Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

  • Total voters
    1,204
Status
Not open for further replies.
scorza said:
Neither does the EU mob - turns out the thin gruel deal isn't legally binding after all, and can be modified or struck down by the European Court of Justice or could still be scuppered by the European Parliament. Can anyone tell me for example how long the British Army will last for if we stay in? Can anyone tell me what's in this secret TTIP deal the EU are negotiating on our behalf? Both options are a leap in the dark - the future is always uncertain - Leaving the EU does mean one thing though; that the UK will be governed from London and not from Brussels.
Click to expand...
That's the problem I'm having as much as they keep talking condascendingly we're not seeing actual numbers put into play as to what it costs to stay in the EU (the hidden costs) and we're not really seeing proper quantifiable numbers on the net gain and how much it benefits the tax payer and not just business and even the business numbers are by no means clear.

When even the prime minister resorts to making vague scaremongering comments like 'a leap in the dark' then you know we're not really having a logical debate anymore. It's surprising but as much as we're told the out crowd are not giving figures then neither are the in side (there's some general costings but not enough to truly weigh up the options as it's not being given as a comparison to what we can do outside which the in team could research anyway if they felt it was going to lose money to vote out). It strikes me that this is like a school essay where you're supposed to look at pro's and con's and then present a valid conclusion but neither side is willing to look at the other side. Still the in side are pandering to emotions (leap in the dark, go it aone, safer in europe etc.) and not really giving much clarity in there numbers just yet either.
 
scorza said:
Neither does the EU mob - turns out the thin gruel deal isn't legally binding after all, and can be modified or struck down by the European Court of Justice or could still be scuppered by the European Parliament. Can anyone tell me for example how long the British Army will last for if we stay in? Can anyone tell me what's in this secret TTIP deal the EU are negotiating on our behalf? Both options are a leap in the dark - the future is always uncertain - Leaving the EU does mean one thing though; that the UK will be governed from London and not from Brussels.
Click to expand...
That's the problem I'm having as much as they keep talking condascendingly we're not seeing actual numbers put into play as to what it costs to stay in the EU (the hidden costs) and we're not really seeing proper quantifiable numbers on the net gain and how much it benefits the tax payer and not just business and even the business numbers are by no means clear.

When even the prime minister resorts to making vague scaremongering comments like 'a leap in the dark' then you know we're not really having a logical debate anymore. It's surprising but as much as we're told the out crowd are not giving figures then neither are the in side (there's some general costings but not enough to truly weigh up the options as it's not being given as a comparison to what we can do outside which the in team could research anyway if they felt it was going to lose money to vote out). It strikes me that this is like a school essay where you're supposed to look at pro's and con's and then present a valid conclusion but neither side is willing to look at the other side. Still the in side are pandering to emotions (leap in the dark, go it aone, safer in europe etc.) and not really giving much clarity in there numbers just yet either.


There's good things on either side
Pro EU - Financial security, jobs across EU, doesn't weaken relations with scotland / ireland / other EU nations, investment and projects from EU, better workers and human rights (except when they let criminals have it there way all the time)
Pro Out - 2 years to renegotiate trade during separation period, retain democratic accountability within our own country, cuts red tape to allow more flexibility in local issues, reduces migration, gives a chance to break up the EU craziness and slow down there super nationalism.

It's useless arguing if you don't recognise the positives of either side, some points might not matter to some people as much and I've probably missed a few points on either side but overall we need to recognise it's more a vote about choosing the positives of the future we want than the negatives. It's about getting those corner stones in place and then moving forward from there.
 
Insanties_birth said:
That's the problem I'm having as much as they keep talking condascendingly we're not seeing actual numbers put into play as to what it costs to stay in the EU (the hidden costs) and we're not really seeing proper quantifiable numbers on the net gain and how much it benefits the tax payer and not just business and even the business numbers are by no means clear.

When even the prime minister resorts to making vague scaremongering comments like 'a leap in the dark' then you know we're not really having a logical debate anymore. It's surprising but as much as we're told the out crowd are not giving figures then neither are the in side (there's some general costings but not enough to truly weigh up the options as it's not being given as a comparison to what we can do outside which the in team could research anyway if they felt it was going to lose money to vote out). It strikes me that this is like a school essay where you're supposed to look at pro's and con's and then present a valid conclusion but neither side is willing to look at the other side. Still the in side are pandering to emotions (leap in the dark, go it aone, safer in europe etc.) and not really giving much clarity in there numbers just yet either.
Click to expand...

People seem to want a nice, simple summary saying something like "staying in the EU adds +£x billion to UK GDP, leaving will add +£y billion to UK GDP". My advice to those people would be DO NOT TRUST anyone who tells you something like that. No-one knows what the future holds - yes there are risks associated with Leaving the EU but there are also risks with staying in the EU (e.g. Greece imo is on the verge of becoming a failed state, what are the consequences for the wider EU if a member state fails?). Really the only logical way to look at this argument is with emotions - do you feel more European than British and want to be governed from Brussels, or do you feel more British and want to be governed from London.
 
Tunney said:
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who didn't think much of Boris' book on Churchill. :p
Click to expand...

Some great lines in that piece

Johnson believes in the advance of Johnson. That’s all there is. There’s nothing else. Most politicians, and many of the rest of us, are ambitious, of course. But politicians normally hope to advance a cause as they advance themselves. Johnson would have you believe that he is breaking with the establishment, risking all, because of his sincere conviction that we must advance the cause of saving Britain from the European Union.

His colleagues do not believe him. Nicholas Soames called him a liar on Twitter yesterday. Jerry Hayes called him a ‘copper-bottomed, hypocritical little s***.’ The wonder of it is that they may have been understating the case for the prosecution.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Freakbro said:
Why are you still calling it secret when Moses put up multiple links yesterday with lots of information all about it?
Click to expand...

It is secret - it's a classified document. Pardon me if I don't believe a summary put out by the people who are keeping it a secret - do you really think they'd put the things they know will be unpopular in such a summary? The only logical conclusion is that there is plenty of unpopular measures in it otherwise they wouldn't be keeping it secret.
 
I support staying in the EU but, much like with the Scottish Independence referendum, am pretty sure things will work out either way.

The major players in the EU will want a trade deal because of how much trade they do to the UK. Do you honestly think Germany will want 10% added to the cost of all the cars they export? Or French farmers will be happy to see one of their major markets cut off?
 
scorza said:
People seem to want a nice, simple summary saying something like "staying in the EU adds +£x billion to UK GDP, leaving will add +£y billion to UK GDP". My advice to those people would be DO NOT TRUST anyone who tells you something like that. No-one knows what the future holds - yes there are risks associated with Leaving the EU but there are also risks with staying in the EU (e.g. Greece imo is on the verge of becoming a failed state, what are the consequences for the wider EU if a member state fails?). Really the only logical way to look at this argument is with emotions - do you feel more European than British and want to be governed from Brussels, or do you feel more British and want to be governed from London.
Click to expand...
What would be the point in the vote and of the referendum and of the whole idea of the EU if it was all just shooting in the dark? Politicians and economic professionals will have a closer grasp (even if not perfect) of the actual costs / benefits so we just need to get the right info, I just hope the politicians bang heads over enough figures to debunk the false ones and some paper will eventually collate the correct info. I'm not going to expect immediate results like some in this board, I imagine it does require a few debates and debunking but I hope they get down to it quicker.

I think the logical way is to view it with a bit of emotion and a bit of logic. We need to at least get a general assessment and then vote emotionally. I rarely look at things in terms of EU / UK etc. but I'd say I feel more like someone from the United Kingdom. I take into account our existing heritage and connections with the countries immediately around us (which is why it's making it harder when scotland / falklands / ireland want EU so bad) but I never really think of myself as european, I don't feel the EU has ever really done that much to foster much sense of european comradery but accounting for the entire united kingdom it still has a pull to stay in the EU. If only the EU wasn't ran by a bunch of power hungry, elitist and over reaching bunch of puffy old farts. We could have done without there endless obsession to force us into every minute law but hey ho, still undecided here.
 
Insanties_birth said:
What would be the point in the vote and of the referendum and of the whole idea of the EU if it was all just shooting in the dark? Politicians and economic professionals will have a closer grasp (even if not perfect) of the actual costs / benefits so we just need to get the right info, I just hope the politicians bang heads over enough figures to debunk the false ones and some paper will eventually collate the correct info. I'm not going to expect immediate results like some in this board, I imagine it does require a few debates and debunking but I hope they get down to it quicker.

I think the logical way is to view it with a bit of emotion and a bit of logic. We need to at least get a general assessment and then vote emotionally. I rarely look at things in terms of EU / UK etc. but I'd say I feel more like someone from the United Kingdom. I take into account our existing heritage and connections with the countries immediately around us (which is why it's making it harder when scotland / falklands / ireland want EU so bad) but I never really think of myself as european, I don't feel the EU has ever really done that much to foster much sense of european comradery but accounting for the entire united kingdom it still has a pull to stay in the EU. If only the EU wasn't ran by a bunch of power hungry, elitist and over reaching bunch of puffy old farts. We could have done without there endless obsession to force us into every minute law but hey ho, still undecided here.
Click to expand...

The point of the referendum is to get Britain to commit to transferring sovereignty to the EU and stop the Tory party from constantly bickering about Europe. Remember it was professionals and so-called experts who said that only 13,000 Polish people would migrate to Britain a year when Poland became a member state. Remember that professionals are paid by someone, and quite often that someone isn't going to pay to get the answer they don't want.
 
FoxEye said:
Yeah and we already know that free movement is going to be a mandatory part of any deal we make the EU post-Brexit
Click to expand...
Isn't there a way to trade with EU that doesn't involve the open market? How would that even work in terms of china and russia trading with us for example when we can't force EU laws on them? It seems to me that we always have the freedom of movement if we trade with the open market but is there no trade with EU other than the open market?
 
Moses said:
Every time they put in an FOI request? Citation? Rejecting one request doesn't make everything secret.

Did you read their rationale? Hint, it's in that very document... why's that rationale unreasonable?
Click to expand...

If the United Kingdom government and my MP say NO to any request for information.
I will take that as they don't want anyone to know. Unless you can show me where they have answered?

You do know that once someone puts in a request for the info and it's turned down, then that's it.

The only other way is to start a petition and even then nothing will happen.

I have showed proof that they won't give out info. What proof do you have?

Anyway time for coffee and a double bacon sandwich :)
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
The point of the referendum is to get Britain to commit to transferring sovereignty to the EU and stop the Tory party from constantly bickering about Europe. Remember it was professionals and so-called experts who said that only 13,000 Polish people would migrate to Britain a year when Poland became a member state. Remember that professionals are paid by someone, and quite often that someone isn't going to pay to get the answer they don't want.
Click to expand...
That is true but thankfully the people can still use the feud to extrapolate real world costings for the EU and make a rational decision on the basis of it's value as to whether the EU works for us or not. I agree at the top end the government could be as cynically simple in there decision making as that but overall there would still have to be a reason for them to want to give away there own powers as well and that is the financial benefits so those need accounting for.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...igrants-have-reach-Europe-so-far-in-2016.html

we've already had as many migrants in 6 weeks as we did in 6 months (think we had it harder later on when merkel figured it was funny to invite as many refugees as possible htough), based on EU's laws of distributing migrants and forcing any nation they land at to process them I am starting to question how long it is before the countries that get hit the hardest by this start to balk at the bad decision making of the EU just like Austria has. This is BEFORE russia and syria start butting heads with saudi and turkey as well and before we see if the impacts of iran entering the oil market further destabilizes the regions as they lose out on a big profit piece along with turkey and other middle eastern tourism going down because of the terrorism. I wonder if they'll have a decent guess this time how many people are coming :p
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom