EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

Case law develops as interpretations are tested and precedents set. The ECtHR has in recent years made a number of controversial judgements (particularly relating to Article 8 ) and it is disingenuous for you to pretend these do not amount to real change. And the fact that we have only ratified some protocols is not evidence of no change! Just the usual smoke and mirror rubbish.

Name them. Then we'll talk about smoke and mirrors.

That is a matter of opinion not fact. What is fact is that we cannot opt out whilst a member of the EU because it is a condition of membership.

It is a matter of opinion indeed, informed by the fact that there is no clear popular mandate for withdrawal from the ECHR, nor any political traction for it.

 

I don't dispute the fact you mention. I maintain that it is irrelevant in the above context, regardless of whether the UK is in or out of the EU.

 

You can argue about the technicality that the UK cannot withdraw from the ECHR whilst it remains in the EU all you want, the fact of the matter is that while there is political appetite to withdraw from the EU, there is no such appetite to withdraw from the ECHR.

You take it that I want out of these treaties even though I specifically said people don't have a problem with them? I'll clarify, I have no pressing desire to withdraw from these treaties.

Changing your goalposts a bit there. By a time zone or two.

There is no comparison with a treaty that means we agree with other nations to come to each others aid if attacked - that isn't a loss of sovereignty but the protection of sovereignty.

The purpose of NATO Art.5 might be the protection of sovereignty and democracy and puppies <etc.>

 

The mechanism of NATO Art.5 strips the UK government and -to a large but not complete extent- Parliament from the prerogative of ignoring the attack on the fellow member state in the UK's own self-interest. For instance, to avoid peeing off Russia so much as to imperil the UK's energy imports and its socio-economic order depending on same.

 

It is a loss of sovereignty, however you try and twist it.

You just spout the usual nonsense about EU membership not resulting in any significant erosion of sovereignty or democratic power.

Have I now. Where?

 

Please substantiate your claim or retract it.

Edited June 22, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

How can anybody be so salty years after the Abu Hamza ordeal? It is amazing really. What is even more amazing is the complete and blatant disregard of cases where the ECHR protected the vulnerable from ridiculous rules in this country. For example the case of Widowers of casualties of war not being allowed to keep their widowers pension after they remarry, effectively punishing them for getting their life back together after losing their beloved ones.

 

Let's just ignore that all, they refused extradition of Abu Hamza to a country known to torture suspects!

 

It's rather mission-creepy don't you think.

By all means let's have an international court to protect people from ethnic cleansing, disproportionate punishment, torture etc. Why on earth do we need such a court to interfere in domestic pension law?

We've strayed from the protection of basic human rights into the imposition of a consensus view of what is most moral. Whether or not we agree with individual decisions is beside the point.

 

This is all beside the point anyway. This referendum is about EU membership. The ECHR is not on the table.

[Ridgewalk]

That wasn't directed specifically at you. I sensed a danger of the debate drifting into discussion over the character of the posters.

 

Sorry, I must stop being paranoid

[unbeliever]

Sorry, I must stop being paranoid

 

Yes. That's what I wanted you to think.

[samssong]

Every month this gravy train that is the European Union goes on a jaunt from Brussels to Strasbourg .

That daft journey costs us one hundred and thirty million pounds per year.

The air pollution from the transport used is 19000 tones .

2500 plastic containers are transported there and back.

751 MEP's go on this gravy train.

How can the so called leaders in our society justify this madness by advising us that this so called Union is good for us.

Vote to leave , vote for common sense.

[unbeliever]

Let's not deal in simplicities and qualify what is actually in the works:

 

It is being discussed among member-states, on the initiative of member-states. The EU is not the facilitating body for these discussions, but could provide an umbrella for structured cooperation should the member-states want it to.

 

Currently there is one member-state not wanting to use the EU for an umbrella; The United Kingdom, so it is all on ice.

 

It would be nice to be able to do so.

But we're making a decision as the UK's relationship with the EU for a matter of decades, where as policy is not set anything like that far in advance.

Uncertain inferences about the future trajectory of the EU are inevitable.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2016 at 10:00 ----------

 

Every month this gravy train that is the European Union goes on a jaunt from Brussels to Strasbourg .

That daft journey costs us one hundred and thirty million pounds per year.

The air pollution from the transport used is 19000 tones .

2500 plastic containers are transported there and back.

751 MEP's go on this gravy train.

How can the so called leaders in our society justify this madness by advising us that this so called Union is good for us.

Vote to leave , vote for common sense.

 

19000 tonnes of what?

[Tomjames]

Tzjilstra "intelligent" ? He's a 19th century classical Liberal and supports Wednesday, hardly signs of intelligence.

 

Vote Remain

 

OK the Wednesday part is not that smart!

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2016 at 10:16 ----------

 

Don't let Tomjames draw you into making personal comments about other members.

It's a trap.

 

We're all just decent people disagreeing. Nobody's opinion is invalid. Let's all stick to the arguments and keep it clean.

 

You were saying about conspiracy theories?

[unbeliever]

 

You were saying about conspiracy theories?

 

One man baiting his opponents is not a conspiracy. Buy a dictionary.

[Zamo]

You sound exactly like farage. A vote out is a vote for Isis, Putin, and every far right group across Europe like national front and national league that have openly supported leave.

 

Not to mention conservative hard right, Britain first , the BNP.

 

To see how we should vote look at our enemies.

 

Sadly you have it the wrong way round... voting to stay will fuel support for the far right.

 

The vast majority of people in this country want an end to mass immigration and unless it is reduced, by becoming a selective process (not permitted by the EU for EU citizens), then concerns will not only remain but grow and fester as the associated problems of mass immigration grow and worsen. Denying what the majority want just because a minority of racists also want it is not a good strategy. Implementing policies that both the majority and the racist minority want will not drive people into the arms of the racist groups but give them no reason to go anywhere need them. We need to vote out so we can better control immigration and stop anger with it from growing.

[Eater Sundae]

Doesn't affect us much because we're an island but the rest of the EU is mostly a big land mass with borders that often aren't defined by physical features.

 

If there was an attack by Russia for example then surely a coordinated defence would be better than a piecemeal one by separate armies. The motivate for a central command shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

Also, as a continuous land mass, any country adjacent to one coming under attack would see a great inlux of people fleeing the fighting. They would see an immediate impact.