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

[cosmogenesis]

All of the three you cite are still applicable in the UK as it stands. There is no EU army and we do rule ourselves mainly (its not 100% but its not all bad either) and Transparency has its merit, yer but again aside from the EU accounts and a few mishaps it not all that bad as you are describing it. Remember for every politician that gets held to account lots probably don't.

It still not a reason to leave

 

[scorza]

All of the three you cite are still applicable in the UK as it stands. There is no EU army and we do rule ourselves mainly (its not 100% but its not all bad either) and Transparency has its merit, yer but again aside from the EU accounts and a few mishaps it not all that bad as you are describing it. Remember for every politician that gets held to account lots probably don't.

It still not a reason to leave

As it stands - yes. What about in future? This is our one and only chance to Leave the EU, if we stay then they won't let us have another chance. The Powers That Be in Europe have made no secret of their desire to create a federal super-state, a United States of Europe. The words 'ever closer union' are embedded in every single EU treaty.

 

[Vern1961]

A very, very, minor point but one that may be of relevance to some.

If we leave the EU, then any goods ordered from Europe (not unknown to locate hard to find CD's or BluRays which don't get a UK release on Amazon.de) will no longer be exempt from import duty, due to VAT paid in Germany or wherever. These will be subject presumably to the £15 limit same as other "foreign" imports at which point UK VAT, import duty and the hated PO/courier handling fee will need to be paid.

That suddenly makes that €19.99 disc a much more expensive proposition.

 

[Kenai]

As it stands - yes. What about in future?

Sounds like we're entering the realms of speculative fear mongering, no different to people claiming that leaving is going to result in economic collapse that will see us all in mud huts inside a year.

 

[Nate--IRL--]

The words 'ever closer union' are embedded in every single EU treaty.

I wonder - was it in the Treaty that the UK joined the project in?

Nate

 

[Dave M]

As it stands - yes. What about in future? This is our one and only chance to Leave the EU, if we stay then they won't let us have another chance. The Powers That Be in Europe have made no secret of their desire to create a federal super-state, a United States of Europe. The words 'ever closer union' are embedded in every single EU treaty.

It would be impossible to do that without further referendums. It's disingenuous to say you are voting for a future federal europe when you are in-fact voting for the current relationship and hodge podge of national and eu powers.

 

[thep02]

Bottom line if we vote to stay in but further down the super state road we want out there's no way mainland Europe could stop us.

 

[scorza]

Sounds like we're entering the realms of speculative fear mongering, no different to people claiming that leaving is going to result in economic collapse that will see us all in mud huts inside a year.

I think you've got to draw a distinction between a prediction of a negative outcome with scaremongering. Predictions are evidence based whereas scaremonging doesn't. I accept it can be difficult to distinguish between the two when politicians get involved.

So you're probably asking, what evidence is my prediction of an EU army based on? Well apart from EC President Jean-Claude Juncker's stated aim of raising an EU army, they actually already exist (albeit with a currently small number of troops), they even have a badge:

It would be impossible to do that without further referendums.

Impossible? I think not. Look how much the EEC which we signed up to has morphed to become the EU over the last 40 or so years without a referendum. Remember when the Cameron promised that there'd be no new EU treaties signed without a referendum, and then they went ahead and signed up to Lisbon anyway.

 

[Dave M]

I don't think these are buzzwords at all, but rather important political concepts that people take for granted at the moment and will miss once they're gone. As for what they mean to the average man on the street:

Sovereignty - having a UK government responsible for running the UK, having all the instruments of state (police, army, civil service) report to it. E.g. having the British army that can be sent around the world to defend Britain's interests (e.g. Falkland Islands) on the say so of our Parliament and not an EU army where we'd have to get permission from Brussels to defend the Falklands or intervene in Sierra Leone.

Every time power has been pooled from the local chieftain going in with the next tribe or a few lords swearing allegiance to a baron right up to the amalgamation of the british isles into the uk (Ireland opted out, mostly). And now the combining of the states of europe into something bigger.

It's the way the world has progressed for thousands of years, are you saying this point where the UK is now is perfection and we should just stop that progress here?

Accountability - having the government held to account. Doesn't matter how powerful a politician is in this country, they can always be voted out at a general election (ask Michael Portillo or Ed Balls). We also have Her Majesty's Opposition and Parliament to also hold the government to account on a day-to-day basis. Who is holding the European Commissioners to account?

That's an easy one, the same elected officials who appoint the head of the DVLA, and that ******* has far more influence on my life than most of the EU!

Transparency - being able to see and understand the day-to-day workings of government, not having deals done behind-closed-doors in backrooms like the ongoing TTIP deal. Having a register of member's interests for Parliament and sanctions for those MPs who do not declare an interest. Understand that while our system isn't perfect, corruption happens just like everywhere else in the world, it is a good deal more transparent than the way the EU government is set up, where the error rate in the accounts is still too high for the auditors to give their accounts a clean bill of health.

I don't doubt there is corruption in the EU, same as there is in local councils and Westminster. There isn't any systematic lack of transparency in the EU however, certainly no more so that in UK institutions and some of the things you mention to tackle corruption in the UK only came about in the last couple of decades - due to rampant corruption.

Why not write to your MEP about it?

Also:
TTIP is a complete red herring. Everyone will see it and vote on it when it's done. No trade deal has been done in the open, it would be unworkable.

EU accounts have been passed by auditors every year. I've never seen any audit not have some comments, but they are always passed so long as there is no serious concern. If there was a serious problem the auditors would have refused to sign off on the accounts.

Saying there is a problem with the EU accounts on this basis is as wrong as saying a scientific theory is not fact only a theory - it's a misleading use of domain specific language.

 

[Dave M]

It would be impossible to do that without further referendums.

Impossible? I think not. Look how much the EEC which we signed up to has morphed to become the EU over the last 40 or so years without a referendum. Remember when the Cameron promised that there'd be no new EU treaties signed without a referendum, and then they went ahead and signed up to Lisbon anyway.

You mention a promise by Cameron then say "they" did it anyway, who are "they"? In any case it is now impossible in the UK by act of parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/europeanunion.html. Which I believe was Cameron's promise, and was kept by the coalition.

A UK sovereign government would need to repeal that act, then sign up to power transferring treaties without either a referendum or free vote in the commons (as befits our representative democracy).

If you truly feel that your elected representatives in Westminster are so untrustworthy may I suggest you don't want to be a sovereign nation at all, you actually want anarchy without rule of law of any creed.

Also, if your thoughts are truly going this way, let me ask you seriously, why you would vote in any referendum because you clearly wouldn't trust the UK government to a) respect the outcome and leave the EU or b) not re-join at their whim.

 

[Woden]

As it stands - yes. What about in future? This is our one and only chance to Leave the EU, if we stay then they won't let us have another chance. The Powers That Be in Europe have made no secret of their desire to create a federal super-state, a United States of Europe. The words 'ever closer union' are embedded in every single EU treaty.

This is not our one and only chance to leave the EU. Where did you get that idea? This is already the second one were having.

 

[Mr Jack]

Sovereignty - having a UK government responsible for running the UK, having all the instruments of state (police, army, civil service) report to it. E.g. having the British army that can be sent around the world to defend Britain's interests (e.g. Falkland Islands) on the say so of our Parliament and not an EU army where we'd have to get permission from Brussels to defend the Falklands or intervene in Sierra Leone.

We currently have these powers and there is no prospect of this changing.

Accountability - having the government held to account. Doesn't matter how powerful a politician is in this country, they can always be voted out at a general election (ask Michael Portillo or Ed Balls). We also have Her Majesty's Opposition and Parliament to also hold the government to account on a day-to-day basis. Who is holding the European Commissioners to account?

European commissioners are appointed by each national government and are accountable to them. National governments in every EU state are democratically elected. Next question?

Transparency - being able to see and understand the day-to-day workings of government, not having deals done behind-closed-doors in backrooms like the ongoing TTIP deal. Having a register of member's interests for Parliament and sanctions for those MPs who do not declare an interest. Understand that while our system isn't perfect, corruption happens just like everywhere else in the world, it is a good deal more transparent than the way the EU government is set up, where the error rate in the accounts is still too high for the auditors to give their accounts a clean bill of health.

The errors in the EU accounts stem, almost entirely, from failures of national governments to properly oversee the spending of EU money in their countries unless you want to grant the EU more powers there is little they can do about this since they're entirely reliant on local enforcement. These accounts are, of course, publicly available and freely viewable.

