Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (March 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: 400 43.3%
  • Leave the European Union

    Votes: 523 56.7%

  • Total voters
    923
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
What we really know about TTIP is that it is an economically and politically sensitive trade deal. When it is finalised it becomes public and then needs to be ratified by all member states.

Until then everything else is speculation and assumption. But if you want to use TTIP as a reason to leave then what makes you believe that a UK/US deal will be any better? Especially as it won't have to be ratified by so many other European nations?

Why do you think it's so sensitive? Why are even MEP's who get to see the current proposals asked to sign lengthy non disclosure agreements? Doesn't it make you question what they have to hide? They're keeping it secret because they know there would be a public backlash (or even more of a backlash) if people knew what TTIP/the EU want to do.

This is something that will impact the British Government's ability to conduct its affairs, effectively vetoing our sovereignty, and yet it's being hushed under the carpet and put to the sidelines of the mainstream press. Democracy is supposed to be about people being able to input into decisions that impact them, and with the way the EU is running this is the complete opposite.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think it's so sensitive?

Because it is a trade deal between the two most powerful trading blocks in the world?

Why are even MEP's who get to see the current proposals asked to sign lengthy non disclosure agreements? Doesn't it make you question what they have to hide? They're keeping it secret because they know there would be a public backlash (or even more of a backlash) if people knew what TTIP/the EU want to do.

And it will be scrutinised when the final draft is released and will then need to be ratified by 28 nations and several of them will require referendums.

This is something that will impact the British Government's ability to conduct its affairs, effectively vetoing our sovereignty, and yet it's being hushed under the carpet and put to the sidelines of the mainstream press. Democracy is supposed to be about people being able to input into decisions that impact them, and with the way the EU is running this is the complete opposite.

And you didn't address my last paragraph. What makes you think the UK government wouldn't do a similar trade deal?
 
In fear of being blown up by some grumpy immigrant, I am voting out.

This seems like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
Are we sure the recent attacks in Brussels were carried out by an immigrant rather than a radicalised Belgian citizen?
Even if it was an immigrant (or more accurately, a terrorist masquerading as one), do you think that leaving the EU will lead to an immediate cessation of all immigration to the UK?

I'm not convinced the answer to either of the above questions are yes, so basing an incredibly complicated decision, with hugely far reaching consequences, purely on the perceived immigration question, seems like folly to me.
 
And you didn't address my last paragraph. What makes you think the UK government wouldn't do a similar trade deal?

Its easier for a public balcklash to kick out a uk government which makes them more sensitive to the will of the people.


What kind of backlash would be required to make the 4 insitutions of the EU do a uturn?
 
Because it is a trade deal between the two most powerful trading blocks in the world?

Why does that make it OK to negotiate the whole thing in secret? Given the deal will likely include major proposals such as allowing MNCs to sue Governments, opening up UK healthcare provision to US companies, and other issues of significant public interest, I would have thought the proposals should be subject to public scrutiny. If your next point is for some reason that they need to be conducted in secret, then why are corporate lobbyists heavily involved and not subject to the same censorship?

And it will be scrutinised when the final draft is released and will then need to be ratified by 28 nations and several of them will require referendums.

I'll believe it when I see it. At this stage we do not know that it will require ratification by member states, nor if referendums will be held. If they can push it through without these they no doubt will.

When the UK joined the EEC in 1973 we did not sign up to what we have today, yet we've never (up until now) been given a say on the matter. We signed up to a trade agreement yet have slowly, over the years, given away more and more sovereignty which was not part of the original deal. These things always happen gradually.

And you didn't address my last paragraph. What makes you think the UK government wouldn't do a similar trade deal?

Per Tefal's point at least the UK Government is directly accountable to its people. I'd much rather put my faith in them negotiating a better deal for the people of the UK, or at worst vote them out if they don't, than put faith in the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels who do not care about the UK.
 
