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.
I just dont get why cant the UK bill the nation of the person that claims the benefit, the same way it does for using the EU medical card.
On Friday, Austria introduced daily limits on the number of migrants entering the country, but nothing is said or done about it.
 
I have been leaning towards "No" for some time but am prepared to be persuaded to "Yes". But as far as I am concerned a deal with a time limit is little better than no deal at all.
It's worse that that, even.

Given that Martin Schultz made clear, repeatedly, the European Parliament has to approve many parts of this "deal" by enacting them into legislation, and that there's no guarantee that MEP's won't "amend" the detail, or even reject it lock, stock and barrel, it's little more than a declaration of intent by national leaders, who do not have the authority or ability to make it happen anyway.

And worse still, Schultz emphasised they're not even going to start looking at it until after the UK referendum, assuming we vote to remain.

So, as far as this "deal" goes, in the referendum we're buying a pig in a poke. It's a bit like buying a car, sight unseen, from some bloke on eBay with little or no history or positive feedback. And paying by bank transfer before seeing the car.

That should result in the Mother and Father of all "eBay question" threads on here. Or, "Have I been scammed" questions. ;)


Good job the deal's so puny as to make little difference antway, then.

I'm still sitting on the fence on leave or remain, though. I'm inclined towards leave, but so far, any real national debate has centred on this daft renegotiation, and more or less ignored the far larger and broader questions. Maybe, now the deal's supposedly done, the real national debate can get going and I'm waiting to see if anything comes out in that to change my mind. If it doesn't, I'm voting leave. But I'll wait and see.
 
Child benefit will be awarded at a rate equivalent to the claimants country of origin?

But once the time limit is up it goes back to how it is now with no chance of another referendum.

Seems insane to trade the next 70 years for a deal of 4
 
No. The child benefit changes are separate from the brake. With child benefit there won't be any new children covered by it once we pass the necessary legislation, and current recipients will have it index linked from 2020. Those things don't disappear after seven years... they're permanent.

Lol, nothing is permanent in life, especially politics.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ithdrawal-european-convention-on-human-rights

In a move that would raise questions about Britain’s membership of the Council of Europe, the 47-strong human rights watchdog, Grayling said a Tory government would withdraw from the convention if parliament failed to secure the right to veto judgments from the European court of human rights (ECHR).

A withdrawal from the convention could jeopardise Britain’s membership of the EU, which is separate to the Council of Europe whose members are drawn from across the continent and include Russia and Ukraine. Membership of the Council of Europe is a requirement for EU member states.



.. Be that as it may, we can't withdraw from the ECHR whilst we are members of the EU.

You come across as someone who feels a superiority to lots of people from the tone of your posts. This is as politely as I can put that point across.

The UK will be part of the ECHR regardless if it's membership in the EU.

Perhaps I simply am superior to a lot of people?
 
It's unrealistic to expect to get rapid change from a huge structure like the EU. Cameron should have been laying the groundwork for the negotiations for years, and building connections and alliances. He hasn't done this and what we're seeing is the result. It's also rather poor timing, the EU has a number of very pressing issues that need addressing. Dealing with the UK squalling about domestic concerns isn't high on the other leader's list.



I agree. More power needs to be moved from the member nations to the democratically elected parliament and the parliament needs a directly elected leader.



It's hard to argue that the EU is dealing poorly with a number of issues at the moment - the treatment of Greece is the worst of them - but the EU has, for the most part, been a great success over the years. Even the much derided Euro has plenty of positives to its name.



The human rights issues are the ECHR not the EU.
It's actually not unrealistic at all, it's all just down to willingness to negotiate and then get the cogs turning eventually. The EU is just a few laws and bureaucratic red tape and it's easy for them to compromise and adjust but there's just lots of heads banging together. Hence why cameron has already made it clear what is happening by going on the EU trips before hand so they had fair warning. The problem is that we only really need to consider two things, the economic impact and the complications needed to implement the changes. Quite often I can't see what cameron is asking for being all too complicated but as we saw, the greek prime minister was threatening to veto due to simply wanting leverage on the migration issue. That is not complications of a large organisation, it's just single party self interests. That is the problem with the EU, it's not a large organisation with one head (like mcdonalds) trying to shift to make more profit but 28 different countries all trying to win it for themselves (like the eastern european nations who want us to pay more for there benefits than they would in there own country). I don't care how 'inconvenient or pressing' the other issues are, this is a test of how the EU 'democracy' works come crunch time and so far it's been a bad show of self interest, lack of compromise and no guarantees and the idea we need to launch a smooch campaign years in advance just to get minor compromises is a worry.

Democracy is simply tough when you have 28 different interests, this is like if our own government in the UK was split to 28 equal different parties. It would be chaos trying to get any proposal through. I'd disagree on the part about arguing EU effectiveness, the migration crisis has revealed several failures from there willingness to deport criminals, there assumption anyone crossing illegally should be dealt with by the original country (simply not happening), Austria announcing they will not listen to EU law and implement the migration levels they are being told to, eastern european countries building fences against the wave despite tusk telling them not to. We've seen that when push comes to shove the EU doesn't actually have much control on member nations and that is a failure to get them to adhere to EU 'law'. They've failed in a lot of areas and now schengen is in danger too but the degree to which they failed could be argued.

The problem is people often ignore stuff from NATO, ECHR and other large organisations just like how austria is breaking EU law at the moment with capped migration but the more organisations we have chiming in and shaming us every time we try and impose any realistic policy of deterence for crime / economic migrants etc. the more difficult it is to have any change on policies that some don't deem to be realistic or correct.
 
So Cameron got nothing at all. Still voting out.

i still dont get how this is a "deal" when its simply a "we'll think about it...but only after you promise to stay".


day after the refferendum we stay in they could go "actually nah no to everything"
 
i still dont get how this is a "deal" when its simply a "we'll think about it...but only after you promise to stay".


day after the refferendum we stay in they could go "actually nah no to everything"

Exactly this!!

Although the Pro-EU won't see it as such and will feel Cameron has done good.

At this moment in time the rest of the EU are simply dangling a carrot on a stick in front of David Cameron and the UK.
 
I would change my vote to IN now. A close call but ultimately I want the London money train to keep rolling whilst I'm here. The talk of the out group that we'd actually be better off out economically is pathetic and embarrassing, with 'evidence' such as 'trust in good ol Nige'.
 
i still dont get how this is a "deal" when its simply a "we'll think about it...but only after you promise to stay".


day after the refferendum we stay in they could go "actually nah no to everything"

Exactly this!!

Although the Pro-EU won't see it as such and will feel Cameron has done good.

At this moment in time the rest of the EU are simply dangling a carrot on a stick in front of David Cameron and the UK.


And Cameron hasn't told anyone about how all of it can be vetoed!
 
Unless there is a EU wide minimum wage and EU standardised handouts such as child benefits etc, then this inequality will always hit the richer nations hardest.

But aren't you lucky to easily afford membership.

Do you help eastern block nations become prosperous or let them become tinpot dictatorships with ethnic cleansing on our western borders? While saying I'm alright jack.

It might sound extreme but where do you think these 10 countries would be without joining the EU 12 years ago?
 
So, Mr Cameron has secured the right for Britain to have thin gruel. How thin we don't know yet as the European Parliament has still to pour it's water into the mix. In the parliament there are powerful groups such as the Greens, the communists, the socialists and the fascists who are likely to be against this deal - vote Remain for great uncertainty. Personally I'd rather have topside of British beef than watered down thin gruel
 
I would change my vote to IN now. A close call but ultimately I want the London money train to keep rolling whilst I'm here. The talk of the out group that we'd actually be better off out economically is pathetic and embarrassing, with 'evidence' such as 'trust in good ol Nige'.
The majority of financial discussions I've followed have come out as it bring fairly neutral if we left. Neil Woodford, one of the most well known UK fund managers, has even come out and stated the economic argument is fubar.

Rathbone, a smaller fund group, have done a paper on this which also came to the same conclusion. Although their compliance people are still checking it prior to being live on their website. I believe.

The issue with the entire referendum is short term uncertainty. Once we've laid down our intentions in or out the majority of the world will continue on. We're a consuming nation not a producing one so all this fear about us being screwed by trade deals is ridiculous in my mind.
 
As others have stated, he (David Cameron) has secured nothing more than a package of intent, agreed by the heads of state, which still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament members whom the heads of state have no control over whatsoever.

What is the basis of either argument which the British people being asked to vote on? What may be?

Farcical.

As far as I can see there are two distinctive camps; we must remain whatever the costs or we must leave in order to renegotiate and secure a swathe of unknowns.

I find both camps equally perturbing. I’m still on the fence.
 
Can't believe how the MSM are bigging this deal up. Before last night they were quite rightly pointing out how little we get from the deal - the change to benefits will save the uk only £30m, chump change compared to the uk budget. This morning, judging from the level of euphoria you'd have thought he'd just negotiated world peace. It's pathetic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom