Issues relating to the EU referendum

[Crispy Ambulance]

Out. And blow that bloody tunnel up!

 

[sahel]

Sovereignty.

The Buck should stop at Westminster.

If sovereignty is your issue presumably you think we should leave NATO. Through article 5 we have delegated the power to go to war because we clearly feel that collective defence makes us all safer. The EU issues where we cede sovereignty are of much less importance

 

[Bold Seagull]

If sovereignty is your issue presumably you think we should leave NATO. Through article 5 we have delegated the power to go to war because we clearly feel that collective defence makes us all safer. The EU issues where we cede sovereignty are of much less importance

Yes, but forget arms and defence and war and stuff, the EU makes hairdressers have less powerful hairdryers! I never knew that until this morning...

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If sovereignty is your issue presumably you think we should leave NATO. Through article 5 we have delegated the power to go to war because we clearly feel that collective defence makes us all safer. The EU issues where we cede sovereignty are of much less importance

That's not true. Article 5 commits us to defend fellow NATO members but any going to war would still need to be approved by parliament and the government.

 

[Triggaaar]

For me, the primary theme informing my position is that, increasingly, issues are supra-national, and regional or continental groups are playing substantial roles, and will continue to play even greater roles in the future. Primarily, these are climate change, and how to tame finance and the power of vast corporations.

We don't need to be in for us to help fight climate change, or to deal with vast corporations.

 

[sahel]

That's not true. Article 5 commits us to defend fellow NATO members but any going to war would still need to be approved by parliament and the government.

If a fellow member invokes article 5 we are bound by treaty to defend them. If that is not a ceding of sovereignty I don't know what is.

In any event you can make your argument in terms of the EU because the government can always just decide to leave

So I think we have both just proved how bogus the sovereignty argument is

 

[Deleted member 22389]

We don't need to be in for us to help fight climate change, or to deal with vast corporations.

We don't need to be IN for anything in reality. The nonsense coming out over the radio today is a joke.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think the UK as a whole will end if we leave the EU. There will be a vastly complicated mess as Scotland gets home rule then Wales declares independence and the Northern Ireland succeeds to Ireland.

Scotland would only want to leave the UK if they can join the EU, which might not be possible, and will be an unknown if they get to vote again. And if they join the EU, they'd have to adopt the Euro, which wouldn't be good for Scotland. There's no evidence that Wales would want to leave and go it alone in the world. They're a mini Scotland, but without the oil. I'd like the people of Northern Ireland to do what's best for them, and if that was joining Ireland, I'd be happy for them. It wouldn't be a problem for us.

England will become less and less democratic

Well that's clearly wrong, as we'd have the power to vote out those that make the laws, which we don't have. It would be more democratic. What you're really saying is that you're against the average voter in England, so you don't want democracy.

 

[beorhthelm]

If sovereignty is your issue presumably you think we should leave NATO. Through article 5 we have delegated the power to go to war because we clearly feel that collective defence makes us all safer. The EU issues where we cede sovereignty are of much less importance

i dont think those that make this NATO point understand sovereignty. Article 5 is a treaty obligation to follow, which we can withdraw from unilaterally at the will of parliament or the government at least. the EU gradually erodes our sovereignty by taking powers away from our parliament and our courts. the EU institutions make law and impose law upon us that we have little to no say in, claiming themselves as the supreme legislative authority in more and more areas of life, overruling our parliaments laws and our courts decisions.

 

[Notters]

Some strange assumptions here, as far as the UK is concerned.

Sorry if I appeared to present the above as facts. They are just by (very real) fears.

 

[studio150]

I'd like to find more source and info on a 2nd referendum.

Out of the corner of my ear I (mis)heard on the radio that Boris had mentioned it. It was moved on from before I'd focused in on it.

Can anyone find some source or commentary on this ?

The Boris comments were mentioned on Sky News this morning in an interview with Hilary Benn. The background to this is the position with Ireland when they voted and the result was a no, they had another vote to get a yes, this was also the position with another country (Finland?). The hint from Boris was that a no vote in June would lead to more concessions from the EU.

However Mr Benn said the vote would not lead to more concessions but a no vote would lead to the UK leaving the EU and all the uncertainty that would bring.

 

[beorhthelm]

However Mr Benn said the vote would not lead to more concessions but a no vote would lead to the UK leaving the EU and all the uncertainty that would bring.

Mr Benn would say that, but there is nothing to say there cannot be negotiations, concessions and a new proposal to be put to the people. we must recognise in the Europe model of doing politics a referendum outcome is part of the process, not its conclusion. we dont do referendums much so probably dont understand this very well, the Europeans will treat this as a national opinion poll and adjust according the outcome. which also means full steam ahead on further integration if the UK backs to stay in the EU, the flimsy concessions Cameron has made will last as long as the first European Court outing. voting to stay will only provide one certainty - more power and more change directed by the EU system, it is not a vote for everything to remain as it is today.

 

[jgmcdee]

Mr Benn would say that, but there is nothing to say there cannot be negotiations, concessions and a new proposal to be put to the people. we must recognise in the Europe model of doing politics a referendum outcome is part of the process, not its conclusion. we dont do referendums much so probably dont understand this very well, the Europeans will treat this as a national opinion poll and adjust according the outcome. which also means full steam ahead on further integration if the UK backs to stay in the EU, the flimsy concessions Cameron has made will last as long as the first European Court outing. voting to stay will only provide one certainty - more power and more change directed by the EU system, it is not a vote for everything to remain as it is today.

I'd be astounded if there was a no vote and the politicians dared to come back with a second referendum. I don't think that the proposed changes to the UK's relationship with the EU are going to be in the forefront of voters' minds, but rather sovereignty, economy, growth, immigration, influence etc. None of these would change significantly without structural changes, and such changes would be as likely to sway ins to outs as outs to ins.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I'd be astounded if there was a no vote and the politicians dared to come back with a second referendum. I don't think that the proposed changes to the UK's relationship with the EU are going to be in the forefront of voters' minds, but rather sovereignty, economy, growth, immigration, influence etc. None of these would change significantly without structural changes, and such changes would be as likely to sway ins to outs as outs to ins.

I'd be astounded if, following an out vote, if the EU didn't offer us just about whatever was needed to keep us in. Worlds fifth largest economy, 2nd or 3rd largest in Europe depending how you measure it. Britain is also one of the biggest net contributors of funds...I am certain that Germany will move heaven and earth on this.

 

[Notters]

Well that's clearly wrong, as we'd have the power to vote out those that make the laws, which we don't have. It would be more democratic. What you're really saying is that you're against the average voter in England, so you don't want democracy.

No, it's not, I'm saying having a monarchy and a first past the post system are both undemocratic.

 

[Surf's Up]

The commercial, economic, environmental and social world is now truly global and dominated/controlled, not by governments, but by multi-national corporations and global phenomenon like the www. The only countries capable of challenging this are the massive states (e.g. US, Russia, China) but they are so caught up in pursuing their own interests that they seldom if ever act in the interests of the world as a whole. The EU is a fantastically sound concept and over the years it has had an opportunity to develop as an integrated, democratic confederation of smaller states acting as one to address these issues, to challenge the global corporations and to work effectively with the other "super states" to make the world a better place to live in. It has failed to take this opportunity and instead has become mired in internal bickering, an inability to change to meet the ever changing demands of its internal partners and the global economy, an inability to take decisions, a massive democratic deficit, a bureaucratic nightmare and a belief that getting bigger and bigger will make it stronger and better whereas in reality the bigger it gets the more unmanageable it becomes and the more resistant to change as the aspirations of the newer members are a complete mismatch against those of the more established members. This is sad. I believe in the idea of the EU but in practice it has demonstrated time and time again that it is not fit for purpose.

 

[beorhthelm]

... I don't think that the proposed changes to the UK's relationship with the EU are going to be in the forefront of voters' minds, but rather sovereignty, economy, growth, immigration, influence etc. None of these would change significantly without structural changes, and such changes would be as likely to sway ins to outs as outs to ins.

isn't the whole point of the negotiated changes to adjust the views of the voters? if they aren't thinking about the UK relationship with the EU, they aren't thinking about much (probably just knee-jerk immigration). my point is that we shouldn't assume there could not be significant structural change, currently the EU have given the minimum they think they need to to swing the UK onside.

there are a number of problems with the EU, we are not the only nation less than happy with the direction for the project and it may well be that they, especially the Germans and some other northern members, see this as an opportunity to restructure the whole thing. they say there cant be a two speed EU, well there already is with those in and out of the Eurozone. there is no reason, other than political will, to not have two modes of EU, leagues if you will, with some signing up to free trade etc, the others signing up to legal and political integration.

 

[DFL JCL]

With the lack of any discernible facts as to the outcome if we leave, i suspect people will go with their guts on it. Like in Scotland when there isn't a dead cert to back, i think people will go with the low risk option of maintaining the status quo. My opinion for what its worth at this stage is that leaving is the less progressive thing to do. Over history and within business when people work together to achieve things and have the economies of scale that this offers then that delivers success. I wouldn't sat that i am completely decided one way or another though.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, it's not, I'm saying having a monarchy and a first past the post system are both undemocratic.

The monarchy If the public didn't want the monarchy, we'd get rid of it. We're not ruled by the queen. Being able to vote for the laws is obviously more democratic than not being able to, it's ridiculous that you're claiming the opposite.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The monarchy If the public didn't want the monarchy, we'd get rid of it. We're not ruled by the queen. Being able to vote for the laws is obviously more democratic than not being able to, it's ridiculous that you're claiming the opposite.

How would we get rid of it? I've never had a say on it....