EU referendum opinion poll.

[Alf Bentley]

A decent Varoufakis article on the need for greater democracy in the EU from a left-wing perspective: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25

 

New DiEM25 movement for EU democracy launched: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/yanis-varoufakis-launches-pan-european-leftwing-movement-diem25

 

I'd like to believe that this could lead somewhere positive, but suspect that it'll end up as another left-wing talking shop. It would have been much better if they'd launched a movement to democratise the EU that included people on the right, too.

 

How feasible that would be is questionable, but it might have been. Surely, it would be possible for parts of Left and Right who weren't specifically anti-EU to agree on joint aims for democratisation, and then argue about tax/spending/regulation issues later if they ever achieved that democratisation?

[Alf Bentley]

No one has mentioned "nig nogs" or "filthy foreigners" and it's disingenous to even head towards suggesting they have, 

 

[...]

 

I know you say you're "on the fence" but I'll be astonished if you advocate a leave vote when the referendum finally comes around, I think in your heart you want to stay.

 

 

I deliberately chose old terms that I remember hearing back in the 70s, but not since. The terms change but the attitudes do not. That is the point that I was making. 

A few years back, all the talk was of "bogus asylum seekers" and "Pakis". Now it's "illegal migrants" and "Muslim terrorists/rapists"....it all expresses the same attitude - as in Digitalalba's assumption that refugees are likely to rape, rob and bugger people. There have been serious cases like Cologne and Rotherham, mainly perpetrated by North African criminals and home-grown British people of Pakistani origin, respectively. Those very real problems should be addressed, but they should not be used to generalise about refugees/foreigners.

 

You're right that "in my heart" I'd like to be able to vote to stay in the EU. I'd like to believe that it can be a force for peaceful diplomacy between nations, for mutually beneficial economic/trade planning, beneficial social & environmental initiatives and a democratic counter-balance to the ever-growing power of large global corporations. But I won't just vote with my heart. I'll use my head, too. At the moment, my head is telling me that there's little chance of the EU becoming a truly democratic institution. It might do some stuff that I like, but seems to be largely out of democratic control and in the pocket of global capital. I genuinely don't know which way I'll end up voting at this stage - will need to look into it more, when the time comes.

[Guest MattP]

Does anyone on here who wants to stay in a "reformed EU" actually have any serious belief or evidence there will be any chance of it happening? Given the pathetic deal they agreed with Cameron when we are threatening to leave I see absolutely no hope of any sort of negotiation after we have decided to stay. If anything I think it would be a huge chance for more of the same and ever closer Union with no looming threat of a Brexit.

 

A lot of people keep telling us we'll be like Norway, a country that has to abide by the rules with little influence, to me that's exactly what being in the EU is now anyway.

[digitalalba]

I do not think they are all good. I also think there are a lot of desperate people amongst them. I have seen and heard accounts of people that have been over to the camps and have had a nervous breakdown after seeing the conditions the refugees are living under.

The ones committing the acts may not be with these but travelled via other routes. Some of the refugees.can hardly walk and only have the clothes they stand up in.

Of course this does the excuse the crimes committed but the poor vetting system is not the fault of the many that are suffering.

We have only seen a fraction of what conditions are like through the media. They obviously cannot show it all either because of time/space and content.

You mean, people who are already very weak hearted and support the people there are surprised and have had to take time off work to receive potentially life long medical and mental assistance = nervous breakdown?

I've heard of someone who was raped by the invaders, and was told not to say anything else it would give them a bad name, she said nothing, except it snook out. These people are brain dead, nervous breakdown, fuchs sake.

 

"Some of the refugees.can hardly walk"

This is the kind of nonsense these lefties come out with. How the fuchs did they get there, plane?? It's THOUSANDS of miles from home. Not Leicester to London.

 

Lefties are insanely giving these people the impression our streets are paved with gold, who wouldn't take the risk. They need to be told the truth. And they are the only people to rebuild their own countries.

[Rincewind]

I was going to post a reply but looking at things from your perspective you are right and am unable to respond so you can revert back to discussing things related  to the topic title not this.

[Webbo]

A decent Varoufakis article on the need for greater democracy in the EU from a left-wing perspective: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25

 

New DiEM25 movement for EU democracy launched: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/yanis-varoufakis-launches-pan-european-leftwing-movement-diem25

 

 

The idea that that bunch of cranks could be in a position of power over us despite which way we vote is a very good reason to leave.

[Nick]

I just don't know.

 

Ive listened, read - looked at data......

 

And genuinely I find a hole in everything and have so many unanswered questions.

 

I need a public accountant, a judge, in a room full of independent research and then to be left for a week.

 

Then I might make an informed decision - especially if the accountant and the judge are both female and very pretty.

 

Every little helps.

[Alf Bentley]

The idea that that bunch of cranks could be in a position of power over us despite which way we vote is a very good reason to leave.

 

 

So, we should leave the EU unless it is run by the British Tory Party? Is that what you're saying, ultimately? 

[Webbo]

So, we should leave the EU unless it is run by the British Tory Party? Is that what you're saying, ultimately? 

Julian Assange and the ex Greek finance minister who had to resign before any deal could be done? Literally 90% of this country would never vote for them.

[Strokes]

If the EU was to feel democratic then the elected parties should be separate from the parties over here. The fact the the governing party of the EU was never an option for a British voter, as no party here is associated to them means we're are totally alienated. The concept just can't work in my mind, it's not value for money and it certainly is not free trade when you consider how much money we pay in membership.

I can't see a long term future for the EU whether we pull out or not, it's doomed to failure as they will never address the fundemental failures in its structure. It's better we get ahead and rebuild before it crashes burns IMO.

[Alf Bentley]

Julian Assange and the ex Greek finance minister who had to resign before any deal could be done? Literally 90% of this country would never vote for them.

 

 

I'm not keen on Assange myself. I wouldn't suggest that Leicester should leave the UK just because the UK voted in a Tory government, though.

 

On a more serious note, if Varoufakis and his mates are interested in democratising the EU, I think they've missed a trick by making it such an obviously lefty campaign. A campaign for greater EU democracy that incorporated people from Right, Left and Centre would have been a better idea - they could then have adopted different policies on tax & spend or whatever once greater democracy had been achieved.. Though I'm dubious about how many on the Right really want a more democratic EU. They say they do, but I think they're mainly just attached to the idea of the nation state. I like the subsidiarity principle - devolving power down further than the nation state where possible.

[Alf Bentley]

If the EU was to feel democratic then the elected parties should be separate from the parties over here. The fact the the governing party of the EU was never an option for a British voter, as no party here is associated to them means we're are totally alienated. The concept just can't work in my mind, it's not value for money and it certainly is not free trade when you consider how much money we pay in membership.

I can't see a long term future for the EU whether we pull out or not, it's doomed to failure as they will never address the fundemental failures in its structure. It's better we get ahead and rebuild before it crashes burns IMO.

 

 

Are you suggesting that the party groups in the European Parliament should stand in each country, including the UK? That's an interesting idea, if you are - but maybe I've misunderstood?

 

There's certainly a massive democratic disconnect. I agree with you there. 

 

However, a lot of the power is still with the Council (heads of govt/state of the nation states - Cameron, Merkel, Hollande & co.). And under the current system, it's hardly the fault of the governing party in the European Parliament (European People's Party) that no UK candidates were attached to them last time. The Tories had been, but moved to a different grouping. Labour was still attached to the main centre-left Socialists/Democrats group, the 2nd largest group.

[Strokes]

Are you suggesting that the party groups in the European Parliament should stand in each country, including the UK? That's an interesting idea, if you are - but maybe I've misunderstood?

 

There's certainly a massive democratic disconnect. I agree with you there. 

 

However, a lot of the power is still with the Council (heads of govt/state of the nation states - Cameron, Merkel, Hollande & co.). And under the current system, it's hardly the fault of the governing party in the European Parliament (European People's Party) that no UK candidates were attached to them last time. The Tories had been, but moved to a different grouping. Labour was still attached to the main centre-left Socialists/Democrats group, the 2nd largest group.

Yeah I think it would bring some unity, cohesion and fundamentally a connection for the 'citizens'. I think if the EU was to have any long term future, it has to be a United States of Europe, with fully integrated members. I'm not advocating its creation, as you pointed out earlier I would prefer a nation state.

[Strokes]

Are you suggesting that the party groups in the European Parliament should stand in each country, including the UK? That's an interesting idea, if you are - but maybe I've misunderstood?

 

There's certainly a massive democratic disconnect. I agree with you there. 

 

However, a lot of the power is still with the Council (heads of govt/state of the nation states - Cameron, Merkel, Hollande & co.). And under the current system, it's hardly the fault of the governing party in the European Parliament (European People's Party) that no UK candidates were attached to them last time. The Tories had been, but moved to a different grouping. Labour was still attached to the main centre-left Socialists/Democrats group, the 2nd largest group.

Also, you say it's not the fault of the European Parliament but you must concede it's a massive flaw in its design?

[Webbo]

The thing about the EU is. Every govt, left or right, in every country says the same thing every time something unpopular is done. "We don't want to do this but Europe is making us" so we all think, well I don't like it, how can I vote these people out and the truth is we can't.

 

Now maybe some of these n policies are necessary but nobody would vote for them but that's not the point. We're supposed to be living in a democracy, if the voters won't vote what is deemed necessary then they have to live with the consequences. We need politicians who tell the truth not tell us what we want to hear and then do the opposite.

[Guest MattP]

The thing about the EU is. Every govt, left or right, in every country says the same thing every time something unpopular is done. "We don't want to do this but Europe is making us" so we all think, well I don't like it, how can I vote these people out and the truth is we can't.

 

Now maybe some of these n policies are necessary but nobody would vote for them but that's not the point. We're supposed to be living in a democracy, if the voters won't vote what is deemed necessary then they have to live with the consequences. We need politicians who tell the truth not tell us what we want to hear and then do the opposite.

 

Another reason why our political elite are so obsessed with trying to get us to stay in this organisation, The Tories want it as a safety blanket if they keep having to run high immigration low wage economy to hide a declining economy and by the looks of it Labour have now pretty much given up on convicing the British public they can ever run the country again by themselves.

 

It means less responsibility and government for them, they can sit in Westminster, collect the huge salaries and if the economy struggles, they can't control immigration etc etc they can blame it on things like the Eurozone and agreements we can't get out of. (and possibly soon they'll be able to tell us that the reason they are failing is because we voted to stay in)

 

Accountability has to be a huge part of the Brexit campaign.

[davieG]

Another reason why our political elite are so obsessed with trying to get us to stay in this organisation, The Tories want it as a safety blanket if they keep having to run high immigration low wage economy to hide a declining economy and by the looks of it Labour have now pretty much given up on convicing the British public they can ever run the country again by themselves.

 

It means less responsibility and government for them, they can sit in Westminster, collect the huge salaries and if the economy struggles, they can't control immigration etc etc they can blame it on things like the Eurozone and agreements we can't get out of. (and possibly soon they'll be able to tell us that the reason they are failing is because we voted to stay in)

 

Accountability has to be a huge part of the Brexit campaign.

/come out.

[Rincewind]

You're buggered if you  do and buggered if you don't as Graham Norton would  say.

[IrememberBobHazell]

For my sins my degree is in Politics and my vote is up for grabs for the side which makes the best argument. At this minute I would say I am ever so slightly favouring the out campaign but that could easily change.

 I suspect that this referendum will go the same way as the Scottish independence one. The opportunity is there, it will be close but when it comes down to pressing the metaphoric button people will go with what they know and vote to stay in. Sometimes that sentiment is a positive one and prevents the rather more colourful characters having their way, in this case I am not so sure.

[Guest]

Why 2 years? And even if it did, does that mean no one will want to trade in the meantime?

 

Do you think the politicians aren't good enough to workout what the new rules should be?

 

Why don't you read up on the subject before shouting down facts.

 

If you can't be bothered  to read up on it, ask yourself how all the new rules and regulations, agreements and laws can be changed overnight in the event of an "out" vote.

[Guest]

Because we will have the option, as we do today, to not let them in. It is currently possible, but unlikely, for them to aquire a EU passport and then we would have no choice. If we pull out, we can say not to anyone who doesn't have a British passport. We can create our own refugee/asylum seeker/immigrant quota. We can choose our own path, not be dictated too by EU dictators.

 

In time, the invaders in Calais and Dunkirk will get fed up and seek alternative 'refuge'.

 

Britian won't in all liklihood have officials sitting in France that can block people, therefore the people can get on the boats and trains in France and only be stopped once on English soil - which means the camps will be in Britain, as I said, rather than in France. Britain maybe able to choose it's quotas but it can't stop people entering.

[Guest]

What's wrong with staying in France though? Why the huge need to camp at Calais and try to force their way (illegally) in to Britain? What would you suggest, let every single one of them in tomorrow without the correct checks?

 

As I said earlier, they have family in the UK already.

Why should refugees be allowed to live in whatever country they want? They have already passed through numerous safe countries and are in one now, why should they be allowed into England and the British taxpayer foot the bill? I'm not allowed to just go and live in any country in the World and neither should they be.

 

What would you do?

 

I agree with you on these points but that's irrelevant to reality. They will still come.

[Guest]

There's a lot of sympathisers happy to take a family into their own homes. That'll be fun. Wait till they get raped, robbed and buggered.

 

Don't let your fantasies get in the way of a good discussion.

[Guest]

Not every refugee is bad, but some are, and when they are, they can be evil. The sympathisers think they're all good, and even shout people down when they show concern, like for example what happened in Germany on new years eve or the soaring rape epidemic in Sweden.

 

Maybe we have to destroy our own society before we can make it nice?

 

No they don't.

[Guest]

Were the French to actually engage in deliberate negligence in checking papers allowing travel surely they would be in some serious trouble? Countries surely can't be allowed to behave like that in this day and age? Although whatever they do it's our job to patrol our own borders, if the French allow dodgy people onto ferries it's our job to pick them out when they try to enter Britain and then make sure they can't come into the country and are sent back.

 

If we seriously cannot control our borders as an island nation then we need new people in charge of doing it, every other island nation seems to be able to manage it.

 

So it's okay for the French to handle the UK's problem but not the UK to handle the West's problem?

 

Every other island nation - were you the one talking about hyperbole Matt?