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.
but the EU is even less accountable than parliament

We had laws such as s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which clearly overstepped the mark on stop and search. Did parliament do anything about it? Only when they had to when the ECHR (which is not an EU body) ruled against it.

There are many other poorly written pieces of legislation, such as the ban on psychoactive substances, the Investigative powers bill and others, where the only real recourse would be on a european level.
 
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.

We also vote in local elections, European elections and, in some cities, mayoral elections.

We live in a multifaceted democracy.
 
We had laws such as s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which clearly overstepped the mark on stop and search. Did parliament do anything about it? Only when they had to when the ECHR (which is not an EU body) ruled against it.

There are many other poorly written pieces of legislation, such as the ban on psychoactive substances, the Investigative powers bill and others, where the only real recourse would be on a european level.
Well then to be fair we have the ECHR anyway and although democracy doesn't mean we have peoples opinions on every single issue it's still more likely and diluting our voice out of the equation even further doesn't really help anyhting.

I don't disagree that local governments are not 100% fullproof but I feel multinationalist governments are going to be even further removed from the people and less likely to understand there concerns. Not just that but it almost overrides there voice by putting in laws that the local MP's are unable to change. We'll see failures regardless of which democracy we choose (as it happens in all countries) but it's still a question of whether the multinationalist approach is better of the local approach and as you said, we'd have the ECHR anyway.
 
Last edited:
We had laws such as s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which clearly overstepped the mark on stop and search. Did parliament do anything about it? Only when they had to when the ECHR (which is not an EU body) ruled against it.

There are many other poorly written pieces of legislation, such as the ban on psychoactive substances, the Investigative powers bill and others, where the only real recourse would be on a european level.

I disagree, we've had a system of Parliamentary Supremacy in this country since the English Civil War. We have the Lords to provide checks and balances and now the Supreme Court to interpret the laws passed - our system works, we don't need the EU to govern our country for us. I'm not saying our system is perfect (House of Lords reform is long overdue), but even with our curiosities and conflicts it works better than the EU does.

"Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of (the United Kingdom) as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament"
 
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).

Wow nice wall of text, don't worry I have very little time for David Cameron either or most professional in it for them self public school boy Oxbridge graduate politicians.

I do love how you keep making things up, I never said I'm not interested in democracy but you wrote all that on it!
 
Wow nice wall of text, don't worry I have very little time for David Cameron either or most professional in it for them self public school boy Oxbridge graduate politicians.

I do love how you keep making things up, I never said I'm not interested in democracy but you wrote all that on it!
Wow nice reply, really showed me lololol. Kids and there cheesy comments :D I get it, you're mad cynical about the evil politicans and think they'll spell our doom from the high towers of corruption. Maybe they'll even forge the one ring but as I said, I feel DC let us down but I'm not sceptical so much on every single politician.

You literally said 'this old fashioned idea of national sovereignty in an international era', in other words stating it's not needed or you'd do away with it because it's irrelevant or not important. You have to be careful with what you post but how can you say it is old fashioned and not relevant to this era (or not important) and then complain when people call you out on it? I get it, you're a bit dense on the whole debate idea and the 'zomg wall of text' over 2 paragraphs highlights your lack of earnesty in listening to people who interpret your posts differently but yeah, I'm making the case for the democracy argument that you've undervalued and seemed to struggle to understand but no worries if you want to agree it's important, that's what I feel too so I'm just glad you came around and stopped suggesting you couldn't understand that position.
 
Last edited:
Wow nice reply, really showed me lololol. Kids and there cheesy comments :D I get it, you're mad cynical about the evil politicans and think they'll spell our doom from the high towers of corruption. Maybe they'll even forge the one ring but as I said, I feel DC let us down but I'm not sceptical so much on every single politician.

You literally said 'this old fashioned idea of national sovereignty in an international era', in other words stating it's not needed or you'd do away with it because it's irrelevant or not important. You have to be careful with what you post but how can you say it is old fashioned and not relevant to this era (or not important) and then complain when people call you out on it? I get it, you're a bit dense on the whole debate idea and the 'zomg wall of text' over 2 paragraphs highlights your lack of earnesty in listening to people who interpret your posts differently but yeah, I'm making the case for the democracy argument that you've undervalued and seemed to struggle to understand but no worries if you want to agree it's important, that's what I feel too so I'm just glad you came around and stopped suggesting you couldn't understand that position.

They won't spell our doom or forge a fictional ring but they will certainly line their own pockets and those of their friends and put their ego's ahead of the interests of the country, they do it daily.

Lol now you've dropped the democracy thing and your back on national sovereignty you can have a different form of sovereignty and still have democracy the EU as even you point out is a form of democracy and we have a new sovereignty within the EU which is formed up of loads of member nations much like our own country which has regional parliaments within it. The no vote seems predicated on the idea that regaining the old form of sovereignty is to be valued above everything which frankly in the is global era I find odd.
 
Last edited:
We also vote in local elections, European elections and, in some cities, mayoral elections.

We live in a multifaceted democracy.

Precisely.

The pokes in the following wall are not directed at Tunney:

Scorzas of the world regressively arguing against this form of democracy, in favour of the great representative justice of FPTP, direct democracy, some other mob rule abomination or 'enlightened' third-way dictatorship, without thought, are stuck up zugzwang creek without a paddle! I don't think there is a sane way to help them not to be terrified of their own shadow; I wish there were.

The Power Plc has been on a more accountable roll since the dawn of the modern era. But you have to use your vote, and think before you vote, for all these accountability mechanisms to mean a thing, or indeed work properly. Reform's a thing! Good leadership does exist. Big money, should they act to harm or incite harm, can be overcome by pooling democratic power together where it makes the most sense.

Not all politicians are there, taking abuse day after day, to feather their own nest and leave the world worse off than they've found it; or maybe that's what you would prefer, as long as it didn't make you think too much? Hmm? Nice and local but not bifocal? ;) Everyone's fallible but not everyone's a cretin, or a born conspirator against the common good, who has sucked in plots to crush 'the man' with his mother's milk! Christ on a bike!:mad::p

Fleeing from the world, and trudging off to a local council and then general election once in a blue moon, won't solve global problems democratically or in your interest, nor will it ensure fairness or social justice to please all and sundry! Because if you don't trust in politics to deliver practical solutions to seemingly unassailable problems, and argue for such concrete solutions, farting about with meaningless protest is not better than slowly bleeding out to sweet oblivion under a pile of Daily Mail! You may have to cast your net, experience and reason a bit wider if you wan't to drag anything back but empty promises and broken hopes.

You can't harp on about democracy when the times are hard or uncertain, and it suits your agenda. To then just lull yourself into hibernation during less turbulent economic stretches, when actually you have to step up and take responsibility for your choices and wild claims. So the 'good times' aren't wasted on hot air and populist twaddle and token, ritualistic form of participation along tribal lines!

Your grand critique by scorza's style of 'logic and argument', operating solely out of one's behind, is nothing more than a bleating, snivelling cry against 'complexity' and a terrified, weeping screed for 'certain' solutions and obvious outcomes in a world which can offer none of the sort! Which can be used to moan about anything without ever having to deliver. To wit, just because you can egg your representative closer to home, doesn't make them any more accountable or effective in a world where a gamble in one country causes a bank run in another. You have to elect people for the job at hand, and send them where they are most needed, at the level appropriate to the task.

TL;DR: Start living today, not a century in the past, damn it!
 
They won't spell our doom or forge a fictional ring but they will certainly line their own pockets and those of their friends and put their ego's ahead of the interests of the country, they do it daily.

Lol now you've dropped the democracy thing and your back on national sovereignty you can have a different form of sovereignty and still have democracy the EU as even you point out is a form of democracy and we have a new sovereignty within the EU which is formed up of loads of member nations much like our own country which has regional parliaments within it. The no vote seems predicated on the idea that regaining the old form of sovereignty is to be valued above everything which frankly in the is global era I find odd.
In the end I don't feel that is going to be any different within the context of EU politicians throwing there hands into the money jar.

Yeah I might be slipping between sovereignity (our ability to control our countries own laws) and democracy due to the context since I've been relating the multi national democracy to override our national sovereignity as it does. They're kind of hand in hand and you can have other forms of sovereignity but if it's at the expense of our democracy then it's diluting the voice of the people and slipping into other nations self interest which kind of puts our sovereignity up for vote each time with the general blanket statement that we agreed to be within the EU not properly excusing the loss. That's why I've been saying OUR democracy as in national democractic accountability vs the multinationalist approach. It's not above anything but rather just a factor within the argument. To present it as the sole reason is further misunderstanding.
 
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.

But it's not completely foreign, is it? Only 2 years ago there were elections into EU parliament. People decided it wasn't worth taking seriously and voted in bunch of loonies to represent their interest in EU. Then each EU country takes turn in presiding every 6 months. So each country has a means of influencing EU decisions.
 
But it's not completely foreign, is it? Only 2 years ago there were elections into EU parliament. People decided it wasn't worth taking seriously and voted in bunch of loonies to represent their interest in EU. Then each EU country takes turn in presiding every 6 months. So each country has a means of influencing EU decisions.

You can't dismiss the UKIP vote as a bunch of loonies - doing so will only strengthen them as voter anger is imo why we're seeing this wave of populism that the EU grandees find so distasteful. I doubt we'd have got this referendum had UKIP not won the European elections in the UK.

What I find so undemocratic about the European elections is that there are these groups that get formed in the European Parliament, and the largest group gets to put its nominee forward for EU President. Not one of the UK parties thought that arch-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker was fit for this office and yet he still became President. We get ignored in Europe time and time again, if they only listened to us then I'd probably be more supportive of them.
 
That's as stupid as saying if we vote to leave we will never get another chance to join!

No it isn't. The EU's self interest is to expand and you have to be pretty dodgy not to get let in (like Turkey) so they would always want an independent Britain to "come back".

Then we have an overwhelmly pro-EU power structure. Regardless of the back-benchers the fact is the leaders of all three major parties are pro-EU and have been for decades.

The only reason we got the referendum this time was because Cameron knew by promising it in exchange for a majority Tory government was the only thing he could offer to tempt voters away from a hung parliament again.

If there is a 'Stay' vote, it will be the same as the one in the 70s ("well you voted for it" etc etc) with no more say in the matter until get to another point where it has changed so rapidly and we have half the country who's have no say in the matter.

However should we pull out and it goes **** up quickly we surely would rejoin in some capacity fairly quickly. We might not want to to save face but we could.

So saying the likelihood of another vote doesn't matter on the result is asinine.
 
No it isn't. The EU's self interest is to expand and you have to be pretty dodgy not to get let in (like Turkey) so they would always want an independent Britain to "come back".

Then we have an overwhelmly pro-EU power structure. Regardless of the back-benchers the fact is the leaders of all three major parties are pro-EU and have been for decades.

The only reason we got the referendum this time was because Cameron knew by promising it in exchange for a majority Tory government was the only thing he could offer to tempt voters away from a hung parliament again.

If there is a 'Stay' vote, it will be the same as the one in the 70s ("well you voted for it" etc etc) with no more say in the matter until get to another point where it has changed so rapidly and we have half the country who's have no say in the matter.

However should we pull out and it goes **** up quickly we surely would rejoin in some capacity fairly quickly. We might not want to to save face but we could.

So saying the likelihood of another vote doesn't matter on the result is asinine.

Let me just drop the most obvious risk with Out/Back if bad option:

So we spend 4 months faffing around with this referendum. The government is campaigning, the civil service is involved, the country gets to do nothing else. Somehow we get a Leave vote. Okay.

Now, we face not 1 month, not 1 year, but 2 whole years of parliamentary time which needs to be wasted further to:
a) review all of the EU legislation on the statute books, accumulated over a much longer period of time
b) decide what to keep and what to ditch (10%-14% of all laws isn't a doddle to comprehend in one go, let alone think about the details)
c) replace what's ditched with at least a semblance of debate, asap
d) ensure to get it all through the Lords on time
e) oopsy, we still need to negotiate the common market access, and the time before the trade barriers go up is ticking away (they go up automatically, if no deal is agreed within 2 years)
f) visions for the country are sharply split, faecal storm reigns in the Commons; the Speaker plays tic-tac-toe or whack-a-mole, depending on the programme

And that's without considering the possibility of a new PM, and the dampening effect on proceedings of an impeding GE. What a jolly good, simple and intuitive way to get things done in a nicely sovereign way! Won't cost a penny too! :p AND THEN YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN; possibly with a new government. Sod it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom