Sky News Poll Reveals Huge Divide On Europe

BobQ

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That is not the longer term aim though. Integration into a single federal state has always been a primary objective.

That does not make it any less true. An aim does not have to be realised and we do not have to adopt this aspect if we do not want to do so.

The failure of the Euro may well lead to a different outcome to the one you state. It will take more than the posturing of Barrossa to make a federal state.

neverdespairgirl

Yes, but I could be swayed depending on debate/negociations

Generali wrote: »

It's also a great free trade organisation.

It is. But there are serious problems with the non-free-trade bits IMO.

I don't think I'm in favour of leaving, but I do see serious problems.

Sampong

No

BobQ wrote: »

But as the poll shows an honest debate between the centre/left and the Fruitcake Alliance would win the argument.

That'e precisely the ignorant attitude that is causing a divide in this country. It originates with the politicians who are arrogant enough to believe they can get their message across by insulting their voters.

It's not even worth responding to you since your arguments revolve around only 4 concepts.

1) You have to agree with me or else.
2) If you don't you're a twit
3) I am right, you are wrong, I will ignore any opposing points to my argument.
4) I've crossed my fingers so i'm afraid that is the end of that.

kwmlondon

Yes

Sampong wrote: »

That'e precisely the ignorant attitude that is causing a divide in this country. It originates with the politicians who are arrogant enough to believe they can get their message across by insulting their voters.

It's not even worth responding to you since your arguments revolve around only 4 concepts.

1) You have to agree with me or else.
2) If you don't you're a twit
3) I am right, you are wrong, I will ignore any opposing points to my argument.
4) I've crossed my fingers so i'm afraid that is the end of that.

My frustration is that the argument is just promoted on emotional terms. Why can't anyone give us some decent facts and figures? Or is the truth that nobody has any kind of idea what leaving the EU would do and so the only arguments either side can muster are attempts to get us to be angry or scared.

I'm a bit sick of it all to be honest.

Sampong

No

kwmlondon wrote: »

My frustration is that the argument is just promoted on emotional terms. Why can't anyone give us some decent facts and figures? Or is the truth that nobody has any kind of idea what leaving the EU would do and so the only arguments either side can muster are attempts to get us to be angry or scared.

I'm a bit sick of it all to be honest.

You can find facts and figures to support staying in the EU, and you can find facts and figures to support leaving.

The problem is that it's a political argument and debate is stifled (by, for example labeling Eurosceptics as fruitcakes).

The question is, why exactly won't the political establishment enter into a fair debate?

Probably because the arguments in favour of leaving will outweigh those of staying in.

All of the "benefits" that Europhiles keep harping on about could still exist outside of a political union, such as a free trade agreement for example.

climbingoutoftheabyss

No, but I could be swayed depending on debate/negociations

I think the fundamental question for me (as a MSE convert) is why the UK has to borrow money (at a time when Governmental borrowing is a huge problem) to pay in to a European project in which we then appeal for some of that money to be given back?

Why do we (and other nations) fund 'developing' countries and have to pay huge subsidies to things like the CAP?

I understand there are benefits with a free trade area and operating as a trading block - but why the huge cost to the tax payer?

angrypirate

No, but I could be swayed depending on debate/negociations

BobQ wrote: »

The EU has not failed, the Euro has failed.

UK was right to stay out of the Euro and it needs reform. This will eventually happen.

The EU as a free trade area, as a regulatory framework that promotes and makes easier free trade works.

I believe the existence of EU initiated employment and consumer law has worked too. I cannot see the same being implemented by right wing UK Governments who would surely scrap things like the Distance Selling Regulations and the Working Time Directive.

The EU's positive effects are trivialised by the right wing press and politicians (including UKIP). The negative effects of leaving are brushed aside by the anti-EU proponents. But as the poll shows an honest debate between the centre/left and the Fruitcake Alliance would win the argument.

The EU now is SO MUCH MORE than a free trade area. The idea of it being simple a free trade area was simple and fantastic, but now it has outgrown its purpose and become disfunction and epically failing.

It is undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable. They decide their own budget and bring into law stupid laws. Look at fire extinguishers. Look at how they back-tracked at the metric law. Look at the latest epic fail that they are now subsidising TABACCO FARMERS! Look at vacuum cleaners. The list goes on. And all this has NOTHING to do with free trade.

And PLEASE DONT CALL ME A FRUITCAKE.

I want to live in a country that is its own country. Decides its own laws and decides where its own money goes. Decides who we allow in and who we deport out.

As we import so much from the EU, do you really think they will castigate us if we leave? Even the EU idiots arent stupid enough to cut off their nose to spite their face.

pqrdef

Yes

kwmlondon wrote: »

My frustration is that the argument is just promoted on emotional terms. Why can't anyone give us some decent facts and figures? Or is the truth that nobody has any kind of idea what leaving the EU would do

Just think "total disaster" and you've got the size of it.

Ask yourself why the Tories don't just blow Farage away by coming straight out as a UK-out party.

But if you want to make the unthinkable seem credible then obviously you have to pitch the argument in emotional terms.

michaels

No, but I could be swayed depending on debate/negociations

pqrdef wrote: »

Just think "total disaster" and you've got the size of it.

Ask yourself why the Tories don't just blow Farage away by coming straight out as a UK-out party.

But if you want to make the unthinkable seem credible then obviously you have to pitch the argument in emotional terms.

What are we talking? A 10% reduction in GDP? (ie of order of the loss during the financial crisis) Would Norway and Switzerland be 10% richer if they were in the EU?

Why don't you give us 10 bullet points on what the 'total disater' would look like in tangible terms?

Are we not allowed to make a decison about whther we would accept such a loss if it allowed us to keep national control over decisons that are currently and increasingly in future will be taken at a European level over which we have no way to exercise control?

wotsthat

Yes

Interesting poll. Looks like the swayable 'no's are key.

It seems very unlikely that a Prime Minister would admit his negotiations were a failure. I'd expect some of the 'no but..' voters to be reassured by a Prime Minister saying his negotiations were a success and therefore a recommending to stay.

Depends who can be arsed to turn up at a referendum I suppose. I don't think most people are really bothered.