And why is TTIP relevant to the EU referendum debate? I'll let Nick Dearden, director of the Global Justice Now campaign group, explain that:

“The leak absolutely confirms our fears about TTIP. It’s all about giving big business more power over a very wide range of laws and regulations. In fact, business lobbies are on record as saying they want to co-write laws with governments – this gets them a step closer. This isn’t an ‘add on’ or a small part of TTIP – it’s absolutely central.” Mr Dearden said it was “scary” that the US could get the power to challenge and amend European regulations before elected European politicians have had the chance to debate them.

Referring to the imminent EU referendum, he said: “We’re talking about sovereignty at the moment in this country – it’s difficult to imagine a more serious threat to our sovereignty than this trade deal.”
 
So much crap in your posts. It's not all being held in secret. Loads of information is being made public all the time. Negotiating positions on things are being kept secret, but it'd be retarded to insist on 100% openness through the negotiating process. If that happens, what happens when the EU tries to negotiate with the Chinese? They'd have far more information on our positions/red lines/etc than we'd have information on them. And no, we do no that it'll require the approval of every member state and the European Parliament.

Well it seems a lot of people would disagree with you, including the Independent who called the whole process "secret and undemocratic", and a raft of politicians and journalists. The Guardian is calling the proposals "a full frontal assault on Democracy" and a senior UN official (Alfred de Zayas) has been quoted saying "We don’t want a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots."

Come on, do you really believe all the secrecy is because of negotiating positions? That's just an excuse. If that was the case then why are they allowing so many corporate lobbyists to engage in the negotiations?

This is a undemocratic, behind closed doors process that will have major impacts for the UK and the whole of Europe. They're keeping it as secret as they can because they know there would be public backlash if people knew what it was trying to achieve.

Also, do you have any proof of your last point? I haven't seen anything formally saying it will require ratifying by each and every member state. If they manage to push it through as an "EU-only agreement” they only need ratification via the European Council.
 
IDS quits, bookies shorten odds on EU exit.

Bombings happen, bookies shorten odds on EU exit.

Almost every pensioner I've spoken to, and those of all my friends and family have spoken to are voting out.

I am going to bet that unless there is some monumental youth vote turnout to stay in, we're leaving :)
 
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/brexit-would-not-damage-uk-security

Richard Dearlove said:
Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union.

One loss that would result from Brexit and which has been cited by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, as a reason for her supporting Britain’s continued membership of the EU, would be the European arrest warrant. But its importance has been exclusively criminal and few would notice its passing.

Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. It is difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK. Furthermore, counter-terrorist and counter-espionage liaison between democratic allies is driven as much by moral considerations as by political ones. If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Germany’s domestic intelligence service, is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member.

In addition, though the UK participates in various European and Brussels-based security bodies, they are of little consequence: the Club de Berne, made up of European Security Services; the Club de Madrid, made up of European Intelligence Services; Europol; and the Situation Centre in the European Commission are generally speaking little more than forums for the exchange of analysis and views.

With the exception of Europol, these bodies have no operational capacity and with 28 members of vastly varying levels of professionalism in intelligence and security, the convoy must accommodate the slowest and leakiest of the ships of state.
 
Come on, do you really believe all the secrecy is because of negotiating positions? That's just an excuse. If that was the case then why are they allowing so many corporate lobbyists to engage in the negotiations?

This is a undemocratic, behind closed doors process that will have major impacts for the UK and the whole of Europe. They're keeping it as secret as they can because they know there would be public backlash if people knew what it was trying to achieve.

Yes it is undemocratic and it is to keep it from the public, because 100,000 special interest groups and lobbyists would rip any deal apart before it could be struck.

That said however, I'd be interested in creating a framework where such wide spread involvement in the process could be allowed - because democracy is good, and we should reflect the modern time as well as European history and culture.

So how about this - every special interest group registers their interest and appoints a representative (we'll call them a 'champion'). Every Monday the negotiating team publish their points for the week and the registered groups can agree or oppose them.

If two or more groups disagree their champions enter into combat in an appointed arena (perhaps it could rotate around Europe in big football stadiums?). To boost involvement the types of combat can be chosen by each champion and a popular phone vote for the wildcard 3rd battle.

This would all be televised of course. So far as 'populist politics' goes, it's far more palatable to me than ukip or the national front :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom