There seems to be a Boris theory that if we vote out, the EU will come back with a 'better' deal that we would have another referendum on, presumably with Burgermeister Johnson then saying we should stay in. It's the 'threatening to take the ball away' style of negotiation, very grown up. I'm in Europe at the moment. It's a bit wet and rainy but I rather like it. And it's just occurred to me that this won't change whether we stay in or leave the EU.
He said that the EU "only really listen to a population when it says no". The implication being that we should vote to leave, thereby extracting more concessions and leading to a second referendum.
I agree the need to have facts pro and con about leaving the EU. Hopefully we'll get that over the coming months without too many hysterics. I don't agree we should not be having a referendum on this crucial issue. It's a very finely balanced issue out in the country, which shows this was a boil that needed to be lanced. The Labour Party say that they are pro a more democratic process, and yet on the most important issue of all, tell voters not to interfere, just leave the matter to the politicians
We are going to have to have a relationship with the EU if we leave, particularly on trade and security. My understanding from what Boris was saying was that if we are out, we can negotiate decent arrangements that suit this country, and suit the EU countries too. I'm convinced of this, because the UK or even England is just too important a player to sideline on the grounds of spite... But if it turns out that Boris really thinks we can vote out and then do a better deal to stay in, then I shall be the first to declare that he's deluded Stan, I think your point about Brits travelling around and doing business in Europe after an OUT vote is exactly right. We may have to flash a passport more often, but we will regain control over the laws that apply in this country for the benefit of its citizens
I think it would be quite a big surprise if we were to vote to leave. The Government, the Opposition, The Scottish Government and the establishment in the main are all behind the "No" campaign. It would be a massive achievement to get out of this failing state.
It's going to be months of personality driven tosh now. But the polls have 'out' with most supporters, though not a majority. The 'out' campaign seems fragmented and chaotic, they need to get their acts together pretty sharpish, but with a variety of buffoons like Farage, and Galloway involved that doesn't look likely. In what sense is the EU a failing state Col? Genuine question.
I'm definitely voting out. Never wanted to be part of the EU anyway.We should be self governing, not having to jump to the tunes of others. We can do trade with the EU. No country is stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them due to spite. There are plenty of markets out there for the worlds 5th largest economy.
Cameron's fighting for his legacy - if he loses, he could go down as the PM that took the UK out of the EU, and then broke up the UK after Scotland left I agree he was ridiculing what he said "seemed" to have been suggested, but I've yet to hear it from BJ's lips It's all Establishment at the moment. The Government machine is going into overdrive to obtain Cameron's goal. Norine Dorries made reference to an unknown civil servant that is to be putting out an article in the press shortly, which seemingly, Cameron has ghost written. Just wonder how many dirty tricks we'll see in the next few months from 10 Downing Street. Such a strategy may backfire
bull, scaremongering, lies and statistics coming out of your ears and it's only day 3 of the announcement of the date of the referendum. I wonder if the good people of Boston, Corby, Bognor and many more towns up and down the country will be swayed. Or will their eyes tell them what mass immigration and being in the EU has done for them
Never having its books signed off. Suggesting widespread corruption. A complete shambles involving migrants, encouraged by Merkel's ridiculous invitation. The Euro, a one-size-fits-all currency for completely different and diverse economies. It seems that more and more Nations' peoples are resisting ever-closer political union. But, as you know, it could be perfect and I'd still vote to leave in order to get full sovereignty back. I'll never accept unelected bureaucrats from abroad passing laws for my Country. I want the chance to vote for my elected representatives and the chance to kick them out too. One poll has the "No" campaign 15% ahead apparently. I get the sense that the ordinary man and woman in the street may just vote to leave, if they have the nerve.
Exactly. Just like the Scots with independence, when push comes to shove, will people actually do it or will they bottle it. It will be interesting to see.
It's not a matter of having the 'nerve' to leave. It's a matter of whether it's right to stay or go, based on the pros and cons of each. The Exit camp have the easier strategy. They can simply point to everything that they feel has failed, and blame it on the EU. The pro-membership side have the tougher sell, whereby they need to sell the benefits over an obviously unknown and unclear future outside the EU. There are far too many issues where we simply won't know the details until after any exit vote - such as what happens to the EU citizens already here, and what happens to the British ex-pats living in the EU. Such as what happens to the pensions and health benefits of ex-pats if we're no longer politically tied to the country in which they live. Such as the real impact of differing trade and cross-border tax changes. None of this can possibly be resolved until after the vote - if the vote makes any change necessary. Using terms like 'if they have the nerve' - especially in capitals - is exactly the scaremongering talk that this debate could do without.
It's always harder for whichever side is not the current situation to win. If we weren't an EU country now and we had a referendum on whether we should join, I can't believe there'd be much support for it.
So, we have on one side BoJo, Gove, Farage and Galloway and on the other Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn and Sturgeon. Strange bedfellows indeed. It can only descend into a personality contest with the full weight of the Government 'Dirty Tricks Dept' in overdrive to frighten the gullible to stay in against the right-wing press who will back the Out brigade. I really believe probably 90% of the population have already made up their minds regardless, it's the 10% of waverers who will ultimately decide. For example, most who comment on here won't change their minds...
None of the below challenges your basic position which is clear. But a mixture of facts and my perspective: I'm afraid the books thing is a myth (or more accurately a lie) repeated regularly by the Mail and the Telegraph. The Court of Auditors in Luxembourg has consistently signed them off with a 4% error margin, 0.2% of which is attributed to fraud. No worse than benefit fraud in the UK. The total EU budget is about €150bn, less than 1.5 times that of the NHS. The migrants crisis is unprecedented, and probably could have been handled better. Germany's decision to accept large numbers of them (none of whom I saw over the last 3 days in Germany. About the only non Germans I saw were Turkish taxi drivers and tourists. It was quite odd), is just that, a German not an EU decision. Many other countries, like Hungary and the UK have taken virtually no migrants, and they can't be forced to (actually I agree with Cameron's policy of taking refugees directly from camps). I suspect that the whole thing would have been even worse without the EU, a million refugees stuck in Greece would surely have led to massive unrest, likewise in Serbia etc. The Euro has undoubtedly been implemented stunningly poorly, and I think monetary union makes no sense without a unified fiscal policy as well, which does require genuine sacrifice of sovereignty by participants. Yet it's a stable currency, strengthening against the £. The unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission are led by people ( the Commissioners) nominated by the member states' governments. They operate in exactly the same way as any executive arm of government, proposing laws and policies, which have to get through the democratically elected European Parliament and the European Council of Ministers - the elected leaders of the member states. For some things the individual states have veto rights. It's complicated but it is democratic and the yes/no decisions are always taken by people that you have had a chance to vote for. Of course you are right in that those decisions are not taken in Westminster, and a sacrifice of sovereignty is involved in that. That's the price of being in the club. Quite a good programme on BBC 1 now with both sides being represented properly without shouting for a change.
If they have the nerve is a perfectly fair statement. People will need to take a leap in the dark to a certain extent and they may prefer the status quo.
