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

[scorza]

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.

There's loads of differences but perhaps the most important one is that all 650 MPs represent a part of the UK. The other 27 heads of member states don't represent the UK at all, so why should they have any say in how the UK is run?

 

[Tunney]

There's loads of differences but perhaps the most important one is that all 650 MPs represent a part of the UK. The other 27 heads of member states don't represent the UK at all, so why should they have any say in how the UK is run?

MPs from Wales don't represent London, so why should they have any say in how London is run?

This is all part of democracy - representatives of different regions coming together to collectively decide on how things should be run at a high level.

 

[Outcast]

lol @ BBC HYS

Subject:

Fake girlfriend, revisited

Posting:

Don't mention Voting Out !!

This HYS will get deleted like the 1187 posts in the last one !

I was going to "Desktop Record" scrolling through those comments and the various forums that have done an "Stay or Leave" poll and then post to youtube.
Mysteriously the Comments on here had been deleted. Could it be because out of 1187 comments 1175 were for leaving ?

Naaaaah couldn't be that !!

Dear BBC Visitor,

Thank you for contributing to the BBC web site. Unfortunately we've had to remove the content below because it contravened one of our House Rules.

 

[scorza]

MPs from Wales don't represent London, so why should they have any say in how London is run?

Ignoring that a lot of powers have been devolved the mayor's office, London is part of the UK, Wales is part of the UK and they therefore get a say in how the UK is run.

 

[Adnams Drinker]

Regarding Michael Gove's claims about Cameron's 'deal' being legally binding or not, by all means correct me if I'm grabbing the wrong end of the stick here, but doesn't this rather back up his case, especially coming from the bearded Euro-loon himself:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-eu-deal-cant-be-legally-binding-eu-parliament-president-martin-schulz-says-a6876861.html

From the article:

The president’s statement means that Britain may not get the deal agreed by Mr Cameron if it ultimately votes to stay in the EU.

In short, Cameron is going around telling everybody it's binding - clearly a lie or at best a very dubious claim - and THEN our gracious EU overlords will then decide whether or not to torpedo our 'special' terms, AFTER the population has bought Cameron's blather about reform and voted to stay in.

Can anybody explain why that is acceptable? On that basis, it seems to me the IN campaign is founded on a lie ...

 

[a1ex2001]

Ignoring that a lot of powers have been devolved the mayor's office, London is part of the UK, Wales is part of the UK and they therefore get a say in how the UK is run.

The UK is a part of the EU, Poland is part of the EU therefore we both get a say how the EU is run which effects member states it's exactly the same thing just you have chosen to draw a line that doesn't exist.

Regarding Michael Gove's claims about Cameron's 'deal' being legally binding or not, by all means correct me if I'm grabbing the wrong end of the stick here, but doesn't this rather back up his case, especially coming from the bearded Euro-loon himself:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-eu-deal-cant-be-legally-binding-eu-parliament-president-martin-schulz-says-a6876861.html

From the article:


In short, Cameron is going around telling everybody it's binding - clearly a lie or at best a very dubious claim - and THEN our gracious EU overlords will then decide whether or not to torpedo our 'special' terms, AFTER the population has bought Cameron's blather about reform and voted to stay in.

Can anybody explain why that is acceptable? On that basis, it seems to me the IN campaign is founded on a lie ...

Because if the EU don't give us what was promised they could expect another referendum in double quick time with a guaranteed no vote which is not what they want, the EU wants the UK to remain as it is a stronger union with us than without us and the 'concessions' Cameron has negotiated are pretty minor cosmetics.

 

[datalol-jack]

I don't....

just...


*leaves debate*

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

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ase-leaving-eu

My problem with the almost subconscious vision the left and the right of Out advocate, underscored by the quoted op-ed from the NS further still, is this:

1) The EU is a wretched, totalitarian and socialist gulag; which chains our businesses in favour of its statist interests, redistributes our wealth, denies us our 'rightful' voice and puts up an iron curtain around our growth potential; it's costly and unjust.

--> Therefore let us leave, forging a free-market, independent economy with less regulation, worker protections and more dog-eat-dog competition; which lets our corporate and national interests dictate terms to our workers and the world, preferably with lower taxes and more neoliberal economics to boot.

2) The EU is an oppressive corporatist super-state, where capital and wealth reign supreme, and in which the little guy falls to the knife of emasculating austerity; it whips us into submission with secret trade deals, increased competition and destruction of our traditional working-class community's bread-winner industries and vital social services; in collusion with our government, it enables democracy to be subverted to serve the wealthy, whilst our people are starved of essential funding.

-->So let us depart, and fight again for a socialist utopia; the dream is not dead, the faith is strong and Jeremy Corbyn is a sound example of the nation's hunger for a swing to the left; let us take back control of our key industries, train our people and spend on our communities; let us protect our economy from foreign self-interest; and should there be a trade war, let us have one! Britain shall be great again!


Ugh, I'm not even going to bother with outlining the third, fascist option. Jesus rightly weeps!

These dreams are mutually exclusive. Which IS it Leavers? You can't have both, nor can the referendum be swung by the Bennite bickering over ideals, whilst no actionable framework for possible policy has even been agreed. You can't force a Westminster government you do not control, or can elect, to adopt policies which cannot even be put down as a proviso, and costed on paper.

Start pressing your campaign leaders for meaningful answers, or prepare for tears regardless of the outcome of the referendum!

 

[scorza]

The UK is a part of the EU, Poland is part of the EU therefore we both get a say how the EU is run which effects member states it's exactly the same thing just you have chosen to draw a line that doesn't exist.

Except if Britain wins this referendum it will not be part of the EU - that's what we're deciding on. It's the same as the Scottish referendum, to find out if Scotland wanted to stay in the UK - they did and so they are part of UK and not a sovereign nation of their own.

The point I am making (too subtly it seems) is that we have to decide where power over this country resides - do we want to be independent, with power residing locally in London, or do we want to be parts of a United States of Europe with power in Brussels and where the other 27 member states have the legal right to decide the laws we have in Britain and everywhere else in Europe.

 

[Cyanide]

In short, Cameron is going around telling everybody it's binding - clearly a lie or at best a very dubious claim - and THEN our gracious EU overlords will then decide whether or not to torpedo our 'special' terms, AFTER the population has bought Cameron's blather about reform and voted to stay in.

Can anybody explain why that is acceptable? On that basis, it seems to me the IN campaign is founded on a lie ...

If we vote to stay in and then Cameron's "deal" is rejected I can't see anything other than an immediate vote of no confidence in him and a new PM either calling a 2nd referendum or just pulling us out on the basis that the EU is a bunch of liars.

 

[Tunney]

The point I am making (too subtly it seems) is that we have to decide where power over this country resides - do we want to be independent, with power residing locally in London, or do we want to be parts of a United States of Europe with power in Brussels and where the other 27 member states have the legal right to decide the laws we have in Britain and everywhere else in Europe.

London might be local to West Sussex but I'm sure it doesn't feel local to some.

To me, it seems logical that some matters should be decided regionally, some should be decided on a nationally, some should be decided on an EU-wide basis and some should be decided globally.

 

[Tummy]

London might be local to West Sussex but I'm sure it doesn't feel local to some.

To me, it seems logical that some matters should be decided regionally, some should be decided on a nationally, some should be decided on an EU-wide basis and some should be decided globally.

+1.

 

[George Hincapie]

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.

None of those issues have any where near the same degree of impact or importance.

 

[Insanties_birth]

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.)

Well I don't usually sit around reading about the nefarious interests of politicians (pretty sure they all want to be on the top and have all backstabbed us in some way) but I don't think I've ever been convinced Boris is so evil but present the evidence if you wish.

I'd say it's David Cameron that's failed us far more and proven to be of his own interest, he's the prime minister and he refuses to even acknowledge any effort to work on negotiations for what will happen if we vote to leave. Single minded failure for the people who feel that he is the one in the position to be doing these negotiations on what will happen and he had years to put our case forward but left it to the last minute. The terms are not clear because the person who should be giving us our options is playing second fiddle to real political negotiation and just charging head forward to his own self interest. National sovereignity isn't an old fashioned idea regardless of market trends, you're welcome to jump to a dictatorship where your voice is meaningless if you think democracy and sovereignity are meaningless. We already know britain will (highly likely) be in a worse position and it's been said a million times so I don't know why your mind is so vague on that answer but it's actually really simple, we'll be slightly worse off but not massively so. Trade won't end, we have 2 years to renegotiate and lord knows your idea of the 'international era' is very broken if you feel it means we shouldn't have sovereignity or democracy but it makes you squeal at the idea of leaving the EU because we know trade won't end so it's not going to be a huge deal one way or the other. As you say it is a global era so they want to trade with us as much as we do and nothing will stop in that regards so leaving the EU may net us a few tarriffs at worst. If they're intangible and you don't understand them then that's your intellect failing but not necessarily a problem with the argument.

Democracy isn't aimed at giving you cash, it's aimed at giving more open, fair and locally relevant policy and a better environment of ensuring local people have there issues heard and can change government policy when they feel the government is not adhering to there wishes. It's not quantifiable in money terms but only stupidity would mean that you couldn't respect the need or appreciate the value in it. All open systems are better than closed ones as they lead to more flexible, honest and fair options. I can quite easily see a position where the EU becomes irrelevant other than for the hooks and nails it's lodged in us that we only don't want to remove to avoid the pain. In the end the EU is pretty good for trade, not so much on the overbearing restrictions and there's no need for that so people want control of there democracy and have a say in there lives. The ivory tower approach of self interest doesn't usually work very well, it just leads to issues like we're having now with racism brewing up again in germany and sweden because the governments make stupid and generalised policies without respecting the people. Democracy appeases the mindset of the people that they at least had a say on what was happening, tensions and racism and crime will probably go up if we keep ignoring this kind of stuff. I'm not saying they are to blame for migration but when you don't listen to the people on the ground the division escalates and tensions cause issues. just go back and read a few books on democracy if you don't understand or appreciate it's value, even the EU relies on democracy but just does it in a multi nationalist way that aims to simply get the best measure of agreemant out of too few people and keep the cogs turning and as I said, it's not a real democracy to have 28 countries just try and vote on self interest (for matters of other countries they shouldn't have as much a say on).

 

[scorza]

London might be local to West Sussex but I'm sure it doesn't feel local to some.

To me, it seems logical that some matters should be decided regionally, some should be decided on a nationally, some should be decided on an EU-wide basis and some should be decided globally.

London is a lot more local to anywhere in the UK than Brussels is. To me it seems logical that nothing trumps the authority of our Parliament. We vote in a UK general election, the result of which forms the government. When we deal with external entities such the EU then the government must be held to account in their dealings through Parliament.

 

[George Hincapie]

London is a lot more local to anywhere in the UK than Brussels is. To me it seems logical that nothing trumps the authority of our Parliament. We vote in a UK general election, the result of which forms the government. When we deal with external entities such the EU then the government must be held to account in their dealings through Parliament.

That's one of the issues isn't it? Because at the moment, that's not the case. When a foreign body can dictate to a national executive then there's clearly a sovereignty problem. If the national executive had absolute veto over every aspect of EU law and progression then this fear of 'being dictated to by Brussels' that some people hold would disappear.

 

[thep02]

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

We are much more likely to sign into ttip out than in, no Country in the eu supports ttip as much as our tory govt who apart from their pro ttip inclination wil be desperately trying to creep to the yanks.

An anti ttip UK in the eu means ttip won't be signed if we're out we'll sign anything the yanks put before us.

 

[Burnsy2023]

London is a lot more local to anywhere in the UK than Brussels is. To me it seems logical that nothing trumps the authority of our Parliament. We vote in a UK general election, the result of which forms the government. When we deal with external entities such the EU then the government must be held to account in their dealings through Parliament.

Considering some of the legislation that our gov puts through, I actually think having the ECJ is actually a very useful safety net.

I understand why people take issue over sovereignty and that parliament should have the last word, but parliament isn't as accountable domestically as it should be - accountability that the ECJ does provide.

 

[dowie]

but the EU is even less accountable than parliament

 

[thep02]

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

No it's not it's a valid point well made.

 

[RDM]

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.

The EU is pretty much the opposite of localism though. More and more decisions taken centrally and even more remotely from where they will have an impact.

I am mainly pro EU and it's continual centralisation of powers is concerning.