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.
Anyone got the footnotes of Pros/Cons of either side?

As put forward by the opposing sides, the major points seem to be:

For Remain:

Greater certainty.
Greater influence in Europe and on the world stage.
Free movement for UK citizens to live and work in the EU.
Free trade with the EU
Avoidance of economic shock of leaving the EU.
The EU has helped improve UK workers rights.
The EU funding mechanisms are extremely helpful to UK science.
Save money because of higher GDP and benefits we get from being in the EU.

For Leave:

Reduce immigration.
Repatriate powers and gain sovereignty.
Save money that we pay into the EU.
Improved global trade because we don't have deal via the EU.
Freedom from EU red tape.
 
For the United Kingdom. All the rest you talked about is utter rubbish.
And in my other country the USA, you have prove you want to be there and have the cash to prove it.
And if you did anything wrong in the first 10 years like rape, then your out on you ass.

And it's about time companies trained people up and not get cheap labour from where ever.
Sounds to me like you have some vested interest in letting gimmigrents in ;)

If that's so, why did we introduce a points based system for all the non-EU individuals? Why, if the visa system we had before (not unlike the American mess), was never reinstated by one of the most conservative Home Secretaries in years?

If it's the best possible for Britain, that is, why not revert the Labour changes, and dry-run it on the same part of the migration system? You know, just to make sure it'd work today, before potentially facing a need to scale it up. I assume the evidence is 'out there' again. :p

Maybe because it is indeed a complex, archaic mess, costs a bob and doesn't meet our needs?:p Good luck trying to convince May and Osborne to spend money on those grounds.

The top cancer surgeon said it's the EU immigrants causing the back log, because EU law says
that if they come here for the cancer treatment we have to give it to them. That's just wrong.

Read that line again. It's re the red-tape and burden of hiring staff for the NHS... Free movement makes it easy; the new p.b.s. we have, and the old visa system, does not. If you expand either -- the NHS faces both higher hiring costs and more legal nonsense, whilst it's always one nudge away from a staffing crisis as is.

I'm not sure that's a wise gamble with one of our core institutions.
 
Anyone got the footnotes of Pros/Cons of either side?

If we stay, mess stumbles along as it is.
If we leave, complete and utter unknown.

No-one has an actual clue what would happen if we leave, how many years it would be over, what laws may or may not change in Europe as result, what agreements may or may not stay in place. They have absolutely no concept or clue, except what they would like to see happen, and for that, it'll be a completely different matter.
 
As put forward by the opposing sides, the major points seem to be:

For Remain:

Greater certainty. Disputed - future for Britain is no more certain in the EU than out. What's going to happen to Greece for example? Are Bosnia, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey joining and what will be the consequences?
Greater influence in Europe and on the world stage. Disputed: It doesn't appear like the UK has much influence in the EU judging by the thin gruel deal the PM got. Don't think you can claim greater influence on the world stage either since we've transferred a good deal of our sovereignty to the EU already e.g. UK officials have to leave the room whenever the EU discusses trade with any other nation or bloc.
Free movement for UK citizens to live and work in the EU.Flip Side: we have to accept free movement for all EU citizens to live and work in the UK
Free trade with the EU
Avoidance of economic shock of leaving the EU. Hyperbole Alert: there will be economic consequences of leaving the EU, but the extent and direction is not certain. It's not like we will leave the EU on polling day + 1, there will be time to organise the UK's exit from the EU.
The EU has helped improve UK workers rights. The UK is a country where people want to work hard and get on, sure workers need protection but some of the regulations are overly onerous. I say it's far better for the UK government to come up with a set of workers rights that works for Britain. It just isn't the case that we need the EU to protect workers - the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 was light years ahead of anything in Europe at the time and it wasn't until much later (90s I think) that the EU came in with anything that actually increased protection for workers.
The EU funding mechanisms are extremely helpful to UK science.With the money we save by not being in the EU we can fund more/better science. At the moment we give a lot of money to the EU, who spend a fraction of it back in the EU. I say we can spend all of that money in a way that's more beneficial to the UK than they can spend a fraction of it.
Save money because of higher GDP and benefits we get from being in the EU. Subjective: no evidence of higher GDP from being in the EU, and what are these mysterious benefits that save us money?

For Leave:

Reduce immigration.
Repatriate powers and gain sovereignty.
Save money that we pay into the EU.
Improved global trade because we don't have deal via the EU.
Freedom from EU red tape.
 
Was the UK in such a bad state before it joined the EU, that people think it will fall apart the second it leaves?
 
I assume a lot of them are young, and can't remember a time before the EU, so can't imagine life without it.
 
Why is knowledge of the time before the EU existed useful when making a leave/remain decision in 2016?

Some people appear to think the UK was a third world country, and need the EU to survive. I don't actually subscribe to that view. People need to make their own minds up, and not be swayed by the non stop propaganda from either side.Looking at some of the responses in this thread it's easy to think that certain posters have an agenda.
 
Some positive laws like the EU working time directive.

Pretty much all EU laws are good, very few miss. They have a far better hit rate than our own government.
Not only workers rights, consumer rights, massive environmental rights which have drastically cut pollution. In fact we've seen many rivers come back to life after being basically dead due to pollution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom