EU referendum deal (title edited)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
roaminblue said:
Agreed, and this can't be a surprise, humans have been doing that since time immemorial.

Honestly, I don't think a knee jerkey referendum is the way to deal with this issue
Click to expand...
It is entirely plausible that both sides arguments are lying and scaremongering

It appears to me neither side really understands even a fraction of the issues and consequences , neither side really is prepared to understand the views of the other side and neither side is prepared to do anything other than use emotional falsehoods to try to win.

But that's probably because it's all a big furfee, in or out isn't tackling the real issues its moving deckchairs and until there is serious honest discourse and politicians start to accept that real sacrifices have to be made whatever is to happen its kind of irellevant. Until both sides accept that their stereotypes of the other side are just wishful ignorance it will be a nonsense too.
 
Last edited:
Keep saying it but this is the kind of decision we elect people with time and resources to really look into the pros and cons to decide. I don't think the general public has anywhere near the level of understanding required to make such a momentous decision.

Perhaps the campaign will raise that awareness but as has been pointed out previously, there's a lot of falsehood on the issue portrayed as fact and a large percentage of people have made up their minds based on said falsehoods.

If we have a referendum I'll vote to stay in but that's probably if I'm honest a vote against nationalism rather than a strong belief in the EU in it's current form.
 
masterwig said:
Keep saying it but this is the kind of decision we elect people with time and resources to really look into the pros and cons to decide. I don't think the general public has anywhere near the level of understanding required to make such a momentous decision.

Perhaps the campaign will raise that awareness but as has been pointed out previously, there's a lot of falsehood on the issue portrayed as fact and a large percentage of people have made up their minds based on said falsehoods.

If we have a referendum I'll vote to stay in but that's probably if I'm honest a vote against nationalism rather than a strong belief in the EU in it's current form.
Click to expand...

I don't think MPs have anywhere near the objectivity for such a decision. Most could probably be eligible for cushty EU jobs after their time in the UK parliament. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
 
CityStu said:
I don't think MPs have anywhere near the objectivity for such a decision. Most could probably be eligible for cushty EU jobs after their time in the UK parliament. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Click to expand...

Who else could, or should, make such a decision apart from either Parliament or the people in a referendum?
 
cibaman said:
Who else could, or should, make such a decision apart from either Parliament or the people in a referendum?
Click to expand...
No one could bar the people for precisely the reason above , big business, the civil service, the politicians, even the judiciary would all be called biased and nose in the trough if there was any other vote than out. Because the drivers of the out campaign and quite possibly the in campaign will never accept the validity of a vote win by the other side.

If we vote in or out from that point on the other side will be talking down the country and economy every second they can and will be blaming every single bad thing that happens on the vote.

So no one can ever decide legitimately as no one will ever accept the other side could be right and both sides will dodge , weave, lie and twist facts because nowadays that is what politics is about!
 
cibaman said:
Who else could, or should, make such a decision apart from either Parliament or the people in a referendum?
Click to expand...

I think it being put to the people in a referendum is the right call. I think it's unlikely, but I'd hope unbiased facts could be made available to all voters about all things EU - things like how much it costs us, our net contribution and how that compares to other countries, projects the EU has funded, laws the EU has brought in and evidence of their impact in the UK, etc. Making people more informed without influencing them in or out due to the wording or amount of positive/negative content.
 
CityStu said:
I don't think MPs have anywhere near the objectivity for such a decision. Most could probably be eligible for cushty EU jobs after their time in the UK parliament. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Click to expand...

We had a general election less than a year ago. Voters were free to ask their candidates what their stance was on Europe and vote accordingly. Some candidates even made it a cornerstone of their platform.

Instead of an expensive and distracting referendum campaign why not trust the judgement of the electorate from last year? Major downside to that is politicians don't always do what they say!

Maybe you're right we should ask the people. I just don't trust the people to make an informed decision. I actually think turnout will be low because for everyone who has a strong option there are two people who don't understand enough to care. Walk round town and ask shoppers to describe the pros and cons of EU membership and most would struggle to come up with anything in depth and substantial either way.

I can see it now:

"Health and safety gone mad"
"Children can't sing ba ba black sheep any more"
"They've banned Christmas"
 
masterwig said:
We had a general election less than a year ago. Voters were free to ask their candidates what their stance was on Europe and vote accordingly. Some candidates even made it a cornerstone of their platform.

Instead of an expensive and distracting referendum campaign why not trust the judgement of the electorate from last year? Major downside to that is politicians don't always do what they say!

Maybe you're right we should ask the people. I just don't trust the people to make an informed decision. I actually think turnout will be low because for everyone who has a strong option there are two people who don't understand enough to care. Walk round town and ask shoppers to describe the pros and cons of EU membership and most would struggle to come up with anything in depth and substantial either way.

I can see it now:

"Health and safety gone mad"
"Children can't sing ba ba black sheep any more"
"They've banned Christmas"
Click to expand...

But over half of those who voted did so for a party that was promising a referendum in their manifesto.

I think most people have an opinion on the EU and reckon that turnout will be similar to the GE. I do agree that most are probably ill-informed though, or have made opinions based on the opinions of others/media, rather than the facts. I think that getting the in and out campaigns to sit down together and produce a document of important facts about the EU that neither thought biased would be a good addition to the voting material people are sent.
 
CityStu said:
I think it being put to the people in a referendum is the right call. I think it's unlikely, but I'd hope unbiased facts could be made available to all voters about all things EU - things like how much it costs us, our net contribution and how that compares to other countries, projects the EU has funded, laws the EU has brought in and evidence of their impact in the UK, etc. Making people more informed without influencing them in or out due to the wording or amount of positive/negative content.
Click to expand...

The decision can't just be based on unbiased facts, it comes down to judgement calls on how the EU will develop in the future and how the UK's trading relationship with the EU would be affected by exit. Both are matters of opinion rather than facts
 
cibaman said:
The decision can't just be based on unbiased facts, it comes down to judgement calls on how the EU will develop in the future and how the UK's trading relationship with the EU would be affected by exit. Both are matters of opinion rather than facts
Click to expand...

But each individual has to make those judgement calls on the basis of facts. How can anyone predict how the trading relationship would change if they don't know what we gain/lose from it now? Things like the proportion of our imports/exports that are traded with the EU, some example trading costs with non-EU countries, etc. I appreciate that that information is probably available somewhere, but it should be given to people rather than making them search for it off their own back.
 
CityStu said:
But each individual has to make those judgement calls on the basis of facts. How can anyone predict how the trading relationship would change if they don't know what we gain/lose from it now? Things like the proportion of our imports/exports that are traded with the EU, some example trading costs with non-EU countries, etc. I appreciate that that information is probably available somewhere, but it should be given to people rather than making them search for it off their own back.
Click to expand...
The biggest things are unknown. Take external trade treaties - the UK would have to exit all the EU treaties (which is most of the world) then renegotiate the treaties. That firstly means more British civil servants but is that 100 or 10000, they need to be administered is it 200 or 20000. The stay in campaign will say that Canada, China, etc are looking forward to getting a much better deal with Britain and screw us the out campaign will say they all see Britain as a key trade partner and will give us a deal just as good.

Some say we will be free like Norway but neglect turntable that outside oil, fish and minerals Norway is disadvantaged because it has to obey nearly all industrial manufacturing and business rules with no say.

Then you have EU human rights law, some see it as outrageous we have human rights imposed on us, others see this as more protection for us as citizens.

Most of the biggest impacts are actually Unknown and can't be known until we try it. IE what will it do for trade with EU and currency. How much worse will we be off with the rest of the world. Are we still so important to the US because we are the UK or is it because we are the English bridge to the EU trade wise.will new treaties take months or years to get in place, will they cost us minimally or massively. How long will it take to rewrite our law , how much will that cost, will we be safer or worse off.

If it slows immigration and the economy slows and we lose growth (which in uk terms is basically driven by immigration) where will the new immigration come from. Will an aus system work are there enough people wanting to come who would suffice

It goes on and on, to change is a leap of faith which could be OK - could deliver some promises, it could change very little and be a costly exercise to change nothing or it could cause huge problems.

We shall see but I am not sure facts will help overly as it is a leap of faith.
 
EalingBlue2 said:
The biggest things are unknown. Take external trade treaties - the UK would have to exit all the EU treaties (which is most of the world) then renegotiate the treaties. That firstly means more British civil servants but is that 100 or 10000, they need to be administered is it 200 or 20000. The stay in campaign will say that Canada, China, etc are looking forward to getting a much better deal with Britain and screw us the out campaign will say they all see Britain as a key trade partner and will give us a deal just as good.

Some say we will be free like Norway but neglect turntable that outside oil, fish and minerals Norway is disadvantaged because it has to obey nearly all industrial manufacturing and business rules with no say.

Then you have EU human rights law, some see it as outrageous we have human rights imposed on us, others see this as more protection for us as citizens.

Most of the biggest impacts are actually Unknown and can't be known until we try it. IE what will it do for trade with EU and currency. How much worse will we be off with the rest of the world. Are we still so important to the US because we are the UK or is it because we are the English bridge to the EU trade wise.will new treaties take months or years to get in place, will they cost us minimally or massively. How long will it take to rewrite our law , how much will that cost, will we be safer or worse off.

If it slows immigration and the economy slows and we lose growth (which in uk terms is basically driven by immigration) where will the new immigration come from. Will an aus system work are there enough people wanting to come who would suffice

It goes on and on, to change is a leap of faith which could be OK - could deliver some promises, it could change very little and be a costly exercise to change nothing or it could cause huge problems.

We shall see but I am not sure facts will help overly as it is a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

And that's only half of the equation. The EU is a totally different institution now to the one we joined and it will continue changing. Ever closer union is still the objective. New treaties will be introduced, additional countries will join. We're unlikely to be offered a referendum every time there's a treaty change. When we vote this year or next we have to take a view on whether we want to stay in the EU, not just as it is now, but how it will look in the future.
 
cibaman said:
And that's only half of the equation. The EU is a totally different institution now to the one we joined and it will continue changing. Ever closer union is still the objective. New treaties will be introduced, additional countries will join. We're unlikely to be offered a referendum every time there's a treaty change. When we vote this year or next we have to take a view on whether we want to stay in the EU, not just as it is now, but how it will look in the future.
Click to expand...
All very fair points and that's without knowing what happens with other trading blocs. For the Uk much depends if they strengthen or break apart too.
 
I think the main problem is that if there is a yes vote that is not only a vote for the status quo it will be used as a vote for any further strengthening of EU powers' .

Just like the vote to join a Common market has got us to this point and we were never told this might happen, we will be misled again; a yes vote will be the end of Great Britain because a yes vote will hand all the powers the Eu needs to do what ever they want going forward.
This is why we must ignore all the scaremongering and take the only chance we will ever get to take back our own destiny.
I for one do not want to be governed by faceless unelected Europeans.
Look how many Jocks are already regretting not taking their chance to grasp their once in a generation/ lifetime chance for independence.
 
David Cameron said on the Andrew Marr show today that he would stay on as Prime Minister, even if the result of the vote is to leave the EU. The PM would stay on even if he's on the losing side in the biggest constitutional issue in recent history. That is insane.
 
I Hart Man City said:
David Cameron said on the Andrew Marr show today that he would stay on as Prime Minister, even if the result of the vote is to leave the EU. The PM would stay on even if he's on the losing side in the biggest constitutional issue in recent history. That is insane.
Click to expand...

He's going before the end of this parliament anyway. Seems odd that he would stay on for would only be a few months
 
I Hart Man City said:
David Cameron said on the Andrew Marr show today that he would stay on as Prime Minister, even if the result of the vote is to leave the EU. The PM would stay on even if he's on the losing side in the biggest constitutional issue in recent history. That is insane.
Click to expand...

Not really. Of course he would go. But announcing that in advance would be daft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top