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.
Mr Jack said:
I agree.

The referendum should be fought on equal ground.
Click to expand...

The government can only take one position. Cameron has said he wants us to stay in, so funding to help achieve this through whatever means are required will be allocated. So Jim Messina has been employed to guide the campaign to get the governments message out. This is how things work. Funding is not going to be given to oppose their own stance is it? That's just stupid. :rolleyes:
 
Cameron playing dirty - Who would have thought it? I told you the establishment would close ranks and do whatever it took to ensure the uk would cease to be a sovereign nation. The rebellion will be short lived :(
 
Sliver said:
The government can only take one position. Cameron has said he wants us to stay in, so funding to help achieve this through whatever means are required will be allocated. So Jim Messina has been employed to guide the campaign to get the governments message out. This is how things work. Funding is not going to be given to oppose their own stance is it? That's just stupid. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's stupid, actually - I think funding for democracy is entirely sensible - but I agree it's not likely to happen. I would settle for not using government money to support one side over the other. This is not a fair and equal way to run a referendum.

There would, rightly, be outrage if the government spent money to support it's view it should be re-elected, I see no reason that a referendum should be treated differently. Just because the government takes a particular view does not entitle it to use the machinery of state to try and influence the outcome of the vote.
 
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

The purpose of this book is to set out the mechanisms the UK might employ in
leaving the European Union. It is a "roadmap" to demonstrate that an orderly
exit is both plausible and practical and largely risk-free. Originally produced as
a submission to a competition organised by the Institute for Economic Affairs
(IEA), this far more extensive version is written for the specific purpose of
supporting the current referendum campaign. Without an effective and realistic
exit plan, we feel, a "leave" proposition is unlikely to prevail.
 
Mr Jack said:
I don't think it's stupid, actually - I think funding for democracy is entirely sensible - but I agree it's not likely to happen.
Click to expand...

Of course it won't happen because as I've said repeatedly, the governments official party line is to promote the IN campaign and so money will be used to further that cause.

Mr Jack said:
Just because the government takes a particular view does not entitle it to use the machinery of state to try and influence the outcome of the vote.
Click to expand...

The government is backing the IN campaign so it will use it's 'influence' to present the arguments it sees fit for us to be IN, which requires funding. Ultimately the referendum will be decided democratically by a public vote. Those opposing the IN campaign can promulgate their views through the media and in the Commons, but at the end of the day, its me and you who have the final say.
 
The 64 FTSE 100 companies who didn't sign that letter must have a few bob. Maybe the Leave campaign can hit them up for some funds and access to a photocopier. :p
 
Net migration to the UK for the year to September 2015 was 325,000. These numbers are unsustainable, we need to regain control of our borders and we can't do that as part of the EU
 
scorza said:
Net migration to the UK for the year to September 2015 was 325,000. These numbers are unsustainable, we need to regain control of our borders and we can't do that as part of the EU
Click to expand...

Staggering figures although a lot of them are not even from the EU which we can do something about but seem to be incapable of doiing anything at all.
 
deuse said:
As said I think that's unfair and a misuse of my money. Both sides should fund themselves.
Click to expand...

It might be "unfair". To be honest I think the OUT should pay for all of this. It's them who want this vote so should pay for it. If/when the vote turns up to be in favor of OUT then perhaps they could be reimbursed from public money.
 
scorza said:
Net migration to the UK for the year to September 2015 was 325,000. These numbers are unsustainable, we need to regain control of our borders and we can't do that as part of the EU
Click to expand...

It's interesting that having the control you want over immigration has profound consequences. These are some quotes from a draft plan to leave the EU by The Leave Alliance which raises some interesting points:

A shorter-term problem arises, though, with the UK seeking full participation in the Single Market. The "four freedoms" are fundamental to it and are embedded in the EEA agreement.342 They would have to be incorporated into any "shadow EEA" bilateral agreement and would likewise be a component of any agreement, howsoever arrived at, including the Australian process. That will, of course, include free movement of people, and the "right of establishment"
which permits persons to undertake economic activity and thus to establish permanent residence for that purpose.
These freedoms have given rise to considerable controversy, after the influx of migrants from central and eastern European states following the 2004 enlargement (EU8), and over migrants from Bulgaria and Romania.343
Click to expand...

