How will you vote in the EU referendum?

Am I not allowed to ask POGS a question about a post on this thread?
I agree that personal animosity should not be on a thread like this.There is no personal animosity as far as I am concerned. I am just asking POGS a question.

I think the discussion focusing on Unemployment benefits started at the point where Child benefit being paid for children in another country like Poland. For me these are two different issues and the main bone of contention in this thread is the Child benefit issue. Unemployment benefit is surely a side issue in all of this?

I looked but couldn't find any data on the other three countries which pay Child benefit for children in another country, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is an issue in those countries too, or would be if it were commonly known. Obviously I'm speculating as I found no information.

I don't have a problem with anyone receiving Unemployment benefits in another country and doubt if it will be part of any negotiations. But I do understand why some posters take issue with the Child benefit payments, even if I don't.

My point was that there seem to be a few posters who seem to have a vested interest in staying in the EU in that they are either living in other EU countries themselves or have relatives who do so, or relatives who have moved to the UK from other EU countries.

Family considerations shouldn't be used to try to influence others' point of view IMO.

Your point is also valid of course, Elegran.

I think I missed something. [blush ] Ana who is using family considerations to influence other posters? Sorry, but I am not sure I'm keeping track here.

I thought I'd made it clear in my first paragraph, Wilma.

I wouldn't have asked if I thought it was obvious who you mean. Apart from granjura who lives in Switzerland which is not in the EU and POGS who doesn't consider her relatives to have a say, I can't think who you mean. Now I feel just plain stupid.

There are several members who have posted on this thread to whom my post applies, Wilma - without going back through it I can't name them all, nor do I intend to. Goodness, does it matter?

Only if you want to follow the discussion. It's late, so I leave this thread for now.

Everyone has a vested interest in their future. How one votes in the referendum will come down to individual judgement of how they view that future.

Should you just vote on how it will affect your future, or the future of the whole country, by which I mean the UK?

I was referring to the UK which is my future.

fullfact.org/europe/eu-renegotiation-deal/

Full Fact now has a whole series about what the renegotiations mean.
It's worth reading.

On page 13 I said I was all for staying in the EU. Since then I have been doing a lot of thinking and reading on the subject. I am now having serious doubts. Oh heck, now I'm undecided, but wavering towards leaving.

I don't think Cameron will even get the few things he asked for, the Eastern bloc countries are trying to stop it.

I am completely undecided. However I am not clear what we will gain from leaving.

roses, I agree, and apparently any agreement reached now wouldn't be binding after a referendum anyway, whatever Cameron says.

Yes I agree with you rose. I think that history will show Cameron's poor judgement over the EU referendum. He could have outfaced the outers but he chose the soft option and may well lose.

fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-exporting-child-benefit/

This is one of the reasons that many people cite for wanting out of the EU.
I think this lawyer explains very well how unjust it would be if the rule was changed.
It's all to do with whether you should be able to discriminate against EU children.

I also don't understand why Cameron is making such demands about the Eurozone countries. Why should they give a veto to the non-eurozone countries? Non-eurozone states do not have any responsibility for those in the eurozone as it is. Why does there need to be a change?

The full fact website is an excellent source of information on a wide range of subjects. In addition to the article on child benefit, I would also recommend the more detailed explanation of the term 'ever closer union'.

I agree, Lavande. Actually, I've never understood the problem with the phrase. It's more a cultural statement than a political statement.
But then I would say that as I want to stay in.

Whenever I hear 'ever closer union' it sums up ' One State' Which is what some countries in the EU want.

Which ones, petra?

The Labour leader accused Cameron of embarking on the renegotiations to suit his own party and said he should have fought instead for democratisation, workers’ rights, an end to austerity and a halt to the privatisation of public services.

We can but hope! Can't see Cameron doing that, really.

' Ever Closer Union ' has been at the fore since 1957 in EU treaty's.

The EU is like most governments split into 'camps'. The biggest party is the EPP (European Peoples Party).

At a summit in Madrid the likes of Junker, Merkle, Tusk who belong to this 'grouping' adopted a resolution underlying their DESIRE FOR A MORE INTEGRATED UNION it states , 'INTEGRATION IS THE FOUNDATIONAL PHYLOSOPHY BEHIND THE EU, WE MUST UNITE CITIZENS , INTEGRATE ECONOMIES, REMOVE BORDERS AND JOIN FORCES IN PURSUIT OF COMMON EUROPEAN WELL BEING'.

Many countries have parties who have MEP' in theEPP section of the European Parliament. The Conservatives sat in this grouping until 2009 , I believe it remains 'the home' of the Labour Party but I could be wrong.

With all due respect Durhamjen the Labour Leader , Mr. Corbyn, has never backed staying in the EU alongside the likes of Foot and Tony Benn.

He is certainly showing signs of pragmatism since becoming Labour Leader.