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

[PlacidCasual]

Michael Gove appears to be spouting nonsense that the deal will not be legally binding. It's akin to stating that the courts of this country are able to trump parliamentary supremacy. In other words, yes, the ECJ probably does have that discretion (in respect of the things the ECJ would consider, I invite you all to read Jackson v A-G from our courts which deals with notions of supremacy.... It's long - edit: there's actually a surprisingly decent summary on Wikipedia!), but only if there is something completely perverse and I cannot see any grounded assertion that the deal is perverse, especially when it is, you know, a deal.

In other words, it is more correct to say that the deal is at the potential scrutiny of the ECJ, but as to why and when that will happen... No specifics have been put forward whatsoever, just a puff of hot air without founding, from what I've read.

An intersting topic and a subject I was unaware of.

With respect to the ECJ it has form as they might say for judicial activism and extending the scope of European treaties beyond the letter or intent of the law. The EU has proven itself to be no friend to the spirit of democracy or the rule of law and I would not place a huge amount of trust in Dave's Homepathic Renegotiation making it into a treaty unamended.

 

[scorza]

Just got pointed to an interesting article which I think is worthy of a share here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/john-king-left-wing-case-leaving-eu

Great read - thanks for that!

 

[Hades]

No one voted for us to be a part of a politcal union. This is our voice finally being heard democratically.

some people are missing this valuable point

This.

Whether each person is pro or anti EU this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to approve or disapprove a direction that we have been taken without our consent since the vote for the common market. In the words of my mother "We didn't vote for this!"

In the last few days I have started leaning more towards IN. My heart says OUT but I'm trying to vote for what I feel is the best for my children. It is they that will have to live with our decision. Frankly I'm really not sure which way I will vote. I can see advantages on both sides of the argument.

 

[George Hincapie]

We did, by voting for pro-EU parties .

That's a stupid argument and you know it. Jesus

 

[kindai]

We did, by voting for pro-EU parties . If people didnt want the EU, they could have voted for the BNP/weird nationalist types/UKIP, etc, or the members of the less mental political parties could have changed their policies to make them more Eurosceptic. They didn't in sufficient numbers.

I don't....

just...


*leaves debate*

 

[a1ex2001]

Are you really that dumb?

It's not possible for them to say exactly how it will be because they will simply have to negotiate new terms and negotiate new trade and whatnot but it's not like we're jumping into some deep chasm. Hell, the first 2 years we'll just be in a seperation period where we can renegotiate with EU while maintaining current trade anyway. There's no exact image of what we'll do but I imagine it involves standard trade and service as we are doing right now, maybe with a few more tarriffs from the EU or maybe they'd end up signing up to the open market and having freedom of movement and the same trade deals but with a few less EU laws while still having to adhere to the majority. Either way it's not some mystical chasm of death, it's a bleeding big ship the UK so I it'll just pilot a standard course and trade a little differently. It's not as big as you've been fooled to believe as all the EU countries won't suddenly stop trading with us as global economies don't work that way so we'll get trade and the big ship will keep sailing. It's more a slightly rocky period (a few more tarriffs / fees on EU trade alone so doesn't effect any trade with other countries) and then we'll have to renegotiate. They can't tell you word for word what it will look like because renegotiations don't work that way just like even after the DC's efforts we can't guarantee what our relationship in the EU will be because they will be voting on which parts of the referendum they keep or chop up.

No I'm not that dumb, nowhere did I say we would fall into a chasm you put those words out there all I said is nobody can tell me what I'm voting for other than to 'leave the EU' and regain 'national sovereignty' none of which means anything. As you say there will by years of negotiations and transition and un-surprisingly we won't get a vote to decide if what we land up with is actually what any of us wanted or envisaged! Basically the only certainty I can see from an Exit vote is it will make Boris PM, everything else I've heard is just woolly nationalistic nonsense and talk of negotiating. If people really want to convince the electorate about leaving maybe some of this negotiating should already have taken place!

 

[Mr Jack]

No one voted for us to be a part of a politcal union.

This is simply untrue. We voted in parties that supported joining the EU, and then voted to stay in the EU in a national referendum and don't pretend that we didn't vote to join an organisation like the EU, we did:

 

[izzop]

No one voted for us to be a part of a politcal union. This is our voice finally being heard democratically.

some people are missing this valuable point

We never voted to be a part of this 'democracy'.

We need our say.

^^

Exactly this, which everyone either chooses to overlook or isn't fully aware of!

Voting In is not to accept the status quo, but to an ever closer integration into the EU over time.

 

[Mr Jack]

I'm not impressed by Cameron's decision to allow the use of the entire government machinery to campaign for Remain whilst denying the same to the Leave campaign. It does not give either the reality or the appearance of a fair campaign.

 

[Insanties_birth]

We're part of a representative democracy.

Representative of 27 other countries interests? Talk about poor democracy. Lets be honest, when you want to have your vote on how your country is run you don't normally expect there to be 27 other countries having there say.

How would you feel if every time during your normal day to day life your decisions had to be argued with 27 other people? It's democracy for countries but not for the people because if we want something changed we have to hope that the mp's will listen, then the prime minister will listen, then the european leaders will listen and then it'll be thrown off to a vote with 27 other countries interests. It's very diluted and maze like democracy, it just doesn't practically work on a local level and is quite poor in it's structure. I can understand having some laws and rules that manage the trade and union structure but when they go too heavy handed on how many laws then it's not really a smart idea to leave democracy of 28 individual countries to a one glove fits all policy on a regular basis.

 

[aardvark]

Just got pointed to an interesting article which I think is worthy of a share here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/john-king-left-wing-case-leaving-eu

very good article and i wouldn't even describe myself as left wing.

edited to change would to wouldn't!

 

[izzop]

This is simply untrue. We voted in parties that supported joining the EU, and then voted to stay in the EU in a national referendum and don't pretend that we didn't vote to join an organisation like the EU, we did:

Yes, votes for parties that were supporting joining the EU.

I still believe that what people weren't voting for was what the EU has become and will continue to develop into.

 

[Insanties_birth]

double post

 

[Insanties_birth]

No I'm not that dumb, nowhere did I say we would fall into a chasm you put those words out there all I said is nobody can tell me what I'm voting for other than to 'leave the EU' and regain 'national sovereignty' none of which means anything. As you say there will by years of negotiations and transition and un-surprisingly we won't get a vote to decide if what we land up with is actually what any of us wanted or envisaged! Basically the only certainty I can see from an Exit vote is it will make Boris PM, everything else I've heard is just woolly nationalistic nonsense and talk of negotiating. If people really want to convince the electorate about leaving maybe some of this negotiating should already have taken place!

Maybe not a chasm but here's your quote

'Leave the EU to a total unknown, nobody can tell us anything about what life will be like afterwards except 'it will be better because of national sovereignty'

Which seems like a pretty weak basis for such an important decision so I don't see how anyone can vote for anything other than the status quo.'

pretty strong indicators of leap in the dark logic. Of course those stuff mean things, it's a general indicator of the philosophy behind rejecting the EU based on there politically overbearing structure. I'm sure you're aware of what democracy is and what we can do with it so if they aim to get it back then as I said it'll require a bit of negotiating and you fill in the blanks. There's a few possibilities so they can't spell it out so clearly as to just pretend we'll win great negotiations all the time but it's easy enough to guess how it'll go. Some wins, some losses and overall a minor economic loss with some turbulence during the point where we're waiting for discussions to be finalised.

I don't think there's much need to humour those simply trying to slur boris for having a different opinion to them nor to re-explain why they can't pin negotiations that aren't complete as a certainty but it's pretty obvious we won't end up hell on as hell on earth so we have to take it with an open doors, open mind philosophy. I can understand if uncertainty scares you and theres always the in vote ready if you're afraid but I really doubt it'll be so bad either way. The negotiating was done by the PM first to see if it was worth staying in the EU, then people decide if it's a good reason to stay and then they can negotiate trade deals. Why would they sit around negotiating trade with other countries when they might end up in the EU anyway? They have 2 years to renegotiate trade if we leave and just because they don't have trade deals pinned down to the tea doesn't mean they won't happen. Stop cowering behind silly nonsense, the negotiations will happen if we leave the EU, no country is coming and arranging huge trade deals that might not even happen but it's not like trade will fall off a cliff or we'll enter the 'oh god' uncertain future of doom. We'll just renegotiate new trade terms and it'll win some and lose some and be economically a tiny bit worse off. Fill in the gaps, it'll be slightly worse off but not the end of the world and we'll make do.

 

[D.P.]

That's a stupid argument and you know it. Jesus

that is how democracy works!

i never voted on the national speed limit, legality of zero-hour contracts, sunday shopping hours, school leaving age or a host other regulations. instead i voted for parties hat make such decision.

 

[Freakbro]

Representative of 27 other countries interests? Talk about poor democracy. Lets be honest, when you want to have your vote on how your country is run you don't normally expect there to be 27 other countries having there say.

Well you do when you've joined a club with 27 other members in it

 

[Tunney]

Representative of 27 other countries interests? Talk about poor democracy. Lets be honest, when you want to have your vote on how your country is run you don't normally expect there to be 27 other countries having there say.

I don't get this argument. Representatives from 28 countries come together to decide on how the EU as a whole is run.

How is this different from the 650 MPs coming together to decide on how Britain is run? I only elected my local MP and yet they all get some say on how my local area is run.

 

[Casdawer]

This decision is probably one of the biggest political choices I will ever make and I'm need to make sure I vote for what I believe.

From talking with other people, it seems people will be voting with their hearts and not their brains as most people want to see the UK return to it's former glory and to retain it's sovereignty and not seeing that these are things of the past.

I'm a keen believer that borders will and should disappear and a United States of Europe will be formed. And this is not a bad thing. Since the dawn of time, countries have risen, fallen, merged and joined together to form what we have today and I think that this is natural progression.

I hope that in a thousand years time, there will be a single government looking after the planet Earth and 'countries' and 'sovereignty' are things of the past but I'm getting side tracked.

I want a 'United States of Europe' and firmly believe we should go ALL IN, not this half arsed thing we have going on here.

Immigrants won't just stop coming in the moment we vote leave, they will just be illegal instead of legal and it's going to cost us more money to manage that and I'm a firm believer that there should be free movement.

Just because you don't exercise your right to free movement, does not mean you should deprave them of theirs. Get over it.

I believe we should join the EURO and I think that would strengthen the Euro.

I'm ranting and I'm sure half of this doesn't follow any order and I'm just furiously typing away.

TL;DR I want a United States of Europe so IN!

From Winston Churchill -
“There is a remedy which ... would in a few years make all Europe ... free and ... happy.
It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.
We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

 

[Insanties_birth]

Well you do when you've joined a club with 27 other members in it

Yeah but then the discussion is whether that is a realistic proposal or whether it hampers democracy for the citizens of those nations. Stating the obvious doesn't ignore the points being made, we're simply at a point where the ability to decide a lot of our laws is governed by self interest of other nations (such as greece threatening to veto the referendum if they didn't get help with the migration issue and poland / the other eastern european nations complaining about benefits being paid at the same rate as there own country would pay them). It's obvious there's a difference between a democracy where the people themselves can vote on local / national issues and one where 27 other countries stop a country from acting on issues that realistically they shouldn't have a say in.

We've already seen with austria they've chose to flout EU law and impose migration caps against there wishes, this shows that the EU simply fails in regards to matching what the people want and the Austrian government has chose to do what the people want rather than the EU but there will always be that conflict of interest or other nations interfering with sensible matters for our own country in the EU.

I don't get this argument. Representatives from 28 countries come together to decide on how the EU as a whole is run.

How is this different from the 650 MPs coming together to decide on how Britain is run? I only elected my local MP and yet they all get some say on how my local area is run.

Maybe because a one glove fits all approach to 28 countries rarely works as seen with Austria defying the EU on migration and Britain as well. The difference between MP's voting on how there own country is run and 27 other countries voting on how we're run is that all the MP's vote in what they feel is the best interest of britain so it's a vote to make the most sensible option. When you have countries voting for other countries they simply don't understand or respect the local issues or the policies that are currently in place. We can argue the toss with them but does that mean they'll always listen, care or have a heart of gold and vote to help us or other nations out? Not really, it's just a poor structure for democracy to have 28 nations voting for each other while not understanding each others positions properly as they'll always vote for self interest or they'll go home and be lambasted by there own country for not defending there people. Pretty obvious when you think about it properly. multinationalist governments are just not a smart idea for proper democracy (depending on how infringing they are on laws).

 

[a1ex2001]

Maybe not a chasm but here's your quote

'Leave the EU to a total unknown, nobody can tell us anything about what life will be like afterwards except 'it will be better because of national sovereignty'

Which seems like a pretty weak basis for such an important decision so I don't see how anyone can vote for anything other than the status quo.'

pretty strong indicators of leap in the dark logic. Of course those stuff mean things, it's a general indicator of the philosophy behind rejecting the EU based on there politically overbearing structure. I'm sure you're aware of what democracy is and what we can do with it so if they aim to get it back then as I said it'll require a bit of negotiating and you fill in the blanks. There's a few possibilities so they can't spell it out so clearly as to just pretend we'll win great negotiations all the time but it's easy enough to guess how it'll go. Some wins, some losses and overall a minor economic loss with some turbulence during the point where we're waiting for discussions to be finalised.

I don't think there's much need to humour those simply trying to slur boris for having a different opinion to them nor to re-explain why they can't pin negotiations that aren't complete as a certainty but it's pretty obvious we won't end up hell on as hell on earth so we have to take it with an open doors, open mind philosophy. I can understand if uncertainty scares you and theres always the in vote ready if you're afraid but I really doubt it'll be so bad either way. The negotiating was done by the PM first to see if it was worth staying in the EU, then people decide if it's a good reason to stay and then they can negotiate trade deals. Why would they sit around negotiating trade with other countries when they might end up in the EU anyway? They have 2 years to renegotiate trade if we leave and just because they don't have trade deals pinned down to the tea doesn't mean they won't happen. Stop cowering behind silly nonsense, the negotiations will happen if we leave the EU, no country is coming and arranging huge trade deals that might not even happen but it's not like trade will fall off a cliff or we'll enter the 'oh god' uncertain future of doom. We'll just renegotiate new trade terms and it'll win some and lose some and be economically a tiny bit worse off. Fill in the gaps, it'll be slightly worse off but not the end of the world and we'll make do.

lol Boris doesn't have a different opinion he has an obvious personal agenda because he is a 'celebrity politician' with not a care in the world for anything other than his own self aggrandisement!

There are plenty of things we could at least have discussed with the EU to make this decision much more straightforward for example what are the non negotiables if we want access to the common market? The terms of our exit are so unclear as to make voting for it silly in my opinion (which I am entitled to) as you don't know if Britain will be in a better or worse position other than on this old fashioned idea of national sovereignty in an international era. The benefits of being in are while not necessarily to your liking known and quantifiable the benefits of being out seem intangible to me.

I can quite easily see a situation where we vote to leave but when we see the actual terms of our departure we wish we'd stayed put, but sadly we won't get a chance to vote on that as the dice will already be cast. (Then in 30 years time we can have another referendum to re-join with everyone moaning how they never got a vote on our sham meaningless 'exit' in the first place.)