The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[JC Footy Genius]

I suppose it's fair to write-off the Sun or Times if they come out for Brexit it then because they're owned by anti-EU Murdoch?

Not at all just that we should be aware of their agendas and not suggest they present a cool neutral/ independent opinion.

 

[pastafarian]

If we are really threatened most by an inability to police our borders, then 'out' and a requirement that nobody enters this country without a visa is surely the answer. It is logical and I can accept it.

But this means the French, the Americans and allcomers. No exceptions. If this sounds a bit excessive, then what do you want, exactly?

If we arbitrarily stop and search only people who look a bit 'Muslimy' then my Hindu cardiologist mates, back from a fortnight in Ibiza, will be in the firing line. Maybe some folk think that being a bit dark skinned and having a funny name is sufficient justification. Personally I think this smacks of the madness that saw a white female paediatrician having her house firebombed a few years ago, because the vigilantes thought . . . (if I need to explain this one, then I suggest you focus on your milk and rusk).

Surely the UK can police its borders without having to leave the EU? And I'm not particularly bothered whether we stay or leave right now, to be honest. The electorate always gets what it deserves. I'm sure it will, again . . . . very strong 'feelings' on each side of the argument notwithstanding.

In the meantime, with a slight tendency to vote 'stay' based upon 'it seems to have helped keep Europe stable since the war', I am up to being persuaded either way. What have you got to persuade me, O 'committed' folk?

If like many you really don’t know which way to think and a bit undecided on matters such as security and the economy then turn your attention to,what is for me the overriding matter and what is for me far far more important.
It is the issue of democracy and accountability.

There really can be no substitute here,either you are for a sovereign and independent nation,where the lawmakers are elected and accountable or you are happy to be subservient and hand off those powers to Brussels.

Matters of immigration,security and the economy will not collapse to the extent some are scare forecasting,Im sure if we left we can manage and be the 16th country out of 19 in the G20 that is not in the EU and that is not going to fall of the edge of a cliff.

But more importantly the day may come that an issue arrives you feel so strongly about you will want your MP to step up to the plate and get it sorted,or if he/she is unsympathetic you will vote for an MP and party that will listen to you. How will you feel to be told there is nothing that can be done anyway as that jurisdiction rests in Brussels………this is what is ultimately at stake here.

I do not wish to burden this or the next generation with no democratic accountability

 

[5ways]

Not at all just that we should be aware of their agendas and not suggest they present a cool neutral/ independent opinion.

This agenda being free-market, trade focused and globally minded. A much less self-serving agenda than other papers I would argue.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

This agenda being free-market, trade focused and globally minded. A much less self-serving agenda than other papers I would argue.

I'm not sure how an independent UK would be less free - market, trade focused and globally minded if we decided to pull out of the Euro centric EU

 

[GT49er]

This agenda being free-market, trade focused and globally minded. A much less self-serving agenda than other papers I would argue.

Oh right - money, money, money again, and the sovereignty of the financial establishment. Yeh, I get it - vote in - otherwise some people will be awfully upset if he gravy train hits the buffers.

There is more to life (and politics) than the financial sector; they're important, certainly but not as important as they think they are.

 

[5ways]

If like many you really don’t know which way to think and a bit undecided on matters such as security and the economy then turn your attention to,what is for me the overriding matter and what is for me far far more important.
It is the issue of democracy and accountability.

There really can be no substitute here,either you are for a sovereign and independent nation,where the lawmakers are elected and accountable or you are happy to be subservient and hand off those powers to Brussels.

Matters of immigration,security and the economy will not collapse to the extent some are scare forecasting,Im sure if we left we can manage and be the 16th country out of 19 in the G20 that is not in the EU and that is not going to fall of the edge of a cliff.

But more importantly the day may come that an issue arrives you feel so strongly about you will want your MP to step up to the plate and get it sorted,or if he/she is unsympathetic you will vote for an MP and party that will listen to you. How will you feel to be told there is nothing that can be done anyway as that jurisdiction rests in Brussels………this is what is ultimately at stake here.

I do not wish to burden this or the next generation with no democratic accountability

Sovereignty is relative. We are sovereign to a degree, and we are independent to a degree. The UK has signed a multitude of international agreements which in one way or another limit this sovereignty and our independence. Largely we enter these positions freely because we realise that we all benefit being subject to WTO regulation, and we all benefit from being members of the ECHR. In signing up to these we pool sovereignty. Yet this sovereign ability to act is also material. In the Suez Crisis we used our sovereign right as a state to attempt to enact regime change in Egypt. The US slapped us down. We weren't as sovereign as we thought we were. We did the same to Argentina in the Falklands.

The point is this idea of sovereignty is subject to exogenous forces that we cannot completely control. We are subject to this political gravity whether we refuse to see it or not. The same is true of the EU. We would not suddenly become markedly more sovereign after a Brexit renegotiation - we would sign new treaties which limit this sovereignty; we would have to abide free movement, a membership fee and EU law and regulation as a price to do business with the world's single largest economy and our biggest trading partner. We would not float above all these forces. At the same time our sovereignty is furthered reduced because we do not have a voice on these laws and regulations which will still apply to us. We just have to swallow them like Norway does.

That is not sovereignty - that is practically less control over our own economy than we presently enjoy! It is more democratic if we have an EU commissioner and MEPs fighting our corner and representing us in Brussels, rather than tapping on the windows from the outside. Inside the EU we can hold it to account, outside we can stamp our feet and go red with impotent rage. It doesn't matter we'll be subject to the economic gravity of the EU. Cameron is exactly right when he talks about the illusion of sovereignty if we leave.

 

[5ways]

I'm not sure how an independent UK would be less free - market, trade focused and globally minded if they decided to pull out of the Euro centric EU

Well off the top of my head, we would have to rewrite all our trade agreements for one thing, we'd have to renegotiate our access to our biggest trading partner, we would lose EU leverage on signing new trade deals. We wouldn't have access to TTIP and therefore a free trade agreement with the US (they're not interested in signing a bilateral one). Not to mention future agreements with fast rising countries. The pound would crash harder than it presently is, uncertainty is anathema to markets.

 

[GT49er]

Sovereignty is relative. We are sovereign to a degree, and we are independent to a degree. The UK has signed a multitude of international agreements which in one way or another limit this sovereignty and our independence. Largely we enter these positions freely because we realise that we all benefit being subject to WTO regulation, and we all benefit from being members of the ECHR. In signing up to these we pool sovereignty. Yet this sovereign ability to act is also material. In the Suez Crisis we used our sovereign right as a state to attempt to enact regime change in Egypt. The US slapped us down. We weren't as sovereign as we thought we were. We did the same to Argentina in the Falklands.

The point is this idea of sovereignty is subject to exogenous forces that we cannot completely control. We are subject to this political gravity whether we refuse to see it or not. The same is true of the EU. We would not suddenly becoming markedly more sovereign after a Brexit renegotiation - we would sign new treaties which limit this sovereignty; we would have to abide free movement, a membership fee and EU law and regulation as a price to do business with the world's single largest economy and our biggest trading partner. We would not float above all these forces. At the same time our sovereignty is furthered reduced because we do not have a voice on these laws and regulations which will still apply to us. We just have to swallow them like Norway does.

That is not sovereignty - that is practically less control over our own economy than we presently enjoy! It is more democratic if we have an EU commissioner and MEPs fighting our corner and representing us in Brussels, rather than tapping on the windows from the outside. Inside the EU we can hold it to account, outside we can stamp our feet and go red with impotent rage. It doesn't matter we'll be subject to the economic gravity of the EU. Cameron is exactly right when he talks about the illusion of sovereignty if we leave.

Wrong! Inside the EU we can hold it to account - no we can't. All we can do is stamp our feet and go red with impotent rage; outside we can do what we want.

 

[pastafarian]

Inside the EU we can hold it to account, .

Time after time the EU has shown this is simply untrue

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well off the top of my head, we would have to rewrite all our trade agreements for one thing, we'd have to renegotiate our access to our biggest trading partner, we would lose EU leverage on signing new trade deals. We wouldn't have access to TTIP and therefore a free trade agreement with the US (they're not interested in signing a bilateral one). Not to mention future agreements with fast rising countries. The pound would crash harder than it presently is, uncertainty is anathema to markets.

None of your points address the fact that we would not be less free market, trade focused and globally minded if anything the opposite would be true. Yes we would have to re negotiate a trade agreement with the EU. We already comply with 99.9% of the regulations those we don't we can negotiate a settlement.

Is not having access to TTIP a good thing or a bad thing? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html As the USA's closest friend perhaps we could negotiate a better deal or one better suited to our national interest. You say they would not want a bi lateral deal ... are you a spokesman for the American administration?

The pound was always likely to fall during this period of economic uncertainty. (not all bad, helps exports + balance of payments deficit)

 

[5ways]

None of your points address the fact that we would not be less free market, trade focused and globally minded if anything the opposite would be true. Yes we would have to re negotiate a trade agreement with the EU. We already comply with 99.9% of the regulations those we don't we can negotiate a settlement.

Is not having access to TTIP a good thing or a bad thing? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html As the USA's closest friend perhaps we could negotiate a better deal or one better suited to our national interest. You say they would not want a bi lateral deal ... are you a spokesman for the American administration?

The pound was always likely to fall during this period of economic uncertainty. (not all bad, helps exports + balance of payments deficit)

My points do address that. We would be more insular because our negotiation position is weaker, we represent 3% of the global economy rather than 23%. Not to mention the law which we trade upon will have to be ripped up and rewritten. Moreover our broader economy would take a massive hit from post-Brexit fallout. We would lose immediate access to the destination for 45% of our exports too, I assume there is a contingency plan in the treasury and Brussels. We also lose access to new markets because we drop out of EU deals. TTIP I think is a boon if done properly.

No they don't want a bilateral deal. Again their national interest is different to ours and we suffer from this false sovereignty scenario http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...paign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html

 

[pastafarian]

We would not suddenly become markedly more sovereign after a Brexit renegotiation - we would sign new treaties which limit this sovereignty; we would have to abide free movement, a membership fee and EU law and regulation as a price to do business with the world's single largest economy and our biggest trading partner. We would not float above all these forces.

We wouldn't have access to TTIP and therefore a free trade agreement with the US

Its odd isnt it

If we wish to trade with the EU,as you say,we have to give up some sovereignty,have to abide free movement have to pay a membership fee and be subservient to EU law

I wonder how on earth The US is going to sell all these conditions to its citizens as the final deals are done on TTIP

 

[sir albion]

Wrong! Inside the EU we can hold it to account - no we can't. All we can do is stamp our feet and go red with impotent rage; outside we can do what we want.

It's always good to be in control of your own finances and destiny and being in the EU offers none of this.
Wonder how long til we get fined another 2 billion for having a good economy

 

[Chief Wiggum]

This the view of a French business woman living in the UK. The debate in the comments section is worth looking at too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...atience-with-the-EU.-Ill-be-voting-Leave.html

 

[heathgate]

If we are really threatened most by an inability to police our borders, then 'out' and a requirement that nobody enters this country without a visa is surely the answer. It is logical and I can accept it.

But this means the French, the Americans and allcomers. No exceptions. If this sounds a bit excessive, then what do you want, exactly?

If we arbitrarily stop and search only people who look a bit 'Muslimy' then my Hindu cardiologist mates, back from a fortnight in Ibiza, will be in the firing line. Maybe some folk think that being a bit dark skinned and having a funny name is sufficient justification. Personally I think this smacks of the madness that saw a white female paediatrician having her house firebombed a few years ago, because the vigilantes thought . . . (if I need to explain this one, then I suggest you focus on your milk and rusk).

Surely the UK can police its borders without having to leave the EU? And I'm not particularly bothered whether we stay or leave right now, to be honest. The electorate always gets what it deserves. I'm sure it will, again . . . . very strong 'feelings' on each side of the argument notwithstanding.

In the meantime, with a slight tendency to vote 'stay' based upon 'it seems to have helped keep Europe stable since the war', I am up to being persuaded either way. What have you got to persuade me, O 'committed' folk?

Please..... how do the other nations around the world control their borders?.. for the most part with a tried and tested set of internationally agreed parameters, alongside local adjustments depending on national requirements. It doesn't stop people visiting or working in those countries does it?...

....and the point is NO... the UK is not allowed to put extra controls over its borders, being in the EU means we have to adhere to the common policy as per EU edicts.

As for stability since the war, I think you will find that was NATO matey....

 

[Hampster Gull]

This the view of a French business woman living in the UK. The debate in the comments section is worth looking at too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...atience-with-the-EU.-Ill-be-voting-Leave.html

Her arguments undermined when she quotes we pay 50m gross but ignores the money coming back and the net position.

 

[heathgate]

Her arguments undermined when she quotes we pay 50m gross but ignores the money coming back and the net position.

Why.?..if she says £50m gross..... then that is the truth......you do know what gross means? ..... she didn't say gross anyway... she quoted correctly that we pay more than 53m per day into the EU....

 

[JC Footy Genius]

My points do address that. We would be more insular because our negotiation position is weaker, we represent 3% of the global economy rather than 23%. Not to mention the law which we trade upon will have to be ripped up and rewritten. Moreover our broader economy would take a massive hit from post-Brexit fallout. We would lose immediate access to the destination for 45% of our exports too, I assume there is a contingency plan in the treasury and Brussels. We also lose access to new markets because we drop out of EU deals. TTIP I think is a boon if done properly.

No they don't want a bilateral deal. Again their national interest is different to ours and we suffer from this false sovereignty scenario http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...paign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html

So we would be more insular, not trade focused and not globally minded while re negotiating a trade relationship with the EU, trade deals with numerous other countries around the world (after regaining the freedom to do so) ...

Our relative strength in these negotiations is irrelevant to the fact they would still have to take place. Rewriting deals once again doesn't support your initial arguments nor does post Brexit economic uncertainty.

Yes the US national interest is different to ours they want us in the EU come what may and would never cede the amount of sovereignty and decision making that we have done. We will see what position they take when and if this actually happens and who will be speaking for them then. Negotiating mutually advantageous trade deals with independent countries is achievable more so with an Ally that will most likely require our support at the G7,G20, NATO ,WTO,UN and numerous other instances.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Her arguments undermined when she quotes we pay 50m gross but ignores the money coming back and the net position.

How kind of the EU to give us some back ! Of course a vast majority of what comes back we are told how we have to spend it.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Would never vote for the Labour party again, but I'm utterly disgusted how silent they are on this whole EU issue. Hardly anyone from the party is coming out as Leave. The party that is meant is stand for democracy, what an utter joke they are.

Suppose they are hoping we stay in the EU, Cameron screws up, and come the next election they will have an extra 2-3 million suckers who end up voting for them. The party of mass immigration all over again. People need to wake up, at least if we Leave then we can control our borders from the EU. We have loosened the ties with the EU and could campaign for better borders. No single party will be told what to do because of stupid EU laws.