Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 2
  • YANA
    I don't understand the question. The UK is part of the EU. We had a referendum in the 1970s when we voted to stay in. You can't keep having referendums just because someone diidn't like the result of the last one.
    Originally posted by janiebquick
    This is absolutely incorrect. We voted for a Common Market and not a Federal Europe, as those in power have subsequently admitted was the real agenda all the time. We were lied to then and we are being lied to now.
    Day in day out I see nothing but harm and cost from the EU.
  • Ken68
    Better to be IN the EU and playing a full role, able to influence change for the good ,than be a satellite of the USA.
  • XRAT
    Many countries have better trains, roads, trams and have a better lifestyle. Not everything is perfect of course but we should be playing a bigger part at the heart of the EU to our benefit.
    I would say to doubters, drive around Europe and I think you will change your mind.
    Originally posted by Gus360
    I think you'll find that most nay-sayers believe you, and that's why they want out!
    They don't want to be working harder and longer so that the rest of Europe can have nice things. Just as they don't want to pay M.P.'s and M.E.P.'s large salaries AND subsidise their food, lodgings, lifestyle.., only to be fleeced by them.

    If the U.K. left the E.U. would all the Europeans have to leave? And would that mean we would hit our emmissions targets because the population was smaller? Would other E.U. states then have larger populations and miss their targets? Would there be more houses available here, so we didn't need to build on the green-belt? Would there be less demand so house prices fell.., would that mean we would have more to spend on other things.., which would drive the economy?

    Or would it mean that house prices fell meaning the banks would have less assets, therefore they'd collapse, the government would raise less tax.., and there would be less in the trough for their snouts?
  • wishbone42
    Re-negotiation cannot be an option for a referendum, as there's no definitive outcome. How does one quantify the result? Would success be measured by withdrawal from the CAP and CFP and return of control of our borders for instance? Or some other criteria? To whom would we assign the responsibility of re-negotiation? The then current Government? All three parties in Westminster have shown that they cannot be trusted on the subject of the EU, so there's not a prayer that much would change no matter who was in power.

    A straightforward IN/OUT referendum is the only solution, as it means that the winners have a clear mandate one way or the other to move forward. Anything less will leave things in turmoil and will inevitably leave us in a worse situation than we have now.

    Will we be better off leaving the EU? Absolutely. The re-direction of billions in membership fees to fund UK infrastructure projects, nuclear power stations, education and the NHS. Support for UK farmers, fisherman and industry. The reduction of red tape that's stifling our economic recovery. The ability to freely negotiate trade deals across the world. All things that we should've had these last 40 years if the political elite hadn't been working to a completely different agenda.
  • m1keb
    The 75% of respondents who voted for renegotiation obviously do not know that this option is forbidden under EU treaties - Either a country is 100% in and subject to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, or it's 100% out, albeit that trading agreements can and will be negotiated.

    Politicians of LibLabCon know this, but still spin that this option is available; it isn't, unless we invoke article 50 of the TEU (Treaty on European Union) and give notice of leaving. Only then would we be out from under the thumb of the EU bureaucracy and could negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland or Norway.

    In the 1975 referendum we were asked "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?". 67% voted yes, but they were voting to stay in a trading union, not the Federal wannabe abortion we are now a member of, thanks to the treasonous actions of politicians of all parties since then.

    At no time have the British people been asked whether we wanted to give up our sovereignty and be subservient to an unelected mob in Brussels.

    We should have our say now.
  • Ken68
    At no time have the British people been asked to vote a sovereign into power.
    And considering the shenagins they get up to no different to your 'unelected mob'.
    At least if we played a full role in Europe we have the chance to normalise things. Not good to snipe from the edges.
  • foureyes1941
    To be honest, I think this question is misleading as most people want an in/out vote not on renegotiate and I believe most have read it wrong and have voted yes.
  • Arthurian
    I agree with Goflyfalco - the question makes no sense.

    If you vote to get out of the EU, you could vote NO to renegotiations. Yet someone could conclude that a NO to renegotiations means a vote to keep things as they are.

    Or someone voting to get out of the EU could vote YES to renegotiations thinking that meant getting around a table in Brussels to arrange the exit of the UK from the EU.
  • m1keb
    Ken68 wrote:

    At no time have the British people been asked to vote a sovereign into power. And considering the shenagins (sic) they get up to no different to your 'unelected mob'.

    You are deliberately misreading my post, which referred to the sovereignty of the British people, not Mrs Battenberg and family, who by their treachery are now mere citizens of the EU. Of what relevance is comparing the activities of a bunch of inbreeds to the thieving bureaucracy in Brussels?

    At least if we played a full role in Europe we have the chance to normalise things. Not good to snipe from the edges.


    You may wish to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic, but most British people do not agree with you (along with an increasing number of Irish, Greeks, Spaniards and even Germans!). If we get out we will be better off by 30 million pounds per day... and why then would we want to snipe at anybody?

    Europe is my continent and holiday destination of choice, but not my country and it never will be, no matter what the politicians agree to in my name.
    Last edited by m1keb; 13-12-2012 at 9:33 AM.
  • aberdinah
    Anyone who has read Richard North and Christopher Booker's hefty tome 'The great deception' or who reads the EUReferendum blog will be aware that renegotiation is impossible under the terms of our membership.

    Unless we leave we have extremely limited rights to determine our laws. Without economic freedom we will not be able to free ourselves from the depression we are currently in, and will have to contribute more and more money to the central government in Brussels to determine every last detail of what we are allowed to produce and buy.

    The EU is not a free trade area; it is a customs union, by being in it we havbe to impose tariffs on goods from the rest of the world. Producers in developing countries can't compete with subsisded European businesses as it is, without having their goods made more expensive by tariffs. The upshot is we are poorer because we have to pay more for goods and Africans, Asians etc. are poorer because they have restricted economic opportunities. For what? Basically so European politicans can be part of something BIG and so have "status" on the wrold stage. But that doesn't benefit us.

    In short either foreign trade is bad in, which case we should leave the EU and have 100% protectionism (or better yet ban trade altogether and wittle our own tools and grow our food in the back garden) or trade is good in which case we should be able to trade as freely as physically possible with everyone over the globe. Limiting free trade to an arbitrary set of countries based on European politics is simply nonsensical.
  • wishbone42
    I agree with Arthurian and Goflyfalco.

    The 2nd question in this context is misleading.

    I voted 'No' because re-negotiation isn't something I'd support.

    However, by voting 'No' I didn't mean that I was happy with the status quo and wanted to remain a part of this miserable collective of eurocrats.
  • WDAR
    The people of this country should now be given the decision as to whether we continue within the European Union or not.

    The We Demand a Referendum party is calling for David Cameron to announce a binding In Out referendum on whether we stay in the European Union or not. If Mr Cameron fails to do so, the We Demand a Referendum party will stand in all constituencies in the 2014 European election to send a clear message to the Government - We Demand a Referendum ~ Let the People Decide

    wedemandareferendum.org
  • John L M
    I've never had my say over Oxfordshire's membership of England, or England's membership of the UK, or the UK's membership of the EU.

    Why does only the last one of these merit a(nother) referendum?
    Originally posted by g0recki
    Now... lets see... Oxfordshire has been been a part of England since, well, since there was an england....
    The end of Roman rule in Britain enabled the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, which is often regarded as the origin of England and the English people. The Anglo-Saxons, a collection of various Germanic peoples, established several kingdoms that became the primary powers in what is now England and parts of southern Scotland.[3] They introduced the Old English language, which displaced the previous British language. The Anglo-Saxons warred with British successor states in Wales, Cornwall, and the Hen Ogledd (Old North; the Brythonic-speaking parts of northern England and southern Scotland), as well as with each other. Raids by the Vikings were frequent after about AD 800, and the Norsemen took control of large parts of what is now England. During this period several rulers attempted to unite the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, an effort that led to the emergence of the Kingdom of England by the 10th century.
    England has been part of the UK since the act of Union.
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [nb 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, the U.K. or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland.[nb 6] Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

    The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union of the kingdoms of England, which included Wales, and Scotland. On the new kingdom, the historian Simon Schama said, "What began as a hostile merger would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history."[1] A further Act of Union in 1800 added the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
    The UK has been part of the European Union since 1973
    The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), formed by the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958 respectively.
    Your question asks why not have a referendum on Oxfordshire's membership of England, well in that context membership is simply the wrong word England 'owns' Oxfordshire like France 'owns' Normandy. Oxfordshire could theoretically leave England if it wanted perhaps you could ask your school teacher when you are doing statistics if you could do some kind of polling to see what people think? Just in your school or in the wider community?
    As for England leaving the UK there is a political party campaigning for just that...

    The English Democrats are an English federalist political party, committed to the formation of a devolved English Parliament with at least the same powers as those granted to the Scottish Parliament. Whilst not supporting English Independence, the English Democrats consider themselves the English equivalent of the Scottish National Party in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales.[3] Their motto is "Not left, not right, just English".
    I must say I don't hold out much hope for them. But the comparison with Scotland is a good one since there is to be a referendum on it remaining part of the sovereign state of the UK

    Now, to answer your question fully, Oxfordshire is a county in England not a country in England and terms such as membership are, as such, meaningless. England is a country which is part of a sovereign state, and country in its own right, namely the United Kingdom. The UK is a member of the EU which is a jumped up wannabe state which our traitorous leaders have lied to us for over half a century claiming that our sovereignty was not going to be taken away by joining.

    As for questions regarding referendums the answer is simple a great many people think that they were either; lied to, or tricked into joining, or that the very nature of the EU has changed, or that we would just be better off out of the EU. As the EU isn't a country and holds no great spiritual connection for the people of the UK in the way that most sane people simply regard Oxfordshire as part and parcel of England and are spiritually linked to it and all the other counties of England.

    A similar debate rages in Scotland regarding it membership of the UK. Referendums are a great way of democracies settling such questions although when people hold such opposing views they tend to go on and on and are not often settled with a single referendum, I doubt that the SNP will give up and melt away if they loose their referendum, you can look to Canada and Quebec for a good example of a series of ongoing membership referendums. Still at least they are getting the opportunity of a exercising their democratic right, that's a lot more than we are getting!

    Well I must say its great to see a little lad such as yourself asking such probing questions but are you sure that this it the place for it? I am always happy to help but perhaps you could look at the CBBC site for answers next time?

    All quotes Wikipeadia (other than your own)
    Last edited by John L M; 26-12-2012 at 2:55 PM. Reason: typos
  • zagubov
    Not this old chestnut again; it's a non-story as the UK needs the EU.

    Perhaps rUK could have a Swiss style relationship with the EU after Scottish Independence, with Scotland remaining a member post 2014?

    Rump UK will have less influence than Italy and will be no longer be one of the big 3. So the position might be a moot point.
    Originally posted by Heng Leng
    Either that or they join EFTA. If Scotland became independent it would be better leaving the EU and joining the EFTA side of the EEA. EFTA's not too big and would welcome it; Scotland would regain control over lost rights such as fishing policies. The cost is about two-thirds of what ther EU charge us, for less interference.

    in fact if Scotland were offered a vote on this after a yes referendum result, that could be an extremely popular step. And it would shut up the "Spain wouldn't let you in easily " unionist fantasies.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

7,555Posts Today

9,147Users online

Martin's Twitter