Referendum on Britain's membership to the European Union, How would you vote?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 585609
  • Start date

Referendum on Britain's membership to the European Union, How would you vote?

  • In, I would vote to remain in the EU

    Votes: 52 33.1%
  • Out, I would vote to leave the EU

    Votes: 99 63.1%
  • Neither, I wouldn't vote because it doesn't bother me

    Votes: 6 3.8%

  • Total voters
    157
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rasczak said:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

What an amusing post!

Even more amusing is that there is no response from the Europhiles. They just stare at the catastrophic failure of their petty ambition trying to pretend it isn't happening. Like staring at a car wreck and hoping it will buff out. Write off I'm afraid. Doomed to the scrappy and good riddance.
 
Even more amusing is that there is no response from the Europhiles. They just stare at the catastrophic failure of their petty ambition trying to pretend it isn't happening. Like staring at a car wreck and hoping it will buff out. Write off I'm afraid. Doomed to the scrappy and good riddance.
So the Eurosceptics continuously tell us. Doomed we are told. Dooooommmmmmed. The Euro and EU will die tomorrow. Toooommmmmorrrroooww. It is all over bar the shouting...

...only it isn't. Tomorrow never comes and both the EU and Euro will go on and on and on. :smashin:
 
Rasczak said:
So the Eurosceptics continuously tell us. Doomed we are told. Dooooommmmmmed. The Euro and EU will die tomorrow. Toooommmmmorrrroooww. It is all over bar the shouting...

...only it isn't. Tomorrow never comes and both the EU and Euro will go on and on and on. :smashin:

The EU won't die. Don't particularly want it to, just don't want to be part of something that is a federalist Europe with centralisation. I don't want centralisation. The bigger a state becomes the more likely it is to be fixed and slow to change as well as being seen as a military threat and perform as such.
 
Sounds like you don't have any TBH. You'll certainly not convince anyone of the importance of staying in the EU, while the argument from the other side gains momentum.

I've asked a few times what are the true actual benefits of being in the EU, so far a few tumbleweeds rolled by.

It is the exact opposite to what you have just stated.

EU vote: stay in 40%, leave 34%

edit: my apologies i forgot that this thread was a poll so i went and had a look to see if what you said was true which is just what i do when i dont know stuff... it is like a knee jerk reaction and i simply cant help myself. Thus it seems like i got this wrong thanks to Iron Giant for pointing this out.

Me i intensely dislike the EU and would dearly love a world in which it could be dismantled but in the real world the EU is the only checks and balance we have against our own great leaders and thus i am up for it... even though i am dead set against it. Democracy in this country is like the dodo and thus having a certain amount of power and control spread out a bit and in the combined hands of the Germans, Spanish and French and the rest makes me sleep better at night.
 
Last edited:
rockmonkey1973 said:
It is the exact opposite to what you have just stated.

EU vote: stay in 40%, leave 34%

Me i intensely dislike the EU and would dearly love a world in which it could be dismantled but in the real world the EU is the only checks and balance we have against our own great leaders and thus i am up for it... even though i am dead set against it. Democracy in this country is like the dodo and thus having a certain amount of power and control spread out a bit and in the combined hands of the Germans, Spanish and French and the rest makes me sleep better at night.

Except that's the wrong way around. What you should be looking for in that case is greater granulation. The EU is a bigger something, not a more spread around something. I can see where you get the idea, but the actuality is that the EU will be unified under one leadership. Rather than spread, the centralisation will be increased.

Somebody suggested that we should further split up the countries into tiny states. So we might split down to counties in the UK. It would allow easier movement to states that might have preferable conditions. Each would have its own budget, taxation system etc. it would make wars more difficult to start, if we no longer had a UK as such. That's just an idea, but I can see why greater granularity would make wars on a grand scale, or dictatorships just about impossible.
 
Me i intensely dislike the EU and would dearly love a world in which it could be dismantled but in the real world the EU is the only checks and balance we have against our own great leaders and thus i am up for it... even though i am dead set against it. Democracy in this country is like the dodo and thus having a certain amount of power and control spread out a bit and in the combined hands of the Germans, Spanish and French and the rest makes me sleep better at night.

So because you question the validity of democracy in this country, you would prefer to 'export' control to the EU over whom we have much less control?
:confused:
 
I think some people are discussing the poll in this thread and others the national survey, which may be causing some confusion.
 
Except that's the wrong way around. What you should be looking for in that case is greater granulation. The EU is a bigger something, not a more spread around something. I can see where you get the idea, but the actuality is that the EU will be unified under one leadership. Rather than spread, the centralisation will be increased.

Somebody suggested that we should further split up the countries into tiny states. So we might split down to counties in the UK. It would allow easier movement to states that might have preferable conditions. Each would have its own budget, taxation system etc. it would make wars more difficult to start, if we no longer had a UK as such. That's just an idea, but I can see why greater granularity would make wars on a grand scale, or dictatorships just about impossible.

Look things are far from perfect and what i would prefer is no government or nation states at all but that will take a full on revolution which isnt going to happen while the structures of authority are still in place. I certainly wouldnt like to see little states within countries. Without even giving it much thought under the capitalist system that sounds like a recipe for constant war or at the very least huge inequalities which may appeal to you but is something i would actually take up arms to resist (assuming i could get my hands on them!).

As for centralized power under totalitarian rule well we already have that within the EU and at home. The only difference is we elect our great masters and thus they remain accountable and have to think about cause and effect. It is unfortunate that the larger powers are more dominant but it all seems much the same as we have here. It wont last forever that i am certain and in no way do i see it being ruled by one person or state but if that time arose then i would be obviously even more dead set against it than i already am.

So as things stand give me the EU any day. This answers the other dudes question as well... yes i would prefer to hand over control to a larger number of liberal democratic powers because it dilutes the power of our great leaders... and just the thought of this leaves me with a little grin on my boat race. The situation is as i have said far from perfect but in this world for the time being one has to make choices that are based on the lesser of two evils and as far as this issue is concerned being a member of the EU is far better than letting our politicians run the show alone.
 
So as things stand give me the EU any day. This answers the other dudes question as well... yes i would prefer to hand over control to a larger number of liberal democratic powers because it dilutes the power of our great leaders... and just the thought of this leaves me with a little grin on my boat race. The situation is as i have said far from perfect but in this world for the time being one has to make choices that are based on the lesser of two evils and as far as this issue is concerned being a member of the EU is far better than letting our politicians run the show alone.

Given a choice of an elected government (supposedly) implementing policies that support the requirements of the majority of the voters (and if not, they can be voted out at the next election) and that of an unelected EU commission, implementing policies that are designed to meet some theoretical EU aim, but which might have huge adverse consequences for our country and over which we have zero control, then the former is the only sensible and reasonable approach.
:thumbsdow
 
rockmonkey1973 said:
Look things are far from perfect and what i would prefer is no government or nation states at all but that will take a full on revolution which isnt going to happen while the structures of authority are still in place. I certainly wouldnt like to see little states within countries. Without even giving it much thought under the capitalist system that sounds like a recipe for constant war or at the very least huge inequalities which may appeal to you but is something i would actually take up arms to resist (assuming i could get my hands on them!).

As for centralized power under totalitarian rule well we already have that within the EU and at home. The only difference is we elect our great masters and thus they remain accountable and have to think about cause and effect. It is unfortunate that the larger powers are more dominant but it all seems much the same as we have here. It wont last forever that i am certain and in no way do i see it being ruled by one person or state but if that time arose then i would be obviously even more dead set against it than i already am.

So as things stand give me the EU any day. This answers the other dudes question as well... yes i would prefer to hand over control to a larger number of liberal democratic powers because it dilutes the power of our great leaders... and just the thought of this leaves me with a little grin on my boat race. The situation is as i have said far from perfect but in this world for the time being one has to make choices that are based on the lesser of two evils and as far as this issue is concerned being a member of the EU is far better than letting our politicians run the show alone.

Are you going to start a war with Durham. Could the Taliban target Redcar and Cleveland ? Without a countries identity it becomes difficult to go to war with. Its possible to have minor skirmishes, but that all. Possible but unlikely. Its far easier to have bigger nations go to war which is what we see today.
 
Given a choice of an elected government (supposedly) implementing policies that support the requirements of the majority of the voters (and if not, they can be voted out at the next election) and that of an unelected EU commission, implementing policies that are designed to meet some theoretical EU aim, but which might have huge adverse consequences for our country and over which we have zero control, then the former is the only sensible and reasonable approach.
:thumbsdow

I am not altogether disagreeing with you however i dont accept the premise that the system of government that is in place currently is the best we can have. You and i and every other bod can only vote for a party who may or may not represent your views and once that is done that is it. We are then told to go home, play with our toys and as far as political involvement is concerned we all become irrelevant until the next election. Even worse they arent even bound to do what they promised while they were prancing around buying your vote. The whole system is a fraudulent con. Thus if this is the best we have right now then i would opt for any structure that negates this even if it is one that is simply a larger version of exactly the same thing.

As for the commission well what little i know it doesnt seem much different than you and i not getting a choice who the secretary of state or the pm is. I mean the parties choose who gets the executive positions and these bods then implement ideas that may or may not be good for the country as a whole and that may or may not have been policies. If we consider that the commission has one member for each state and that they are bound to act in the best interest of the EU then as far as authorities go then it sounds about as good as it gets. Not saying it works but on paper it sounds decent enough. At the end of the day I personally am not a cheer for the home team sort of guy and thus if the UK comes out slightly worse occasionally assuming the policies were fair then this sounds perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. I actually cant think of one thing that has harmed the UK in any dramatic way in the manner you seem to suggest but if you know of any then i am open to consider them.

There is one other thing... our great leaders are far more subservient to the USA and because the EU nations do occasionally misbehave and not follow orders i have a soft spot for them. Like i said before the lesser of two evils which are framed within a much larger net.
 
Are you going to start a war with Durham. Could the Taliban target Redcar and Cleveland ? Without a countries identity it becomes difficult to go to war with. Its possible to have minor skirmishes, but that all. Possible but unlikely. Its far easier to have bigger nations go to war which is what we see today.
I would not start a war with anyone but we have all been trained from the day dot to back your side no matter what and having even more of these little sides will simply cause far more conflict. The best way to eradicate conflict would be to remove national borders not create thousands more. Now if you were talking about workers councils or small communities that were part of a bigger network where people were directly involved in the day to day running and management of there work and affairs i would say that is about the best idea you have ever had. I tend to think you arent though ;).
 
I am not altogether disagreeing with you however i dont accept the premise that the system of government that is in place currently is the best we can have. You and i and every other bod can only vote for a party who may or may not represent your views and once that is done that is it. We are then told to go home, play with our toys and as far as political involvement is concerned we all become irrelevant until the next election. Even worse they arent even bound to do what they promised while they were prancing around buying your vote. The whole system is a fraudulent con. Thus if this is the best we have right now then i would opt for any structure that negates this even if it is one that is simply a larger version of exactly the same thing.

But you are favouring a system that gives you even less control than the system you are criticising for having insufficient control....
:suicide:

If we consider that the commission has one member for each state and that they are bound to act in the best interest of the EU then as far as authorities go then it sounds about as good as it gets.

I want to have a government that works in the best interests of the country I live in, not the EU!
:nono:
 
Given a choice of an elected government (supposedly) implementing policies that support the requirements of the majority of the voters (and if not, they can be voted out at the next election) and that of an unelected EU commission, implementing policies that are designed to meet some theoretical EU aim, but which might have huge adverse consequences for our country and over which we have zero control, then the former is the only sensible and reasonable approach.
Zero control. That's the term I take issue with there because it is wrong.

1. Treaties. Every EU law is based in one way or another by the foundation Treaties - the lastest of course being Lisbon. These treaties were signed and approved by our elected national representatives - in the case of the UK by the previous Labour administration and ratified by the Westminster Parliament. So here you can see 'zero' influence is incorrect as the UK had to sign upto the relevant Treaties - control at the strategic level then.

2. Commission. The EU Commission is made up of one national from each EU State - in the case of the UK this is appointed by the UK executive. The current appointee, Catherine Ashton, is also Vice-President of the Commission at present. So here you can see 'zero' influence is incorrect as the UK has influence at the executive level.

3. European Parliament. Following the Lisbon Treaty the elected EU Parliament partakes with the Commission in 'co-decision' meaning it has to approve EU legislation. So here you can see 'zero' influence is incorrect as the UK sends many representatives to this democratic forum.
 
Zero control. That's the term I take issue with there because it is wrong.

1. Treaties. Every EU law is based in one way or another by the foundation Treaties - the lastest of course being Lisbon. These treaties were signed and approved by our elected national representatives - in the case of the UK by the previous Labour administration and ratified by the Westminster Parliament. So here you can see 'zero' influence is incorrect as the UK had to sign upto the relevant Treaties - control at the strategic level then.

2. Commission. The EU Commission is made up of one national from each EU State - in the case of the UK this is appointed by the UK executive. The current appointee, Catherine Ashton, is also Vice-President of the Commission at present. So here you can see 'zero' influence is incorrect as the UK has influence at the executive level.

3. European Parliament. Following the Lisbon Treaty the elected EU Parliament partakes with the Commission in 'co-decision' meaning it has to approve EU legislation. So here you can see 'zero' influence is incorrect as the UK sends many representatives to this democratic forum.

The Lisbon treaty was the one that none of us got to vote on, right?
:hiya:
 
rockmonkey1973 said:
I would not start a war with anyone but we have all been trained from the day dot to back your side no matter what and having even more of these little sides will simply cause far more conflict. The best way to eradicate conflict would be to remove national borders not create thousands more. Now if you were talking about workers councils or small communities that were part of a bigger network where people were directly involved in the day to day running and management of there work and affairs i would say that is about the best idea you have ever had. I tend to think you arent though ;).

That's exactly what I'm advocating. All taxation and policies decided by a smaller area. That's how the US works to some degree, not exactly, but similar. There are a few changes I would make to ownership and the end of a central Government. It would mean areas wouldn't be forced into national budgets as they would be directly responsible for making sure their state was attractive to businesses and people.

States could learn from each other on the best approaches and try them out.
 
But you are favouring a system that gives you even less control than the system you are criticising for having insufficient control....
:suicide:



I want to have a government that works in the best interests of the country I live in, not the EU!
:nono:
Well you see this is where our values fundamentally conflict because my interest is actually geared towards making sure the shared interests of all are taken into account and not just a those of a few... regardless of whether that is at an individual, local, national or international basis. Paradoxically it is for this very reason that while i support the EU i am wholly opposed to the EU which is for all intents and purposes just another nation state (but this time made up of a select group of nations) attempting to further its own self interest with very little thought or concern for those who are not part of the elite.

It is the very framework that i think is busted but it isnt going to go away because it is simply far too powerful. It will change one day because change will be imposed upon us through external forces and nothing lasts forever but until that day arrives one must make choices within the current structure. The power of the UK government is lessened by being a part of a greater whole and given that this is the best we can have then obviously when we consider the values i spoke of above it is natural for me to side with the EU even though i think the whole thing is totally illegitimate. The exact opposite can be said given your values and as such we reach an impasse.

The strange thing is that despite our opposing ideals both of us end up in the same place literally powerless to do anything about it even though the people who are running the show are supposedly our representatives. Dont know about you but it makes one ponder the whole nature of our democratic society.
 
The Lisbon treaty was the one that none of us got to vote on, right?
:hiya:
But we elected representatives that did :smashin:

...so no different from any other issue. You pick your MP, you take your choice.
 
But we elected representatives that did :smashin:

...so no different from any other issue. You pick your MP, you take your choice.


Except those representatives lied...
:nono:
 
Except those representatives lied...
:nono:
As with most things then... although they would argue they didn't as, for both major parties, the criteria wasn't met (for Labour the EU Constitution was thrown out and Lisbon rolled out instead, whilst the Conservatives throw in the towel once Lisbon had been ratified by all EU members).

But really we had a General Election since Lisbon was ratified and the majority of MPs who voted for it (Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, SNP etc etc) in the 2005-10 Parliament were re-elected! So really I don't think you can single this out anymore than any other Parliamentary decision.
 
As with most things then... although they would argue they didn't as, for both major parties, the criteria wasn't met (for Labour the EU Constitution was thrown out and Lisbon rolled out instead, whilst the Conservatives throw in the towel once Lisbon had been ratified by all EU members).

But really we had a General Election since Lisbon was ratified and the majority of MPs who voted for it (Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, SNP etc etc) in the 2005-10 Parliament were re-elected! So really I don't think you can single this out anymore than any other Parliamentary decision.

I'm not sure I follow that, given that a previous government stitched up the electorate, that means that we should 'out source' key aspects of our democracy to an entity that we have even less control over (and who has even less reason to put our country's interests first).....
:confused:
 
sidicks said:
I'm not sure I follow that, given that a previous government stitched up the electorate, that means that we should 'out source' key aspects of our democracy to an entity that we have even less control over (and who has even less reason to put our country's interests first).....
:confused:

Might as well have surrendered during the Second World War, then that would also have been a democratic move to move to the tune of German Government.
 
Has anyone else noticed a surge in UKIP billboards?

Not my image, taken from google images, but this is the one I have seen at least 5 of local today
P33Pm9x.jpg
 
Not seen single one.

Guess you must live in the south east...?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom