The EU: IN or OUT?

kingrulzuk

zolablue25 wrote: »

But, of course, this couldn't happen unless we left the EU as it is against one of the EU fundamental principles.

Maybe after Brexit we can have a vote on the Death Penalty although, as the US is finding out, its getting harder to find companies to supply the lethal injections (that pesky EU again). Of course, we could always use rope or bullets (not electricity though, the wind might not be blowing hard enough for those turbines to go round)- that worked reasonably well in the old days.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mrginge

masonic wrote: »

The people will have no say about movement of labour. It will be decided by the current Government, who has not committed to withdrawing from any current EU treaty should we vote to leave the EU.

So you are saying that the result of the referendum is meaningless then. Makes me wonder why we are bothering with it at all....

mrginge

zolablue25 wrote: »

My money would be on Denmark being the first to look at following us out IF we end up getting favourable treatment from the EU with regards trade deals. And, I'm not so sure the NL are quite so enamoured with the EU project as they used to be and would likely be the first of the Euro countries in line (but I think it would be more problemattical for a Euro country to exit).

Problem is, I reckon the EU politicians realise that, should UK leave and be given a good deal, then others will follow and the whole thing will collapse. They can't afford that (IMHO) and so will, I think, attempt to play hard ball to prevent others from wanting to follow.

So you believe that the EU will resort to bullying and intimidation to maintain its current status?
The wishes of to individual members are to be simply ignored if they do not fit with the EU model?

Why would anyone wish to be a member of such an organisation?

zolablue25

mrginge wrote: »

So you believe that the EU will resort to bullying and intimidation to maintain its current status?
The wishes of to individual members are to be simply ignored if they do not fit with the EU model?

Why would anyone wish to be a member of such an organisation?

Yes I do think that. Of course, this is only my opinion.

As for the opinion of the individual members, I believe many of them (perhaps a majority of them) would like the EU to remain intact so, perhaps, this wouldn't be going against their wishes.

Mr_Costcutter

[QUOTE=zolablue25;708388
Personally, my life is pretty good at the moment so I would like things to remain the same but each to their own - after all, that's what democracy really is.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely 'nothing' stays the same for ever.

The world is changing, but the EU is stuck in a rut. It is forever centralising, and taking away our power over our laws, our borders, our money etc. I believe it is only by voting to Leave that we can take back conrol of all of those things.

kingrulzuk

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

Absolutely 'nothing' stays the same for ever.

The world is changing, but the EU is stuck in a rut. It is forever centralising, and taking away our power over our laws, our borders, our money etc. I believe it is only by voting to Leave that we can take back conrol of all of those things.

Yes I agree :beer:

Dird

bigadaj wrote: »

An obvious example is the death penalty, given a free vote or referendum it's quite likely this would be reintroduced.

And so it should. Tax payers in Norway are paying for Anders Breivik to have a better standard of living than many people in the UK, probably for the next 50+ years. Pretty strange reward for carrying out a massacre

qwert_yuiop

uk1 wrote: »

I cannot beieve that someone who I think believes that they are intelligent and who says they have two homes and has done well, reduces this extremely important decision to "voting against Nigel whatever he proposed".

Jeff

Or spells xenophobia with a z.

PenguinJim

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not it is best to be in or out, the suggestion that being out equates to zenophobia and isolation is offensive, and puerile.

Sorry. Despite kingrulzuk's frequent posts, I forget a lot of people posting here aren't native English speakers.

If we want to embrace isolation and xenophobia, an Out result makes sense.

If we want an Out result, that doesn't automatically mean that we want to embrace isolation and xenophobia.

All monkeys are animals, but not all animals are monkeys. See the difference?

However, I find your opinion that xenophobia and isolation are automatically bad to be rather... knee-jerk, perhaps? Surely you can see some circumstances where an isolationist attitude is correct and proper? For example, in the context of global catastrophe (hey! That's the same context as my post had! What a coincidence!).

Pincher

If it's not too late, can we change the Referendum to have a third choice: Rule by Emperor Pincher?

My manifesto is simple: Reduce the world population down to the David Attenborough Line, one billion.

I will create a Killbot army to enforce my rule.
People who have more than one baby will be punished.
Extra babies will be recycled for organ transplant, if adoption by childless parents cannot be found.

Illegal immigrants will be sold into slavery, which includes organ transplant markets in the Middle East and Asia. That should put a damper to the flood of refugees from unrestricted breeding in the rest of the world.

As the rest of the world degenerate into chaos from over population, the Pincher Empire will conquer and occupy, cull the great unwashed masses, and restore the planet Earth to health.

Save the Planet, vote Emperor Pincher.