EU referendum

[Tim of the Oak]

I accept your point but I never have suggested we're superior to anyone else, again I'm not saying others don't think that but that I certainly don't.

I think Cameron should've picked up on this, and who knows, maybe he did. He should've told the EU, whoever that is, that there was a very strong liklihood, that unless he could take something that would enable us to protect our borders better, the U.K. Public will vote to leave. Not issue it as a threat just a clear indication of the mood of the population. That way, if and when we do vote to leave he could turn to the EU, shrug his shoulders and say, you reap what you sew!

Fair enough BigJoe. I know you haven't said anything about superiority. I am focussing on how Cameron would have looked to the other EU Member States, given that they don't really see us as a committed European partner anyway.

Cameron might have stressed in private how important it was for the UK to be seen to helping the EU bit I don't think several of the Countries would have been bothered anyway. For example, the Polish know they have helped out economy out through young, hard working people who don't tend to cause problems for employers.

An Achilles heel for Dave is that the Rest of the EU can see his Government has done very little to control immigration from the rest of the world so why concede on the principle of free movement when the UK hasn't offered a serious alternative. even Brexit seem to be planning to expand immigration from outside of the EU!

 

[Yaya_Tony]

I am interested, if we vote remain now, how do you see Europe looking in 10 years time?

In a decade, the global population (who all have their eyes on this btw) will respect the fact we voted to work together and England and Europe will be better for it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In a decade, the global population (who all have their eyes on this btw) will respect the fact we voted to work together and England and Europe will be better for it.

That's what I thought .....

 

[BigJoe#1]

Fair enough BigJoe. I know you haven't said anything about superiority. I am focussing on how Cameron would have looked to the other EU Member States, given that they don't really see us as a committed European partner anyway.

Cameron might have stressed in private how important it was for the UK to be seen to helping the EU bit I don't think several of the Countries would have been bothered anyway. For example, the Polish know they have helped out economy out through young, hard working people who don't tend to cause problems for employers.

An Achilles heel for Dave is that the Rest of the EU can see his Government has done very little to control immigration from the rest of the world so why concede on the principle of free movement when the UK hasn't offered a serious alternative. even Brexit seem to be planning to expand immigration from outside of the EU!

Your final point is valid. It could be defended but with great difficulty. The arguement that non-EU migrants are from selected professions and necessary to maintain out basic infrastructure would be a starting point. The point that EU migrants also provide these services is valid too, however there many EU migrants that do not provide such services and as such are a burden on our creaking infrastructure. It was never going to be easy but I think the way Cameron went strutting around Europe, claiming success at every point is beginning to come back and haunt him - I think his negotiations and tour of Europe was nothing more than a waste of money and resources and gas turned out to be an abject failure, he could and should have achieved a whole lot more... Just my opinion

 

[urban genie]

I can see no reason why a separate UK could not work with the EU as a single bloc, or indeed work with individual countries on a bi-lateral basis. I appreciate the latter is more difficult and less likely because the EU does not or would not encourage it.

Why would we break off all or any beneficial (to both parties) partnerships?

We probably won't I was bringing it up because both sides have polarised their campaigns on 3-4 issues when there is so much more that should have been discussed, what our future holds in these 3 bodies being part of that. Some of those for exit seem to hope we will see a new british golden age where some seem to be isolationists. It all depends on the result and what happens next I suppose but still it would be nice if the debate had been expanded more than just the economy, immigration and security, there is so much more to discuss.

 

[BigJoe#1]

In a decade, the global population (who all have their eyes on this btw) will respect the fact we voted to work together and England and Europe will be better for it.

What about Wales?

 

[BigJoe#1]

If the EU wants a European army, the EU will get a European army. I expect people in the 1970s were saying there would never be anything other than a common market.

Why would the EU want an EU army if we already have NATO? I fully realise they are two different organisations but NATO underpins and defends the EU. Would it be a case of yet more duplication and expense for very little gain (something the EU is rather proficient at)?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Your final point is valid. It could be defended but with great difficulty. The arguement that non-EU migrants are from selected professions and necessary to maintain out basic infrastructure would be a starting point. The point that EU migrants also provide these services is valid too, however there many EU migrants that do not provide such services and as such are a burden on our creaking infrastructure. It was never going to be easy but I think the way Cameron went strutting around Europe, claiming success at every point is beginning to come back and haunt him - I think his negotiations and tour of Europe was nothing more than a waste of money and resources and gas turned out to be an abject failure, he could and should have achieved a whole lot more... Just my opinion

Yes Dave's negotiations weren't a success - at least in time for this referendum. We might never know if the agreement on a two speed Europe was significant or not.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Why would the EU want an EU army if we already have NATO? I fully realise they are two different organisations but NATO underpins and defends the EU. Would it be a case of yet more duplication and expense for very little gain (something the EU is rather proficient at)?

Surely an EU army would replace the member states' armies, not be in addition to them, or am I missing something here. NATO would be US, Europe and the rest.

 

[BigJoe#1]

In light of the tragic death of Jo Cox and the rightful respect of both campaigns to suspend campaigning......

What Do you think Camerom will do regarding his Question Time appearance tomorrow?

A) go ahead
B) defer it, though that could be politically difficult
C) abandon it

If it were to be C do you think he would be relieved to not be facing questions, he hadn't had in advance, from the public?

Curiosity getting the better of me.