Sky News Poll Reveals Huge Divide On Europe

pqrdef

Yes

michaels wrote: »

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?

Who's "we"? I have no control over decisions made by UK governments. I don't expect them to be any more competent or less evil than European governments, though I do expect them to be much more driven by party politics and vote-catching.

So why would I worry over whether the UK has any control over decisions made at a European level? The UK isn't going to exercise it in my interests. It isn't even going to do what I think is right.

European elections are the only ones I vote in now, because they have a sensible voting system. In UK elections I live in a safe seat, so voting is a total waste of time.

Sampong

No

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

Are you kidding?

An EU referendum would buck the trend of voter turn out. The publicity surrounding it and power of social media would see to that.

It would be a big event - the reason that there has been a poor turnout in recent history is because there's not really much of a choice. You have Tory, and Labour. Both of those are the same so people are happy to let somebody spin a bottle and let them know in the morning.

Arguably, since UKIP are now in the mix, and that people have more choice - the next general election turnout could be half decent.

The problems for the other parties are that Labour and Conservative voters are among those who "don't really care". UKIP voters will make a point of visiting the ballot box.

And before anyone starts - I am not suggesting they are going to win, but I believe they will cause an upset which will mirror the local elections.

angrypirate

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

michaels wrote: »

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?

The truth is nobody knows.

The Europhiles would have you believe that the EU would slap us down harshly. There would be no free trade agreements with the EU and exports / imports would be slapped with massive duties. They then claim large numbers of businesses would then move out of the UK to mainland Europe because of this. Companies that decide to stay in the UK would struggle with their exports as they would be taxed on the continent making the more expensive causing the companies to struggle.

The anti-Euro would say the opposite - we would negotiate a free trade agreement and have a similar sort of relationship as the Swiss or Norwegians. Very few or even no companies would leave the UK and trade between the UK and the EU would not be affected. They also argue that because of the number of UK exports is decreasing to the EU and increasing to the rest of the world, this is becoming a smallerr and smaller issue anyway. The UK would subsequently be able to set up their own trade agreement with countries outside the EU (instead of them being dictated to us by the EU) so would put us in a much stronger trading position.

Based on the fact we import more from the EU than we export, its hard to see us being slapped with massive duties but then this hasnt been negotiated yet so no one knows.

Leave the negotiating to Blairites and we'll be in trouble. Leave it to the Tories and they would happily tell the EU where to shove it.

wotsthat

Yes

Sampong wrote: »

And before anyone starts - I am not suggesting they are going to win, but I believe they will cause an upset which will mirror the local elections.

That's the point. No one was really bothered so it meant that the few people people that were made a difference.

The last thing UKIP, or the conservatives for that matter, want is for everyone to turn up and vote.

angrypirate

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

pqrdef wrote: »

Who's "we"? I have no control over decisions made by UK governments. I don't expect them to be any more competent or less evil than European governments, though I do expect them to be much more driven by party politics and vote-catching.

So why would I worry over whether the UK has any control over decisions made at a European level? The UK isn't going to exercise it in my interests. It isn't even going to do what I think is right.

European elections are the only ones I vote in now, because they have a sensible voting system. In UK elections I live in a safe seat, so voting is a total waste of time.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Thats for voting in MEPs. What about all the other EU institutions where you dont get a say about who is in them? Do you know how many non elected parts of the EU there are? Its practically a private members club where you can only be invited to join.

Sampong

No

wotsthat wrote: »

That's the point. No one was really bothered so it meant that the few people people that were made a difference.

The last thing UKIP, or the conservatives for that matter, want is for everyone to turn up and vote.

I don't think so.

Those that did turn out represent a sample size certainly big enough to indicate what public opinion is.

If there were a bigger turnout - the results would likely be similair.

And referring back to a referendum, loads of Tory's, both MP's and voters want out of the EU. In fact local Tory campaigners were not impressed with Cameron after the last local elections, the general consensus being that "he had better start listening to his voters" (i'll get back to you if I ever see that happening).

So when you combine the swivel eyed loons with me and my fruitcake mates - that is why my gut tells me that in a referendum it may even go close to 60/40 in favour of leaving.

Pricklepants's survey comes close to that, and at a guess I would say that in this small sample size of 60, we have a higher than average proportion of Europhles.

pqrdef

Yes

angrypirate wrote: »

Do you know how many non elected parts of the EU there are?

This can be fixed. Does that solve the problem?

kwmlondon

Yes

Sampong wrote: »

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.

Could. Might. Possibly.

Not good enough.

Well, without an independent report from an authority that is trusted by most of us on what it would cost or make us if we left the EU it would be a giant gamble with the whole of the UK economy.

Sorry, we've had to bail out our financial sector once this millennium and there's no way I'm going to risk every single penny the country has on the flip of a coin.

No way.

We have to stay in because nobody has any idea what it would mean to leave.

angrypirate

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

pqrdef wrote: »

This can be fixed. Does that solve the problem?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Can it be fixed? How do you propose it? I'll tell you something, whether it can or not is one thing, whether it will or wont is another.

The only people who get into the club are the people who the club let in. And the club only let in people who want the club. Perfect self preservation. It wont be fixed.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

... Would Norway and Switzerland be 10% richer if they were in the EU?....

Which brings up the key question to ask those who want to leave the EU, do you want to be Norway, or do you want to be Switzerland? As far as the issue of 'free trade' is concerned, the key thing is not our participation in the EU, but our participation in the EEA. (That's European Economic Area or the Single Market.) Norway is in the EEA, Switzerland isn't.

If you're in the EEA, you have to play by the EEA rules. And the EEA rules are basically set by the EU. That's Norway's complaint - they end up having to implement all those 'silly' rules about vacuum cleaners or what have you, but have little say in how those rules are formulated in the first place aka 'regulation without representation'.

My presumption is that UKIP (at least) want to be Switzerland - on the basis that they appear to want to 'control immigration', and you can't do that if you're in the EEA and committed to free trade in labour. However, I'm not that convinced that the respondents to any opinion poll on the question of EU membership are necessarily expressing a view on the EEA, or even aware of the fact that there is a distinction.