The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Webbo]

So, will BMW's and Merc's be more expensive or cheaper if we quit the EU.

Definitely won't be cheaper. Might be dearer depending on what deal we get.

[foxy boxing]

if we quit the eu world war three will be triggered ,there will be mass unemployment higher fuel and food costs we won't get any trade deals - statements from self serving people who just want to feather their own nests

[johnny the fox]

if we quit the eu world war three will be triggered ,there will be mass unemployment higher fuel and food costs we won't get any trade deals - statements from self serving people who just want to feather their own nests

And no cheap roaming charges...i'm loading up on tinned grub..

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Don't get me started on the farce of a referendum that was AV - that was no choice at all, a typical cooked question where the outcome was assured before we even voted - simply used as a political tool to form a coalition government.

The same has happened with the Scottish referendum and this one - the non-government line was never supposed to win, although I dare say Cameron's really sweating on this one now. To use a referendum as a 'vote winner' is deplorable in my mind, it cheapens the whole idea of democracy. If a referendum is to be called, it should be called, it shouldn't be promised in the distance as a carrot to vote one particular way at an election.

I have my suspicions that this is why Corbyn wants little part of this, he doesn't want to be part of Cameron and Osbornes scheming political games - and of course if this goes wrong, it wouldn't be the first time that one of George's traps has caught himself out.

Personally, I'd be voting remain inspite of the government, not because of what it's done. I also suggest that at this stage, it would be better to remain and see what comes after, because the voices coming from within the EU knows it needs to change. I even expect the Freedom of Movement Principle will be up for discussion, because mass movement out of a country is equally as bad for a country as a mass of people arriving. The original intention of the Principle was for the good of all people in Europe - no one can deny that, most of us will have benefited from it some way over the years - but clearly what is happening now was not was intended, so it clealry needs more qualification to the principle to make it work better for all concerned.

The other thing to consider is that the remain vote now won't jettison the European question unless some progress is made with reform inside the EU - if none is forthcoming, well that's when an out vote would win by a landslide and the eurosceptic's would have their wish.

But voting out now is simply not the time for it - the countries finances are still in a mess (even if we are the 5th largest economy) and we've got massive home based issues that need sorting now that won't be helped by unwinding ourselves from the EU at this time - plus there's huge international and continent issues that needs the EU as a strong collective body to pull together and sort out.

[Webbo]

Don't get me started on the farce of a referendum that was AV - that was no choice at all, a typical cooked question where the outcome was assured before we even voted - simply used as a political tool to form a coalition government.

The same has happened with the Scottish referendum and this one - the non-government line was never supposed to win, although I dare say Cameron's really sweating on this one now. To use a referendum as a 'vote winner' is deplorable in my mind, it cheapens the whole idea of democracy. If a referendum is to be called, it should be called, it shouldn't be promised in the distance as a carrot to vote one particular way at an election.

I have my suspicions that this is why Corbyn wants little part of this, he doesn't want to be part of Cameron and Osbornes scheming political games - and of course if this goes wrong, it wouldn't be the first time that one of George's traps has caught himself out.

Personally, I'd be voting remain inspite of the government, not because of what it's done. I also suggest that at this stage, it would be better to remain and see what comes after, because the voices coming from within the EU knows it needs to change. I even expect the Freedom of Movement Principle will be up for discussion, because mass movement out of a country is equally as bad for a country as a mass of people arriving. The original intention of the Principle was for the good of all people in Europe - no one can deny that, most of us will have benefited from it some way over the years - but clearly what is happening now was not was intended, so it clealry needs more qualification to the principle to make it work better for all concerned.

The other thing to consider is that the remain vote now won't jettison the European question unless some progress is made with reform inside the EU - if none is forthcoming, well that's when an out vote would win by a landslide and the eurosceptic's would have their wish.

But voting out now is simply not the time for it - the countries finances are still in a mess (even if we are the 5th largest economy) and we've got massive home based issues that need sorting now that won't be helped by unwinding ourselves from the EU at this time - plus there's huge international and continent issues that needs the EU as a strong collective body to pull together and sort out.

Do you honestly think we'll ever get another chance to get out? You don't believe in referendums anyway so how can you argue that?

[Strokes]

Do you honestly think we'll ever get another chance to get out? You don't believe in referendums anyway so how can you argue that?

The EU will have to collapse in order for us to get out of it, this is our one and only chance.

[theessexfox]

Sorry about replying in this way, I tried a couple of times to reply on a quote by quote basis to your first post and it just wouldn't work for some reason.

'The people who make those appointments are elected' - you mean the same way that the people who appoint the Commisioners are elected??? Slight irony there I feel.

[Webbo]

'The people who make those appointments are elected' - you mean the same way that the people who appoint the Commisioners are elected??? Slight irony there I feel.

We appoint one commissioner, assuming that the party in power was in power when the vacancy came up. Anyway it's a bit different appointing a local chief constable or someone who can decide the economic, immigration, defence, justice etc policy for the whole of Europe.

[theessexfox]

We appoint one commissioner, assuming that the party in power was in power when the vacancy came up. Anyway it's a bit different appointing a local chief constable or someone who can decide the economic, immigration, defence, justice etc policy for the whole of Europe.

And each of the other elected governments appoints another commissioner. That's purely a larger political system with numerous nations; you may oppose that because the citizens of the UK don't get as much of a say, that's fair enough, as we're in union with 27 other nations. But you surely can't call a system where elected officials appoint people undemocratic, when you're fine with other elected officials appointing people - the PM appoints Civil Service chiefs, each Secretary of State is responsible for appointing heads of various departments. 

[Webbo]

And each of the other elected governments appoints another commissioner. That's purely a larger political system with numerous nations; you may oppose that because the citizens of the UK don't get as much of a say, that's fair enough, as we're in union with 27 other nations. But you surely can't call a system where elected officials appoint people undemocratic, when you're fine with other elected officials appointing people - the PM appoints Civil Service chiefs, each Secretary of State is responsible for appointing heads of various departments. 

The elected government are in charge of the civil servants,who's in charge of the commissioners?

[theessexfox]

The elected government are in charge of the civil servants,who's in charge of the commissioners?

Each elected government is in charge of their own commissioner, thus the lack of accountability comes from the fact that we have 28 nations in political union rather than a fundamental lack of democracy. If elected governments are democratically able to appoint key civil servants then they are surely democratically able to appoint EU Commissioners, whose work is similar to that of a senior civil servant much of the time anyway, I would suggest.

[Webbo]

Each elected government is in charge of their own commissioner, thus the lack of accountability comes from the fact that we have 28 nations in political union rather than a fundamental lack of democracy. If elected governments are democratically able to appoint key civil servants then they are surely democratically able to appoint EU Commissioners, whose work is similar to that of a senior civil servant much of the time anyway, I would suggest.

Really? So our govt can dictate whatever area of policy that commissioner is in charge of for the whole of Europe?

[theessexfox]

Really? So our govt can dictate whatever area of policy that commissioner is in charge of for the whole of Europe?

Not dictate, no, but our government appoints our commissioner every 5 years, presumably on account of how well she/he has done the job and can continue to do the job. Cameron will also meet with the commissioner, he won't be acting entirely independently. I take your point that they have less control over the Commissioner than they do over ordinary civil servants, but the appointment principle is the same.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Do you honestly think we'll ever get another chance to get out? You don't believe in referendums anyway so how can you argue that?

They said the Scottish Independance referendum was a once in a lifetime thing - yet, I think the chances of there being another one within 10 years are quite high now, don't you? Once an idea is released, it can linger in the mind - we had no referendums for many a year and no one was that bothered and then snap, you get one and two others come along in quick succession (along with a growing trend for local referenda).

Even Boris suggested there might be a second EU referendum initially, until he was slapped down on both sides (but he is not a complete fool and if that's his first instinct I expect it's quite correct given the reasoning i highlight). It's not wild thinking to think if we voted Remain to any degree of 60/40 or lower that the question would still be on people's lips?

Is UKIP going to fold up operations if there was a Remain vote? Would staunch eurosceptic's such as John Redwood stay quiet on matters relating to Europe in those circumstances? Would newspapers stop printing exaggerated stories concerning the EU? Would a large swath of the population gracially accept it, or would they call it a fix and want another one? Would there be a no-confidence vote in Cameron afterwards, would he survive, could the Tory's suddenly put in place an eurosceptic PM?

Suggesting there won't be a 2nd referendum is as fanciable as some of the forecasts from both sides (possibly in the event of either result, because if markets did crash round our ears on the announcement of a leave vote, people might begin to have second thoughts and the EU may even panic and come back to us offering greater gifts giving a wholly different scenario to the one that was voted on).

The situation that presents itself immediately after the event will dictate how things move from there and as it's an wholly unpresidented situation, I can't see how we can possibly rule another one out when there are so many scenario's that could lend itself to looking at things again.

I'm not completely against referendums persay, but I think what the country is being asked here is unfair because we're really unqualified to make the judgement on this very complex issue (I count myself in that, even though I've tried to educate myself on the matter to a fair degree) and I'm disgusted by the way this whole affair has been used as a political tool by the Conservative Party for their personal gain.

There is also a very stupid situation for those that intend to vote Brexit in that you don't really know what your voting for - there is no exit deal agreed, so you don't know what trade relations would be retained, how much we may end up pay in anyway, whether Free Movement will still be a requirement, whether we will still need to abide by a degree of EU law.

For example, you could end up voting Brexit because you strongly associate yourself with the Soverignity / Democracy argument - yet you then find in our renegotiation we end up still having to obey EU law (or running largely comparative law to ensure we remain competitive) but have no representation within to form that law. Would you not feel a bit cheated then?

It's a right dogs breakfast this whole affair - it is democracy at its worst, not its best.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner

Information in the role of EU Commissioners

[Webbo]

I'm not completely against referendums persay, but I think what the country is being asked here is unfair because we're really unqualified to make the judgement on this very complex issue (I count myself in that, even though I've tried to educate myself on the matter to a fair degree) and I'm disgusted by the way this whole affair has been used as a political tool by the Conservative Party for their personal gain.

 

 I don't see what the Conservatives gain by civil war within their ranks. The implication that that giving the voters what they want,a referendum, is a bad thing seems a tad elitist too.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I don't see what the Conservatives gain by civil war within their ranks. The implication that that giving the voters what they want,a referendum, is a bad thing seems a tad elitist too.

How sure are you that people definitely wanted a referendum? If we take the 2015 election results as a guide, just under 50% voted for the Conservatives and UKIP combined, the only parties that were offering this option - however, of the 37% odd that voted Tory, a fair few of them may not have been that bothered on that issue.

And let's not confuse things - if you want out of the EU you might not want a referendum - if you felt that strongly on the issue, why leave things to chance?

I imagine if you polled people now on whether they actually wanted a referendum given what they know now I think they'd say no - just let those in charge make the decision and off with their heads if they get it wrong!

[Webbo]

How sure are you that people definitely wanted a referendum? If we take the 2015 election results as a guide, just under 50% voted for the Conservatives and UKIP combined, the only parties that were offering this option - however, of the 37% odd that voted Tory, a fair few of them may not have been that bothered on that issue.

And let's not confuse things - if you want out of the EU you might not want a referendum - if you felt that strongly on the issue, why leave things to chance?

I imagine if you polled people now on whether they actually wanted a referendum given what they know now I think they'd say no - just let those in charge make the decision and off with their heads if they get it wrong!

If people didn't want a referendum then the Remain side would have a massive lead in the polls.

 

You're also assuming that no Labour voters want to leave.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

If people didn't want a referendum then the Remain side would have a massive lead in the polls.

You're also assuming that no Labour voters want to leave.

That's not true is it - if a vote is put to people that has a big impact on people's life they will vote, but that's not the same as wanting to vote on this question in the first place.

I would suggest other things came higher up a lot of people's prorities than this - and that a lot of people would be happier if the government took a qualified decision on behalf of us on what the best course of action is.

And if Labour leaning voters had a strong held view on the EU issue they may well have decided to vote in a different way at the last election - those that didn't suggests the issue of a referendum wasn't a key part of their decision making at that time.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

David Cameron was running scared last night, and side stepping the questions put to him. He looked to be a man in desperate need of of wanting to get away from the audience. Completely flustered, his inept drivel, for the case of remaining in Europe, showed him up as inept, as is the case for remaining in what is fast becoming a "Federal Europe".

 

Michael Gove will argue the case for leaving, next, and he does know what he is talking about.

 

Brexit; the way forward. 

[johnny the fox]

Don't like Gove... but the man is speaking the hard truth....

[Dodgy Bob]

Thought Gove was desperately poor. Admitted jobs will be lost but just arbitrarily claimed "but it'll be fine, all those reports are just scare tactics". Yeah I'm sure that'll be of great comfort to the hundreds of thousands who find themselves out of work. Also couldn't help but laugh at him trying to claim that leaving the EU will save the steel industry. A supposedly hardened tory talking about protecting a failing industry?! I'd have so much more respect for slimy career snakes like gove if he just admitted what he is.

[Rincewind]

Wouldn't it be great if all politicians admitted to what they truly were? There would be no-one left to rule us.

 

I may have overdid the all part but you get my drift.

[Guest]

We appoint one commissioner, assuming that the party in power was in power when the vacancy came up. Anyway it's a bit different appointing a local chief constable or someone who can decide the economic, immigration, defence, justice etc policy for the whole of Europe.

 

You don't even elect your own prime minister.

[Guest]

"Jobs will be lost" - he should have added but they won't be white jobs if he wanted the vote.