Queries about the EU referendum

a bit early to even bring it up! who is 'we' ? genuinely confused.

A. I dont agree with that. Many people dont vote about things because they either dont know or dont want to know much about politics or the voting issue.
B. I hope a simple majority.
C. No idea. Yes?

Sorry for confusion - I just meant 'we' in a conversational sense as the HRA has clearly been put on the back burner. What do you think is too early to bring up? Surely part of a debate about having a referendum is the mechanics of that referendum and how legitimate they are? One reason I've raised these points is that, so far as a and b are concerned, some countries do specify minimum turnouts/a minimum majority ( often 65% of votes cast). DC failed to do this for the Scottish referendum because he thought a no vote was a slam dunk and he didn't need to think too hard about it all so he has firm on this issue. Or did you mean it was too early to bring something else up?

Scotland are asking for a double majority Granny Twice, i.e., a majority in the UK and a majority in Scotland. That could have legs if the Scots feel they are being taken out against their will.

I think 'we' is anybody who's interested in a Politics thread - just a figure of speech, I expect.

c) would be the most problematic as it would cause a lot of confusion, and resentment - interesting times ahead!

sounded like a 'royal we' as if we have any influence.
why should Scotland have a double majority (their votes are 'more important' than those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - of course they aren't)

www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-2809.pdf

Interesting - if you late interested

Sorry G1 - should have used the passive voice as in 'Now the HRA can be forgotten about for a bit' . As for Scotland, I wasn't suggesting that their votes should have more weight, I was hypothesising that if they voted in and the UK overall voted out,would that trigger a call for another independence referendum. I could see that it would ( that doesn't mean I think it should )

As far as I'm aware the CBI, TUC, Institute of Directors, etc are all in favour of a Yes vote to stay in the EU, so a broad brush of various interest groups; plus the majority of the mainstream political parties.

The only vocal opposition I know of are on the loony fringes of the Tory Party, and UKIP but the right surely don't have the monopoly on encouraging a No vote - there used to be notable far Left figures in the No camp e.g. Tony Benn, Bob Crowe, Eric Heffer.

Does anyone know of any others? I'd be interested in their views as a balance to the self-interest groups.

Good questions GrannyTwice. I suspect it will be the usual simple approach, a majority vote, no matter how small the number of voters or the size of the majority.

The Scottish question is a conundrum. Queen Nic has already said the Scots don't want to be taken out if England (and the rest) vote to go. It sounds as though the SNP would like another referendum so anything that can contribute to that happening is attractive to them.

I want to stay in the EU. I accept the need for an open discussion about the changes to the EU since the vote to join all those years ago. I found the information supplied by our gransnet expert on her thread (do forgive me for misplacing your name expert) very useful and interesting.

x post there Riverwalk - good points made by you

Late = are <sighs>

I was no political fan of the late Bob Crowe but I think he was intending to concentrate on campaigning for a No vote - it would have been interesting to have had such a viewpoint, rather than just the vested interests of big business.

What is really going to be interesting is which way the press jump. There'll be a lot of horse trading and dinner parties before that is decided. I just feel that anti-immigrant feeling is so strong now that unless DC comes back with a clear limit on free movement, that will be a deciding factor in many people's votes. Look at the total UKIP vote.

It was whitewave

I really don't think there will be any problem with turnout. Which way the populatiuon will swing is another matter.

I think DC is aking a huge risk with this. Perhaps he is using it as a tool with other EU members, to bring about the changes he is looking for. They have almost as much to lose as we have if we come out. I just hope people can be educated/persuaded, call it what you will, in the true best interests of the UK.

Are you intending to come across as feeling cross with other posters grannyonce or am I perhaps misreading you?

sounded like a 'royal we' as if we have any influence.
Surely a bit picky?

why should Scotland have a double majority (their votes are 'more important' than those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - of course they aren't)

Surely it is Scotland's right to negotiate what they feel best for their country? We are a kingdom of united countries not England telling everyone else what to do and I think governments need to start to realise that centralised decisions for a few are not going to pass muster for much longer.

Grannytwice I just feel that anti-immigrant feeling is so strong I think this is in pockets of the population rather than across the board but it will be interesting to see.

But gg those pockets will add up won't they?

DC will never get any change in free movement of labour. Full stop.

Who wants it GrannyTwice? Many don't. It always seems to me that those who are "anti-immigrant" are so sure they are right but have no mechanism for understanding that others, equally intelligent, sensible and patriotic hold a different and acceptable opinion.

I think they are just very noisy and are backed by some of the most muck raking news papers but many quietly enjoy freedom of movement and believe it has offered just as many Brits opportunities as it does for those coming here.

Out of interest. I know that people in the UK can work in Europe with not much fuss.
But I think I am right in thinking that those with no job to go to, cannot get the same benefits in other European countries as in the UK. So there is a big mismatch. Hence some of the opposition.

I would be interested to know the details of this too soontobe. I had thought that each country had to offer the same to EU migrants as they do to their own population. However, the question now seems to be is this any EU migrant or a working EU member and can we restrict some benefits.

I did wonder why, if we want to limit payment of benefits to EU migrants we didn't limit them to our own citizens, e.g., no one able to receive benefits until they had paid in for four years would mean that applied to migrants too.

Hopefully someone can help us here or perhaps Gransnet can find someone we can ask

Graces I think you almost answered your own query - each country has to treat everyone the same and in some/most EU states the benefits system is contribution-based, so if you are a newcomer you don't get the benefits.