EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[panzer1]

Corbyns heart is not in this. Is he going against all that he previously believed with regard to the eu, he was a devout eurosceptic and has now changed colours, even his speech saying it was Labour policy to remain was halfhearted and ridiculed as such.

I can see the arguments of the remain side and at one point questioned my out vote, I was willing to be persuaded but once Cameron stated we would start WW 3 it just tainted all the info that followed. Every organisation, all these world renowned and much respected organisations, when you look at them have some link to the eu. The IMF part funded by the Eu, the oecd based in Paris and close links to Brussels. Big business, obviously they want to stay for the cheap labour.

So all in all I will do as sutty says and go with my gut instinct which is still out, because both sides have lied, moaned, berated each other's facts and figures where as my gut instinct has remained.

[unbeliever]

I find it utterly bizarre that some people cannot grasp that other people might just think that staying in the EU is in our country's best interests.

 

I understand completely. I just disagree.

I find denial of the loss of sovereignty quite maddening. The denial over the weakness of democratic accountability is also very frustrating.

There are also plenty who, I suspect, wholeheartedly want to be part of a united states of Europe but are hesitant to say so.

But there are plenty of reasons to fear Brexit economically, which are perfectly legitimate, even though I disagree.

 

To be honest I think a lot comes down to whether what the EU does are generally things you approve of. Would you put your cross next to the EU party on the ballot. Anecdotally, the remainers seem generally to be those who would.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2016 at 09:08 ----------

 

Corbyns heart is not in this. Is he going against all that he previously believed with regard to the eu, he was a devout eurosceptic and has now changed colours, even his speech saying it was Labour policy to remain was halfhearted and ridiculed as such.

I can see the arguments of the remain side and at one point questioned my out vote, I was willing to be persuaded but once Cameron stated we would start WW 3 it just tainted all the info that followed. Every organisation, all these world renowned and much respected organisations, when you look at them have some link to the eu. The IMF part funded by the Eu, the oecd based in Paris and close links to Brussels. Big business, obviously they want to stay for the cheap labour.

So all in all I will do as sutty says and go with my gut instinct which is still out, because both sides have lied, moaned, berated each other's facts and figures where as my gut instinct has remained.

 

He's struggling to hold the parliamentary party together. This is the price.

Edited June 2, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

The point some people in the Remain camp are making is that Labour isn't getting its message over. Labour voters don't know how Labour would like them to vote and therefore may abstain or vote to get out. The campaign has descended into an internal Tory battle but Labour, especially Corbyn, should be doing a lot more to get heard above Cameron, Johnson, Gove, et al, so that Labour voters will vote to remain in.

 

Corbyns problem is that he doesn't like the EU and wants out so it's difficult for him to be enthusiastic about campaigning for in.

[unbeliever]

It's not for the Labour party to instruct its supporters how to vote in this referendum. That's not how it works. If anything, the position of the Labour party should be determined by the views of its supporters.

[L00b]

A large part of me thought; whilst listening to the Labour MP who said a constituent had asked what Labour's position was, so he could know which way to vote, that this small fact represents everything that is broken about UK politics. Not only is this not a party political campaign, but I question whether anyone relying on being told which way to vote by someone else should be entitled to waste their privilege in such a way.

Consider your post liked, my good sir

I find denial of the loss of sovereignty quite maddening. The denial over the weakness of democratic accountability is also very frustrating. There are also plenty who, I suspect, wholeheartedly want to be part of a united states of Europe but are hesitant to say so.

So far as I'm concerned, this denial is not a "denial" as such, but a counter-argument motivated by a combination of:

 

(i) the factuality of each of the "loss of sovereignty" and the "weakness of democratic accountability" is nowhere near as extensive as that which is perceived and alleged by the Leave camp (particularly given the UK's very long-standing and fully codified opt-outs, moreover augmented as they would be by the further opt-outs of last February); and

 

(ii) an understanding and acceptance that, as in any joint endeavour of any sort, whether public or private, whether domestic or international, and since the year dot, at least some harmonisation and compromise is always going to be required to make the system work, no matter what.

 

The EU is a club embodying an ongoing common endeavour by geographically-proximate sovereign countries for mutual interest. The respective self-interest of each member country will always diverge from that of some or all of the others to some greater or lesser extent at one time or another. The question before you is whether the UK's self-interest is better or lesser served by its membership in the long-term. I believe it's better-served by its membership short-, medium- and long-term, and would be still more so if the British public starts to take a stronger and more critical interest in how the UK interacts with, influences and benefits from, the EU. Accessorily, an interest also manifesting itself in a preferably wiser choice of MEP representatives.

 

And no, I would not put my cross next to the EU party on the ballot. I quite like the principle of the two-speed EU (to be formalised if the vote is Remain), which will self-evidently go a long way towards impeding further integration of the EU €zone countries themselves, and such an "EU party" would not work towards that

Edited June 2, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27]

A large part of me thought; whilst listening to the Labour MP who said a constituent had asked what Labour's position was, so he could know which way to vote, that this small fact represents everything that is broken about UK politics. Not only is this not a party political campaign, but I question whether anyone relying on being told which way to vote by someone else should be entitled to waste their privilege in such a way.

 

But not as bad as voting in because of a deep seated belief that the Concentratives are evil.

[unbeliever]

So far as I'm concerned, this denial is not a "denial" as such, but a counter-argument motivated by a combination of:

 

(i) the factuality of each of the "loss of sovereignty" and the "weakness of democratic accountability" is nowhere near as extensive as that which is perceived and alleged by the Leave camp (particularly given the UK's very long-standing and fully codified opt-outs, moreover augmented as they would be by the further opt-outs of last February); and

 

(ii) an understanding and acceptance that, as in any joint endeavour of any sort, whether public or private, whether domestic or international, and since the year dot, at least some harmonisation and compromise is always going to be required to make the system work, no matter what.

 

The EU is a club embodying an ongoing common endeavour by geographically-proximate sovereign countries for mutual interest. The respective self-interest of each member country will always diverge from that of some or all of the others to some greater or lesser extent at one time or another. The question before you is whether the UK's self-interest is better or lesser served by its membership in the long-term. I believe it's better-served by its membership short-, medium- and long-term, and would be still more so if the British public starts to take a stronger and more critical interest in how the UK interacts with, influences and benefits from, the EU. Accessorily, an interest also manifesting itself in a preferably wiser choice of MEP representatives.

 

And no, I would not put my cross next to the EU party on the ballot. I quite like the principle of the two-speed EU (to be formalised if the vote is Remain), which will self-evidently go a long way towards impeding further integration of the EU €zone countries themselves, and such an "EU party" would not work towards that

 

I'm quite content to debate on the degree of loss of sovereignty and the degree of weakness in democratic accountability. But not starting from a position of one side insisting that there is nothing to discuss.

[L00b]

I'm quite content to debate on the degree of loss of sovereignty and the degree of weakness in democratic accountability. But not starting from a position of one side insisting that there is nothing to discuss.

Which side insisted that there is nothing to discuss?

 

Surely you're not suggesting that I did?

[El Cid]

Consider your post liked, my good sir

So far as I'm concerned, this denial is not a "denial" as such, but a counter-argument motivated by a combination of:

 

(i) the factuality of each of the "loss of sovereignty" and the "weakness of democratic accountability"

 

The Conservatives promised immigration below 100,000; yet they let in immigrants from inside and outside of the EU, and immigration is above 300,000

 

If we leave the EU, is anyone expecting a promise of below 100,000 to be kept?

 

The problem is not with the EU, but with our own MPs that would sell their own mother if they benefited.

[unbeliever]

Which side insisted that there is nothing to discuss?

 

Surely you're not suggesting that I did?

 

No, that wasn't directed at you. You have been a most reasonable opponent in this matter.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2016 at 10:54 ----------

 

The Conservatives promised immigration below 100,000; yet they let in immigrants from inside and outside of the EU, and immigration is above 300,000

 

If we leave the EU, is anyone expecting a promise of below 100,000 to be kept?

 

 

I have no idea if the promise will be kept if we leave the EU. It would at least be possible.

I know it won't be kept if we stay, unless the EU take steps to harmonise wages, benefits and public service provision across the union.

 

A constitutional matter of this magnitude can surely not really come down to immigration. Is that really all people are talking about?

Edited June 2, 2016 by unbeliever