Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May 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: 522 41.6%

  • Leave the European Union

    Votes: 733 58.4%
  • Total voters
    1,255
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
bayo000 said:
Pretty sure that's because UK decided not to implement that part EU law. There are plenty of EU laws that vary between different EU countries.
Unlike what some people think not all the laws are forced on countries, they can amend them to suit their needs/ wants
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting point. So not only can we refuse to implement EU law but one of the occasions when we opted to refuse has disadvantaged consumers.
 
Looking in terms of percentage, yes, but in terms of raw numbers the UK has much larger growth.

As for your second point if a good diversified economy has those benefits then why do we lag behind Norway and Switzerland in terms of personal wealth, health, happiness and life expectancy when their economies largely revolve around one area?

What's wrong with negotiating agreements from outside of the EU? The countries you've listed all do the same thing...the US, China, India and Japan...
 
Norway is actually in the Schengen area. (As mentioned before Switzerland has free movement of people, like the UK now).

Of course it is percentages which matter. More people have more children otherwise.

Those countries do try and negotiate their own deals. The EU has far better bargaining power when they are created. Everyone negotiates with self interest.

The EU, USA and China are the 3 most powerful trading countries/groups in the world.

Do I want to gamble on the ability of the UK (far smaller on its own) to negotiate deals as good as the USA, EU and China? No. I have no good reason to even contemplate that.
 
Last edited:
depends what it falls under to what we can and cant do

http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/legal-acts/index_en.htm
dalehitchy1 said:
Can the brexiters explain something for me. I constantly Hear on here and other forums (mainly the fail mail) brexiters listing other countries doing well outside the EU (Switzerland, Norway etc).

I hear this all the time as a reason to leave the EU. But as far as I'm aware the main 2 reasons the leave want to exit is because 1: We will loose our sovereignty... And 2: We want to control our borders.

So with Norway and Switzerland being in the EEA and being subject to the majority of EU law, and having to accept free movement of people... Why do I hear these countries being used as a prime example of what we could achieve if we leave? Are brexiters really happy with leaving the EU and joining the EEA?
Click to expand...

they can't, hide behind any excus to get an out vote. everyone knows what their main issues are and it's not good reasons.
 
If people want to vote on gaining sovereignty, then that is fine. But don't dismiss the negative consequences of doing so just because there is uncertainty in economic predictions (uncertainty goes in both directions, things might be better or worse than predicted).

Also don't overestimate how much sovereignty will be gained in regards to economic matters.

A good deal with the EU will likely require free movement of people as well.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
So...hold on, limiting population is the key? You mean that thing we can't do whilst we're in the EU? There we go, another argument for out. And don't just look at production, look at original reserves. Britain's oil wealth was frittered away on a select few.
Click to expand...

So if you think Britain should be like Norway does that mean we should reduce our population by about 80%? :p European immigration is a few percent in comparison, it hardly registers.

And who are those select few? Do you mean the British government? The same one you want to give "more" power to?

I agree with you though. It's a shame the British government didn't set up a sovereign wealth fund to save the oil taxation for a rainy day. It's a shame also the British government didn't invest some national insurance to pay for future pensions.unfortunately it was all frittered away by the British government in giveaways and tax deductions.
 
Last edited:
kitkat2015 said:
Yes. These are troubling times for the uk. Buttering up to terrorists sympathizer.
Click to expand...

Sadiq Khan voted for same sex marriage and now, as London mayor, is fighting to keep London's nightclubs open. If he's an Islamic terrorist sympathiser then he's playing an incredible long game.
 
Glaucus said:
depends what it falls under to what we can and cant do

http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/legal-acts/index_en.htm


they can't, hide behind any excus to get an out vote. everyone knows what their main issues are and it's not good reasons.
Click to expand...
Are you guys really this stupid and constantly circle jerking :confused: Try and at least be respectful in regards to the debate and the points already raised by several people. Yes, obviously immigration is somewhat an issue to some people in the brexit side but most acknowledge migration is is always going to have some benefits and some drawbacks. Here's a quick breakdown of my views since you guys seem to struggle to understand why people think differently of can have another opinion to your own.

Economy - All the economic arguments rely on papers that talk about how much we'd lose compared to existing growth and so talks of massive losses and recessions aren't as big as people think as it's relative to current growth.

http://news.sky.com/story/1700769/so-whats-fishy-about-treasury-brexit-report

With there being a very minor economic downfall and the failure of economic predictions generally (such as osbourne having to revise growth and financial reports every quarter / year and getting them wrong within that timeframe never mind 15 years) we can't generally rely on these long term predictions. Obviously there will be some economic hit, most acknowledge this and it's not going to be a big hit so not a very big concern.

Migration - Again, not much might change but in regards to agreeing to freedom of movement with known problematic implementations and realities such as having to reduce the amount of quality migrants we get from outside the EU compared to inside we can see that we can't help the flow of migration in the EU so have to make bad decisions from other regions. This is simply a bad system, it has it's benefits in that we can move and work in other countries but there is only a small % of people who would actually want to do this and so it doesn't materially effect the majority of people or those that care about the UK as much. Truthfully it all depends on what sort of deal or who we'd choose to trade with most etc. once we leave but the obvious elephant in the room is that if you don't like the system or the level of migration or the lack of controls then there is only one way to reject that and it is to vote out.

Sovereignity / laws - Arguably we do alright by the EU. There's a few things like the rebate, freedom of movement (as I said, it does have some benefits), being out of schengen and the trade of the EU that shows we do make the EU work for us somewhat but there are other points like health tourism (in which we struggle to bypass EU laws that we must treat others who have not put into the system the same as those that have) along with health cards, uncontrolled levels of migration (we can reject people for worries of great extent but general migration has no controls), taxation, agricultural and fishrey policies etc. In the end if you don't like an EU law there's little likelihood of it getting repealed once it's in place and the distance of the general public from EU policy making shows it's unmovable nature. As I said, we do good by the EU generally but overall I don't feel democracy is something you outsource and distance from public view along with making changes near imposible should they benefit even a few of the countries in the EU as they wouldn't want to change it.

So in other words economically I'm not all that worried, migration although not a major concern (as it has it's benefits) still makes more sense to me to find a controlled level of migration to avoid the pressure it puts on services and impact heavy levels of migration has (as it's generally concentrated in certain areas) with lack of integration when done too quick. I like migration but feel mass migration is not as successful. Then with those issues leaning me toward leaving already it then jumps towars the final issue of outsourcing democracy. I simply feel it's not a reputable system when taken too far and even with people seeing things like hariett harman not even being able to name any of the top EU officials while saying we should join highlights the problem of the EU, it's simply not in vision more often than not. Short of this recent mass hysteria caused only by the referendum it's actually quite startling how little people saw or acknowledged the EU's presence. The quality of democracy in a system that far removed from the regular person is actually quite poor and when a leading UK politican can't even name one of seven people (who should be the most visible) then it's a lie to pretend that democratic systems that don't have a naturally democtratic transparency or visibility are actually working as intended. Just my view and thought I'd highlight the 3 most important areas in my mind but overall there's other reasons to vote in or out too. In the end there's always positives and drawbacks to every system, it's not surprise some want to try and change to a different system.
 
Last edited:
Yet the countries that the leave campaign continually look Aptos as an example have had to sign uptto free movement and a lot if EU regulation.

Yet you still look at such countries.
It's just pure nonsense.you would rather give away all the benefits, for the preceived issues, that you know full well we will sign straight back upto.
By un democratic, you actually mean democratic. Elected leaders who vote in much the same way as our own system.

You should be worried about economy, uncertainty is a bad thing, and if we get rid of free momevment we won't have free trade with EU.
On top of that we will still produce everything to meet EU guidelines.

If you look at labour and Tories, we will have worse consumer and worker rights compared to EU, worse environmental laws compared to EU and will further fall behind on binding CO2 and other things, which not only will we pay fines fir in the long term through our in action will further weaken us globally as our prices for energy soar.

And no, it's very much a circle jerk of outers. As most remainers can't be bothered in such threads like this, where so much nonsense is repeated over and ever again, even when pointed out it's completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
Can we stop with the economic argument, it has no basis in this discussion.

The only thing that matters remotely to the economy is the trade element.

Fox made a comment earlier about Laws being amended to suit needs. This is true, however with iirc the exception of 1 matter the UK have been outvoted and thus vetoed. Democracy and Sovereignty = null.

Was having a chat earlier (again with yet another outer... where are these in voters? :D) Think my mind has been settled on the fact that the difference on this vote is going to come from Women.

Discussion along the following lines: Women are less likely to vote for things they "think" won't affect them. When fear comes into play Women immediately are more likely to take action based on the first available source relating to that fear. Any psychiatrists want to verify?

Scaring women may be Project Fears best bet as thinking about it most of the on the fencers I have spoke to have been women.
 
Economy has no basis, lol. It's one of the biggest basis. As without economy you can't afford to do anything.
"and this is the problem with you and others in this thread, put fingers in ears and ignore anything you don't agree with.
 
Moses said:
They became a candidate in December 1999... sixteen and a half years ago. Then,

So over a decade has passed since negoitiations started and we're not even half way (in terms of chapters). Yet you're confident they'll join within a decade? Why?
Click to expand...

You're focusing on Turkey now, so sounds like we're agreed on standards/regulations, and that's there no "common view" from the EU given it's 720 million+ people.

On Turkey - the important question really should be "in the context of the referendum, is it fair to think Turkey is likely to join". Given the EU's track record of ever expanding, the recent "deal" with a promise to rekindle joining discussions, the fact its on the candidate list, Cameron being pro Turkey joining up until recently, and the fact we last got a referendum 40 years ago, it'd be pretty naive to think they won't join. Add to that the fact that a lot of the "chapters" you're referring to as roadblocks can easily be ignored if the EU wants. As was the case with Greece, whose economy was nowhere near ready to join. it still happened.

If you're asking re my personal view of Turkey within 10 years, I don't think that's unreasonable. Turkey wants to join and the EU needs them right now. Yes there are still obstacles but as above they can be ignored if necessary.
 
http://gu.com/p/4jmg2?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Brexit would free UK from 'spirit-crushing' green directives, says minister

Farming minister George Eustice says leave vote would free up £2bn now spent on insurance schemes and incentives for farmers.

The UK could develop a more flexible approach to environmental protection free of “spirit-crushing” Brussels directives if it votes to leave the EU, the farming minister, George Eustice, has said.

Speaking to the Guardian, the pro-Brexit minister said a leave vote in the 23 June referendum would free up a £2bn green dividend that could be spent on insurance schemes and incentives for farmers.

Environmental laws that have helped protect endangered species and clean up dirty beaches are seen one of the key achievements of the EU, but Eustice sought to reassure green-minded voters that the UK could develop better protections by going it alone.


“The birds and habitats directives would go,” he said, referring to two key pieces of European environmental law. “A lot of the national directives they instructed us to put in place would stay. But the directives’ framework is so rigid that it is spirit-crushing.
Click to expand...

I guess that's one way of getting out of he clean air directives trying to reduce hazardous pollutants in town and city air...

He seems to be ignoring the fact that these "crushing" directives are a minimum. We can already develop better protections on top of the directives he wants to cut.

Considering our government are seemingly steadfast in trying to undermine environmental legislation and refuse to implement EU environmental legislation it sounds more to me like many of the current directives would be scrapped and not replaced. This magical £2b (obviously not the billions already earmarked to other campaigns) would then be used to allow the farmers to carry on with the damage they are causing and give them money to cover the damage.

“If we had more flexibility, we could focus our scientists’ energies on coming up with new, interesting ways to protect the environment, rather than just producing voluminous documents from Brussels.”
Click to expand...

Since when has science had anything to do with British environmental policy (or many other policies as well - such as drugs)? In fact a significant portion of the highest profile environmental policy is counter to scientific research. I doubt that will change if we leave the EU.

On pesticides, Eustice said the EU’s precautionary principle needed to be reformed in favour of a US-style risk-based approach, allowing faster authorisation.

“A precautionary approach is the right thing to do but it should be based on realistic assessments of risk and not just theoretical hazards,” he said. “That is the wrong way to go about it.”

The principle has underpinned bans on GM foods, neonicotonoid inseciticides linked to bee colony declines and endocrine disrupting chemicals.

The marine strategy directive would also be scrapped, Eustice said. He cited a dispute with Brussels over the UK’s failure to designate protected marine areas for harbour porpoises as an example of over-regulation, when dolphin-repelling electronic devices could have been used on nets instead.

However, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said electronic pingers could already be used under current EU nature laws, which also protect porpoises from trawling, dredging, pile driving and noise from military sonars.
Click to expand...

The former is ironically one of the big things many are against the TTIP for. Looks like if we leave we will get it anyway.
 
Glaucus said:
Economy has no basis, lol. It's one of the biggest basis. As without economy you can't afford to do anything.
"and this is the problem with you and others in this thread, put fingers in ears and ignore anything you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Arent you some form of accountant? If so I thought you would have known better :o

You do know economy's only true appeal is based on purchasing parity and power?

The real economy we operate on in the UK is in its purest sense the wealth of conglomerates and individuals.

Without economy you can't afford to do anything :D that's completely untrue and you know it... or should be smart enough to realise it.
 
no and rofl,
where do you think tax money comes from?
what do you think happens when the tax revenue suddenly drops. you cant just keep borrowing money forever at a growing rate. you end up like Greece.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom