unbeliever Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) i think most people would agree that the eu needs a bit more reform and i suspect cameron hoped that this farce would have triggered a wider debate amongst the eu leaders and move towards wider reform. sadly it doesn't appear to have done or at least done so in public anyway. a vote to stay in is a vote for further reform and for the uk to play a leading role in driving that reform forwards. a vote to leave is to turn our back on our friends in what is becoming an increasingly hostile world. We want to be friends. We don't want to be family. If they insist that it's family or nothing, I choose nothing. I see not the slightest hint that they are making any such insistence. The history if EU 'reform' is the history of federalism. A vote for in is a vote to set a course for becoming a european citizen and not a uk citizen. It's okay if that's what you want. Most UK people don't, which is why we get all manner of largely nonsense alternative cases to stay in. Edited February 27, 2016 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 . A vote for 'leave' is a pretty unambiguous instruction from the UK people. It doesn't say that the vote to leave can't be followed by another vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 But currently flooding into it which increases the possibility that they get into the UK. unless you are going to stop any and all international travel into the country then there is no way to stop them, and of course that doesn't take account of any which are already here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 It doesn't say that the vote to leave can't be followed by another vote. No it doesn't. But it says we'll leave. If we then don't leave, for whatever reason, that's a serious betrayal. If they want they can hold a vote to rejoin. But we have to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) i think most people would agree that the eu needs a bit more reform and i suspect cameron hoped that this farce would have triggered a wider debate amongst the eu leaders and move towards wider reform. sadly it doesn't appear to have done or at least done so in public anyway. a vote to stay in is a vote for further reform and for the uk to play a leading role in driving that reform forwards. a vote to leave is to turn our back on our friends in what is becoming an increasingly hostile world. Why would they reform the EU if we vote to stay in it. If you are offered deal and you accept the deal you won't then be offered a better deal, the better deal comes after you said no. If you offer me a car for £20,000 and I say no it doesn't mean I don't want the car, it means if you want to sell it to me you will have offer me a better deal. Leaving also doesn't mean we can't still be friends. Edited February 27, 2016 by sutty27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 It doesn't say that the vote to leave can't be followed by another vote. it doesn't but it seems unlikely. anyone who thinks like michael howard and boris used too, that a no vote will result in a better deal is probably deluding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) No it doesn't. But it says we'll leave. If we then don't leave, for whatever reason, that's a serious betrayal. If they want they can hold a vote to rejoin. But we have to leave. They can offer the vote to stay before we leave without betraying us. They simply set everything in motion with an exit date which is likely to be a couple of years after the vote to leave and then hold another referendum before that date arrives. ---------- Post added 27-02-2016 at 13:52 ---------- it doesn't but it seems unlikely. anyone who thinks like michael howard and boris used too, that a no vote will result in a better deal is probably deluding themselves. Saying yes to a deal never gets a better deal, the better deal is only ever offered after you reject the deal. Only the deluded would think a vote to stay will cause EU reform. Edited February 27, 2016 by sutty27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 i think most people would agree that the eu needs a bit more reform and i suspect cameron hoped that this farce would have triggered a wider debate amongst the eu leaders and move towards wider reform. sadly it doesn't appear to have done or at least done so in public anyway. The EU needs to return to it's trade body role but the leadership don't want to give up their powers and still dream of a federal super-state. This will not change until members states start saying no and threaten to leave. a vote to stay in is a vote for further reform and for the uk to play a leading role in driving that reform forwards. You are just falling for, and repeating, the Stay campaign sound bites. The truth is that we hold an 8% share of the voting block and we have no more a 'leading role' than anyone else. Just what the hell does it even mean? What is it that gives us this privileged 'leading' influence do you think and how exactly is the power wielded?!? a vote to leave is to turn our back on our friends in what is becoming an increasingly hostile world. We are an island, a nuclear power and part of NATO. The EU doesn't even have an army. We are actually safer outside of the EU, which is currently allow extremists from the hostile world to walk into Europe unopposed and want us to take our share!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Reports from Germany today that '150,000 registered asylum seekers have disappeared' somewhere inside the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If we vote out, we need to get out. Anything else would be an intolerable betrayal. Not necessarily. If it was say 51%:49% on a very low turnout then it would not be as clear cut as you imagine. Every politician would think twice about exit on that basis. This referendum should have, if it doesn't already, a minimum turnout clause of the types being imposed on union ballots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts