How will you vote in the EU referendum?

Really? Okay dokey.

Good grief WilmaKnickersFit - how intolerant you seem!

Why on earth has my post met with such a violent reaction from you?

I've joined in (the question posed was How Will You Vote in the European Referendum?) and given my opinions but I obviously failed to run my ideas by you first.

As as for reading all of the long thread, is that compulsory? I dipped in and out and then started writing. Is there a pro-forma or something I should have used, so that my writing, views, opinions, etc, were initially submitted via you to meet with your approval?

People like you who try to close down discussion, especially from people who don't share their views, make me very wary, I have to say.

Not only that, on a public forum I imagined ALL opinions and thoughts were welcome, in the spirit of fairness, democracy and interesting debate.

Please let me know when I am next allowed to have my say...... shakes head

"It's clear from the tone of the very first post that Day6 has made up their mind and the truth will make no difference."

So, what is 'the truth' regarding the EU? Do tell, because I am curious that you know it and I don't.

From all I've read and heard, listened to etc, I feel the EU has become a very expensive shackle, the links are breaking and we need to remove it, quickly, and I've said as much. It will cost us dearly to stay in. I stand by MY views.

@gillybob 28-Jan-16 11:04:47

All the major polls (for what they're worth after the election debacle) are showing that younger voters (<35) are overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU. All the evidence shows that those who want to leave tend to be older, have fewer qualifications and be English.

The problem with younger voters (especially students) is that they don't realise that they're not on the electoral roll as a result of registration changes.

Some links from The Economist, which I found helpful:

www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/graphics-britain-s-referendum-eu-membership

www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger

www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses

www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/02/mind-gap

It shows how stupid some polls are doesn't it ( like the polls from the last GE!) The being younger or older than 35, having qualifications and being English poll I have conducted with friends and family shows an intention to vote to leave the EU. However, it could easily be the opposite in my next door neighbours family..... In fact, this issue is a bit like the English Civil War,
It splits all families, friends, neighbours, young, old, educated, non-educated etc.

I know this is bit of a boring point but.

I have just watched Lord Hill EU Commissioner for Financial Stability and Financial Services getting a bit of a grilling in the Select Committee Rooms. It was Live on free view 131.

I have to say I am not feeling particularly assured by his knowledge and when asked the question of his role in the EU he had no option to agree that his first role , 'loyalties' so to speak as EU Commissioner is to the European Union as that is where he swore an oath. He said " As a Commissioner my responsibility is to act in the interest of the EU, yes".

MP Steven Baker and Jacob Rees Mogg had some good questions and I really am struggling with the truth and honesty re the legality and assurance as to whether or not this 'deal' is binding in anyway shape or other. The more I watch and listen the more I believe there is no evidence the 'deal' is legally binding and this is one of the most important questions to help me decide.

Even if it were legally binding, conditional upon the UK's vote to stay in the EU, it would apparently take years to ratify. So no change in the foreseeable future anyway...

I am enjoying this thread. It's so informative and I love a good discussion but at the end of the day I guess the way many will vote has much to do with "life beliefs" rather than "facts" put forward on both sides. But hey maybe I'm wrong and the debate has managed to help make up/change minds?

I agree Lazigirl. I was pro-Europe until fairly recently. I imagined a Common Market (way back when) could only be a good thing. However, the EU evolved and now I see it as a creaking ship, that some are prepared to go down with.

A colleague made what I thought was an interesting analogy recently. He compared the EU to the Titanic. He said it was big, carried all sorts of people from varied backgrounds, but had its layers and those on the top decks didn't care much how those in the hull faired and whether or not the ship was as pleasant down there. Those on the bridge controlled everything. He also said that when the ship hits the iceberg, you could be very civilised and not push in to get on a lifeboat, and you could even get out your violin and play to distract people, but in doing that you were only delaying the inevitable, and you'd drown anyway.

In principle I'd like the EU to work but it's fractured and beyond repair, imo. The Greek financial crisis, which caused such turmoil has almost been forgotten because it was closely followed by the human tragedy that is Syria and mass migration into Europe.

We didn't have a plan for that. The deluge of refugees and how we aid them has been so very hit and miss. We haven't been a united Europe in dealing with such an overwhelming humanitarian problem, (and the Greek economy is still in tatters, lest anyone forgets.) Border control has been highlighted because of it, and all of a sudden, movement over a huge continent has become problematic because we've realised paperwork, passports and identity (and dare I say borders) DO matter, because the evil that is ISIS exists.

I am perhaps selfishly thinking of my children and grandchildren and their futures. I want the very best for them in a world that is harmonious. The longer I live the more I realise that the melting pot theory just doesn't work. Humans are diverse in nature, cultures, outlook, ethics and religion and that's OK. Vive la difference I say, but just on this thread alone (which I've now read from beginning to end Wilma) there is anti-French feeling.

I think all countries have to plough their resources into looking after their own but also recognise that we have a moral duty to aid the less fortunate if possible. That, imo should be a world-view. I think we can begin building a better, fairer world by knowing we can manage our own problems. I don't think we become stronger by being tied to a huge fractured entity that limits us - one that we'll have to continue to shore up for as long as we remain in the EU.

The legalities of the whole thing are so confusing, but these are my thoughts so far -

My understanding is that the agreement David Cameron got from his negotiations is legally classed by the EU Commission as a Decision. A Decision only deals with a particular issue and specifically mentioned persons or organisations.

The Commission will draft the legislation and only present the full legislative proposals if the UK votes to stay in the EU.

The draft legislation is then presented to the European Parliament and this is the sticky bit. When the agreement was reached, it had the support of the three main groups of MEPs - the centre-right, centre-left and liberal. These groups or blocs as they are known, represent nearly two thirds of MEPs, so you'd think there would be no problem. But MEPs are notorious for not voting along bloc lines and often split into other groups e.g. voting instead on a nationalist basis.

There shouldn't be a problem because there's strong support for Britain to stay in the EU, but just last week the centre-left leader said he disliked discriminating against EU migrants. Also Eastern European MEPs have made it clear they don't like people from parts of the EU being seen as second-class citizens. It will be a long time before the legislation will be voted on by MEPs and maybe attitudes will change between now and then.

Once the EU legislation becomes law, it will take time to be passed into national law. After this has happened, EU citizens can challenge any aspect of the law, so in theory the EU supreme court could overrule aspects of the legislation, but this is rare and would be years after the referendum.

There's two specific parts of the deal though that won't be part of the Decision. These are the parts about non-euro countries not being disadvantaged in financial matters and the exemption for the UK from further EU political integration. Both of these parts are to to be written into EU treaties when these are next revised.

The Decision states the precise wording will be decided by later and no one knows when the next treaty revision might be. The problem with this is all 28 states would need to ratify treaty amendments and for some countries that means holding a referendum e.g. France. Apparently, given the chance, voters across Europe are liable to vote down anything from Brussels.

So it's no wonder we get confused when we read or hear about this whole subject, when it's not clear how or when treaties will be amended or if the changes can be ratified.

If the result of the referendum is to leave the EU, everything David Cameron negotiated disappears and a formal two year period of negotiations begin about the UK leaving. Only after this will we start the process of separation.

All of this is why I posted before about probably being dead before it all happens - no matter which way the referendum goes. Nightmare.

Day6 I don't think it's at all selfish to be thinking about your children and grandchildren, not at all. This is not an easy decision and like so many others on this thread, I suspect people will end up voting with their gut feelings, or not vote at all for a number of reasons. The politicians have a hard road ahead to get the facts over to the voters. So far, I've not been impressed.

All the evidence shows that those who want to leave tend to be older, have fewer qualifications and be English.
The problem with younger voters (especially students) is that they don't realise that they're not on the electoral roll as a result of registration changes

Ergo younger voters (under 35s), especially students, are the ones who have more qualifications. Is that correct?
But not bright enough to realise that they may not be on the electoral roll.

Oh dear, one does fear for the future.

We haven't been a united Europe in dealing with such an overwhelming humanitarian problem,
Day6 That is so true and the lack of a co-ordinated approach to this crisis has been shocking and a cause of shame.

I don't think anyone expected the problem to get so bad, but it is truly appallingly that it has been allowed to get to this stage. What does it say about the EU and all its members that things are not better organised? It's been going on long enough and children are still dying almost daily. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Jalima the change to the registration system has not been that well publicised and has been rushed through - previously one person registered the whole household and that is what everyone is used to.

Wilma economic uncertainty would prevail then, for quite a long time.

The most famous advocate for leaving the EU i.e. Boris Johnson, has just offered the argument he finds most compelling..that lorry accidents with cyclists in London might be reduced. How the UK can be more effective at changing continental lorry formats by being OUT of the EU is a concept that is beyond me. He is a complete buffoon - he can barely conceal his 'naughty boy' grin as he peddles his pathetic statements. He clearly has not had the decency to have a conversation with his 'friend' the Prime Minister since he delivered his self serving bombshell last week. In the meantime, his pronouncements have damaged the British economy. Does he care? No.

WE should care. And not be bamboozled by puerile arguments.

Without any doubt leaving. Dread to think what this country will be like for our children if we stay in.

Jess yes, which ever way the vote goes we could be in for an unsettled time.

I found this article very interesting: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/boris-johnson-latest-euro-myth-brexit

I had no idea that some of the daft myths about the EU that appeared in our papers (that we were going to be forced to call our chocolate "vegelate", etc) stemmed from Boris Johnson himself, when he was the Telegraph's EU correspondent. Apparently "He even recycled his myths on Euro-condoms and the great war against the British prawn cocktail flavour crisp” when he wrote last week in the Telegraph about his Brexit stand.

He still writes a column for something or other, doesn't he Maggie?, not sure what as I have never read it.

I've never heard of any of those daft myths that you mention, Maggiemaybe, so they can't have strayed much further than the pages of the Telegraph.

As for puerile arguments, specki, I'd say Boris's pronouncements are no worse than Cameron's rather hysterical scaremongering about the dire consequences of Britain leaving the EU!

Neither of them can possibly know for sure.

No-one knows for sure; and no-one will ever know what would have happened had the referendum vote gone the opposite way.

It was not just a Boris word, would you believe!!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/764305.stm

Short extract below:

One of Europe's longest-running trade disputes is officially over. European Union ministers have accepted a definition of chocolate - which will allow the sale of British and Scandinavian varieties across the continent.
A European Commission spokesman said the new rules would give consumers and producers greater choice.

This was a dispute that lasted a quarter of a century and was as much about national pride as about ingredients and recipes.

Chocolate or 'vegelate'

For years, Belgium and France argued that only chocolate made from cocoa butter deserved the name, and that British-style products which used vegetable fats should be called something else.

I've never read the Telegraph, Ana, and I do remember some of them (the vegelate one, the hairnets for fishermen one, for instance), so they must have been more widely circulated. There was some tosh about bananas having to be straight, but who knows who was behind that one.

Now I do remember that one Maggie!