EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

Have you not considered applying for French citizenship? If not, why not?

Because I am French (it's common knowledge on here )

 

Whence the ease of physical and professional relocation there, if it should come to it. Fully bilingual with strong German on top, readily transferrable and very high value professional skills, regular-as-clockwork headhunting approaches. And I'd still have the Australian option to consider as well, they build gold bridges for my like. I wouldn't struggle, put it that way.

Just curious as to why people who move to another country to live there long term do not look to become a full citizen.

It's a personal choice. Would you ever surrender your British nationality if you moved somewhere else long-term?

He's a French citizen already, but one who's living and working in UK? Which is why he's so anxious for UK to stay in EU, he obviously makes a better living here than in la belle France.

How many times...

 

I'm not anxious about a Brexit. It's not going to happen. But if it should, I have contingency plans in place. If I had any anxiety at all (I don't but-), it would only be about the consequences of a Brexit for the Brit nationals that are stuck in.

 

I do make a better living here than I ever could have in France (-then...it'd be different now) and wherever else I've been. No secret at all, search my posts, I've never shied away from acknowledging that. All the same, no freebies. Just hard graft, some risk-taking and seizing opportunities all along. It's why I came in the first place (after a few other EU countries, let it be said), and why we returned here after Ireland.

 

It's why they all come. And it should tell you something about your country.

 

But I don't expect many foaming at the mouth about immigration to see or understand that.

Edited June 12, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

We should and will stay in. The yes campaign will be overwhelmingly more convincing and supported by left and right for different reasons.

 

Leaving is unthinkable at the moment and its only a matter of time before we join the Euro.

 

Leaving would be costly and very difficult to do and leave us isolated and vulnerable. Plus some of these awful ex-pats who we've dumped on poor

Spain might start coming back *shudder*

 

It's not more convincing to me.

There's a lot of scare-mongering about trade barriers which doesn't really hold up as the EU has more to lose than the UK from such things.

 

Then there's the overwhelming evidence of history that the EU makes things worse more often than it makes them better.

You can't still think it's a good idea to join the European Unemployment and Recession Organisation. Why would you want 50% youth unemployment, a 25% drop in GDP and massive public spending cuts?

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 11:20 ----------

 

No,he is pro EU,one of the ones you have claimed is wrong...........now if he is wrong on the most important thing that can affect the UK,is he fit to lead the country?

As for what he negotiates,you are already claiming that the Pro EU have got it wrong before anything is negotiated,how would you know if the pro EU are wrong in that case?

 

I have lines in terms of European integration that I emphatically don't want to cross. If necessary I'm willing to leave the country to avoid becoming a citizen of the country of Europe.

I also judge that whatever the arrangements we're better off out than in and will vote accordingly in the referendum.

But if the PM makes reasonable arrangements, I'll be content to stay in the UK and just whinge about the EU.

[sgtkate]

Because I am French (it's common knowledge on here )

 

Whence the ease of physical and professional relocation there, if it should come to it. Fully bilingual with strong German on top, readily transferrable and very high value professional skills, regular-as-clockwork headhunting approaches. And I'd still have the Australian option to consider as well, they build gold bridges for my like. I wouldn't struggle, put it that way.

It's a personal choice. Would you ever surrender your British nationality if you moved somewhere else long-term?

How many times...

 

I'm not anxious about a Brexit. It's not going to happen. But if it should, I have contingency plans in place. If I had any anxiety at all (I don't but-), it would only be about the consequences of a Brexit for the Brit nationals that are stuck in.

 

I do make a better living here than I ever could have in France (-then...it'd be different now) and wherever else I've been. No secret at all, search my posts, I've never shied away from acknowledging that. All the same, no freebies. Just hard graft, some risk-taking and seizing opportunities all along. It's why I came in the first place (after a few other EU countries, let it be said), and why we returned here after Ireland.

 

It's why they all come. And it should tell you something about your country.

 

But I don't expect many foaming at the mouth about immigration to see or understand that.

 

Oh Loob! Apologies, I am a fool! I have completely misunderstood your situation. I thought you were English and living in France! Mea culpa!

 

So the question the correct way around! Would you become a UK citizen? If not, why not? I can guarantee I'm not being judgemental here, I'm genuinely curious about why some people choose to become citizens and some do not.

 

And I'm one of the few here who really isn't a foaming at the mouth anti-immigrant person! I'm pro-EU and vote Green!

 

And to answer your question, yes I would give up my British nationality if I moved somewhere else long term and a requirement of that country was to stop dual nationality. I'd prefer to have dual nationality though if that was an option. I make no guarantees about stopping cheering on England in various sports though! I'd fail the Tebbit test.

[tzijlstra]

It's not more convincing to me.

There's a lot of scare-mongering about trade barriers which doesn't really hold up as the EU has more to lose than the UK from such things.

 

Then there's the overwhelming evidence of history that the EU makes things worse more often than it makes them better.

You can't still think it's a good idea to join the European Unemployment and Recession Organisation. Why would you want 50% youth unemployment, a 25% drop in GDP and massive public spending cuts?

 

What makes you think that these are generic figures for the Eurozone, because they aren't. The Eurozone as a whole might have had a hit from the Greek, Spanish and Italian economies tanking, but compared to the UK economy (GDP) the Eurozone is vastly outperforming it. (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/15/1000011/a-german-gdp-beat-on-a-divergent-morning/)

 

Such a bad thing, the Euro, horrible. Almost as horrible as the Pound.

 

Perhaps when you talk about economy and the likes, you might want to get the facts straight. Also interesting to see that the reply I gave you when you challenged my points that were non-economical you never bothered to reply. Ignore the facts, point fingers and rant. Because people get away with that the EU has a bad name, not because of what it achieves.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 11:28 ----------

 

In which post did I say it would be cheaper to grow foodstuffs in the UK compared to say, Kenya or Peru?

 

You are working on the assumption all immigration would be stopped, people will still be able to come and work in the UK on temporary work permits, more can be done to get the unemployed into work.

 

We could even use prison labour which would be relatively cheap, and very good for a prisoners rehabilitation, health and fitness.

 

Its possible to encourage people into work without being Stalin or Mao.

 

The whole premise of your argument is that it might well be cheaper to grow food here by getting people working on the fields. It won't be, it is a retarded view of economics that is at the basis of that argument. Seemingly you see that now as you are clambering back. Perhaps we won't have to have this exchange again now, would certainly be enlightening to think that you can indeed change your stubborn incorrect worldview

Edited June 12, 2015 by tzijlstra

[unbeliever]

What makes you think that these are generic figures for the Eurozone, because they aren't. The Eurozone as a whole might have had a hit from the Greek, Spanish and Italian economies tanking, but compared to the UK economy (GDP) the Eurozone is vastly outperforming it. (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/15/1000011/a-german-gdp-beat-on-a-divergent-morning/)

 

Such a bad thing, the Euro, horrible. Almost as horrible as the Pound.

 

Perhaps when you talk about economy and the likes, you might want to get the facts straight. Also interesting to see that the reply I gave you when you challenged my points that were non-economical you never bothered to reply. Ignore the facts, point fingers and rant. Because people get away with that the EU has a bad name, not because of what it achieves.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 11:28 ----------

 

 

The whole premise of your argument is that it might well be cheaper to grow food here by getting people working on the fields. It won't be, it is a retarded view of economics that is at the basis of that argument. Seemingly you see that now as you are clambering back. Perhaps we won't have to have this exchange again now, would certainly be enlightening to think that you can indeed change your stubborn incorrect worldview

 

Eurozone monetary and macro-economic policy is set for the Germans and to a lesser extent the French. It's not right for anybody else except by luck.

That's why Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have had such a hard time since it's introduction. In a proper currency union, the Germans would simply pay for the Greek public services, but they refuse.

 

A single currency requires a single Exchequer in advance. It was pure folly to have one without the other.

It requires routine money transfers from the richer areas to the poor ones. These should have been agreed in advance.

It requires standardised rights are responsibilities in advance.

All of these things are essential to a currency union and completely unacceptable to the majority of Europeans. They were told they could have the current union without these things and everything would be fine. That was a lie.

This is the kind of economic daftness that one expects from the EU.

 

You made valid points on the advantages of a single market, which I acknowledged.

There are indeed advantages. There are 2 key questions:

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Is the system well run?

 

We can argue about the first, but considering the disaster visited on the UK by the ERM, the war in Ukraine, the disaster visited on Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain by the EURO; it's hard to see why people argue on the second.

 

There are, typically, many prophecies of doom here about Brexit. The same prophecies were made about the non-ERM, non-EURO and various other things the UK has kept out of regarding European integration. These are always wrong and sometimes the exact reverse of the truth. How about you address the evidence of history.

 

The UK has seen nothing like the hardship and suffering inflicted on parts of Europe by the EURO. So total GDP has risen. That's great. I'm sure all the Greeks burning their furniture just to keep warm will find that reassuring.

[L00b]

Oh Loob! Apologies, I am a fool! I have completely misunderstood your situation. I thought you were English and living in France! Mea culpa!

Chill/Relax, no offense taken what-so-ever

 

To err is human, and I err often enough myself on here and elsewhere

So the question the correct way around! Would you become a UK citizen? If not, why not?

No. Our daughter would lose her dual citizenship. Which I consider a great asset for her. There are further family-related reasons into which I won't go on here.

I make no guarantees about stopping cheering on England in various sports though! I'd fail the Tebbit test.

You'll usually find me cheering England as well

 

Especially if and when I'm (in a pub-) surrounded by Welsh, Scots or Irish I'm a bit bad/antagonistic that way

Edited June 12, 2015 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

Eurozone monetary and macro-economic policy is set for the Germans and to a lesser extent the French. It's not right for anybody else except by luck.

That's why Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have had such a hard time since it's introduction. In a proper currency union, the Germans would simply pay for the Greek public services, but they refuse.

 

A single currency requires a single Exchequer in advance. It was pure folly to have one without the other.

It requires routine money transfers from the richer areas to the poor ones. These should have been agreed in advance.

It requires standardised rights are responsibilities in advance.

All of these things are essential to a currency union and completely unacceptable to the majority of Europeans. They were told they could have the current union without these things and everything would be fine. That was a lie.

This is the kind of economic daftness that one expects from the EU.

 

You made valid points on the advantages of a single market, which I acknowledged.o

There are indeed advantages. There are 2 key questions:

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Is the system well run?

 

We can argue about the first, but considering the disaster visited on the UK by the ERM, the war in Ukraine, the disaster visited on Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain by the EURO; it's hard to see why people argue on the second.

 

There are, typically, many prophecies of doom here about Brexit. The same prophecies were made about the non-ERM, non-EURO and various other things the UK has kept out of regarding European integration. These are always wrong and sometimes the exact reverse of the truth. How about you address the evidence of history.

 

The UK has seen nothing like the hardship and suffering inflicted on parts of Europe by the EURO. So total GDP has risen. That's great. I'm sure all the Greeks burning their furniture just to keep warm will find that reassuring.

 

Briefly, I am in a rush, payments to and from had and have been agreed. But proved useless when it turned out the Greek government had cooked the books for decades. i have many Greek friends and none of them feel this is the faultof the EU, in fact, many now demand further integration of the federal state.

 

Will elaborate later.

[unbeliever]

Briefly, I am in a rush, payments to and from had and have been agreed. But proved useless when it turned out the Greek government had cooked the books for decades. i have many Greek friends and none of them feel this is the faultof the EU, in fact, many now demand further integration of the federal state.

 

Will elaborate later.

 

The Greek deceit over the convergence criteria was well known in advance.

There matter how they were to stay converged was not really discussed.

 

Further integration is a reasonable solution. For the Greeks it would certainly help as the harder-working, more functional states in the EU can prop them up.

The Germans won't be too pleased.

It all just re-enforces the folly of a single currency without the political union required to make it work.

 

I can't get past the deceit though. It was obvious that that the EU had to become effectively a single state before the EURO was introduced. The European people didn't want to be a single state, so the EU leaders pretended that the EURO would work without one.

Now the people are suffering because of that lie.

 

In this context, perhaps you can understand why some of us want out.

What's to stop them visiting yet more disaster on the European people with their next hair-brained integration plan?

 

 

It is patently obvious that the risks of remaining in the EU, which emphatically requires a continued program of integration, are far greater than leaving.

 

I would appreciate it if something could be clarified in terms of the consistency on the pro-EU case.

One of the frustrating things about arguing for Brexit is that half the opposition claim that we can remain in the EU without full political integration so we shouldn't worry, and the other half say that further integration is a good thing and we should embrace it. It tends to depend on current events which argument one faces.

It would be helpful if the pro-EU writers on here could sort that out amongst themselves and then get back to us.

The PM is perhaps trying to arrange some kind associate membership of the EU for the UK where integration rewinds a little and then stops, but only for the UK. The EU in general is surely marching onward toward further integration. Or has the Nice treaty been repealed?

As things stand it's an odd alliance on the pro-EU side. Clearly only half or none of the pro-EU writers can be right.

Edited June 12, 2015 by unbeliever
More thoughts

[tzijlstra]

As things stand it's an odd alliance on the pro-EU side. Clearly only half or none of the pro-EU writers can be right.

 

(Cut the rest of the post for brevity, as this conclusion serves and this post is going to be VERY long (apologies, TL:DR summary can be found by reading the bolded parts)

 

This is the crux of the debate that precedes the referendum: the renegotiation of the UK position regarding the EU - the UK is completely separate from the Eurozone and together with Denmark, the only state to be so. A two-tier EU is essentially a shared single market with satellites. The UK would become such a satellite, negating a certain degree of influence in exchange for independence. This is what Cameron is seeking in the renegotiation but he is very bad at communicating that message (or the UK media are very bad at bringing it across, probably a combination of the two.)

 

You can not expect the EU to surrender core-values of freedom of movement for goods and people, it is one of the founding agreements that precedes the Eurozone by a good four decades and it is one of the key-drivers of economic development and the shared single market. Here is another of Cameron's problems, he thinks it is an option or at least is dumb enough to make it sound like it is. It is not an option therefore for the UK to seek alteration of this condition.

 

What could be agreed however is a further clarification on the UK's opt-out regarding anything Euro (coin)-related, although this is pretty much a done deal and already in effect, there are means to improve this. Another further clarification is needed on the legal impact of the EU on the UK, this for me is a very interesting topic, there is so much confusion about this that it is staggering. It is true that the EU passes a huge amount of directives that are implemented without going through Westminster - but they do have to go through the European Parliament and this is where the confusion comes from, the UK is represented in that parliament and it is a democratically accountable body. But due to the massive lack of interest in anything EU (and to be fair, reporting on the hundreds of directives each year is rather tedious) people do not understand how this works.

 

These directives however are part of the shared single market - they declare an objective that should be achieved by the member-states, BUT crucially, it is the member-states that decide on how to do that. So when the EU puts out a directive to introduce the right to be forgotten it is up to the UK on how it seeks to enforce this directive. Now here is the crux: Leaving the EU will not stop the UK having to comply with these directives UNLESS it chooses to leave the shared single market altogether. And even then, the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner - meaning that the organisations dealing with the EU (companies, charities, etc.) will still have to comply regardless.

 

So what the choice to leave the EU really does is this: It stops the UK having any influence on what is coming this way. It kills off the influence and effectively puts the UK in a position where it has to comply with directives that it had no chance to influence. It stops the UK being able to do things like protect its financial industry (The UK Commissioner is responsible for banking and finance), it stops the UK being able to influence the aviation industry, to lobby for the HE sector, to represent the Commonwealth states in the biggest single market in the world and so on.

 

The UK only stands to lose if it leaves the EU. It is irrelevant whether the UK is a fully signed up member or a satellite member.

Edited June 12, 2015 by tzijlstra

[retep]

(Cut the rest of the post for brevity, as this conclusion serves and this post is going to be VERY long (apologies, TL:DR summary can be found by reading the bolded parts)

 

This is the crux of the debate that precedes the referendum: the renegotiation of the UK position regarding the EU - the UK is completely separate from the Eurozone and together with Denmark, the only state to be so. A two-tier EU is essentially a shared single market with satellites. The UK would become such a satellite, negating a certain degree of influence in exchange for independence. This is what Cameron is seeking in the renegotiation but he is very bad at communicating that message (or the UK media are very bad at bringing it across, probably a combination of the two.)

 

You can not expect the EU to surrender core-values of freedom of movement for goods and people, it is one of the founding agreements that precedes the Eurozone by a good four decades and it is one of the key-drivers of economic development and the shared single market. Here is another of Cameron's problems, he thinks it is an option or at least is dumb enough to make it sound like it is. It is not an option therefore for the UK to seek alteration of this condition.

 

What could be agreed however is a further clarification on the UK's opt-out regarding anything Euro (coin)-related, although this is pretty much a done deal and already in effect, there are means to improve this. Another further clarification is needed on the legal impact of the EU on the UK, this for me is a very interesting topic, there is so much confusion about this that it is staggering. It is true that the EU passes a huge amount of directives that are implemented without going through Westminster - but they do have to go through the European Parliament and this is where the confusion comes from, the UK is represented in that parliament and it is a democratically accountable body. But due to the massive lack of interest in anything EU (and to be fair, reporting on the hundreds of directives each year is rather tedious) people do not understand how this works.

 

These directives however are part of the shared single market - they declare an objective that should be achieved by the member-states, BUT crucially, it is the member-states that decide on how to do that. So when the EU puts out a directive to introduce the right to be forgotten it is up to the UK on how it seeks to enforce this directive. Now here is the crux: Leaving the EU will not stop the UK having to comply with these directives UNLESS it chooses to leave the shared single market altogether. And even then, the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner - meaning that the organisations dealing with the EU (companies, charities, etc.) will still have to comply regardless.

 

So what the choice to leave the EU really does is this: It stops the UK having any influence on what is coming this way. It kills off the influence and effectively puts the UK in a position where it has to comply with directives that it had no chance to influence. It stops the UK being able to do things like protect its financial industry (The UK Commissioner is responsible for banking and finance), it stops the UK being able to influence the aviation industry, to lobby for the HE sector, to represent the Commonwealth states in the biggest single market in the world and so on.

 

The UK only stands to lose if it leaves the EU. It is irrelevant whether the UK is a fully signed up member or a satellite member.

 

We can see the influence the UK has in every knock back Camerloon gets.