Europe - In or Out, Straw Poll for Forumisters Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Europe - In or Out - Straw Poll

[Turin Machine]

Out.

[Andy Capp]

I will vote 'Out', but I suspect the country will vote 'In'

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I'm out. Not because of immigration. I just like to think of us as an independent nation who can make laws
that are not overruled.

The problem with being in the "out" camp is that you are instantly branded as racist by small minded people.

Now we'll get 3 months of "***" from both camps scaremongering...

Out leads 3-0 amongst the forumisters.

[x2lls]

Out

[On the edge]

Out. The negotiations didn't address the real issue so didn't deliver a real solution.

[je suis Charlie]

Out foul spot. Out, sooner the better. Put the money we give in subsidies towards schools and hospitals.

[Andy Capp]

The biggest 'Out' problem I see is the possibility of being bullied in trade wars.

[newres]

In.

I saw a "status" being shared on Facebook blaming the EU for the not being able to sort out the "Syria/Libya migrant" problem, talking about more trade with the U.S. and completely failing to see the irony of the the EU being left to clean up the mess that was caused by the US with the help of the UK.

I dislike nationalisn.

I like the balance and stability we get from having so many states of all political persuasions having an input into how are laws are interpreted/framed.

And I like the fact that Europe (the EU bit) has been at peace since its inception.

[nerc]

out

[Simon Kirby]

Out foul spot...

Curious that you should (mis)quote the febrile gibberings of a delusional despot to support your desire for the UK to leave the UK.

[On the edge]

The biggest 'Out' problem I see is the possibility of being bullied in trade wars.

Actually, that pretty much sums it up for me, ironically the other way. I'd argue our commerce has been damaged since we joined, more by the subtle actions of the senior EU member states. For me, out might, just might, mean that our bankers are effectively forced to invest far more in our own industries.

Whatever the vote, I don't think day 2 will be 'carry on as normal' - even for a yes, so I'd like to see a realistic strategy from both sides outlining where they think we'd be going next.

Anyway, it's a pretty interesting point AndyC!

[On the edge]

In.

I saw a "status" being shared on Facebook blaming the EU for the not being able to sort out the "Syria/Libya migrant" problem, talking about more trade with the U.S. and completely failing to see the irony of the the EU being left to clean up the mess that was caused by the US with the help of the UK.

I dislike nationalisn.

I like the balance and stability we get from having so many states of all political persuasions having an input into how are laws are interpreted/framed.

And I like the fact that Europe (the EU bit) has been at peace since its inception.

All perfectly valid - this logically leads to closer integration, which David Cameron has been keen to rule out. Nonetheless that might not have been such a wise move as he imagined. Whatever anyone says, its worked for the US.

[HJD]

Out.

[blackdog]

In.

I saw a "status" being shared on Facebook blaming the EU for the not being able to sort out the "Syria/Libya migrant" problem, talking about more trade with the U.S. and completely failing to see the irony of the the EU being left to clean up the mess that was caused by the US with the help of the UK.

I dislike nationalisn.

I like the balance and stability we get from having so many states of all political persuasions having an input into how are laws are interpreted/framed.

And I like the fact that Europe (the EU bit) has been at peace since its inception.

In - for the above reasons and because I am scared what will happen with a Tory government unfettered by the reasonableness of many EU constraints. When it comes down to it I trust EU bureaucrats more than UK politicians.

[je suis Charlie]

Curious that you should (mis)quote the febrile gibberings of a delusional despot to support your desire for the UK to leave the UK.

While you, apparently spout your own!

[On the edge]

In - for the above reasons and because I am scared what will happen with a Tory government unfettered by the reasonableness of many EU constraints. When it comes down to it I trust EU bureaucrats more than UK politicians.

Interesting that; it was a Tory Government that took us in. I'd certainly not disagree with your observations about the EU bureaucrats; the trouble is, much of what they come up with is deflected or subverted by the nation states who (like us) are concerned only with their own parochial national interest.

[Andy Capp]

In - for the above reasons and because I am scared what will happen with a Tory government unfettered by the reasonableness of many EU constraints. When it comes down to it I trust EU bureaucrats more than UK politicians.

At least we get the opportunity to change a Tory government every few years.

[blackdog]

At least we get the opportunity to change a Tory government every few years.

How much of an opportunity? The boundary changes will ensure they are in power for another 20 years unless a miracle happens.

And what's the alternative? Give me EU bureaucrats over any politicians (any party, any country).

I would also be happy to join a United States of Europe - my only objection to the Euro is the absurdity of one currency, multiple economies.

[Cognosco]

It's out for me.

I don't like the way European decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats and European courts overides Uk courts.
I also believe with the migrant crisis that the EU is going pear shape anyhow?

[Andy Capp]

How much of an opportunity? The boundary changes will ensure they are in power for another 20 years unless a miracle happens.

And what's the alternative? Give me EU bureaucrats over any politicians (any party, any country).

I would also be happy to join a United States of Europe - my only objection to the Euro is the absurdity of one currency, multiple economies.

The point is, if a sufficient amount of people wish it, then they can be removed. With Europe in control we have no mechanism as a country to reject their policies.

[Andy Capp]

I would be more in favour of a EU light, but to decide on the current one I have to say: 'Non'.

[user23]

In.

One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

In.

One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.

This is exactly the sort of c**p that gets my goat.
Don't vote out because 2 people you don't like are in favour of out.
So..... if these people were for "in" I guess you'd vote "out"???

[Cognosco]

In.

One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.

Well you have confirmed I have chosen correctly by voting out if WBC spokesperson want's to stay in.

[user23]

This is exactly the sort of c**p that gets my goat.
Don't vote out because 2 people you don't like are in favour of out.
So..... if these people were for "in" I guess you'd vote "out"???

Firstly they'd never be "in", it's not in their interests, secondly it's not just two, the Out roster including Michael Gove, Frank Field, Boris Jonhson and Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like a collection of the most eccentric politicians in the UK.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Firstly they'd never be "in", it's not in their interests, secondly it's not just two, the Out roster including Michael Gove, Frank Field, Boris Jonhson and Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like a collection of the most eccentric politicians in the UK.

Define "Eccentric"? You are obviously a bigot. Intolerant of other peoples views that don't conform to your own.

[On the edge]

Firstly they'd never be "in", it's not in their interests, secondly it's not just two, the Out roster including Michael Gove, Frank Field, Boris Jonhson and Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like a collection of the most eccentric politicians in the UK.

Throughout political history the big intellects in each party have never been popular;zi suppose because they don't court the cause of the moment. What is interesting is that these big thinkers are in the out camp. Ironically, they are also old liberals - small government, so would necessarily upset people who believe in a collective centrist approach to all things.

The concept of a common market (and if you think about it, that inevitably means eventual integration) is great in theory but experience demonstrates it simply doesn't work in practice.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Throughout political history the big intellects in each party have never been popular;zi suppose because they don't court the cause of the moment. What is interesting is that these big thinkers are in the out camp. Ironically, they are also old liberals - small government, so would necessarily upset people who believe in a collective centrist approach to all things.

The concept of a common market (and if you think about it, that inevitably means eventual integration) is great in theory but experience demonstrates it simply doesn't work in practice.

Exactly. Nothing more to add.

[Simon Kirby]

I'm undecided. I don't particularly like the the concept of a trade association, mush less a federal Europe, and I would sooner Blighty was a sovereign state with a small government and that British companies were free to buy and sell stuff with whoever they liked. I don't like the degree to which the state - both European and domestic, has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives when the role of the state should be nothing more than to provide for the peace and protection. It's not just Europe, but government at every level is self-serving and self-absorbed. However, I'm inclined to vote in because I really don't like the motivation behind some of the outers.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I'm undecided. I don't particularly like the the concept of a trade association, mush less a federal Europe, and I would sooner Blighty was a sovereign state with a small government and that British companies were free to buy and sell stuff with whoever they liked. I don't like the degree to which the state - both European and domestic, has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives when the role of the state should be nothing more than to provide for the peace and protection. It's not just Europe, but government at every level is self-serving and self-absorbed. However, I'm inclined to vote in because I really don't like the motivation behind some of the outers.

So you'd vote in not because that is what you believe but because of other peoples "motives"
Again the insinuation is that all "outers" have a hidden agenda.

99.9% don't. Why change your vote because of 0.01% of idiots??

[user23]

Define "Eccentric"? You are obviously a bigot. Intolerant of other peoples views that don't conform to your own.

I think I might need me to define both "Eccentric" and "Bigot" to you, before you throw around any more insults at people who don't agree with you.

[je suis Charlie]

I'm undecided. I don't particularly like the the concept of a trade association, mush less a federal Europe, and I would sooner Blighty was a sovereign state with a small government and that British companies were free to buy and sell stuff with whoever they liked. I don't like the degree to which the state - both European and domestic, has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives when the role of the state should be nothing more than to provide for the peace and protection. It's not just Europe, but government at every level is self-serving and self-absorbed. However, I'm inclined to vote in because I really don't like the motivation behind some of the outers.

In that case, Comrade Corbyn wants in so we have to vote out. Same rationale.

[user23]

Throughout political history the big intellects in each party have never been popular;zi suppose because they don't court the cause of the moment. What is interesting is that these big thinkers are in the out camp. Ironically, they are also old liberals - small government, so would necessarily upset people who believe in a collective centrist approach to all things.

The concept of a common market (and if you think about it, that inevitably means eventual integration) is great in theory but experience demonstrates it simply doesn't work in practice.

Do you consider George Galloway and Nigel Farage "big intellects"?

Here's the former interviewing the latter on his Russia Today TV show.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I think I might need to define both "Eccentric" and "Bigot" to you, before you throw around any more insults at people who don't agree with you.

Please do.

[je suis Charlie]

1st minister wants out of GT Britain but wants to stay in EU? How does that work?

[je suis Charlie]

Do you consider George Galloway and Nigel Farage "big intellects"?

Here's the former interviewing the latter on his Russia Today TV show.

Ah, yes, but, if we vote out what will UKIP have left in the toybox?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

1st minister wants out of GT Britain but wants to stay in EU? How does that work?

This could be a great thing. We vote out. Scots vote in. Scots get a new referendum. This time they grasp the thistle and leave.

If they do we'll have to put some border controls in to stop them from leaving and coming down south when they realise that they are bankrupt.

[je suis Charlie]

This could be a great thing. We vote out. Scots vote in. Scots get a new referendum. This time they grasp the thistle and leave.

If they do we'll have to put some border controls in to stop them from leaving and coming down south when they realise that they are bankrupt.

I giggle every time I look at the price of Brent crude!

[user23]

Ah, yes, but, if we vote out what will UKIP have left in the toybox?

One thing's for sure, they'll lose their EU funding.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

One thing's for sure, they'll lose their EU funding.

Good.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Has anyone noticed how most keyboard warriors struggle for free thought but rely on links to newspaper articles and streams.

Is this because they cannot articulate in words what they believe in? Or is it just lazy?

[On the edge]

Do you consider George Galloway and Nigel Farage "big intellects"?

Here's the former interviewing the latter on his Russia Today TV show.

No, of course not; that's why I didn't mention them.

It's really sad that even at this early stage of the campaign, some haven't the intellectual capability to rise above personal slight and insult. That's what damages democracy.

That goes for both sides and includes all the usual mindless deliberate misunderstanding and other tricks that appear when real responses are difficult.

[user23]

No, of course not; that's why I didn't mention them.

It's really sad that even at this early stage of the campaign, some haven't the intellectual capability to rise above personal slight and insult. That's what damages democracy.

That goes for both sides and includes all the usual mindless deliberate misunderstanding and other tricks that appear when real responses are difficult.

Indeed, I've already been called a bigot for expressing my views, for example.

I prefer this approach, debunking Gove's claims with facts.

Of course, some will say you can prove anything with evidence and statistics.

[On the edge]

One thing's for sure, they'll lose their EU funding.

I shouldn't think that would surprise many, least of all UKIP. Whatever anyone thinks of his views, David Cameron has done exactly what he said he'd do at the election. A negotiation, a referendum and letting Ministers have their heads - that was his response to UKIP and so far it's worked.

[On the edge]

Indeed, I've already been called a bigot for expressing my views, for example.

I prefer this approach, debunking Gove's claims with facts.

Of course, some will say you can prove anything with evidence and statistics.

Good at least you are looking. Nonetheless, the debunking article contains very few grounded facts and much information of doubtful provenance. Not entirely unexpected of course. Ironic really, I have a couple of French colleagues who firmly believe a lot of their present and very serious troubles are down to EC rules. French interpretation maybe, but then that's our problem with the rules too! As to statistics and indeed other descriptors, the politics of spin has so abused the over the years, it's surprising anyone takes them other than with a massive pinch of salt.

The key reason why I'd say 'no' today is actually down to age. I was at work when we had the first referendum. Sure, the Country's economic performance was dire, but, it was clear even then that in reality, it was actually caused by short term financing and abysmal management. Europe hasn't actually added much.

As for the regulations, even arch enthusiast Ken Clarke admitted he'd never read the regulations and that we should just sign and work it out as we go along.

Again, it's a cruel irony that it was Tory Ted Heath who took us in. The same PM who presided over the smash up of Local Government in the UK.

[Andy Capp]

While I would vote 'No' now, I stand to be corrected; I am not devoted to an exit. Indeed, a 'No' may not necessarily mean autonomy anyway; once we have renegotiated new deals. Negotiating means compromise so we may end up back to where we were anyway.

And I take Blackdog's point on a permanent Tory government, despite only polling ~37%. I cannot bear to think of a life of endless Monster Raving Tories and their subhuman supporters.

[x2lls]

Ah, yes, but, if we vote out what will UKIP have left in the toybox?

You don't carry on with a war when victory or defeat has been declared.
They have already achieved their objective, a referendum.

[Turin Machine]

Curious that you should (mis)quote the febrile gibberings of a delusional despot to support your desire for the UK to leave the UK.

Err? Lady Macbeth? And if I remember the words are Shakespeare's anyway Lady macbeth is merely a character in a play. I'm puzzled. Oh unless you believe Milady was a real person? That could explain your difficulty in your difficulty in telling the difference between real life and fantasy Would also go part way to explaining why you believe in Jeremy

Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.--**** is murky!--Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
account?--Yet who would have thought the old man
to have had so much blood in him."

[Turin Machine]

You don't carry on with a war when victory or defeat has been declared.
They have already achieved their objective, a referendum.

True, but, I wonder whether that's all there is. If so why racist? Puzzled much I am!

[x2lls]

True, but, I wonder whether that's all there is. If so why racist? Puzzled much I am!

Give it a rest, there is no racist policy. That is a spin tactic by swivel eyed liberals (you know who, them wot don't read the daily wail/hail). An urban myth with no evidence.

If the UKIP party are racist, why is Nigel consistently given media time by the BBC and other outlets. Why has he been provided with his own newspaper columns and radio appearances?
Why did he appear on TV with the couple who partake in gogglebox?

If you wonder what else there is, perhaps you should take the time to look, you'd find nothing to back up that twaddle.

Someone asked on here why some post links to backup their opinions. I provide some new reading for you.
Here are two links which state facts, not hearsay/rumor and 'I will say that cos I don't want to stand out'. That sounds familiar.

http://www.ukip.org/the_constitution
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipd....pdf?1448534213

Why is it that when a UKIP member causes 'outrage' by offering stupid opinions in isolation, it is reported as UKIP policy? Whenever that happens they get kicked out but are still associated with UKIP policy. So convenient to slur a genuine party that speaks for many of us who were cheated of representation by a corrupt voting system which allowed over four million people not to be represented.

[Andy Capp]

Why is it that when a UKIP member causes 'outrage' by offering stupid opinions in isolation, it is reported as UKIP policy? Whenever that happens they get kicked out but are still associated with UKIP policy. So convenient to slur a genuine party that speaks for many of us who were cheated of representation by a corrupt voting system which allowed over four million people not to be represented.

The concern is that one is worried about a person having those views being in a position of power. All parties to the left of UKIP will have racists, probably soft racists, but the thought is that UKIP might have more than most.

[Turin Machine]

The concern is that one is worried about a person having those views being in a position of power. All parties to the left of UKIP will have racists, probably soft racists, but the thought is that UKIP might have more than most.

Ohh, Ohh, and Tories dressed as Nazi's

[x2lls]

The concern is that one is worried about a person having those views being in a position of power. All parties to the left of UKIP will have racists, probably soft racists, but the thought is that UKIP might have more than most.

I thought racists were to the right?

Your reply does not address the points I made.

Also, have you noticed the distinct lack of HYS on the BBC website?

[Andy Capp]

What I'd like to know is why people would want out or in. I have little I can list, but I'm an example of why democracy fails, as I am saying 'Out' without a sound reason; an ignorant voter who just wants to feel the excitement of sticking one up the establishment.

[Andy Capp]

I thought racists were to the right?

They can be anywhere; racism is human trait. Parties to the left of UKIP, like the Monster Raving Tories, are bound to have racists amongst their fold. Labour certainly do as I believe Diane Abbot has demonstrated as such.

Your reply does not address the points I made.

I never intend to, but I agree officially UKIP in policy are not obviously racist, but I believe UKIP are more likely to have racist members than center ground parties.

Also, have you noticed the distinct lack of HYS on the BBC website?

No I haven't.

[On the edge]

UKIP simply suffers from our present deliberate misuse of emotive words. They are not racist, they are isolationist. That's not an unreasonable position; in fact, probably a good many of us feel the same way.

For me, prior to our joining the EU, we grew a much greater percentage of our food, we had an industrial and manufacturing base, we took pride in our local differences. We could see responsible career paths, with a stable livelihoods continuing for our children

Our island was already a 'single market which had embraced ever further union'. Even then, keeping our separate nation states together wasn't easy and was facing strident calls to separate. At least we had a stable single currency and a single language.

If we had troubles on our small scale; what chance Europe?




Note - when the strident voices tell you that UK isn't big enough to have sustained its own mass car and motorcycle manufacturing firms, world size computing firms, food and confectionary firms. etc.etc. simply ask how Japan has managed. (Of course, it was all the fault of the trades unions....!!)

[Simon Kirby]

... I agree officially UKIP in policy are not obviously racist...

The issue for me is that UKIP attracts intolerant illiberal reactionary totalitarian xenophobes, and some of them will likely be racists too, but it's not true to say that UKIP is a racist party.

[Simon Kirby]

I'd also say that a strong case can be made to leave the EU, but that UKIP has done a really bad job of articulating that argument and has thoroughly poisoned the debate with their brand of ultra-conservative weirdness which has conflated the politically neutral question of EU membership with a whole raft of inflammatory right-wing baggage.

[James_Trinder]

Got to be in. We do too much trade with the rest of Europe and anybody who is currently suggesting with certainty that leaving the EU will have absolutely no effect on this has their head in the clouds.

[Andy Capp]

Got to be in. We do too much trade with the rest of Europe and anybody who is currently suggesting with certainty that leaving the EU will have absolutely no effect on this has their head in the clouds.

I doubt anyone is saying it will have absolutely no effect; however, can you explain why 'Out' would put our trade with the EU in jeopardy?

[James_Trinder]

I doubt anyone is saying it will have absolutely no effect; however, can you explain why 'Out' would put our trade with the EU in jeopardy?

Yes, because any company would implicitly have the backing of their government to screw us over at every possible opportunity.

[Simon Kirby]

I doubt anyone is saying it will have absolutely no effect; however, can you explain why 'Out' would put our trade with the EU in jeopardy?

I think that's a question that deserves a thorough answer. I see plenty of goods from plenty of non-European countries, so do these countries stop exporting to us because we're no longer in Europe, and if non-European countries can export to Europe won't Blighty be free to export its good to Europe just as easily if it leaves the EU?

[Biker1]

Out.

Looks like it may be the way we're going if the newbury Poll is anything to go by.
But don't speak too soon eh as the "out" vote has decreased from 65% from last week!
The current 10% waiting for Cameron should now have decided.

[Simon Kirby]

Maybe some of those voting out can say a bit more about what they're expecting to improve. A return of bendy bananas? The abandonment of SI and a reimposition of Imperial units? Repeal of the Human Rights Act and a resumption of cruel and unusual punishments, imprisonment without trial, and the end of free speech and freedom of association?

[GMR]

I will vote out, but I think the country will vote in. However, it won't be the end of the matter. Say 48% are out, this alone will split the country and every time there is a problem those who voted out will point the finger at Cameron and the "yes" voters. Whatever way you look at it, it is a nail in the coffin of Europe. Like the Scottish referendum (which strengthened SNP), this referendum will strengthen UKIP.

[GMR]

In. One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.

This is a stupid comment. There are likes and dislikes on both sides, and beside, are you saying your will allow "names" to persuade you which way to vote?

[On the edge]

Yes, because any company would implicitly have the backing of their government to screw us over at every possible opportunity.

Rather like the French Government does right now you mean? Ever heard of EdF?

[On the edge]

Maybe some of those voting out can say a bit more about what they're expecting to improve. A return of bendy bananas? The abandonment of SI and a reimposition of Imperial units? Repeal of the Human Rights Act and a resumption of cruel and unusual punishments, imprisonment without trial, and the end of free speech and freedom of association?

That's an interesting one. Under existing English common law at least, if we came out, the existing directives we've signed up to are, by the legislation we enacted when we first joined enshrined in our own law, so we'd need some legislation to repeal and change all that we didn't like. A long and onerous task.

For me, the only immediate improvement would be the cost and bureaucratic effort reduction. It's the longer term win that gets my vote; winning new markets and restoring soup to nuts ownership of UK business.

We also exit the agricultural policy, so medium term ought to see less food imports and our own agriculture making a big come back.

It's possible, and will doubtless be painful, but get it right and our national respect is back, this time not based on an Empire.

[Simon Kirby]

That's an interesting one. Under existing English common law at least, if we came out, the existing directives we've signed up to are, by the legislation we enacted when we first joined enshrined in our own law, so we'd need some legislation to repeal and change all that we didn't like. A long and onerous task.

Not sure about that. Take for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), a piece of legislation with which I have some familiarity that incorporates into English law the European Union Directive 93/13/EEC. UTCCR is English Law right enough, but it is not primary legislation, so not an act of parliament, but rather it is secondary legislation and the Statutory Instrument that incorporates 93/13/EEC is made under a power of the 1972 European Communities Act, and that's going to be true for quite a bit of legislation. So if we leave the EU I'm assuming that there will need to be some repeal of the 1972 Act, and while tht might not necessarily mean the power to mke secondary legislation gets repealed, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be some difficulty. I'm not saying that the difficulty should prevent us from withdrawing from the Union, but it's a consideration given that the majority of the outers will jump at the chance of purging English Law of all taints of foreigness (like habeas corpus for example - doesn't even have an English name - how foreign is that!).

[On the edge]

Not sure about that. Take for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), a piece of legislation with which I have some familiarity that incorporates into English law the European Union Directive 93/13/EEC. UTCCR is English Law right enough, but it is not primary legislation, so not an act of parliament, but rather it is secondary legislation and the Statutory Instrument that incorporates 93/13/EEC is made under a power of the 1972 European Communities Act, and that's going to be true for quite a bit of legislation. So if we leave the EU I'm assuming that there will need to be some repeal of the 1972 Act, and while tht might not necessarily mean the power to mke secondary legislation gets repealed, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be some difficulty. I'm not saying that the difficulty should prevent us from withdrawing from the Union, but it's a consideration given that the majority of the outers will jump at the chance of purging English Law of all taints of foreigness (like habeas corpus for example - doesn't even have an English name - how foreign is that!).

Yes, the 1972 Act will need to be repealed or amended. The issue is the continued application of the secondary legislation that applies today. There has been a huge amount since 1972 and its this that certain Ministers are saying are 'unstoppable laws that daily flow across my desk'. I've seen good evidence of that in the energy and trade departments. If they stopped being legal on a day we exit, there could be serious consequences. I'd argue it would take too long to do an order by order review, so that leaves adding clauses into the exit legislation, or taking the other route open; common law, which would hold that as they are legal on their own right, they'd continue to be so, until a formal change was made. In other words, the legality of these isn't dependent on EU membership. It is a very real issue and certainly as you say, most of the 'outers' won't even consider this,

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Not sure about that. Take for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), a piece of legislation with which I have some familiarity that incorporates into English law the European Union Directive 93/13/EEC. UTCCR is English Law right enough, but it is not primary legislation, so not an act of parliament, but rather it is secondary legislation and the Statutory Instrument that incorporates 93/13/EEC is made under a power of the 1972 European Communities Act, and that's going to be true for quite a bit of legislation. So if we leave the EU I'm assuming that there will need to be some repeal of the 1972 Act, and while tht might not necessarily mean the power to mke secondary legislation gets repealed, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be some difficulty. I'm not saying that the difficulty should prevent us from withdrawing from the Union, but it's a consideration given that the majority of the outers will jump at the chance of purging English Law of all taints of foreigness (like habeas corpus for example - doesn't even have an English name - how foreign is that!).

I can't see things like this affecting the way people vote.
People are normally in or out.
One things for certain. This vote is more important than the next general election. We have tories for a long time
I hope for a very high turnout

[On the edge]

I can't see things like this affecting the way people vote.
People are normally in or out.
One things for certain. This vote is more important than the next general election. We have tories for a long time
I hope for a very high turnout

That's exactly the point!

Nonetheless, it isn't particularly wise to vote either way without appreciating the consequences. Put it this way, right now, I'm inclined to vote out, but in my view, that will mean for a fair few years immediately after, we will find things quite hard. Rather like winning WW2; yes a massive cause celebration but in reality, everyday life became harder for a few years, much safer but harder. Exactly the same after the American independence. I'd be up for it let's hope everyone else is.

[Simon Kirby]

I can't see things like this affecting the way people vote.

If you're not taking practical, rational things like this into account can you say what is motivating your strong desire to leave the EU - and if you're goung to cite soverignty as many do will you please be specific about which specific legislation you find so intolerable and provide some kind of balaced evidence that doesn't reference a story in the Daily Wail about illegal immigrants not being deported because of their cat?

[je suis Charlie]

If you're not taking practical, rational things like this into account can you say what is motivating your strong desire to leave the EU - and if you're goung to cite soverignty as many do will you please be specific about which specific legislation you find so intolerable and provide some kind of balaced evidence that doesn't reference a story in the Daily Wail about illegal immigrants not being deported because of their cat?

Naw, this is my current favourite take of the day!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/J...rews-it-up.html

[On the edge]

Naw, this is my current favourite take of the day!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/J...rews-it-up.html

OMG! I'd forgotten the Telegraph; thought it had died ages ago. As someone once said, a paper for Mail readers who've started to dribble!

[je suis Charlie]

OMG! I'd forgotten the Telegraph; thought it had died ages ago. As someone once said, a paper for Mail readers who've started to dribble!

[James_Trinder]

Rather like the French Government does right now you mean? Ever heard of EdF?

Yes, exactly like that but even more so.

[On the edge]

Yes, exactly like that but even more so.

That's one of the key reasons I want to come out. EdF the French nationalised industry were the highest bidder for London Electricity, no other public company could go there of course, not having access to the low interest rates nation states can secure. Since then, they've also essentially dictated our energy policy with their stranglehold on nuclear generation! What a superb example of a common market.

Yet the EC in spite of lots of bluff and bluster has done absolutely nothing. There are other examples. Sure, EdF and the like could continue to do this if we exit BUT at least we won't be paying for the privilege and could impose our own sanctions.

[Andy Capp]

I fear being in or out wouldn't make the difference. Poor government planning results in being vulnerable to exploitation, e.g. West Berks Council and town centre apartments.

[Andy Capp]

“What did the EU ever do for us?

In the week when the UK's five extremist right-wing media billionaires won their battle to waste our time, money and political capital on a EU referendum, I thought it a good time to post the great letter by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian, which he kindly allowed me to reproduce in my book, "The Prostitute State - How Britain's Democracy has Been Bought":

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Simon Sweeney,

Lecturer in international political economy, University of York"

Please share - the anti-EU campaign will have the full force of Murdoch's and the other 4 extremist right-wing media billionaires papers whose agenda is to destroy all our human rights.

As I wrote in The Prostitute State, over 80% of UK papers are owned by five extremist right wing media billionaires: Rupert Murdoch, (Sun/Times), Barclay Brothers (Telegraph), Richard Desmond (Express) and Lord Rothermere (Daily Mail).

Murdoch is Australian living in New York, Rothermere lives in France, the Barclay Brothers in the tax havens of Monaco and Guernsey. All of them use tax haven entities to avoid UK taxes.

So key question is in light of the above list, why have these billionaires for decades tried to destroy the EU's democratic institutions?

Together we can take him/them on and beat him/them.

peace love respect
Donnachadh x
www.theprostitutestate.co.uk

[On the edge]

I fear being in or out wouldn't make the difference. Poor government planning results in being vulnerable to exploitation, e.g. West Berks Council and town centre apartments.

Quite, so as maintaining a common market is the prime reason for their existance, there is little point in paying the huge sums we do for their efforts.

[On the edge]

“What did the EU ever do for us?

In the week when the UK's five extremist right-wing media billionaires won their battle to waste our time, money and political capital on a EU referendum, I thought it a good time to post the great letter by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian, which he kindly allowed me to reproduce in my book, "The Prostitute State - How Britain's Democracy has Been Bought":

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Simon Sweeney,

Lecturer in international political economy, University of York"

Please share - the anti-EU campaign will have the full force of Murdoch's and the other 4 extremist right-wing media billionaires papers whose agenda is to destroy all our human rights.

As I wrote in The Prostitute State, over 80% of UK papers are owned by five extremist right wing media billionaires: Rupert Murdoch, (Sun/Times), Barclay Brothers (Telegraph), Richard Desmond (Express) and Lord Rothermere (Daily Mail).

Murdoch is Australian living in New York, Rothermere lives in France, the Barclay Brothers in the tax havens of Monaco and Guernsey. All of them use tax haven entities to avoid UK taxes.

So key question is in light of the above list, why have these billionaires for decades tried to destroy the EU's democratic institutions?

Together we can take him/them on and beat him/them.

peace love respect
Donnachadh x
www.theprostitutestate.co.uk

Seriously?

I think I could argue with a good many of those! It's this ungrounded bilge that takes much credibility from the yes side. Ironic, 'break up of monopolies' is listed - see immediately previous post!

[Simon Kirby]

“What did the EU ever do for us...

And pretty much all of that I appreciate. Blighty is a more just, a more responsible society, and it's a miserable truth that, but for our membership of the EU, we might still be living in our own 70's crapulance. Of course, having had some benefit from EU membership there is no reason per se why we shouldn't now leave, and quite honestly I don't believe the EU should have got itself involved in hardly any of those things, but here's the pinch - without the EU this tin-pot island of ours just doesn't appear to have civilised sufficiently to want those things for itself and we'd rather grow our hedges and cower indoors like some piss-pants old misanthrope.

[Andy Capp]

Seriously?

I think I could argue with a good many of those! It's this ungrounded bilge that takes much credibility from the yes side. Ironic, 'break up of monopolies' is listed - see immediately previous post!

Please name three things that are highest on your things that you disagree?

[On the edge]

Please name three things that are highest on your things that you disagree?

OK, take the first five. The UK was either doing or well on the way when joined. The 'EU' have been involved since then, of course, but claiming 'they did it' rather like the Americans saying they won WW2 - yes indeed, BUT actually, they helped.

[GMR]

I fear being in or out wouldn't make the difference. Poor government planning results in being vulnerable to exploitation, e.g. West Berks Council and town centre apartments.

It would make a difference in the sense that we are in charge of our own destiny.

[Biker1]

OK, take the first five. The UK was either doing or well on the way when joined. The 'EU' have been involved since then, of course, but claiming 'they did it' rather like the Americans saying they won WW2 - yes indeed, BUT actually, they helped.

I like "cleaner air" and "cheaper air travel" being in the same list!

[Andy Capp]

It would make a difference in the sense that we are in charge of our own destiny.

That is just the point; we wouldn't necessarily.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

That is just the point; we wouldn't necessarily.

BUT we would only have our own elected leaders and ourselves to blame. That is the nub.

[Andy Capp]

BUT we would only have our own elected leaders and ourselves to blame. That is the nub.

Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.

Perhaps we should introduce an exam to qualify for voting.

A written English and Maths exam should do the trick.

Pass and you get to vote. I'm sure UKIP would be up for it!

[je suis Charlie]

Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.

Or conversely.

[Andy Capp]

Or conversely.

Sadly being intelligent brings no guarantee of rational decisions.

[Andy1]

Leave the EU for Freedom. Freedom to restore the legal system. To negotiate better trade deals. Regenerate the British fishing industry. To spend the vast sums of money here rather than on a costly membership. To make economic and social decisions at home.

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps we should introduce an exam to qualify for voting.

A written English and Maths exam should do the trick.

Alrighty: Question #1. A sizable majority of voters are less than averagely intelligent.

Might that be true? Show your workings.

[Simon Kirby]

Leave the EU for Freedom. Freedom to restore the legal system.

And which specific pieces of European legislation are making life so intolerable for you?

[Andy1]

And which specific pieces of European legislation are making life so intolerable for you?

I think I covered a few but the freedom negotiate anything is very important. We simply do not have this now. If we do please correct me.

[Andy1]

I think I covered a few but the freedom negotiate anything is very important. We simply do not have this now. If we do please correct me.

Apologies I didn't read your question correctly. Unlike some European nations we've been pretty peaceful internally for 100 of years, I would suggest this is due mostly to ours, I maybe wrong.

[Ken]

My vote would be for out.