EU Referendum

Would be interested to get people's thoughts on this as the story seems to getting a bit of traction now - where does everyone stand on the possibility of us leaving the EU?

We have got to stay in, there may be issues with the EU but they are nothing compared to what life would be like for the UK outside the EU.

Stay in.

In. Will be utter madness to pull out and although it will be close, I think the UK will vote the right way despite the best efforts of UKIP and saps who read the Daily Express.

I want to stay in but to completely change our relationship with the eu and remove ever closer union. I'm not sure that's realistic tho.

On principle out.

We should not have been subject to many changes to the terms of the European Economic community without previous public consent. The line must be drawn against this undemocratic sham, out, out now.

Reform rather than leave. The original intent of the EU is still sound.

Reform rather than leave. The original intent of the EU is still sound.

Depends what they can get reformed though. I think that's what most sensible people want.

In but it does need reform.

The EU is a ****fest for Germany and France. As an outsider, I would say stay in, but with better equality.

I dont know enough yet to decide.

What I do know is that I'm confused as to why we need to get EU approval to change our benefit system for migrants.

Labour and UKIP both said they would change things, but neither mentioned having to get approval

Reform rather than leave. The original intent of the EU is still sound.

The original intent is exactly what is is now , " ever closer union" is the fundamental principle set out at the start . It's just that the British establishment have lied about it . Europeans are fully aware of what the eu is and the majority are comforforable with it . Instead of trying to persuade the British of the merits of ever closer union, free movement of people and a federal Europe , British politicians have lied and signed up to everything by stealth . It was never intended to be a trading bloc only , if it was it would still be called the Common Market .

Out for me, Europe crooked as hell,

If the vote was tomorrow. Out for me. Depends on what any renegotiation results in.

Andrew Neil tweets this morning:

YouGov poll in Sunday Times:

Do you think that UK should be member of EU?

YES 44%

NO 36%

Ignoring the current reputation of pollsters etc etc, this is a much wider gap than I'd imagined.

Before anyone complains about the phrasing of the question, I'd say this would be very close to the referendum one. Cameron will make sure he leads a "Yes" campaign, meaning the question definitely won't be "Would you like the UK to be independent from the EU".

Polls suggesting that if there were to be an in/out vote that we would vote to stay in are misleading. I would vote to stay in if we managed to negotiate a substantial curtailing of the EU's powers over us on the issues that are most contentious for the electorate and I would vote out if we didn't manage to achieve that. I suspect that a lot of those who voted "in" also share that view. The referendum should only be held once there has been some resolution of that situation so that the choice is clearer. Even then, a "no" vote could be a strong bargaining position to renegotiate continued membership under our terms.

I deplore the way that our governments since the last referendum have signed several treaties dragging us towards a federal Europe without giving the electorate a referendum on each one. It is also a nonsense for parties to claim that having won an election, they have a mandate on whichever European policy they are espousing; they don't. The nearest thing to a mandate on Europe was achieved by UKIP in the last European Elections, as that was an election solely for European representation and because they became the largest British Party, that gave validity for us to pursue their agenda that the electorate voted for then.

Polls suggesting that if there were to be an in/out vote that we would vote to stay in are misleading. I would vote to stay in if we managed to negotiate a substantial curtailing of the EU's powers over us on the issues that are most contentious for the electorate and I would vote out if we didn't manage to achieve that. I suspect that a lot of those who voted "in" also share that view. The referendum should only be held once there has been some resolution of that situation so that the choice is clearer. Even then, a "no" vote could be a strong bargaining position to renegotiate continued membership under our terms.

 

I deplore the way that our governments since the last referendum have signed several treaties dragging us towards a federal Europe without giving the electorate a referendum on each one. It is also a nonsense for parties to claim that having won an election, they have a mandate on whichever European policy they are espousing; they don't. The nearest thing to a mandate on Europe was achieved by UKIP in the last European Elections, as that was an election solely for European representation and because they became the largest British Party, that gave validity for us to pursue their agenda that the electorate voted for then.

So its "a nonsense" for parties winning millions of votes, hundreds of seats and clear majorities in general elections to claim a mandate but the 4.2m that voted UKIP in the last European election (about half as many as voted for Labour and Tories that same day) is a mandate. Okay then.

24 UKIP seats vs over 40 seats for other parties working to stay in. Some mandate there and no mistake.

Andrew Neil tweets this morning:

 

YouGov poll in Sunday Times:

Do you think that UK should be member of EU?

YES 44%

NO 36%

 

Ignoring the current reputation of pollsters etc etc, this is a much wider gap than I'd imagined.

 

Before anyone complains about the phrasing of the question, I'd say this would be very close to the referendum one. Cameron will make sure he leads a "Yes" campaign, meaning the question definitely won't be "Would you like the UK to be independent from the EU".

If the question were that heavily weighted towards a straight yes or no, then I'd have to change my opinion and vote no (no to park of the EU), despite actually just wanting a reform. A yes, will not necessarily give us a reform.

I wouldn't want to vote no, but it would be the only way to get the message across in that situation. So I really hope this question, when it arrives, is very carefully thought out.

The EU question is a extremely complicated and difficult one - the really important questions very often are - but a matter that nevertheless can be 'boiled down' to just two simple proposistions:

> Do you think that the peoples of these islands are better governed from Brussels or London?

> If you choose the latter, can we really 'go it alone' without damaging our economy significantly?

If you are retired, or in receipt of some secure income that would not be much effected by the UK leaving the EU, then you may well favour our departure from this inherently expansionist, bureaucratic and rather unpopular international institution. On the other hand, if you work for Airbus (for example) and your livelihood depends to some extent upon our continuing EU membership, then I suppose enlightened self interest demands that you should oppose that idea.

Right now I find myself stuck ''on the fence'' re this difficult question - which is always a most uncomfortable position find yourself in. I instinctively don't like being dominated by Brussels (Berlin in reality) because I'm far more emotionally attached to our uniquely British history and institutions than I am to any euro substitute, It seems to me that our influence in the EU will always be a marginal one. The further away the seat of power is from the people it is supposed to represent, then the less responsive it becomes to their needs.

For now I'm hoping that the PM can indeed secure a new deal from the EU that maintains our freedom from foreign domination in these islands while securing the crucial trading advantages membership of what was one known as the 'Common Market' grants us. If he fails in that endeavour then the British people face the most important vote of their lifetimes.

We will threaten to leave. We will be promised reform. We will vote against leaving. Promises will be broken.

So its "a nonsense" for parties winning millions of votes, hundreds of seats and clear majorities in general elections to claim a mandate but the 4.2m that voted UKIP in the last European election (about half as many as voted for Labour and Tories that same day) is a mandate. Okay then.

 

24 UKIP seats vs over 40 seats for other parties working to stay in. Some mandate there and no mistake.

So what you are saying is pretty well that no party has had a mandate during the past several General Elections, as the same situation applies for them too. In any event the assumption that just because Labour and the Conservatives combined recorded more votes overall than UKIP in the European Elections that all of those who voted for them do not support similar policies is nonsense.

We will threaten to leave. We will be promised reform. We will vote against leaving. Promises will be broken.

This is the level of cynicism that strikes a chord with me too. We need to tie the EU down on these promises/assurances before voting.

We will threaten to leave. We will be promised reform. We will vote against leaving. Promises will be broken.

I want to get out of Europe, but you have hit the nail on the head with this Goatboy, we will be fed the usual bull and nothing will happen, I don't trust the rest of Europe at all.

People talk as if the EU is some formed entity with a single mind and intent. It isnt - it changes with every election and with every event. Cameron's vow to negotiate a better deal is a sham. The EU's policy is set by 28 countries, that isnt going to be overthrown to suit on party in in one country. Cameron will ask for, and probably get, some smoke and mirrors and window dressing but nothing substantive will change as a result.

Imo events in Greece and Ukraine have created a much bigger pressure for change. The big drivers for ever greater integration, France and Germany have been rattled by the vulnerabilities of the EU project, by the prospect of it all falling apart. Its that which will prompt a genuine review of the way the EU develops in the future.

I want to get out of Europe, but you have hit the nail on the head with this Goatboy, we will be fed the usual bull and nothing will happen, I don't trust the rest of Europe at all.

Although I wouldn't trust the EU commision to deliver on an agreement, I have about the same - nil - trust or confidence in our own politicians to actually negotiate a deal and then tie it down securely.

I have been a supporter of leaving 'the common market' since the 1970's, and certainly the more federalised European model since, but one great concern in leaving now, is whether our government , either Labour or Tory are capable of managing our affairs anymore. Perhaps we should just ask the Germans to do it for us, they have made a better job of managing their own industries and economy over the last 50 years than we have after all.

Imo events in Greece and Ukraine have created a much bigger pressure for change. The big drivers for ever greater integration, France and Germany have been rattled by the vulnerabilities of the EU project, by the prospect of it all falling apart. Its that which will prompt a genuine review of the way the EU develops in the future.

Interesting when speaking to the locals in France a couple of years ago, and they too expressed disatisfaction with the EU and how things are shaped. It seems to me that there is a lot of resentment throughout, but not harnassed in the same way as here seeking to walk out and slam the door behind us.

In. But I can see the Tories having a civil war about it like under John Major's government.

In. With reform.

Unfortunately, many people will vote out not because they understand (or are even interested in) the intricacies of membership but because they are myopic, parochial Little Englanders who are quite happy to swallow the bull**** from the majority of the rightwing media.

In. With reform.

 

Unfortunately, many people will vote out not because they understand (or are even interested in) the intricacies of membership but because they are myopic, parochial Little Englanders who are quite happy to swallow the bull**** from the majority of the rightwing media.

that's right

that's right

I know. You'd be best placed to confirm that I'm sure.

In. With reform.

 

Unfortunately, many people will vote out not because they understand (or are even interested in) the intricacies of membership but because they are myopic, parochial Little Englanders who are quite happy to swallow the bull**** from the majority of the rightwing media.

That is quite offensive.

I personally believe that the right for self determination is worth fighting for, that something as critical as the Lisbon treaty could be forced onto the country without a single word of debate or consultation with the electorate is one of the biggest insults and aberrations of the modern political era. That is not myopia, or a little Englander mentality, it is idealism in the belief that our country should be able to make it's own decisions, on it's own merits to suit it's own circumstances.

The repercussions of being in or out should be debated so that a fully informed opinion can be formed, of course, but to insult those who ideologically oppose EU membership is quite simply wrong.

If reformed, in. If not and we are faced with increasing federalisation, then out.

i believe in the common market but I also believe in the UKs sovereignty.

ultimately leaving won't be as bad as the "in" camp will make out and staying in wont be as bad as the "out" camp will make out

So what you are saying is pretty well that no party has had a mandate during the past several General Elections, as the same situation applies for them too. In any event the assumption that just because Labour and the Conservatives combined recorded more votes overall than UKIP in the European Elections that all of those who voted for them do not support similar policies is nonsense.

No I'm not.

Just saying that UKIP did not and do not have the mandate you say they have.

I'm just saying you're wrong. The extrapolations you're wheeling out above are a total irrelevance to my central point.

That is quite offensive.

 

I personally believe that the right for self determination is worth fighting for, that something as critical as the Lisbon treaty could be forced onto the country without a single word of debate or consultation with the electorate is one of the biggest insults and aberrations of the modern political era. That is not myopia, or a little Englander mentality, it is idealism in the belief that our country should be able to make it's own decisions, on it's own merits to suit it's own circumstances.

 

The repercussions of being in or out should be debated so that a fully informed opinion can be formed, of course, but to insult those who ideologically oppose EU membership is quite simply wrong.

His central point is correct in that many people will base their "out" not on issues such as the Lisbon Treaty but the bol_loxs printed by the right wing press designed to appeal to the myopic little Englander.

His central point is correct in that many people will base their "out" not on issues such as the Lisbon Treaty but the bol_loxs printed by the right wing press designed to appeal to the myopic little Englander.

So which right wing newspaper will call for out?The Daily Express , and that'll be it.

Why is it that you lefties seem to believe you're so much more superior than the great unwashed. In your eyes if people vote for out its because they don't understand the issues , or are misled by the " right wing press" , or god forbid they are " little Englanders " ( are there any little Scots , or little Welsh). Why can't you except that people are as enlightened and as intelligent as you, but just have a different opinion.

Was Tony Benn a little Englander , was he fed bull by the " right wing media" ? Was he " myopic"?

No I'm not.

 

Just saying that UKIP did not and do not have the mandate you say they have.

 

I'm just saying you're wrong. The extrapolations you're wheeling out above are a total irrelevance to my central point.

Well, I'm saying that you are wrong on the basis that your position lacks consistency between the two positions. Or would you have it that comparisons cannot be made between them? In any event, if you care to read my comment more carefully, I didn't actually say that they had a mandate. I suggested that recently the elected parties of government of the UK in general elections had less reason to claim a mandate on Europe than UKIP had, because UKIP were the biggest party in an actual European election, whereas the policies on Europe of the major parties had been part of a basket of manifesto policies.

So which right wing newspaper will call for out?The Daily Express , and that'll be it.

 

Why is it that you lefties seem to believe you're so much more superior than the great unwashed. In your eyes if people vote for out its because they don't understand the issues , or are misled by the " right wing press" , or god forbid they are " little Englanders " ( are there any little Scots , or little Welsh). Why can't you except that people are as enlightened and as intelligent as you, but just have a different opinion.

 

Was Tony Benn a little Englander , was he fed bull by the " right wing media" ? Was he " myopic"?

If people form a different opinion based on the facts presented to them then I have no issues with that even if I believe their conclusions are wrong.

Well, I'm saying that you are wrong on the basis that your position lacks consistency between the two positions. Or would you have it that comparisons cannot be made between them? In any event, if you care to read my comment more carefully, I didn't actually say that they had a mandate. I suggested that recently the elected parties of government of the UK in general elections had less reason to claim a mandate on Europe than UKIP had, because UKIP were the biggest party in an actual European election, whereas the policies on Europe of the major parties had been part of a basket of manifesto policies.

UKIP have no mandate on anything, in the European parliament they are irrelevant.

They don't have more of a mandate than anyone else (or other parties don't gave less of a mandate than them), they don't have a mandate.

Except in Thanet where they run the council. Check them out. Oh and that MP who looks like a sheathed penis. He's got one hell of a mandate.

Can anyone with any knowledge answer my question as to why we need EU approval to change our benefits system re immigrants?

Can anyone with any knowledge answer my question as to why we need EU approval to change our benefits system re immigrants?

I was wondering just this too. Here's a quote from Sajid Javid - government Business Minister.

"Limiting the rights of EU migrants to claim tax credits is a key part of the renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the EU, Sajid Javid has said.

The business secretary said ministers wanted to change rules that allowed EU migrants to receive £700 a month in tax credits - twice what Germany paid."

I think he also said workers in France received less too. If France and Germany can do it then so can we, if that's what the Government wants. They've had 5 years to do so.

Can anyone with any knowledge answer my question as to why we need EU approval to change our benefits system re immigrants?

It's very simple . A fundamental principle of the EU is that the host country treats all EU citizens equally , and by equally they make no distinction between " home" citizens and " immigrants ". As our benefits are based on need not contribution a Greek working in the Uk is entitled to as many in work benefits as you or me . If our benefits are more generous than other EU members , we will pay more to immigrants than they do. To give the EU credit, this policy is entirely consistent with the free movement of people and the principle of a federal Europe . Does Texas limit benefits to New Yorkers or do The Scots limit benefits to Welsh workers . The inconsistent ones here are the liar politicians who instead of sticking up for what they believe in and what they signed up for , try and pull the wool over our eyes.

So basically the reason we need EU permission is because we signed away the right to limit benefits to UK subjects years ago.

In the interests of balance I would point out that if you moved to Poland you would be entitled to the same right to benefit as the local population .

So which right wing newspaper will call for out?The Daily Express , and that'll be it.

 

Why is it that you lefties seem to believe you're so much more superior than the great unwashed. In your eyes if people vote for out its because they don't understand the issues , or are misled by the " right wing press" , or god forbid they are " little Englanders " ( are there any little Scots , or little Welsh). Why can't you except that people are as enlightened and as intelligent as you, but just have a different opinion.

 

Was Tony Benn a little Englander , was he fed bull by the " right wing media" ? Was he " myopic"?

Why can't righties just man up and say" yes, I am racist, so what? " and " yes, I'd rather be ordered around by an English upper class then by some Krauts and Frogs?"

In - absolute no brainer.

In - absolute no brainer.

Me too - not even worth asking the question.

It's very simple . A fundamental principle of the EU is that the host country treats all EU citizens equally , and by equally they make no distinction between " home" citizens and " immigrants ". As our benefits are based on need not contribution a Greek working in the Uk is entitled to as many in work benefits as you or me . If our benefits are more generous than other EU members , we will pay more to immigrants than they do. To give the EU credit, this policy is entirely consistent with the free movement of people and the principle of a federal Europe . Does Texas limit benefits to New Yorkers or do The Scots limit benefits to Welsh workers . The inconsistent ones here are the liar politicians who instead of sticking up for what they believe in and what they signed up for , try and pull the wool over our eyes.

 

So basically the reason we need EU permission is because we signed away the right to limit benefits to UK subjects years ago.

 

In the interests of balance I would point out that if you moved to Poland you would be entitled to the same right to benefit as the local population .

Thanks for the info.

I can't see how he's going to get his proposals through in which case....which was a big part of their manifesto was it not?

Me too - not even worth asking the question.

Why not vote Labour then?

Thanks for the info.

 

I can't see how he's going to get his proposals through in which case....which was a big part of their manifesto was it not?

He'll get this particular one because the EU & him need to throw a few scraps to the Brits. Welfare is really not the big issue that it's made out to be . If you notice it's only the established parties and politicians that make a big deal out of it . Watch QT or Daily Politics , every time immigration is mentioned the liblabcon politicians bring up clamping down on benefit tourists and minimum wage explotation . UKIP and people who want out never really mention it as an issue . As far as immigration is concerned it is a side issue, but as they can't do anything about the main issue ( the free movement of people ) they try and distract people with this nonsense. The EU will never budge on the free movement of people, but would be willing to compromise around welfare to keep us " onside" .

See, it's interesting to mention Tony Benn because; whilst yes, I am a labourite, I do not understand how they could go from the opinion that we should stay out of the EU as it "would hurt the livelihoods of British workers" to their current view of essentially sneering at anyone who would want out of it and I think that cost them a serious amount of votes and obviously they realise this now.

Heart - wants out

Head - there is no real option, that i think won't massively adversely affect the wealth of the nation, but to stay in.

Why not vote Labour then?

Totally separate issue.