EU referendum opinion poll.

[Webbo]

You can't, they've been voted in by the people whose interests they represent. It's like a bloke from Massachusetts complaining about a bill ratified by the US House of Representatives because they don't get to vote for the Representative of North Carolina.

So it doesn't matter what we vote for in this country, if the other countries don't like it, tough shit?

 

You can't, just as you can't vote against the SNP if they look to block plans in Westminster. Doesn't make our parliamentary system undemocratic though does it?

Last time I checked the UK was a sovereign nation, the EU isn't.

[Carl the Llama]

So it doesn't matter what we vote for in this country, if the other countries don't like it, tough shit?

Actually Thrac's got this one pretty spot on, "And there's the problem with democracy. Because others disagree with you it doesn't mean your own view is wrong. So-called unions - of any kind - mean the inevitable compromising of individual opinions - or the coercion of agreement."

 

Last time I checked the UK was a sovereign nation, the EU isn't.

 

A sovereign nation that chose to become a member of an international governing body and sacrifice full autonomy on certain matters for the challenging but greater democratic goal of a unified continent containing different cultures and languages.  Nobody said it would be easy.

[The Doctor]

So it doesn't matter what we vote for in this country, if the other countries don't like it, tough shit?

In as much as it doesn't matter if texas votes Republican if a load more states vote Democrat. Democracy doesn't mean your opinion specifically has to be represented, it means that the spread of opinions is accurately represented. If you hold a fringe opinion and only have a tiny amount of representation, tough shit, that's democracy - unless you'd rather we appoint Corbyn to pm as well because some people would like him to be?

Last time I checked the UK was a sovereign nation, the EU isn't.

Try it with councils vs central government instead then, the point remains the same - things aren't undemocratic just because it's not your opinion that's the majority one.

[bovril]

So it doesn't matter what we vote for in this country, if the other countries don't like it, tough shit?

 

Surely that sentiment could be applied to any kind of democracy, right down to individuals voting in their electoral wards. In my part of the UK it doesn't matter who I vote for, the same party always wins. But like you said, tough shit.

[Webbo]

Actually Thrac's got this one pretty spot on, "And there's the problem with democracy. Because others disagree with you it doesn't mean your own view is wrong. So-called unions - of any kind - mean the inevitable compromising of individual opinions - or the coercion of agreement."

 

 

A sovereign nation that chose to become a member of an international governing body and sacrifice full autonomy on certain matters for the challenging but greater democratic goal of a unified continent containing different cultures and languages.  Nobody said it would be easy.

When we joined it was meant to be as part of a trading block (which I have no problem with). Nobody told us we were joining a United States of Europe .We've been forced into this union by stealth.If you want to make me the citizen of another country at least ask me first.

[Webbo]

In as much as it doesn't matter if texas votes Republican if a load more states vote Democrat. Democracy doesn't mean your opinion specifically has to be represented, it means that the spread of opinions is accurately represented. If you hold a fringe opinion and only have a tiny amount of representation, tough shit, that's democracy - unless you'd rather we appoint Corbyn to pm as well because some people would like him to be?

 

America is one country,every state joined by choice, they have shared traditions, they all speak the same language. Can't you see there's a difference.

 

Try it with councils vs central government instead then, the point remains the same - things aren't undemocratic just because it's not your opinion that's the majority one.

 

The people who vote in local councils also vote in national elections. If the govt makes a bad decision it will result in votes against. The Chancellor of Germany, PM of Belgium. President of France or any other European leader doesn't have to please us to get re-elected in their own country. 

[Thracian]

Actually Thrac's got this one pretty spot on, "And there's the problem with democracy. Because others disagree with you it doesn't mean your own view is wrong. So-called unions - of any kind - mean the inevitable compromising of individual opinions - or the coercion of agreement."

 

Carl the Llama

---------------

 

A sovereign nation that chose to become a member of an international governing body and sacrifice full autonomy on certain matters for the challenging but greater democratic goal of a unified continent containing different cultures and languages.  Nobody said it would be easy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thracian

--------

Ummmmmmm - what started as the idea of having a common European trading market, was evolved to become the concept of a borderless European state. Sovereign nation powers have increasingly been diluted, and mostly by stealth as far as I can see.

[Thracian]

Surely that sentiment could be applied to any kind of democracy, right down to individuals voting in their electoral wards. In my part of the UK it doesn't matter who I vote for, the same party always wins. But like you said, tough shit.

Proving surely that democracy is utterly and all-but hopelessly flawed. I'd also suggest that the wider the "democracy" the worse the flaws are likely to become because there'll, be more and greater differences between individual viewpoints, apart from exceptional situations like great deserts, grassland plains or wetland marshes.

[Thracian]

When we joined it was meant to be as part of a trading block (which I have no problem with). Nobody told us we were joining a United States of Europe .We've been forced into this union by stealth.If you want to make me the citizen of another country at least ask me first.

Seems we wrote almost exactly the same text by way of reply - and that's how it's been. Quite scandalous really.

[Carl the Llama]

 

 

A sovereign nation that chose to become a member of an international governing body and sacrifice full autonomy on certain matters for the challenging but greater democratic goal of a unified continent containing different cultures and languages.  Nobody said it would be easy.

Ummmmmmm - what started as the idea of having a common European trading market, was evolved to become the concept of a borderless European state. Sovereign nation powers have increasingly been diluted, and mostly by stealth as far as I can see.

The goal was always to move towards further continental integration for people like Schuman who got the ball rolling.  Nobody ever made a secret of that.  Taking steps along the way via well-publicised debate, international treaties, and despite hyperbolic gutter press headlines is hardly stealth.  Ironically it seems had Labour been in power during Major's stint then our government may not have signed the Maastricht treaty and become members in the first place.

 

Proving surely that democracy is utterly and all-but hopelessly flawed. I'd also suggest that the wider the "democracy" the worse the flaws are likely to become because there'll, be more and greater differences between individual viewpoints, apart from exceptional situations like great deserts, grassland plains or wetland marshes.

Very true, the trick is in finding the right balance between local and federal control. 

[Webbo]

Tony Benn

 

In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/15/10-of-the-best-tony-benn-quotes-as-picked-by-our-readers

[BoyJones]

I voted No in 1975 and will be voting No once again in June.

I view the EU as an abusive partner, who takes my money and imposes all sort of rules in an effort to dilute my way of life and traditions. Pro EU supporters were desperate for us to open our borders and join their currency, but most people even pro EU will agree we dodged a couple of massive bullets in Schengen and the Euro.

Back in 75, one of the bigger issues was the common agriculture policy, nobody naive like me envisaged the EU would try to control every aspect of our lives. It has been done stealthily because for every headline rule change, many more sneak in under the radar. We have been a subservient easy touch for too long.

A divorce is well overdue. Time for the worm to turn and get back its dignity, self esteem and make own decisions about our lives and future.

[Carl the Llama]

A lot of silly people writing in to the BBC today, people such as:

I have been open-minded, waiting to see what sort of deal was on offer, but now feel inclined to vote to leave the EU, as I feel that the referendum is being rushed through with undue haste. We are not to be allowed as much time to assess the situation as Scotland was given in their independence referendum, and furthermore we are being asked to approve an agreement which will not be ratified until after the referendum. How can we be sure that our EU partners will honour this agreement after we've voted to stay?

 

What else does she need to assess?  If she's as concerned and open-minded about it as she claims then she'd already know the details of how the EU functions so the only thing that's changed is now there's a deal on the table should we vote to stay in.  If 4 months isn't enough time for her to decide where she stands on the compromises made by Europe's heads of state then she shouldn't be allowed a voting card for sheer lack of IQ.  The fact that she bases her argument on "I don't trust Europeans" says it all about the thought process at play here. Open-minded my arse.

 

 

Tony Benn

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/15/10-of-the-best-tony-benn-quotes-as-picked-by-our-readers

It's handy then that the key players in negotiating our role within the EU are voted for directly by us in national and European elections.

 

 

I voted No in 1975 and will be voting No once again in June.

I view the EU as an abusive partner, who takes my money and imposes all sort of rules in an effort to dilute my way of life and traditions. Pro EU supporters were desperate for us to open our borders and join their currency, but most people even pro EU will agree we dodged a couple of massive bullets in Schengen and the Euro.

Back in 75, one of the bigger issues was the common agriculture policy, nobody naive like me envisaged the EU would try to control every aspect of our lives. It has been done stealthily because for every headline rule change, many more sneak in under the radar. We have been a subservient easy touch for too long.

A divorce is well overdue. Time for the worm to turn and get back its dignity, self esteem and make own decisions about our lives and future.

I'd hate to see you meet with actual abuse if you think people trying to cooperate with you for the benefit of an entire continent of people is abusive.

[Carl the Llama]

If Michael Gove thinks Britain should leave the EU then that's probably a safe sign that we're better off in it.

[Guest MattP]

One day into the campaign and we've already got the childish 'little Englander" and "Xenophobe" slurs being directed at anyone who wants to leave this failing, incompetent mess.

It's going to be a long campaign and for about the first time I'm genuinely starting to think we can win this, the remain campaign have always claimed they'll be able to prove we'll be better off in, listening to June Sarpong on QT and seeing the response from Carl on here I'm not sure they have it in them, all the biggest British supporters of the EU online appear to be based in Europe.

[Carl the Llama]

One day into the campaign and we've already got the childish 'little Englander" and "Xenophobe" slurs being directed at anyone who wants to leave this failing, incompetent mess.

It's going to be a long campaign and for about the first time I'm genuinely starting to think we can win this, the remain campaign have always claimed they'll be able to prove we'll be better off in, listening to June Sarpong on QT and seeing the response from Carl on here I'm not sure they have it in them, all the biggest British supporters of the EU online appear to be based in Europe.

Only in response to a line about Romanians taking Webbo's tax money which you can clearly see if you've been reading this discussion.  But lets not get bogged down in reasonable discourse when MattP's here to turn the debate into a full on slanging match eh?  Think I've made my points but where you step in is where I step out.  Shame, I was enjoying having a mostly impersonal debate.

[SMX11]

The remain campaigns arguments are very thin and generally out of date imo.

I think there is more of a chance of leaving now with this piss poor 'deal' but most people will swallow up all the scare stories emitted from the BBC and the remain campaign which still makes me think we will be locked into this thing until its demise.

[Webbo]

The remain campaigns arguments are very thin and generally out of date imo.

I think there is more of a chance of leaving now with this piss poor 'deal' but most people will swallow up all the scare stories emitted from the BBC and the remain campaign which still makes me think we will be locked into this thing until its demise.

I think you're right. I hope it's close enough to at least give them a scare, not that they'll change in anyway, they're too arrogant for that. 

[Carl the Llama]

Final point:  Out of the EU the UK will surely continue to exist and will most likely supplement any lost trade (or at least some of it) by increasing ties with other countries further afield.  This is most likely true.  If that is all that matters for you and none of the other fiscal, social, or environmental implications of a better integrated Europe matter to you then you are right to vote out.

 

I'll be voting in because the best thing for the planet, let alone Europe, is for all nations to cooperate on economic, political, and environmental matters as closely as they can and the EU is currently one of the best political tools towards achieving that aim.  Leave and the out voters will soon start seeing the EU introduce policy directives aimed at helping Europe which they disagree with and react with indignation when we have no power at all to change it because we've given up our seat at the debate table (you're kidding yourself if you think we'd still be allowed any influence over EU decision making because 'Britain's special').

[Carl the Llama]

(Cast that off as scare mongering if you like, it's far less scare mongering than the out camp's attempts to demonise the EU institutions as stealth power grabbers.)

And I'm done, enjoy the conversation guys.

[Guest MattP]

For what it's worth I think the vote won't matter that much long term anyway, the project will probably be dead in 10 years.

With the way people are starting to turn to extremes across the continent the make up and attitudes of the parliament will look very different after the next European elections.

[bovril]

One day into the campaign and we've already got the childish 'little Englander" and "Xenophobe" slurs being directed at anyone who wants to leave this failing, incompetent mess.

 

There are childish slurs from both sides. And you love a bit of faux-outrage and overreaction yourself, especially in reaction to anything a Labour party member has said or done.

 

A lot of the remain arguments are exceptionally weak but some of the 'out' arguments are so incredibly nebulous you can't help feel that some of it is driven by a very British mistrust of continentals.

 

Basically, speaking as an undecided with little interest in politics, I feel both sides have been pretty shite so far. 

[Rincewind]

And that is why I will probably abstain. I have done little research and do not trust any of them. I have not been swayed by either side.

[Claridge]

Always been pro Europe,but it feels like it's going to implode anyway.better off out the way of the blast.there are just too many countries now.

[Guest MattP]

Statement from Michael Gove MP. Delighted to have a man widely considered as one of the most intelligent in Westminster behind the leave campaign; hopefully Boris will follow suit and put his country before his party unlike some of the other cowards in the cabinet.

For weeks now I have been wrestling with the most difficult decision of my political life. But taking difficult decisions is what politicians are paid to do. No-one is forced to stand for Parliament, no-one is compelled to become a minister. If you take on those roles, which are great privileges, you also take on big responsibilities.

I was encouraged to stand for Parliament by David Cameron and he has given me the opportunity to serve in what I believe is a great, reforming Government. I think he is an outstanding Prime Minister. There is, as far as I can see, only one significant issue on which we have differed.

And that is the future of the UK in the European Union.

It pains me to have to disagree with the Prime Minister on any issue. My instinct is to support him through good times and bad.

But I cannot duck the choice which the Prime Minister has given every one of us. In a few months time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave. I believe our country would be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU. And if, at this moment of decision, I didn’t say what I believe I would not be true to my convictions or my country.

I don’t want to take anything away from the Prime Minister’s dedicated efforts to get a better deal for Britain. He has negotiated with courage and tenacity. But I think Britain would be stronger outside the EU.

My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.

But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.

The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.

Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.

In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.

By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.

Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s.

The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age.

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).

Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.

It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers' ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: 'Yes Minister, I understand, but I'm afraid that's against EU rules'. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.

We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.

We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.

This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future.