EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[unbeliever]

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.

 

I'm not saying I know. I'm referring to the predictions made by the supposed experts who the remain campaign are relying on for the prophecies of economic doom. They're saying that they know.

[Zamo]

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.

 

 

The convention may have been ratified years ago but the laws and interpretations have not stood still. We now have the ECtHR interpreting and ruling on matters that should be the business of our own Supreme Court. It is a loss of sovereignty caused by the requirement to be signed up to the ECHR as a member of the EU and to therefore subjugate to the rulings of the ECtHR.

 

An independent UK would no doubt initially retain human right laws adopted into our domestic law but would over time tweak the legislation to affect different outcomes e.g. make it easier to deport foreign criminals or threats by putting the public interest first. And this could happen without the need for other members states to back the changes. Changes would happen quickly... at least under a Tory government.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not saying I know. I'm referring to the predictions made by the supposed experts who the remain campaign are relying on for the prophecies of economic doom. They're saying that they know.

 

Which experts?

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2016 at 21:47 ----------

 

The convention may have been ratified years ago but the laws and interpretations have not stood still. We now have the ECtHR interpreting and ruling on matters that should be the business of our own Supreme Court. It is a loss of sovereignty caused by the requirement to be signed up to the ECHR as a member of the EU and to therefore subjugate to the rulings of the ECtHR.

 

An independent UK would no doubt initially retain human right laws adopted into our domestic law but would over time tweak the legislation to affect different outcomes e.g. make it easier to deport foreign criminals or threats by putting the public interest first. And this could happen without the need for other members states to back the changes. Changes would happen quickly... at least under a Tory government.

 

It's like you want to live in a far right theme park.

[L00b]

The convention may have been ratified years ago but the laws and interpretations have not stood still. We now have the ECtHR interpreting and ruling on matters that should be the business of our own Supreme Court. It is a loss of sovereignty caused by the requirement to be signed up to the ECHR as a member of the EU and to therefore subjugate to the rulings of the ECtHR.

Which part of "the UK signed up to the ECHR 22 years before signing up to the EEC" and "the ECHR is entirely unconnected to the EU and the ECtHR jurisdictionally independent of the EU" don't you get?

 

By your logic, the UK should exit all the international treaties and agreements of which it is a signatory and which create obligations upon its 'sovereignty'. UN, NATO, WTO and all. Can't see a problem there. Nope. Not-a-one.

An independent UK would no doubt initially retain human right laws adopted into our domestic law but would over time tweak the legislation to affect different outcomes e.g. make it easier to deport foreign criminals or threats by putting the public interest first. And this could happen without the need for other members states to back the changes. Changes would happen quickly... at least under a Tory government.

Don't you think we've lost enough civil liberties down to terrorism and other real and fake boogeymen already?

 

Are you up for more, once the ECHR safety valve is removed?

Edited June 21, 2016 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

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.

 

No, what is disingenuous is denying that the UK has already had 6 1/5 years of cuts due to the terrible fiscal position it is in and then going on to say that 'a bit of a depression' won't hurt.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2016 at 21:52 ----------

 

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.

 

Good old Zamo, still persisting with the migration theory.

[El Cid]

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.

 

Its more the effect of low confidence on the economy. Will people stop spending if the media hype it up?

[Eater Sundae]

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.

 

Through work, I've had reason to have to research quite a few European Directives, to determine the implications on engineering designs. For example, Pressure Equipment Directive, Fresh Water Fish Directive, Bathing Water Directive. (I no longer do this so don't have immediate acees to check if I've remembered the exact names). There were others. Although these were primarily engineering design directives, they all had a similar format, the beginning of which related to trade implications.

 

It was clear that the standards imposed were to provide common requirements for everyone. It sets a common standard to which everyone must comply. This ensures safety, appropriate quality etc, but also prevents one country from unfairly protectiing its own industry by creating its own particular standards written around these industries. The main thrust is to create a level playing field.

 

Free trade isn't just about lack of import tariffs. It is very much about all the ancillary issues such as quality and safety (eg stopping someone undercutting by producing lower quality or less safe products). Also, to ensure each country meets minimum standards regarding pollution, workrers rights etc, etc.

 

The EU can ensure a standard by which companies which sell into the market must perform, and currently by which EU member states must perform. Potentially, as a sizeable market, it should be able to put pressure on external countries to also meet standards on, for example, pollution and other aspects that it thinks are important, internationally. It can only do that by virtue of its size. But it would do it to protect its own industries.

 

So I do not see it as a stretch at all. It DOES all come back to trade.

[unbeliever]

Which experts?

 

IMF, CBI, Treasury.

[saunaman]

Just changing the subject and trying to keep it brief - if people still say they are undecided, why do they feel under pressure to make a choice at the last minute that might influence the majority of us for the next 40 years?

 

No-one will respect you any less if you stay true to your principles and say "I just don't know so I'm not voting".

 

If you don't know by now, just don't vote , it's that simple!

[Anna B]

Through work, I've had reason to have to research quite a few European Directives, to determine the implications on engineering designs. For example, Pressure Equipment Directive, Fresh Water Fish Directive, Bathing Water Directive. (I no longer do this so don't have immediate acees to check if I've remembered the exact names). There were others. Although these were primarily engineering design directives, they all had a similar format, the beginning of which related to trade implications.

 

It was clear that the standards imposed were to provide common requirements for everyone. It sets a common standard to which everyone must comply. This ensures safety, appropriate quality etc, but also prevents one country from unfairly protectiing its own industry by creating its own particular standards written around these industries. The main thrust is to create a level playing field.

 

Free trade isn't just about lack of import tariffs. It is very much about all the ancillary issues such as quality and safety (eg stopping someone undercutting by producing lower quality or less safe products). Also, to ensure each country meets minimum standards regarding pollution, workrers rights etc, etc.

 

The EU can ensure a standard by which companies which sell into the market must perform, and currently by which EU member states must perform. Potentially, as a sizeable market, it should be able to put pressure on external countries to also meet standards on, for example, pollution and other aspects that it thinks are important, internationally. It can only do that by virtue of its size. But it would do it to protect its own industries.

 

So I do not see it as a stretch at all. It DOES all come back to trade.

 

Can we not enlarge Hull as a worldclass port and ompose our own sensible regulations? Fewer of them would be a start.

Speaking of regulations, I go abroad to Europe quite often and am constantly seeing EU rules, which we obey to the letter, being openly flouted by other European countries. It's not a level playing field at all.