

We all know it's coming - Juncker has stated as much. Wonder where that would leave places like the Falkland Islands if we had to get the permission of all 28 member states before we could take military action against a hostile invading force?

Citation for Junker's comments?

I don't think any member state would need permission to defend it's own sovereign territory against invasion. To have otherwise would be silly.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Would you agree with EU using British troops being if it was against out national interest?

Also interesting thought experiment: would have have joined the US in military action in Iraq if there was this EU only force? Probably not.

I still don't think such a force is necessarily a good idea, but it's interesting none the less.

 

[Burnsy2023]

This citiation needed business is getting somewhat tiresome now. http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

If you're going to make all of these assertions, then you need to be prepared to back them up if challenged. That's the nature of informed discussions.

None of the text in that article says that individual national armies would be subsumed by an EU force. The EU force would most likely be an expeditionary force that is in addition to national commitments as I find it hard to believe that EU member states would give that up.

We won't be able to defend our own sovereign territory because we won't be a sovereign state. It'll be EU sovereign territory and the decision to be made in Brussels would be whether it's worth putting European soldier's lives at risk for the sake of a remnant of the British Empire. We in Britain might think it's a good idea, but I can't see anyone else agreeing.

What will even happen to British Overseas Territories like the Falklands' if we vote to stay? Will they become part of the EU?

Like I said, territory will stay sovereign to the UK and we will still have assets to fight abroad if necessary.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Would we have gone into Sierra Leone if there was only an EU army?

That's a fair point. Seems there are pros and cons. Less British casualties in Sierra Leone though.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I didn't know Juncker has final say over every EU state.

Indeed, Junker can have all sorts of opinions, but that doesn't get treaty change.