As for transparency in general, the EU is not significantly less transparent than our parliament. MEPs interests are recorded and listed - here's the one for a famous British MEP - votes are recorded, legislation is publicly listed and so forth. The major problem in this country with transparency in the EU is more that our media is downright terrible at reporting on it so unless you're willing to invest a considerable amount of time in it, it's hard to keep track of the EU's activities.

So, your three points turn out to be one that is pure scaremongering and two that are factually wrong in that they EU does do what you're claiming it doesn't.

 

[Cold_And_Miserable]

A very, very, minor point but one that may be of relevance to some.

If we leave the EU, then any goods ordered from Europe (not unknown to locate hard to find CD's or BluRays which don't get a UK release on Amazon.de) will no longer be exempt from import duty, due to VAT paid in Germany or wherever. These will be subject presumably to the £15 limit same as other "foreign" imports at which point UK VAT, import duty and the hated PO/courier handling fee will need to be paid.

That suddenly makes that €19.99 disc a much more expensive proposition.

I thought the import duty threshold is much higher than VAT and it definitely doesn't apply to electronics so it's a non-issue. Non-EU immigration is all that matters.

 

[stopper]

This is not our one and only chance to leave the EU. Where did you get that idea? This is already the second one were having.

2nd in 40 years!!
We should be having this every 5 or 10.

 

[Woden]

2nd in 40 years!!
We should be having this every 5 or 10.

Behave, that would be entirely counter-productive. If any nation could join, reap the benefits, then leave in such a short time, no one would get anything done.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Every time power has been pooled from the local chieftain going in with the next tribe or a few lords swearing allegiance to a baron right up to the amalgamation of the british isles into the uk (Ireland opted out, mostly). And now the combining of the states of europe into something bigger.

It's the way the world has progressed for thousands of years, are you saying this point where the UK is now is perfection and we should just stop that progress here?

You are completely ignoring the fact many states have collapsed over the years, because they were not fit for purpose. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or more recently Sudan for example, all fell apart. So presenting this transfer of authority as being either linear, inevitable or progress is not really grounded in anything factual. If people are not happy with the EU project, then clearly its not progress for people.

 

[dowie]

Every time power has been pooled from the local chieftain going in with the next tribe or a few lords swearing allegiance to a baron right up to the amalgamation of the british isles into the uk (Ireland opted out, mostly). And now the combining of the states of europe into something bigger.

It's the way the world has progressed for thousands of years, are you saying this point where the UK is now is perfection and we should just stop that progress here?

with that sort of simplistic reasoning maybe we should have hung onto former colonies of the Empire...

 

[Dave M]

with that sort of simplistic reasoning maybe we should have hung onto former colonies of the Empire...

You see the EU like the exploitation and enslavement of less developed nations?

And you see the UK as the one being exploited and enslaved? Okay. I don't agree but if that's where you think we are you must want to escape your terrible situation.

 

[dowie]

You see the EU like the exploitation and enslavement of less developed nations?

And you see the UK as the one being exploited and enslaved? Okay. I don't agree but if that's where you think we are you must want to escape your terrible situation.

you talked of expansion, not exploitation... like I said it is a simplistic argument - there is more to progress than simply expanding/amalgamating territories was the point...

 

[Dave M]

You are completely ignoring the fact many states have collapsed over the years, because they were not fit for purpose. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or more recently Sudan for example, all fell apart. So presenting this transfer of authority as being either linear, inevitable or progress is not really grounded in anything factual. If people are not happy with the EU project, then clearly its not progress for people.

If we're making massive political and economic changes purely based on how happy people feel we really are finished

States fail for many reasons, usually because of jealousy and fear (expressed as hatred) either internal or external, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. While individual examples can be chosen to prove anything the broad direction of travel is towards larger groupings.

In the last centuries this was done by conquest and top-down deals between rulers - it was arguably a failure. In the last 50 years it has been done by democracy and collaboration - it seems to be working better but only time will tell.

Either way I think this is the wrong move at the wrong time and almost certainly not in my own interest.

Also, not wishing to highlight anyone in particular, I can't get past the idea that any argument from certain individuals is a cover for racism and xenophobia. Just like any argument for choice and efficiency in health care from a Tory minister is a cover for their hatred of collective socialism, even if I think some of their ideas may work.