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

[Cosimo]

It's about the state of the EU which I want to leave.
And don't forget them scum bags can come here in 5 years

I guess that you're looking into that scaremongering crystal ball of yours again. I hear that it makes you blind if you stare long enough. Best leave you to it...

 

[deuse]

I guess that you're looking into that scaremongering crystal ball of yours again. I hear that it makes you blind if you stare long enough. Best leave you to it...

No it's a fact. After five years they can have a EU passport and come here.
You IN people should read more about it, instead of staring into space

 

[Danthus]

Doesn't mean they will.

 

[Roar87]

Doesn't mean they will.

Yeah we can just cross our fingers and hope for the best, I mean they might not afterall

 

[datalol-jack]

No it's a fact. After five years they can have a EU passport and come here.
You IN people should read more about it, instead of staring into space

Once you have had a German residence permit for a period of time (usually five years) you may apply for a German permanent visa, and after eight years you may be able to apply for German citizenship.

http://www.expatica.com/de/visas-and-permits/A-guide-to-German-citizenship-and-permanent-visas_108795.html

Is it a matter of fact or more strong, unsubstantiated opinion? You need the full German citizenship for the related EU citizenship rights and privileges. To get that, and a right to reside permanently elsewhere in the EU, you need to be an EC resident at the very least; this is not as straightforward as some people think, and may take the best part of a decade on average.

Here's a list of requirements for the EC residency in Germany.

You must:

• have been living in Germany for five, uninterrupted, years;
• have a secure livelihood with health insurance and provision for retirement (pension);
• have adequate living space;
• possess adequate German language skills and a basic knowledge of German life, legal and social systems (by taking an integration course);
• not have a criminal record.

So, after you've spent five to eight years in the country, have acquired a livelihood and the requisite language skills, and are settled there -- why move to 'ol blighty?

Legal refugees have no automatic right to free movement or other benefits of a European citizenship. They can only reside in the country where they were granted asylum. Full stop.

There's a further set of conditions on free movement also: if you want to remain for more than 3 months in another member state, you need to be able to demonstrate you can support yourself and have health insurance coverage. A “habitual residence test” is a common way to establish that, see Belgium for example. We have the power to use it, but to my knowledge never have. Whose fault is that, the EU again? It's in the treaties, Theresa May can ram a bill through parliament now, if she wanted to. But instead we point fingers, and we are planning cuts for the relevant departments instead, in or out. Comedy!

 

[Burnsy2023]

You really think that Germany will lose 1.6bn euro a year because of that?
They will come up with a plan, stop worrying and live your life.

Putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la" doesn't fix issues.

Also, stop suggesting that trade will simply stop. Nobody is suggesting that. However, adding a few percent for import/export will negatively affect the economy. The duties don't need to be high to have serious consequences, especially when the recovery is only a couple percent of growth.

 

[Roar87]

Putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la" doesn't fix issues.

Also, stop suggesting that trade will simply stop. Nobody is suggesting that. However, adding a few percent for import/export will negatively affect the economy. The duties don't need to be high to have serious consequences, especially when the recovery is only a couple percent of growth.

I'm happy to pay for a bit of inflation if it means we aren't part of a Federal Europe. It's quite pathetic considering how many people died so we weren't ruled by another country that people aren't even willing to take a bit of a hit to their wallet these days.

Honestly we have more culturally in common with America, New Zealand, Australia and Canada than we do most places in Europe, I'd rather be in a Union with them. Though try suggesting that America joins a political union, you'd be laughed at.

 

[Mr Jack]

Well just look at this thread. People here seem resolute.

People posting on forum threads are a poorly representative sample.

They've made their minds up already and to be honest, most people up and down the country probably already know which way they are going to vote. There's only the few undecided that may be swayed by Cameron or his opposition.

Polling suggests that the proportion of undecideds is not so few, and is plenty large enough to swing the result one way or another.

So I have to disagree with you that Cameron taking a stand on this is not making the campaign less fair. He's simply drawn a line and stated his intention. He only has one vote just like the rest of us.

I have no objection to Cameron taking a stand nor campaigning; I object to him using the machinery of government to help make his case when no such capability is available to the Leave campaign.

 

[Zethor]

I have no objection to Cameron taking a stand nor campaigning; I object to him using the machinery of government to help make his case when no such capability is available to the Leave campaign.

Cameron represents the Government, it's his job to pick a side and act on it during any debate. If the Government were impartial on important issues, how would we ever get anything done? This isn't an electoral campaign.

 

[datalol-jack]

I have no objection to Cameron taking a stand nor campaigning; I object to him using the machinery of government to help make his case when no such capability is available to the Leave campaign.

Reading the GE guidance notes for civil servants, it appears to be a creative fudge between the impartiality clause and the rules governing interactions of civil servants with any lobbying groups and opposition parties in between elections; they have to ensure the country keeps on going and the business of government isn't interrupted during the referendum, hence they took the option of least resistance -- choosing to avoid a civil war in Whitehall. Cameron was smart enough to exploit the situation.

In their view, it's no different to denying the opposition the right to use the civil service resources to campaign against the government between elections.

 

[bayo000]

I have no objection to Cameron taking a stand nor campaigning; I object to him using the machinery of government to help make his case when no such capability is available to the Leave campaign.

Do you think it would be any other way if the ruling party was on OUT side?

 

[Dis86]

This is why I'm out...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

 

[[TW]Fox]

I can't see the likes of Renault, Citroen, Fiat, BMW, Mercedes, and and Siemens sitting by and letting that happen.

You don't need a free trade agreement to trade - there is no free trade agreement between Germany and Argentina yet you can buy BMW's in Argentina.

They just cost more..

 

[Mr Jack]

Cameron represents the Government, it's his job to pick a side and act on it during any debate. If the Government were impartial on important issues, how would we ever get anything done? This isn't an electoral campaign.

It is a democratic decision. It is important in any vote that those supporting the available options are given a fair playing field on which to put forward their ideas and present them to the public.

I do not think supporting the campaign for one vote or another is an appropriate use of government money.

 

[Mr Jack]

Do you think it would be any other way if the ruling party was on OUT side?

Nope.

 

[[TW]Fox]

No it's a fact. After five years they can have a EU passport and come here.

And this is the scary thing about this referendum. deuse is convinced this is true but of course in reality it's complete rubbish and easily debunked with about 4 minutes of research. Yet he is genuinely convinced it's true, his views are based on it and he presumably tells anyone who'll listen about how bad it is.

Yet at no point has he bothered to check the facts.

Hundreds of thousands of people will hold similar views and cast a vote based on them.

The only ones who will be able to come here with their German passports are those who have lived in Germany almost a decade, will therefore be fluent German speakers, are economically active and support themselves, have no criminal record - how many of them who fit this description would even want to move to the UK? If you've got a life, a job, etc, why move countries like that?

The migrant crisis is a genuine problem facing Europe, but it's a problem facing Europe as a Continent not the European Union and frankly it's got very little to do with the referendum. It's staggering how many people think that by voting 'Out' the UK will avoid any issues - we've already refused to take any of them in, whilst being members of the EU!

 

[datalol-jack]

This is why I'm out...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

But surely if our trade with the EU loses at least some volume, wouldn't our politicians and judges rush a smaller but equivalent free trade association with the US just the same (they are quite keen on the EU version as it is, and far less sceptical), all the known problems included? Our law makers and judges have both the tradition and the intention of being very investor-friendly. Do you plan to challenge TTIP-lite in British courts after it's signed post-Brexit? Labour under Corbyn + Greens would challenge it, but how likely is that coalition to win the next GE -- Tories are on 45% (meaning a larger majority than they command now) in the polls, which traditionally underestimate their support.

And this is the scary thing about this referendum. deuse is convinced this is true but of course in reality it's complete rubbish and easily debunked with about 4 minutes of research. Yet he is genuinely convinced it's true, his views are based on it and he presumably tells anyone who'll listen about how bad it is.

Yet at no point has he bothered to check the facts.

Hundreds of thousands of people will hold similar views and cast a vote based on them.

The only ones who will be able to come here with their German passports are those who have lived in Germany almost a decade, will therefore be fluent German speakers, are economically active and support themselves, have no criminal record - how many of them who fit this description would even want to move to the UK? If you've got a life, a job, etc, why move countries like that?

The migrant crisis is a genuine problem facing Europe, but it's a problem facing Europe as a Continent not the European Union and frankly it's got very little to do with the referendum. It's staggering how many people think that by voting 'Out' the UK will avoid any issues - we've already refused to take any of them in, whilst being members of the EU!

Sad but true, Fox; we are talking of the same man who thinks hundreds of thousands of people are hardened criminals with the sole purpose in life of coming and staying here illegally [insert the usual Kipper/BNP/Trump propaganda message here].

 

[Zethor]

This is why I'm out...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

No, your stance is probably related to your lack of critical thinking skills.

Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.

I've highlighted one of the most inane news article conclusions I've read in a long time (and I read, among other things, Fox News daily). This claim doesn't even warrant a counterargument, it's sheer stupidity but it is useful. It's a representative quality sample of the rest of the article.

 

[deuse]

Doesn't mean they will.

You mean like then in france trying to get here

http://www.expatica.com/de/visas-and-permits/A-guide-to-German-citizenship-and-permanent-visas_108795.html

Is it a matter of fact or more strong, unsubstantiated opinion? You need the full German citizenship for the related EU citizenship rights and privileges. To get that, and a right to reside permanently elsewhere in the EU, you need to be an EC resident at the very least; this is not as straightforward as some people think, and may take the best part of a decade on average.

Here's a list of requirements for the EC residency in Germany.



So, after you've spent five to eight years in the country, have acquired a livelihood and the requisite language skills, and are settled there -- why move to 'ol blighty?

Legal refugees have no automatic right to free movement or other benefits of a European citizenship. They can only reside in the country where they were granted asylum. Full stop.

There's a further set of conditions on free movement also: if you want to remain for more than 3 months in another member state, you need to be able to demonstrate you can support yourself and have health insurance coverage. A “habitual residence test” is a common way to establish that, see Belgium for example. We have the power to use it, but to my knowledge never have. Whose fault is that, the EU again? It's in the treaties, Theresa May can ram a bill through parliament now, if she wanted to. But instead we point fingers, and we are planning cuts for the relevant departments instead, in or out. Comedy!

European citizenship takes 5 years.
Belgium: requires 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed
Bulgaria: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed
Germany: 8 years of residence, can be reduced to 7 or even 6 with integration and language courses.

And you for get that most don't have a passport and Germany has taken them in knowing this.

The EU will give away EU passports this year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...plans-grant-hundreds-thousands-access-UK.html

Putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la" doesn't fix issues.

Also, stop suggesting that trade will simply stop. Nobody is suggesting that. However, adding a few percent for import/export will negatively affect the economy. The duties don't need to be high to have serious consequences, especially when the recovery is only a couple percent of growth.

The only person doing a song and dance is you. And you voice is out of tune

 

[datalol-jack]

No, your stance is probably related to your lack of critical thinking skills.




I've highlighted one of the most inane news article conclusions I've read in a long time (and I read, among other things, Fox News daily). This claim doesn't even warrant a counterargument, it's sheer stupidity but it is useful. It's a representative quality sample of the rest of the article.

We can also defend sectors we consider critical under the Treaty of Rome; Title 3 being of particular relevance re capital/workers. NHS is pretty critical, wouldn't you say? So much for 'dictating'.