EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[Eater Sundae]

We have a free press, minimal government secrecy and various other means of holding the state to account. I expect you and I will strongly disagree in many cases as to how it will be spent. As will our fellow countrymen. Let the majority will be done.

 

But if a UK citizen likes the way the EU allocates (our) money in the UK, and is concerned that a UK government would not do it as well, then that could be a very good reason to vote remain.

[unbeliever]

But if a UK citizen likes the way the EU allocates (our) money in the UK, and is concerned that a UK government would not do it as well, then that could be a very good reason to vote remain.

 

Not really. Yu might like how they allocate it right now. What about in 10 or 20 years. What do you do if they spend it all on sponsoring bull fighting or something?

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2016 at 20:55 ----------

 

Yes, especially when you try to dock your Chinese 400 meter long container ship that is as high as a tower-flat full of containers with the latest smart-phones. Much better.

 

Just stop going on about this, you are clueless and shown up. I have to admit, this account didn't last long, but I'll forgive you for starting yet another one so you can leave this debate without losing face.

 

I really need to get one of these Smithy detectors.

[Eater Sundae]

When you get such as Branson taking up full spreads in newspapers as well as on social websites ,then Cameron who's family have stashed away millions in over seas funds and is married to one of the richest women in England telling the masses that they are better of in, it is as plain as the nose on your face that what they mean is that they will be better of in .

Vote out.

 

What is your reaction when rich people such as Boris, Nigel and IDS tell everyone to vote leave?

[Zamo]

Can you tell me on which non-trade related matters the UK has ceded sovereignty to the EU?

 

Two big ones would be immigration policy for people from within the EU and human right laws. As members of the EU we are obliged to adhere to the free movement of people policy and to sign up to the ECHR. Both non-trade related matters that have been wrapped up as part of the EU membership package. And neither a requirement for a functioning trading bloc.

 

And I preempt the usual disingenuous BS from the Left about the ECHR having nothing to do with the EU. This is nonsense. Every member state has taken the view that it is a requirement and as such every member has signed up. And this includes successive British governments headed up by Labour, a coalition and now the Tories. The reality trumps the Left wing theory.

[unbeliever]

Two big ones would be immigration policy for people from within the EU and human right laws. As members of the EU we are obliged to adhere to the free movement of people policy and to sign up to the ECHR. Both non-trade related matters that have been wrapped up as part of the EU membership package. And neither a requirement for a functioning trading bloc.

 

And I preempt the usual disingenuous BS from the Left about the ECHR having nothing to do with the EU. This is nonsense. Every member state has taken the view that it is a requirement and as such every member has signed up. And this includes successive British governments headed up by Labour, a coalition and now the Tories. The reality trumps the Left wing theory.

 

 

As you may have noticed, I am very firmly for leave, but I think you're onto a loser here. There are plenty of complaints we can level at the ECJ and leaving the EU ought to rid us of those muppets, but not the ECHR.

 

The UK ratified the ECHR (convention) in 1951, 22 years before joining the EEC and 6 years before the EEC even existed.

There is only a vanishingly small chance that an independent UK would withdraw from the ECHR within the lifetime of anybody old enough to vote in this referendum.

[Eater Sundae]

Two big ones would be immigration policy for people from within the EU and human right laws. As members of the EU we are obliged to adhere to the free movement of people policy and to sign up to the ECHR. Both non-trade related matters that have been wrapped up as part of the EU membership package. And neither a requirement for a functioning trading bloc.

 

And I preempt the usual disingenuous BS from the Left about the ECHR having nothing to do with the EU. This is nonsense. Every member state has taken the view that it is a requirement and as such every member has signed up. And this includes successive British governments headed up by Labour, a coalition and now the Tories. The reality trumps the Left wing theory.

 

In terms of the EU, they both relate to trade, by ensuring a level playing field.

[unbeliever]

In terms of the EU, they both relate to trade, by ensuring a level playing field.

 

That's a stretch. By that definition, you can justify almost any law on the basis that it helps achieve a level playing field for trade.

[L00b]

As you may have noticed, I am very firmly for leave, but I think you're onto a loser here. There are plenty of complaints we can level at the ECJ and leaving the EU ought to rid us of those muppets, but not the ECHR.

 

The UK ratified the ECHR (convention) in 1951, 22 years before joining the EEC and 6 years before the EEC even existed.

There is only a vanishingly small chance that an independent UK would withdraw from the ECHR within the lifetime of anybody old enough to vote in this referendum.

Can I thank you for this post unbeliever, as a testament to your debating good faith on that point.

 

Now then, the ECJ...let's hear some complaints, so I can have another stab at explaining what its (interpretive) role is and, accordingly, why it does not 'overrule' national courts but assists them

 

For reference, earlier attempts here, here and here.

 

EDIT

That's a stretch. By that definition, you can justify almost any law on the basis that it helps achieve a level playing field for trade.

It's a bit of a stretch (as in 'small', not the colloquial turn of phrase) insofar as the ECHR is concerned. 'A bit' because the ECHR does hear employment-related cases, that are relevant to trade matters; but not many of them at all, relative to other human rights issues.

 

It's not a stretch insofar as immigration is concerned, and we've had the debate as to why for pages and pages (economic motivation, economic activity, contribution, <etc.>). But we disagree about it still, so no point rehashing the same exchange needlessly.

Edited June 21, 2016 by L00b

[Zamo]

In terms of the EU, they both relate to trade, by ensuring a level playing field.

 

The perfect way to destroy competition... a one-size-fits all dictatorship!

 

It make sense for a trading bloc to remove trade barriers and standardise trade related regulations but it makes no sense to try and impose a one-size-fits all policy for things like immigration. The risks, issues and priorities of each member state are different and we need different solutions. The EU centralising these decisions is not wanted, not helpful and not necessary.

[I1L2T3]

It's a possible, very brief, technical recession. At the worst. More likely we'd have slower growth for a couple of years and get back to normal.

It's hardly terrifying.

It is the attempts to confuse people into thinking the economy will crash or shrink by 4% which are disingenuous.

 

Seriously, stop spouting such complete rubbish.

 

You categorically cannot know the economic consequences to such precision.

 

Nobody can know, but you have this bizarre posting style that states it as fact then uses the 'fake' fact to beat down other posters.