Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote?

[Terminal_Boy]

Norway are a special case as they invested the money they made from their North Sea oil and didn't wazz it the wall like UK PLC did.

Not waging a decade long war in the Middle East might be a feature in both the Norwegians and the Swiss not having huge debts too.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

The EU have already told Cameron deals won't be made till AFTER the vote.

and he's still determined to get a del beforehand... he doesn't well Europe will lose Britain, and then probably fall apart soon after.

 

[Mr Jack]

Care to explain what's wrong with ttip? I've asked people who cry about it before, but no one's ever managed to show it's actually going to be a bad thing, and instead mention vague scaremongering things which aren't actually a problem when you drill down into them...

It's impossible to precisely judge the TTIP since it's been utterly shrouded in secrecy. That alone should worry you since there's a strong intention to fast track it without proper oversight when it eventually gets unveiled (although that's already been shot down in the US so there is hope) but we can make some judgement on what we do know and comparison to similar schemes elsewhere. I assume you've seen the parade of corporations suing governments for protecting their citizens? And perhaps noted that not one has produced the growth that it was promised that it would?

The most horrific parts - such as allowing corporations to seek recompense in secret courts - don't look like they'll make it through but it's still the case that what there is should concern us because, at the most fundamental level, TTIP aims to empower corporations in their dealings with governments and that is, very much, the wrong direction of travel. We need to be bringing multinational corporations to heel. We need to strengthen the power of elected governments against the destructive side of corporations. TTIP does the opposite.

 

[Aldav]

I can of course see where you are coming from, I was already expecting a similar a reply. However, I stand by my statement. I'm also not talking about all referndums. I think this one is a particular example of why certain ones just won't work. That also depends on the definition of a successul referendum - representing the views of all/making the most sound choice for the benefit of the country as a whole. This can be one and the same but in some situations may well be the opposite.

I have a feeling though both of us know our minds and understand each others point of view but really fundamentally we have differing views on the subject which are unlikely to change.

You're probably right on the last bit, but it doesn't prevent a polite, rational exchange of views.

My view is pretty simple. Going into the EU has all sorts of constitutional implications, and as a result, we the people ought to be deciding if we want it or not. But moreover, until we have a referendum, being in has no democratic legitimacy, and that is a huge argument for the "leave" camp. I see no way to settle the argument short of a referendum, and the only reason we're still in this middle-ground limbo is that successive governments chickened out of one prior to both Maastricht and Lisbon.

We need to lance the boil and at least try to settle it, in or out, because hovering on the edge is worse than either.

But yes, we need a proper, mature campaign with as much information as possible to give us our best shot at an informed choice. Then, vote, settle it and get on with whatever the result is.

 

[deuse]

snip.

I don't think it's finalized yet.

 

[scorza]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34482936

A cross-party No campaign has been launched today, with support from some very serious business people. Kinda blows the Yes argument that UK businesses would suffer if we left the EU out of the water.

 

[bledd]

Where is my pancake?

 

[platypus]

Sadly most of the population will be voting based on what has been presented to them by the daily mail etc. which really does worry me.

Yep, exactly why a referendum is a dangerous thing, and I wish Cameron hadn't been stupid enough to be backed into a corner to have to offer one, or worse win a majority after having had to offer one.

 

[ubersonic]

Agreed. If OCUK votes in, there's not a chance of a No vote nationally.

EU membership isn't really a left/right issue though, hence it has support/hate in every party, it's more of a knowledge/understanding issue, and you will generally find that a computer forum's users will generally (on the whole) have an above average level of knowledge or ability to understand argument.

By comparison the average Sun reader uses their phone for Facebook because their computer can't internet after they accidentally deleted the IE icon.

 

[SciNeT]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34482936

A cross-party No campaign has been launched today, with support from some very serious business people. Kinda blows the Yes argument that UK businesses would suffer if we left the EU out of the water.

Yes, heard it on the radio this morning, put a proper spring in my step.

 

[Freakbro]

The problem the leave campaign have got is people who are unsure generally vote to keep the status quo.

Though this migration/refugee issue will certainly have polarised some views it will probably be a distant news memory by the time the referendum comes along

 

[Schlong&Stable]

The problem the leave campaign have got is people who are unsure generally vote to keep the status quo.

Though this migration/refugee issue will certainly have polarised some views it will probably be a distant news memory by the time the referendum comes along

I am not sure that rule will apply to the EU, as many people believe the EU is creeping towards federalisation. Neither option is truly the status quo.

 

[ubersonic]

The problem the leave campaign have got is people who are unsure generally vote to keep the status quo.

But people are more likely to bother to vote if they want change than they are if they are fine with the status quo.

 

[Freakbro]

I am not sure that rule will apply to the EU, as many people believe the EU is creeping towards federalisation. Neither option is truly the status quo.

But people are more likely to bother to vote if they want change than they are if they are fine with the status quo.

True, there's points to both of those.

I now think it's going to be a lot closer than I previously imagined.

Still gobsmacked the poll on here is still for staying in though

 

[Adsta]

Stay in. I believe in the EU although I do dislike some of the policies. To me there are more benefits that cons to staying in the EU.

I also like the idea of free movement, granted that is selfish reasons as I like being able to move within the EU with no need for Visa's.

 

[semi-pro waster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34482936

A cross-party No campaign has been launched today, with support from some very serious business people. Kinda blows the Yes argument that UK businesses would suffer if we left the EU out of the water.

I think you're rather overstating the case here about what having (serious) business people onboard a particular campaign does - at most it simply shows that there isn't consensus about whether UK businesses would suffer or not. If anyone expected absolute consensus on such a complex and uncertain issue then they were bound to be disappointed.

You also can't entirely discount the possibility that some of the business people are making their argument (either for or against) because of a personal belief rather than a purely rational evaluation of the situation (even allowing for the uncertainty inherent in such a change). It might be simple to think they'd only ever take an entirely objective stance because of profit margins but being successful at business doesn't necessarily render the person immune to making decisions based on unsupported personal convictions.

 

[Mr Jack]

People bringing up Norway, Switzerland, etc. as examples of how the UK will be okay: are you happy with the idea of our markets - internal and external - being governed by a set of rules we have exactly no say over (as these countries have)? If not, how exactly do you imagine that the UK will join the single market without being bound by its rules?

We won't get more control over our affairs if we leave the EU, we'll get less.

 

[Bear]

People bringing up Norway, Switzerland, etc. as examples of how the UK will be okay: are you happy with the idea of our markets - internal and external - being governed by a set of rules we have exactly no say over (as these countries have)? If not, how exactly do you imagine that the UK will join the single market without being bound by its rules?

We won't get more control over our affairs if we leave the EU, we'll get less.

Exactly, you still have to contribute to the EU, have to follow the rules but have no say and have no veto

 

[Dis86]

People bringing up Norway, Switzerland, etc. as examples of how the UK will be okay: are you happy with the idea of our markets - internal and external - being governed by a set of rules we have exactly no say over (as these countries have)? If not, how exactly do you imagine that the UK will join the single market without being bound by its rules?

We won't get more control over our affairs if we leave the EU, we'll get less.

Yet both of those countries have much higher standards of living and better management of their finances than we do.
No?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Indeed. The Norwegians invested the majority of the income from their North Sea oil and gas industry whereas UK PLC spent it like free money.

And the Swiss have done very nicely for themselves looking after everyone else's money.