During the May 2014 European Parliament elections, control of immigration
featured prominently on the front page of a Ukip election leaflet. It also guided
Ukip's attitude towards any Article 50 negotiations, with the party declaring
that it "would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or
European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of
free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders".
348
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding that EFTA does not have a treaty with the EU, much less one
that maintains a principle of free movement with the EU - and that the UK is
not currently a member of EFTA so it could hardly seek to remain in it - the
meaning is clear enough. Ukip was rejecting any form of agreement which
involved free movement provisions. Despite the difficulties and potential
penalties, its preference was for what amounted to the WTO option, with
ambitions of negotiating a bespoke free trade agreement once the UK had left
the EU.
Here, it is unlikely that the EU would settle for any formal free trade agreement
without some provision for freedom of movement. Within the EU and the EEA,
the EU regards all its "freedoms" as a non-negotiable part of the Single Market
acquis. This has been reaffirmed by the European Commission many times, not
least by vice-president Viviane Reding. She stated at the end of 2013: "if
Britain wants to stay a part of the Single Market, free movement would
continue to apply".
349 As a member of the EEA, Britain would be obliged to
permit free movement of workers from the entire area, with its implicit freedom
to immigrate. Thus, there is a very real conflict between those who regard the
need to limit immigration from EU Member States as paramount, and those
who see an overwhelming requirement to protect the Single Market by
continued participation in the EEA as a necessary condition to win the
referendum.
Whilst we aver that it would be impossible to win a referendum with a plan
which seeks to reject the EU's freedom of movement provisions, many people
regard that rejection as the main aim of withdrawal.
Those who hold this position seem unable to understand that leaving the EU
does not, in itself, bring immigration under control and that, even within the
EU, it is possible to exert far greater control over immigration than is currently
exercised. They also fail to acknowledge that the initial exit settlement is only
an interim measure, adopted for the purpose of easing our rapid exit from the
EU. Once we are no longer members, it will be possible to work on a longerterm
settlement which deals with the freedom of movement provisions.
Those who argue for their version of the perfect solution might wait decades
before they can convince their fellow countrymen to agree with them, to deliver
a majority in a referendum. A less ambitious solution, which keeps us in the
Single Market and allows freedom of movement (but with improved controls)
might deliver a successful referendum outcome.
This we see as a far better strategy. A temporary continuation of freedom of
movement in order to secure our exit is preferable to an inflexible stance which
will wreck our chances of winning the referendum, leaving us burdened with
unabated freedom of movement for the foreseeable future. A short-term
compromise is the best way forward.
Click to expand...

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf [p120-123]
 
OldCoals said:
That assumes that the incumbent government would want to control immigration.
Click to expand...

At the moment they are unable to control immigration even if they wanted to. I say let's take back control of our borders and then hold the government to account against their target of cutting immigration to the 'tens of thousands'
 
scorza said:
At the moment they are unable to control immigration even if they wanted to. I say let's take back control of our borders and then hold the government to account against their target of cutting immigration to the 'tens of thousands'
Click to expand...

That has been officialy ditched it's now under 100,000 by 2020, by then it will be anything under 300,000 as then we'll be getting 500,000 a year.
 
Efour said:
I like how any of you actually think your inconsiquential 9 to 5 wage slave pathetic existences will be any different who ever rules over your mediocre drab lives. Someone has already said British people love being pidgeon holed and ruled by an outdated class system. Better the devils you know than being ruled by jolly foreigners. Wake up morons. You prolly have more in common with millions of eu citizens than any conservative leader. I know the demographic here is young blue and affluent but even Cameron knows staying is the only answer. What a complete betrayer. What mugs brits are voting the same 2 failed party systems in year after year...why even bother? People should embrace the eu and get some new freaking ideas into UK politics. It is so broken and it's all you know. You have nothing to lose but your chains comrades .... lol punctuation is for noobs. 1 finger in bed ftw
.
Click to expand...

Comes off as rebel rich kid wanting to play at marxism.

You want in ? you pay a special tax so every car washer from the eu can come here and claim tax credits and housing benefit then.

Our own youth cant even claim housing benefit yet everyone thinks it's fine for any EU person to come here do a minimum wage menial job and get their rent paid by our tax.

The elites of this country and big business are all for europe (wonder why).

So to use some sort of argument that the privileged elites of this country are against the eu is laughable seeing as it's the opposite.

You're all traitors to the working class and lapdogs of the elites if you want in.
 
Last edited:
Net migration at 323,000 prompts EU referendum row

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35658731

"The government remains committed to getting net migration below 100,000 by the next election in 2020"

"Theresa May, who is backing the campaign to remain in the EU, said: "Immigration at this level puts pressure on public services, on housing, on infrastructure… it can hold down wages and push British workers out of jobs."


Stop talking about it and do something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom