Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Graham_Devon

If I were you Hamish, I'd be wanting a referendum sooner than later.

Afterall, a referendum today would likely see the majority vote to stay in the EU. I would guess a 60 / 40 split.

Give it another 5 years and that could well have changed radically. Afterall, the EU has huge problems which they are plastering over at the moment. This extra payment has turned pro-EU people into people who would now vote to leave (see discussion time for evidence). It's not the physical amount of money that's the issue....it's the calculations.

A few more blunders like this....well, the support could evaporate further.

We've simply got to have a referendum. Enough people want it to cause political issues in the UK. We've already had the first UKIP MP....something which eurosceptics were told would never happen. How far does it have to go before people simply get a say?

Give it another 5 years and you could see 10 UKIP MP's in parliament if growing voices are not listened to.

Is denying people a referendum really worth damaging british politics for? The calls are not going to go away....they are simply going to grow.

I was watching Have I Got News For You last night....and pretty much the first half of the show was setup to mock UKIP. Thing is, reading an article this morning, that only CREATED further UKIP support as people saw what was going on by the "elite". It's contagious....and constantly kicking people who have a belief is UKIP's most powerful line of support. It's just the people doing the kicking appear completely unable to realise it.

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You could argue that many of those benefits would also be the case with a free trade agreement, but that would give us almost all of the compliance costs with no influence on setting the rules.

Norway, for example, pays as much on a per capita basis for the free trade agreement as we do for full EU membership, but does not have any input to the rule setting.


http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/01/15/don-t-quit-like-we-did-norwegian-pm-gives-britain-an-eu-warn

So says a Norwegian Tory leader. For another Tory viewpoint, read up on the Bruges Group info on alternatives to EU membership: EFTA /EEA membership as in Norway or EFTA membership alone as in Switzerland. Other sources in the past have suggested that Norway contributes less than if a full EU member. But doesn't have to sign up to every rule. Plus can also keep its fisheries, etc.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The CBI is the voice of British business.

The CBI also note that a significant majority of small and medium sized businesses agree with their stance on Europe.

The Eurosceptics frequently cite Norway as an example of what we should be doing.

The Prime Minister of Norway has spelled out why that would be a very bad idea.

Can you reply to the points made or will you continue to attack the sources in an effort to avoid doing so?

And while we're on this topic.....

Businesses say that staying in the EU is vital to our economic performance and employment prospects, Academics and Economists say that staying in the EU improves wages on average and does not increase unemployment, and the majority of people in the UK want to remain in the EU.....

So what exactly is it that you dislike so much???

Surely when something is good for business, good for employment, good for wages, good for the economy, and good for the majority, it is the right thing for society?

The CBI that supported the UK joining the EURO because it was essential for our economic survival has NO credibility with me.




I support staying in the EU if the 'convergence ' of everything stops here.
There is of course no prospect of the further integration stopping and inevitable we will have tax rates, types etc. set by Brussels, common legal systems, abolition of trial by jury.


We will become a new Byzantine empire. Over centralised, lacking innovation (obviously as that would be anti competitive) The paralysis of the EU to deal with the current economic problems is a telling point.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

oh dearie me


retreats defeated and knocks over the King (would like to say Queen but that wouldn't be chess).

Or alternatively, does not indulge you due to being disinterested in vexatious demands for arbitrary definitions that are transparent attempts to switch focus from the point at hand to a mindless dispute about how things are defined. Oh look, you got me to bite and teach you something again.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No we are not.

We get back far more from EU membership than we put in, in totality.

We're back to those same arguments about Scottish separatism really. People that think that there's a sweetheart deal to be made on leaving the EU are as deluded as the SNP.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is denying people a referendum really worth damaging british politics for?

Is giving people a referendum really worth the years of uncertainty that will cause billions in deferred investment, tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs not created, and the bitter, racist, divisions in society that we saw with the Scottish referendum but on a much larger scale?

It's idiocy writ large.

Why should we all suffer to appease the Europhobes?

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

We're back to those same arguments about Scottish separatism really. People that think that there's a sweetheart deal to be made on leaving the EU are as deluded as the SNP.

no, it's not the same as Scottish separatism


There was no suggestion on either side, at any time, that a 'better together' vote would lead to closer integration of what were anyway very similar systems.




as I've already posted, the choices aren't 'stay the same' or leave but continual 'convergence' or leave.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, it's not the same as Scottish separatism.

Yes it is absolutely the same.

We already have every major political party committed to a referendum in the event of any treaty ceding further significant power to Brussels.

There is no need for one now.

Particularly when it would cause significant economic disruption.
.

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes it is absolutely the same.

We already have every major political party committed to a referendum in the event of any treaty ceding further significant power to Brussels.

There is no need for one now.

Particularly when it would cause significant economic disruption.
.

Trouble is that nobody has defined that phrase.
Many think that way more power has already been ceded than was originally agreed to.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes it is absolutely the same.

We already have every major political party committed to a referendum in the event of any treaty ceding further significant power to Brussels.

There is no need for one now.

Particularly when it would cause significant economic disruption.
.

The EU hasn't even started to use their existing powers: there is plenty of scope to 'converge' without any new treaties being signed.


Banking rules, bonuses, transaction taxes, rubbish disposal, biofuels, legal changes, commercial contracts, 'right to forget' and millions of things we haven't yet realised and all in the gift of the EU and not the UK parliament.