EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[I1L2T3]

A good predictor, in my view, of the likely outcome of the referendum is the 'status quo' syndrome. In other words, in most referendums on European issues, people have rejected the change being offered, mainly because of the risks and uncertainty inherent in this option (as of course the Scots also did in the referendum on independence).

 

Since the signing of the Maastricht treaty, I calculate that there have been thirteen referendums held by member states on various European issues. Of these, only four resulted in favourable votes for the change option (i.e. for the Maastricht treaty by Ireland and France and then for the Constitutional Treaty by Luxembourg and Spain - even though France and the Netherlands voted against this treaty, as the the UK would also have done had it not been already scuppered). The recent Dutch rejection of the draft treaty with Ukraine is another example of this syndrome.

 

So my prediction is that the 'remain' side will win (probably by a comfortable margin) regardless of the cogency of the arguments on either side.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 18:28 ----------

 

 

I thought my post (repeated below) made clear that sovereignty can be regained. However, in my view it is difficult to argue that currently the UK parliament has supreme decision making or law-making power over the areas of policy I mention. The UK government made the mistake way back in 1972 of misleading the British public into thinking that entry into the E.E.C. as it then was would have no implications for sovereignty, when clearly it did. As I said before:

 

One of the problems with this debate (both on the forum and elsewhere) is that both sides are engaging in polemical hyperbole. In other words, they are overstating their cases. To say that the UK has not lost any sovereignty whilst in the EU is clearly false. 'Sovereignty' has two aspects, i.e. internal, meaning supreme decisionmaking and law making power within a defined territory; and external, which means equality with other sovereign states within the international system.

 

As numerous ECJ and UK legal judgements have made clear, EU law has supremacy over UK law, whenever there is a conflict between the two. This principle is enshrined in the EU treaties and was confirmed in the famous Van Gend en Loos case many years ago. This means that neither the UK parliament nor the UK courts can overturn or ignore EU laws. This principle of paramountcy now applies for example, to trade policy, the CAP, environmental laws, some employment laws and also the laws relating to the Single European Market.

 

So currently the UK does not have 'sovereignty' over the above specific areas of policy. However, of course sovereignty over these areas could be regained if we left the EU, so in this sense our sovereignty is being 'lent' rather than given to the EU in perpetuity. Unlike, for example, the states of the US, we are free to leave the Union (now under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty) as in fact we have always been free to leave. So currently our sovereignty is partially lent, or partially shared, but could be regained.

 

Incidentally, what makes you think that I am a 'Brexit foot soldier'?

 

You're repeating the same mistake, that we somehow need to regain sovereignty.

 

The fact is that we have never lost our sovereignty. If certain European institutions have primacy over certain areas of law and policy making then that is because we have made a sovereignty decision for it to be that way.

 

I get that people are arguing for us not to pool our sovereignty in various ways with the EU, but they have to understand that it is not correct to describe that process as a loss of sovereignty because it clearly isn't.

 

Which brings me to the Brexit foot soldier point. When you repeat the argument that we need to 'regain sovereignty' you are, perhaps unwittingly, reinforcing the dog whistle tactics of the heavily dumbed-down Brexit campaign which will never admit we have not given up sovereignty and would rather campaign on a lie.

 

The fact we have never lost our sovereignty underpins our right to hold a referendum and make a fully sovereign and unilateral decision to Brexit if that is the will of the British electorate. And there is nothing, despite all the primacy you claim the EU has, that the EU can do to stop us.

[retep]

Labour out of EU helped by a German,

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/672396/Labour-Brexit-Corbyn-Europe-EU-Britain-France-Greece

[sutty27]

You're repeating the same mistake, that we somehow need to regain sovereignty.

 

The fact is that we have never lost our sovereignty. If certain European institutions have primacy over certain areas of law and policy making then that is because we have made a sovereignty decision for it to be that way.

 

I get that people are arguing for us not to pool our sovereignty in various ways with the EU, but they have to understand that it is not correct to describe that process as a loss of sovereignty because it clearly isn't.

 

Which brings me to the Brexit foot soldier point. When you repeat the argument that we need to 'regain sovereignty' you are, perhaps unwittingly, reinforcing the dog whistle tactics of the heavily dumbed-down Brexit campaign which will never admit we have not given up sovereignty and would rather campaign on a lie.

 

The fact we have never lost our sovereignty underpins our right to hold a referendum and make a fully sovereign and unilateral decision to Brexit if that is the will of the British electorate. And there is nothing, despite all the primacy you claim the EU has, that the EU can do to stop us.

 

Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

 

The British parliament is the elected government, and the EU is the outside body that interferes.

[LeMaquis]

I see Cameron's made his weekly u-turn today, saying we have a veto on Turkey entering the EU, then on the Sunday Politics it showed a clip of him in 2010 making a speech in Turkey saying he wanted them in and he was the best friend they had in Europe.

 

But we do have a veto on Turkey entering the EU. Every EU member has a veto on any accession state. Just because he said something in 2010 doesn't alter EU rules.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 19:30 ----------

 

It can't be fixed, if immigration continues at the very high levels we see now after brexit the Labour party and Conservatives will see their share of the vote slowly fall and be replaced with anti immigration parties.

 

So if we left the EU and there was no change in the levels of immigration wouldn't it be the anti-EU parties that would be discredited given that they'd promised something would happen but which hadn't happened, Smithy?

[I1L2T3]

Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

 

The British parliament is the elected government, and the EU is the outside body that interferes.

 

Nice try but we have never given up the full right to govern ourselves.

 

You are mistaking pooling of sovereignty for interference. Doesn't work that way

 

What you are really arguing is that we have pooled our sovereignty in too many areas and too many ways and would like us to take back decision making in those areas.

 

To be honest I kind of agree that we should at least go no further but I wouldn't at the moment see full exit from the EU as a way of rectifying things.

[altus]

I see Cameron's made his weekly u-turn today, saying we have a veto on Turkey entering the EU, then on the Sunday Politics it showed a clip of him in 2010 making a speech in Turkey saying he wanted them in and he was the best friend they had in Europe. What a tool.

The BBC News channel, as well as showing the Cameron clip, had one of Boris from around the same time saying he thought Turkey should be allowed into the EU.

 

The fact is, whilst the Turkey of 2010 was moving towards being acceptable as an EU member it's been moving in the opposite direction recently and there's no chance of it being allowed to join now. That's why both of them have changed their minds.

[sutty27]

Nice try but we have never given up the full right to govern ourselves.

 

You are mistaking pooling of sovereignty for interference. Doesn't work that way

 

What you are really arguing is that we have pooled our sovereignty in too many areas and too many ways and would like us to take back decision making in those areas.

 

To be honest I kind of agree that we should at least go no further but I wouldn't at the moment see full exit from the EU as a way of rectifying things.

 

The population didn't choose to pool sovereignty though, it as slowly but surely been foisted onto us.

[I1L2T3]

The population didn't choose to pool sovereignty though, it as slowly but surely been foisted onto us.

 

Indeed, totally understand what you are arguing.

 

But to counter it's the same kind of argument as Tories have been making for the last 6 years on this forum. We are getting what we voted for because it is the elected government that is choosing the level of integration with the EU at each successive treaty negotiation and major decision point.

 

1985 - Schengen

1986 - Single European Act

1992 - Maastricht

1997 - Amsterdam

2007 - Lisbon

 

So basically it could be argued that the population did choose to pool sovereignty, because the process was carried out by the government that the population elected.

 

You'll notice that both the Tories and Labour were in charge at different points for different major treaty negotiations.

[sutty27]

Indeed, totally understand what you are arguing.

 

But to counter it's the same kind of argument as Tories have been making for the last 6 years on this forum. We are getting what we voted for because it is the elected government that is choosing the level of integration with the EU at each successive treaty negotiation and major decision point.

 

1985 - Schengen

1986 - Single European Act

1992 - Maastricht

1997 - Amsterdam

2007 - Lisbon

 

So basically it could be argued that the population did choose to pool sovereignty, because the process was carried out by the government that the population elected.

 

You'll notice that both the Tories and Labour were in charge at different points for different major treaty negotiations.

 

And that is why we are having a referendum because it became very clear that the population disproved of the elected governments giving away sovereignty to unelected EU bureaucrats.

[GLASGOWOODS]

The BBC News channel, as well as showing the Cameron clip, had one of Boris from around the same time saying he thought Turkey should be allowed into the EU.

 

The fact is, whilst the Turkey of 2010 was moving towards being acceptable as an EU member it's been moving in the opposite direction recently and there's no chance of it being allowed to join now. That's why both of them have changed their minds.

 

All you need to know about Turkey/Europe.

 

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/turkey/index_en.htm

 

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_turkey.pdf