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

[bayo000]

I'm not clued up on politics but did Britain vote to join the EU? Or was it decided for us?

And here's a perfect example why public should be not making this decision. Most people have absolutely no idea what EU even is.
There really should be a quick test on EU before a person is allowed to vote.

 

[Randomface74]

I'm not clued up on politics but did Britain vote to join the EU? Or was it decided for us?

We voted to join the common market, then ended up here...

 

[413x]

I'm surprised both campaigns are so negative
I literally believe nothing

From Cameron saying we have helped stopped wars being in to Boris mentioning Hitler
Forecasts based 10 years out

As I'm sure most will.. Just vote with your gut
You either like the eu or not
I just see it as an expensive middle man with lots of bureaucracy

Don't see problem with an Australian system for immigration. Do agree we will probably be impacted short term. But if this does start a cascade.. Better to be out first than last where Germany has to fund more and more other countries

Only bad bit for me is the eu has done some good with some 'rules' but we could easily do them ourselves.. But will we?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Don't see problem with an Australian system for immigration.

Do you mean a points based system? If so the UK already uses a points based system for non-EEA migrants and has done for quite a few years now. If you mean a policy of turning back or towing away boats then that's a bit different although without checking I suspect it's quite rare that boats of immigrants reach the UK so such a policy might be less useful in practice than in theory.

 

[Macro]

A must-watch for everyone:

That's at least the fourth time it's been posted in the last few pages chaps...

 

[HaX]

Do you mean a points based system? If so the UK already uses a points based system for non-EEA migrants and has done for quite a few years now.

Judging by many of the non-Europeans I have encountered around the more multicultural areas of the cities I've lived in, there must be a fairly lax criteria in operation. Furthermore, areas heavily populated by such people seem to have high levels of unemployment - look at Tower Hamlets for instance. Surely if we were being selective in who we allowed in, this wouldn't be happening?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Judging by many of the non-Europeans I have encountered around the more multicultural areas of the cities I've lived in, there must be a fairly lax criteria in operation.

The criteria isn't lax - it's quite stringent, however British citizens can bring spouses over if they meet a separate set of criteria.

Remember, there was a lot of migration to the UK from outside of Europe as part of the British Empire from other parts of the British Empire decades and decades ago.

 

[Roar87]

And here's a perfect example why public should be not making this decision. Most people have absolutely no idea what EU even is.
There really should be a quick test on EU before a person is allowed to vote.

Shouldn't the Government be more clear about exactly how the country is run? And he's right, we never did get a vote to join the EU.

 

[V F]

Shouldn't the Government be more clear about exactly how the country is run? And he's right, we never did get a vote to join the EU.

Yet you cannot see what is wrong here?

 

[bayo000]

Shouldn't the Government be more clear about exactly how the country is run? And he's right, we never did get a vote to join the EU.

Technically speaking no but UK has been part of creating EU and present at every decision that led to what EU is today.

 

[Trifid]

We voted to join the common market, then ended up here...

Nope. The UK joined the common market, and then was given a vote 2 years later on whether to stay.

 

[Aldav]

Nope. The UK joined the common market, and then was given a vote 2 years later on whether to stay.

Quite right. Ted Heath took us in without bothering to ask the people, and to an group that was supposedly only about trade.

Then, having severely damaged trading relations with traditional trade partners, we were given a scare story about how dire trade would be if we then left. Sound familiar?

The PM then went to Brussels, allegedly renegotiated a "great new deal", which turned out to be smoke and mirrors, and only then did we get a vote.

Also, the UK then, and the UK now, were very different, economically.

 

[V F]

Blair done his fair share as well.

 

[Jokester]

John Major was in charge when we signed upto the Maastricht treaty that led us to where we are today, hence he is now bumfing his gums about coming out.

 

[Tunney]

Maybe because they aren't just your usual educated and well off people, they're also very politically minded so have a much higher chance of knowing what the EU is about and putting that education to good use?

You're completely missing the point of what we're talking about. I'm not saying that people in the higher social groups are correct to mostly support Remain, just they they do. Just because some Conservative MPs or your mates don't support remain, doesn't change the overall statistics.

Even your point about something we weren't talking about is wide of the mark. Most MPs (ignoring party loyalties) are pro-EU and so are most cabinet ministers (i.e. those with the best chance of knowing what the EU is about).

 

[Chris Wilson]

Several of the most entrenched remain supporters on here have consistently stated that granting Turkey visa free EU travel is no big deal, and cite many other countries who enjoy this privilege.

If it is not a big deal why is Turkey saying unless this visa free deal is offered their "help" with the migrant crisis will be cancelled. The billions in monetary terms being given them is not enough without nearly immediate granting of visa free travel to EU member states.

Sounds like they think it's a VERY big deal. I would like to hear why those who have frequently said it's a nothing, a triviality, feel Turkey is making such a thing about it.

Despite those that seem to be almost full time employed here supporting the remain campaign, the only answer to my question is another question, if those that have umpteen times said this is an irrelevance to the referendum do not know the answer, please just say so, the dancing about suggests you do know, but do not want to commit to answering.

Someone said it is of no relevance as it's a schengen matter, yet those that want to remain suggest the EU is one big brotherhood, what happens to our brothers is surely then of interest and concern to us, should we vote to remain?

I see this as a VERY important question, and one that people in the UK need to ponder on carefully. There must be a dominating reason why Turkey risks foregoing taking billions off the EU based on whether they get visa free access to EU member countries, what is it?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Despite those that seem to be almost full time employed here supporting the remain campaign, the only answer to my question is another question

Which you failed to answer.

Someone said it is of no relevance as it's a schengen matter, yet those that want to remain suggest the EU is one big brotherhood, what happens to our brothers is surely then of interest and concern to us, should we vote to remain?

This makes no real sense. it *is* a Schengen matter - its about access to a zone to which we are not part of. Schengen is not the EU - it contains non EU countries, and some EU countries are not within it.

Why were you not against Columbia getting visa free travel? Argentina? Malaysia? UAE?

I see this as a VERY important question, and one that people in the UK need to ponder on carefully. There must be a dominating reason why Turkey risks foregoing taking billions off the EU based on whether they get visa free access to EU member countries, what is it?

How are we supposed to know the answer? Nobody knows except the Turkish government, all you can do is speculate, which I'm sure you've already done..

 

[Mr Jack]

Quite right. Ted Heath took us in without bothering to ask the people, and to an group that was supposedly only about trade.

It is simply not true that we joined a group "supposedly only about trade", as Ted Heath's letter to the nation makes clear:

Also, Heath ran on a manifesto that included joining the EEC so it's not like he didn't have a mandate to take us in.

 

[Mulder]

I mixed up your reply with Judgeneo's, which is why I kept asking for the link. They are possibly biased but the rest of the reports on the effects of Brexit stand and there is no equivalent on the out side. I ask you again where the evidence for your stance is. Youtube videos, mercenary sites that will back anything and a minority of experts whose arguments have been easily dismantled by reputable sources do not represent sufficient evidence.

So you post a link to prove your point, you then dispute the organisation you link to takes a lot of funding from the EU and so is biased, you're proven wrong as they do take EU funding and are clearly very pro EU, and then you just go back to asserting all the evidence is on your side? Great argument, you're really convincing.

Have you been reading these threads? There's been plenty of evidence on the Brexit side, but because it's not provided by the current Government, a friend of the Government, the IMF or a massive corporate you ignore it.

And it's funny you keep rubbishing Youtube....you realise it's a content delivery service, not a content creator? A lot of the links provided to Youtube are recordings of the BBC, Sky News, Newsnight etc, and you should watch them, you might see why the Brexit majority has increased in each of these threads.

Nice 'anti establishment' rant. In your little universe, Britain controls the decisions of all major leaders, the financial institutions are worried about the EU falling apart( which would apparently not affect Britain) and a few former business leaders are more knowledgeable than current ones. Oh you know what the FTSE100 managers who didn't sign the remain letter think. Why didn't sign a Leave letter by the way?

Your argument is weak, it's rethoric, no substance no evidence. It's a gut feeling, not a rational conclusion.

Do you actually debate any of these issues or do you just keep hoping people will believe you when you say your argument is right? It doesn't seem to be working.

I stopped taking you seriously when you compared every Brexit supporter to a Trump supporter (that's 460 people who've voted leave in this thread as of right now). The last issue we debated in the previous thread was when you were laughing at Britain being able to do a trade deal with China. That's despite me proving Cams and Osborne both quoted China being a key growth driver of UK exports in the future, and you ignoring that Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, South Korea etc all have free trade deals with China.

Let's take another issue shall we? Influence. Brexit supporters can patently see the UK has little or no influence in EU decision making, and of course remain supporters dispute this, despite not being able to provide any good evidence. This sums it up quite well re trade, and quotes:

Courtesy of Article 2.4 of the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (agreed in 1994), the EU is subordinate to the WTO and is obliged to adopt international standards where they exist. So nowadays, having a say over the Single Market rules means having an independent voice and veto on the international bodies making these rules - something Norway has but which the UK has surrendered to the EU

So the EU is subordinate to WTO rules, yet the UK has given up its seat at the WTO due to being in the EU. A tangible example of how we actually lose, not gain, influence by being in the EU. And this is ignoring the fact that there's also a risk the EU, should we remain, will want Britain's seat at the UN.

 

[Skunkworks]

"We"? How many here voted in 75?