EU referendum - How will you vote?

I'm not really starting this thread to undercut IC's perfectly adequate discussion. What I want to ask is the question that UK citizens will face on June 23rd. So, winnowing out the UK and non-UK posters and getting an idea of how British DPers view their upcoming choice.

Please vote, comment if you wish, but for more general discussion, please see Infinite Chaos's UK EU referendum thread.

Andalublue said:

~ What I want to ask is the question that UK citizens will face on June 23rd ~

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know right now Andy. I don't want to make my decision on rhetoric or hyperbole but for my children's security and future.

There is little real investigative journalism to help my decision right now - MPs and voters are wheeled on to TV to give their opinions but they are not challenged to explain or expand. Chris Grayling MP was saying the other night how being out of Europe would allow us to do things we can't - but he wasn't asked to substantiate. A couple of voters from Michael Gove's constituency were saying "we're ruled from Brussels" and "too much red tape" - but weren't asked to give examples.
Equally on the stay side - people say why we should stay because of the internal market and jobs without giving real backup to their statements. Andy Burnham says leaving will be a disaster but we are the 5th biggest economy and the city will (I feel) adapt and survive. We have less manufacturing but we have specialised in specific manufacture which (I feel) can compete globally and find new markets across China and India. I feel in some way we have focused our exports too much on Europe and need to be more open to other markets.

It's frustrating but I'm seeing and hearing this morning that people will really vote on gut feeling and personal views and less so on facts.

A vote to leave the EU is a vote for further influence in British politics from the IRA and Putin...

Based on the wants of the OP I have no vote here, but am very interested in the subject / results.

Infinite Chaos said:

I honestly don't know right now Andy. I don't want to make my decision on rhetoric or hyperbole but for my children's security and future.

There is little real investigative journalism to help my decision right now - MPs and voters are wheeled on to TV to give their opinions but they are not challenged to explain or expand. Chris Grayling MP was saying the other night how being out of Europe would allow us to do things we can't - but he wasn't asked to substantiate. A couple of voters from Michael Gove's constituency were saying "we're ruled from Brussels" and "too much red tape" - but weren't asked to give examples.
Equally on the stay side - people say why we should stay because of the internal market and jobs without giving real backup to their statements. Andy Burnham says leaving will be a disaster but we are the 5th biggest economy and the city will (I feel) adapt and survive. We have less manufacturing but we have specialised in specific manufacture which (I feel) can compete globally and find new markets across China and India. I feel in some way we have focused our exports too much on Europe and need to be more open to other markets.

It's frustrating but I'm seeing and hearing this morning that people will really vote on gut feeling and personal views and less so on facts.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I think a lot of people are in the same boat; a lack of facts and a lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric.

One thing you said did make me stop and read it again: "we are the 5th biggest economy and the city will (I feel) adapt and survive." Two things: that's not what the City thinks, since they are overwhelmingly in favour of Bremain. Secondly however, I don't think that the health of the City has much impact on the prosperity of the nation. To believe that is to believe in trickle-down economics, and I don't. The City contributes hardly anything to government income, and hence to public services, and to claim that the capitalisation of British business is some kind of philanthropy on the part of the financial sector is nonsense.

We have allowed our manufacturing sector to decline in order to concentrate more on financial services and I think that the 2008 crash, and the extent to which the UK felt it (and is still feeling it) much harder than other countries is entirely down to the short-sightedness of creating an economic monoculture around service and financial industry.

I think that you're right, that most people will vote on their gut reactions rather than on facts, because none of those facts are unequivocal.

OrphanSlug said:

Based on the wants of the OP I have no vote here, but am very interested in the subject / results.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be intentionally exclusive, but there is another poll that invites your vote on the matter. Thanks for participating!

I've been waiting for thirty years for a chance to leave the EUand its predecessors.

Cameron talks about' a leap in the dark'. Britain has been a member of the EU for the thirteen years of its existence. It was a self-governing independent state for the preceding several hundred. Leaving the EU will simply be a return to normality.

READ: Gove Statement in Full | Euro Guido

Michael Gove puts our case very well. I agree with every word of his statement.

Abbazorkzog said:

A vote to leave the EU is a vote for further influence in British politics from the IRA and Putin...

Click to expand...

I assume you are joking.

Sweden said:

I assume you are joking.

Click to expand...

No. I'm not.

Abbazorkzog said:

No. I'm not.

Click to expand...

How does Russian interest in the Scottish referendum equate to them having greater influence over the nation post-Brexit? Your first linked article makes almost the diametrically opposed argument - that Russia has no interest in UK domestic politics.

Andalublue said:

How does Russian interest in the Scottish referendum equate to them having greater influence over the nation post-Brexit? Your first linked article makes almost the diametrically opposed argument - that Russia has no interest in UK domestic politics.

Click to expand...

The exact same argument everyone always presents when someone with view-points counter to theirs' actually presents sources to back up their claims.

Abbazorkzog said:

The exact same argument everyone always presents when someone with view-points counter to theirs' actually presents sources to back up their claims.

Click to expand...

Well, y'see Abbaz, anyone who can read can understand a headline saying:

Scottish independence: Vladimir Putin says referendum 'a domestic issue'

Click to expand...

Posting that is not 'backing up their claim' but undermining it. Completely.

Andalublue said:

Well, y'see Abbaz, anyone who can read can understand a headline saying:

Click to expand...

Typical Russian expansionism. Simplexity has an entire thread (50+ pages I think) of sources contradicting your assertions.

What is amazing is the lack of actual facts going on in this debate and now referendum. Why is none of the mainstream UK media asking any serious questions?

Like.. how many migrants get benefits and how much does that cost? How much does migrants contribute in taxes to the UK economy? Hint.. it aint as much as people think it is.. the cost that is..

Or why is no one challenging the "ever closer union" crap?

There are so many questions that are not being asked of the politicians, especially the no ones.

How about asking what "powers" they want back from the EU? They keep saying it, but never have we heard what specific powers they want back!

The yes side has to get its act together and start attacking the no side on facts and expose the no side for its lies and bull****.

Sweden said:

~ Michael Gove puts our case very well ~

Click to expand...

We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change.

Click to expand...

That's a very pertinent point - if we dislike a policy inspired from within the Commission that has to be written into UK law, we have no redress. As for the open door policy - while we have an opt out that prevents some being given residence, there are worries around about what will happen after last year and this year's mass migration.

Agreed, good article.

Andalublue said:

I hear you. I think a lot of people are in the same boat; a lack of facts and a lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric.

One thing you said did make me stop and read it again: "we are the 5th biggest economy and the city will (I feel) adapt and survive." Two things: that's not what the City thinks, since they are overwhelmingly in favour of Bremain. Secondly however, I don't think that the health of the City has much impact on the prosperity of the nation. To believe that is to believe in trickle-down economics, and I don't. The City contributes hardly anything to government income, and hence to public services, and to claim that the capitalisation of British business is some kind of philanthropy on the part of the financial sector is nonsense.

We have allowed our manufacturing sector to decline in order to concentrate more on financial services and I think that the 2008 crash, and the extent to which the UK felt it (and is still feeling it) much harder than other countries is entirely down to the short-sightedness of creating an economic monoculture around service and financial industry.

I think that you're right, that most people will vote on their gut reactions rather than on facts, because none of those facts are unequivocal.

Click to expand...

Beg to disagree - the city contributed £53.4bn in 2010 and it's pretty similar year on year since.

I do accept that trickle down economics doesn't "trickle" - it tends to displace and move the poor elsewhere. As for your first comment, I stand by what I wrote - I know there would be some relocation into Frankfurt and other centres if we voted leave but I don't see all the major companies upping sticks and leaving. They simply have branches in London and in Frankfurt and would shift some if not a lot of business while other companies would take their place. As for the city wanting "bremain" - that's basically that speculators prefer the known status quo to the unknown. That's been true throughout history.

Minding own bidness as requested, lol, but observing with interest. I didn't know this was up for vote again...


opcorn2:

PeteEU said:

What is amazing is the lack of actual facts going on in this debate and now referendum. Why is none of the mainstream UK media asking any serious questions?

Like.. how many migrants get benefits and how much does that cost? How much does migrants contribute in taxes to the UK economy? Hint.. it aint as much as people think it is.. the cost that is..

Or why is no one challenging the "ever closer union" crap?

There are so many questions that are not being asked of the politicians, especially the no ones.

How about asking what "powers" they want back from the EU? They keep saying it, but never have we heard what specific powers they want back!

The yes side has to get its act together and start attacking the no side on facts and expose the no side for its lies and bull****.

Click to expand...

There is definitely something fishy going on with this debate indeed. In particular, this;

How about asking what "powers" they want back from the EU? They keep saying it, but never have we heard what specific powers they want back!

Click to expand...

This is, at least in my opinion, the most sideways aspect of what's been going on in the UK. There is a pervading fear of the European Union in the UK, and it just seems so out-of-place from how it was, what, 5 years ago? Has it really only been that long?

I will vote for mandatory yearly payments to me of approximately 12 million Euros from Brussels.

But I will accept 10 million if worst comes to worst.

PeteEU said:

~ Or why is no one challenging the "ever closer union" crap?

Click to expand...

I think to some in Europe, it's an ideal. Given our different history, that phrase causes a lot of worries here.

PeteEU said:

~ How about asking what "powers" they want back from the EU? They keep saying it, but never have we heard what specific powers they want back! ~

Click to expand...

That phrase has not been mentioned these last few weeks - the NO campaign is focusing on sovereignty, not about "taking back specific powers." The claim is that there are directives and laws which come down through the EU that sovereign governments have to make into law - the question Michael Gove raised in his article was if the public don't like that law, they can't vote a govt out to change it. So - think back to Poll tax - the public disliked it and had a govt / politician they could focus on to pressure into dropping it.

If something agreed at EU level and then the European Court of Justice makes sure it is implemented across europe equally - but if a group of citizens dislike that law; who do they complain to or vote to get out?

I'm giving a loose example as I know you will correct me on how EU law is made and I am also cognisant of this "The European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries."

I'm aware of your position - what I'm asking you to see is the perceived problem of not whether the laws are democratically made / just / equal or correct - but about whether citizens of a country can complain about them and have them changed if they don't like them.

Infinite Chaos said:

I think to some in Europe, it's an ideal. Given our different history, that phrase causes a lot of worries here.

Click to expand...

What? You do know that "ever closer union" has far more words than that? It is out of context... and being abused massively.

The two places it is mentioned... first one states

RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity’

Click to expand...

and second

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

Click to expand...

Funny how they forget to mention all the bold parts eh?

That phrase has not been mentioned these last few weeks - the NO campaign is focusing on sovereignty, not about "taking back specific powers." The claim is that there are directives and laws which come down through the EU that sovereign governments have to make into law - the question Michael Gove raised in his article was if the public don't like that law, they can't vote a govt out to change it. So - think back to Poll tax - the public disliked it and had a govt / politician they could focus on to pressure into dropping it.

Click to expand...

And it is horse****. Legislation in Europe goes through the UK government and hence the parliament if the UK government so chooses, plus the elected representatives in the EU. On top of that the legislation that comes out of the EU, does not effect in any way the way the Poll tax did. And on top of that, all legislation proposals are transparent and open.. you can literally go and look at them.

If something agreed at EU level and then the European Court of Justice makes sure it is implemented across europe equally - but if a group of citizens dislike that law; who do they complain to or vote to get out?

Click to expand...

If something is agreed on EU level, then the UK agrees to as well for the most part. The European Court of Justice? It is the commission that makes sure that it is implemented, and if a countries dont implement, then the court system gets involved and through that penalties can be implemented. As for a "group of citizens" dislike the law, then they should complain to their elected officials like in any democracy. And as for the "vote to get out".. it happens so rarely that it is irrelevant.

I'm giving a loose example as I know you will correct me on how EU law is made and I am also cognisant of this "The European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries."

Click to expand...

Yes and? Listen it is simple. The UK along with the other members, all agree that a certain area needs to be regulated through the EU instead of individual countries. Most of this is in conjunction with the common market, safety or agriculture. This is why "reclaiming powers from Brussels" is something that the politicians need to be asked... what powers? The rest that most Brit politicians complain about are clearly stated in the treaties they have signed over the last 70+ years.

I'm aware of your position - what I'm asking you to see is the perceived problem of not whether the laws are democratically made / just / equal or correct - but about
whether citizens of a country can complain about them and have them changed if they don't like them.

Click to expand...

And I am asking you to be realistic. There is no system in place in any country to give what you want. Poll Tax, the example that you gave, was taken back because of massive violent protests and complaints. That was the way it was changed. In reality, most laws are put in place by our politicians with zero input from the "average joe", because they frankly could give a rats ass. Those few that complain, have to complain through the usual channels, aka their elected representative.

I have been looking into the whole "welfare numbers" and the whole debate is basically based on racism as far as I can see. Why? Because the only numbers that there are, are insanely vague and easily manipulated.

The Department of Works and Pension released some numbers through the Conservative newspaper The Times a while ago. It stated that between 37% to 43% of EU migrants receive some sort of welfare. That sound like a lot, but the range is also rather huge. Could this be true? Well..

EU migrants on benefits: separating the statistics from the spin | UK news | The Guardian

What is shocking about these numbers is how badly they are. 66% of claimants were in work.. what wait? People who are working get benefits? How ****ed up is that? And included in the numbers were migrants married to Brits plus their freaking children!!! Talk about being manipulative.. Then there was this...

There is also a lack of wider context. EU migrants make up only a small proportion of the overall benefits caseload. They accounted for 2.5% of benefits the DWP administered in 2014 - mostly out-of-work benefits - in 2014, and 7% of tax credits, based on the HMRC definition discussed above.

Click to expand...

Wait what? and then there is this..

The DWP analysis says EU migrants on “in-work” benefits cost the taxpayer £530m in 2013. That represents a modest 1.6% of the year’s total tax credit bill.

Click to expand...

Wait.. the UK is going more and more to the right and are afraid of those dirty criminal foreigners .. and all because of 530 million pounds?

Next question is.. how much do the EU migrants contribute to the UK economy? Answer.. and hell of a lot more than 530 million pounds..

Abbazorkzog said:

Typical Russian expansionism. Simplexity has an entire thread (50+ pages I think) of sources contradicting your assertions.

Click to expand...

I've not made any assertions, you have. Specifically:

A vote to leave the EU is a vote for further influence in British politics from the IRA and Putin...

Click to expand...

Now, I'm wholly opposed to the UK leaving the EU, but how you can claim that the IRA and the Russians will achieve greater influence if the UK leaves, I do not know. Certainly the articles you linked to did not make any such point.

Infinite Chaos said:

I think to some in Europe, it's an ideal. Given our different history, that phrase causes a lot of worries here.



That phrase has not been mentioned these last few weeks - the NO campaign is focusing on sovereignty, not about "taking back specific powers." The claim is that there are directives and laws which come down through the EU that sovereign governments have to make into law - the question Michael Gove raised in his article was if the public don't like that law, they can't vote a govt out to change it. So - think back to Poll tax - the public disliked it and had a govt / politician they could focus on to pressure into dropping it.

If something agreed at EU level and then the European Court of Justice makes sure it is implemented across europe equally - but if a group of citizens dislike that law; who do they complain to or vote to get out?

I'm giving a loose example as I know you will correct me on how EU law is made and I am also cognisant of this "The European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries."

I'm aware of your position - what I'm asking you to see is the perceived problem of not whether the laws are democratically made / just / equal or correct - but about whether citizens of a country can complain about them and have them changed if they don't like them.

Click to expand...

Here is a good article on sovereignty and how it has been deliberately given away.
DOMINIC LAWSON: Cameron and the cynical lie that's festered for 45 years | Daily Mail Online

I hope a suffiicent number of people understand how the rights and freedoms of the British people have been deliberately destroyed. And how important it is to recover them.

PeteEU said:

What is amazing is the lack of actual facts going on in this debate and now referendum. Why is none of the mainstream UK media asking any serious questions?

Like.. how many migrants get benefits and how much does that cost? How much does migrants contribute in taxes to the UK economy? Hint.. it aint as much as people think it is.. the cost that is..

Or why is no one challenging the "ever closer union" crap?

There are so many questions that are not being asked of the politicians, especially the no ones.

How about asking what "powers" they want back from the EU? They keep saying it, but never have we heard what specific powers they want back!

The yes side has to get its act together and start attacking the no side on facts and expose the no side for its lies and bull****.

Click to expand...

It is not a question of 'specific powers' PeteEU but power in general aka sovereignty. I suggest you read this article.

DOMINIC LAWSON: Cameron and the cynical lie that's festered for 45 years | Daily Mail Online

Sweden said:

It is not a question of 'specific powers' PeteEU but power in general aka sovereignty. I suggest you read this article.

DOMINIC LAWSON: Cameron and the cynical lie that's festered for 45 years | Daily Mail Online

Click to expand...

This quote...the rest is rabid fascist propaganda.. it is after all the same newspaper that supported Hitler.

Sir Noel Malcolm, that great university’s most distinguished historian of such matters, set out the truth in his 1991 work, Sense On Sovereignty: ‘What qualifies a state as sovereign is a matter of plenary and exclusive competence, of enjoying full authority internally and not being subordinated to the authority of another state.’
On that basis, the British Parliament and Government are not sovereign.

Click to expand...

He is correct.. but the British Parliament and Government would not be sovereign regardless if they were in the EU or not.. and that is the even bigger "lie". Why? Because the UK is part of the international community. It needs to trade, it needs to defend it self and so on. So it is member of the UN, NATO, the Postal Union and so on and each one chips away at "sovereignty" according to the above.

The UK has given up sovereignty for a very long time, and all of it to become a member of international organisations. Why is it only a problem with the EU? Why not WHO? WTO? UN? NATO? Those are only the big organisations..