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

[dowie]

I don't think scorza would trust them as far as he could throw 'em, tbf. So we are back at the old contradiction in the Out camp: a globalist market approach vs a protectionist welfare state.

As I keep repeating, you can't Brexit and win on both of those counts.

Win on what count? The other poster pointed out that trade with the EU could become more costly, I'm highlighting that it works both ways and that currently trade outside the EU is often costly and can change.

 

[scorza]

Wait, I thought you loved Rupert's take on things.

Dunno why you'd think that.

 

[datalol-jack]

It keeps getting thrown around that we would need to renegotiate a similar position to Norway or like Canada. I do not understand that mentality when we have a higher GDP than both these countries combined and a significantly higher population.

Because it's legally irrelevant. All countries in the EU are equal before the EU law they signed up to. The protocol for departure is clearly set out. Why would the EU rush to make a big change to its treaties, and give us special status on departure? What strategic, political and legal sense does it make for them? It's like saying rich people should have a separate law onto themselves.

Win on what count? The other poster pointed out that trade with the EU could become more costly, I'm highlighting that it works both ways and that currently trade outside the EU is often costly and can change.

Show me where you, or rawuk, got your projections from. Non-EU costs vs common market costs have a significant gap, and the balance favours the ol' reliable EU; which is richer, less corrupt, more legally sound and more stable than the Non-EU mass you keep bringing up. Especially since we sell services, first and foremost. Betting gambles against accounted for certainties won't get you far. So, in other words, instead of a gamble, show me a credible way in which this gap can be closed without affecting the volume of our trade, particularly on the things we do sell -- i.e. services? I think you will find the gap will still be there, but we shall lose out on the EU bit in the long run.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Because it's legally irrelevant. All countries in the EU are equal before the EU law they signed up to. The protocol for departure is clearly set out. Why would the EU rush to make a big change to its treaties, and give us special status on departure? What strategic, political and legal sense does it make for them? It's like saying rich people should have a separate law onto themselves.

I think it's also important to realise that the EU don't want to make this easy or fast. They don't want other member states to think that they can leave and it not have consequences.

 

[datalol-jack]

I think it's also important to realise that the EU don't want to make this easy or fast. They don't want other member states to think that they can leave and it not have consequences.

This goes without saying. Germany can afford to be particularly bullish, sitting on their surplus from trade, backed by the rest of the EU and having already financed Greece to the gills. Plus after the recent negotiations, I doubt we'll get a lot more compassion. Eventually even Ireland might give up on fighting in our corner.

First to go -- first to be made an example of. That's how I see it; the obvious economic disparity of the UK vs the EU27 as a bloc notwithstanding (more re rawuk's point, but if you insist on saying there should be one law for the rich and one for the rest, consider who's who in the Brexit scenario).

 

[rawuk]

Because it's legally irrelevant. All countries in the EU are equal before the EU law they signed up to. The protocol for departure is clearly set out. Why would the EU rush to make a big change to its treaties, and give us special status on departure? What strategic, political and legal sense does it make for them?

I disagree with your negative stance.

If we did vote to leave your iron clad belief that these treaties are un-mutable I feel would be proven false.

The entire world markets will take a hit on the uncertainty if we did vote to leave not just the UK and EU. It is in the worlds benefit to have it sorted quickly (e.g. within 2 year window) not just our own. Whether that benefits us or not of course is the debate itself.

This is of course my opinion.

 

[datalol-jack]

I disagree with your negative stance.

You may disagree, but you cannot wish the international law and legally binding treaties away.

 

[rawuk]

You may disagree, but you cannot wish the international law and legally binding treaties away.

So in no potential reality do you see them being modified?

You, datalol-jack, can guarantee 100% that they would be implemented with no room for change what so ever?

 

[datalol-jack]

So in no potential reality do you see them being modified?

You, datalol-jack, can guarantee 100% that they would be implemented with no room for change what so ever?

Do you see anyone upon Brexit, that's 27 other countries: a) agreeing on a major treaty change b) passing it past the EUP rapidly c) ratifying it in the 27 countries concerned, including public referendums where they are mandated by law, such as Ireland? Hmm? Plus the EC has already given its official stance. Then, if it's not clear and requires repeating, what Burnsy said:

They don't want other member states to think that they can leave and it not have consequences.

Is basically it. I'm quite happy to go 100% by the law we agreed to. It might surprise Brexiteers though.

 

[rawuk]

Do you see anyone upon Brexit, that's 27 other countries: a) agreeing on a major treaty change b) passing it past the EUP rapidly c) ratifying it in the 27 countries concerned, including public referendums where they are mandated by law, such as Ireland? Hmm?

I'm quite happy to go 100% by the law we agreed to. It might surprise Brexiteers though.

You have just highlighted one of the prime pushes for the exit group if I wouldn't miss my guess.

 

[datalol-jack]

You have just highlighted one of the prime pushes for the exit group if I wouldn't miss my guess.

Still have to deal with the legal process and Europe, in or out.

If we are in, we are on the right side of the table, have allies and can push for reform. If you make enemies of everyone, sabotage the whole process and demand special treatment upon exit from the organisation you've not only helped to shape into being, but have signed up to; then you reap what you've sown.

It is as simple as that.

Or, as my Eurosceptic colleague puts it: "Should have read the small print! "

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You have just highlighted one of the prime pushes for the exit group if I wouldn't miss my guess.

It's a plus point of staying in imho - the EU is a buffer or balance and check mechanism to stop reactionary and poor thought out law/treaties becoming a reality.

 

[Tunney]

I don't believe for one second that arch-globalist Murdoch is anti-EU, if he were, then his subordinate David Cameron would be campaigning for Leave.

Rupert Murdoch is definitely anti-EU. Haven't you seen the front pages of The Sun recently?

 

[rawuk]

Or, as my Eurosceptic colleague puts it: "Should have read the small print! "

Haha. We were never really provided the small print considering our last vote was a common market with I believe only had 9 states?

As my previous posts have highlighted I think the decision is very much we go full in with the EU and make allies as you say or we exit.

It's a plus point of staying in imho - the EU is a buffer or balance and check mechanism to stop reactionary and poor thought out law/treaties becoming a reality.

There is that point certainly but only if you believe it is worth having our own laws governed with 27+ other opinions in the mix.

 

[datalol-jack]

It's a plus point of staying in imho - the EU is a buffer or balance and check mechanism to stop reactionary and poor thought out law/treaties becoming a reality.

It's been one of its core founding principles as a political organisation. It does it's job and helps us remain a strong, secure and democratic nation in an increasingly uncertain, and indeed reactionary global climate.

I'm yet to be convinced by Out that we would have a more democratic and accountable government on the outside.

 

[datalol-jack]

There is that point certainly but only if you believe it is worth having our own laws governed with 27+ other opinions in the mix.

Yes, it makes for better law. Just like a more representative parliament. The subsidiary principle ensures that, outside of the shared economic and political area, the EU stays out of our business. See above re percentage of laws made to accommodate our EU membership.

As I said, if you want to remain on friendly terms with the EU and trade with them, you will always have to comply with European standards and rules. Being at the heart of Europe enables the UK to influence them and get its voice heard in the mix. Without a seat at the table, you're just complying with the rules as they are, without a voice. Ask Norway.

 

[rawuk]

Yes, it makes for better law. Just like a more representative parliament.

Sure. You could however argue that the law is potentially designed to represent 92%* of a demographic not living here.

(*My memory may be wrong but I last saw we represent 8% of the EU vote).

You have become terrible at editing your posts bud! I reply to it and then find it has another 2 paragraphs! Haha. Can tell it's a slow Friday

We are not Norway - We would have more clout than them just as we do currently inside the EU.

 

[scorza]

Do you see anyone upon Brexit, that's 27 other countries: a) agreeing on a major treaty change b) passing it past the EUP rapidly c) ratifying it in the 27 countries concerned, including public referendums where they are mandated by law, such as Ireland? Hmm? Plus the EC has already given its official stance. Then, if it's not clear and requires repeating, what Burnsy said:



Is basically it. I'm quite happy to go 100% by the law we agreed to. It might surprise Brexiteers though.

So basically you're saying it's already too late - we've lost our country and can never leave the EU now? I hope you're wrong, and fortunately I also think you are.

Rupert Murdoch is definitely anti-EU. Haven't you seen the front pages of The Sun recently?

Long time between now and June 23rd. I fully expect News Corp's editorial line to be tightened up prior to the vote.

 

[datalol-jack]

Sure. You could however argue that the law is potentially designed to represent 92%* of a demographic not living here.

(*My memory may be wrong but I last saw we represent 8% of the EU vote).

You have become terrible at editing your posts bud! I reply to it and then find it has another 2 paragraphs! Haha. Can tell it's a slow Friday

We are not Norway - We would have more clout than them just as we do currently inside the EU.

No, it's designed to benefit the EU as a whole. That's the point of the whole project! And we benefit from the EU, with our clout where it should be, and not on the fringes of the developed world.

This is why some Leavers moan so much about their nebulous definition of sovereignty. None was credibly given in '72, none will emerge now. It's a tribal fetish with nothing behind it.

We make our own laws, and get input from other nations in the EU when it makes sense and affects them also. Simple and good enough for me.

 

[datalol-jack]

So basically you're saying it's already too late - we've lost our country and can never leave the EU now? I hope you're wrong, and fortunately I also think you are.



Long time between now and June 23rd. I fully expect News Corp's editorial line to be tightened up prior to the vote.

That's why you are getting a referendum at a great national expense. I just hope the cost doesn't come out of the NHS or schools budget.