How will you vote in the EU referendum?

Some of you have mentioned that we need migrant workers. I assume you have given thought to the countries that are loosing these workers.
I mention this as I have just heard that we have 2,000 Romanian Doctors in this country.
I have visited this country many times. They are lovely people, and they are poor. They have trained these Doctors and now we are reaping the benefits.
I was in Bulgaria when they went into the EU. Most of their very good hospitality workers left for UK/Spain/Italy. Many Restaurants went out of business because they couldn't get good staff.

Thanks Petra.

The letter in it's entireity is available on the Daily Mail web site, 'for one'.

It is always better to read and hear from the horses mouth so to speak as partisan views can cloud debate and let's face are no more than opinions for the most part.

POGS. It was the armed forces.

Thank you* thatbags*

I'll send you a link, elegran.

Civil servants work for the Government in power, that could well mean their policies .... It would seem so.

Thank you, Pogs That sounds as though the letters thing was about Civil Servants contacting people themselves to canvas for one side or other, which is certainly against their terms of employment. "Providing briefing or speech material on this matter." for others to speak against Government policy also sounds outside their brief too. I don't know about the "access to official departmental papers, excepting papers that Ministers have previously seen" part. That seems a bit Yes Minister-ish, impeding the opposition in their efforts, but it may well be in line with the usual procedure.

Elegran

From the Jeremy Heywood letter.

"As set out in the Prime Ministers letter, it WILL NOT be appropriate or permissible for the Civil Service to support Ministers who oppose the Government's official position by providing briefing or speech material on this matter. This includes access to official departmental papers , excepting papers that Ministers have previously seen on matters relating to the referendum question prior to the 'suspension of collective agreement. These rules WILL apply also to their advisors"

At PMQ's Tory Nadine Dorries asked a question that referred to the Heywood letter if I recollect the session. Her question related to another sentence in Heywood's letter.

'Civil Servants should not themselves speak at external events on the issue, or work directly with or for the campaign 'groups'.

Her question was concerning the exact thing that had happened where a Civil Servant, can't remember his name, had, again if I remember correctly, drafted a letter, obtained signatures for the IN Campaign. It 'could have been ' the Letter signed by either the Armed Forces Officers or the Business Industry , needs checking but you get my drift , I hope?

All of that is financial, nothing to do with war, except that as far as Cameron is concerned, war is financial.

If we left the EU, we would have closed borders. We have Russian subs going around the coast of Scotland. At the moment, Norway helps to police our coasts. The French airforce joined the RAF to look for the sub. Would they if we were not part of the EU?

We also sell arms to Saudi Arabia, who use them to kill civilians in Yemen.
My brother was one of the last soldiers out of Aden. He could not come to my wedding nearly fifty years ago because he was in Aden. He was a boy soldier then, yet buried his best friend in the Yemen. Now we do not even need to be there to kill people.

Last week the EU decided to ban sales of arms to Saudi because they were being used to bomb Yemen. The same day, Cameron was saying how fantastic it was that we were selling lots of arms to Saudi.
I would rather we stayed in the EU, so at least there would be some kind of international dissent to what Cameron is doing.

Of course we 'could possibly' be in conflict with anyone in the future. What we need is other EU countries to protect us from those who want exports to mean arms.

www.caat.org.uk/media/press-releases/2016-02-25

I will answer my own question .

I see 'triggers' of disharmony in the European Union, whilst we are a fully paid up member. I don't see it as any safer being in or out to be honest. We are where we are in or out.

The influx of Immigrants/Asylum Seekers/ Migrants/Economic Migrants IS causing a unilateral break up of Schengen Borders. Country by country they all have different views/needs on the number each country wants to take and the opposition to the EU Council/Parliament trying to 'Make Quotas' is causing problems . It is totally disingenuous to believe it is not a major issue for the whole of Europe. The fact that the 'Dublin Agreement' on Asylum has been so easily dismissed by European Parliament/Commission is telling. Countries are closing their borders to their neighbours.

The European Union is destabilised by the Eurozone having a different set of thoughts to those countries outside the Eurozone. It has to be remembered that the Euro and the Eurozone is in trouble , yes the pound also, but there is trouble brewing.

Greece is now in so much trouble financially, dealing with obvious immigration matters, living standards for the poor and once working/ middle classes , massive unemployment, it is threatening to automatically 'veto' European Summit agreements as it did concerning Brexit .

What is going on with Ukraine? I only see what news is shown on Aljazeera and Russia Today, the latter being a propaganda tool for Russian involvement. I know there was an Economic Agreement signed with the European Union in 2014 but look what has happened between the EU and Russia. Being in the European Union is not a precursor for our safety.

What is happening to Turkeys membership? Will Turkey being a member of the European Union be good or bad for our safety? I don't have a clue .

That's why I am interested in why some posters are of the opinion we are safer inside the EU and peace will prevail if we are inside the EU. We 'could possibly' be involved in conflict in the future , sadly , irrespective of whether or not we remain in or out of the European Union not only as NATO members but to protect other European countries as we have in the past.

Wouldn't it be boring if we were all on the same wavelength.

Is that a long winded way of saying you did not mean what you said, POGS?
I really do not understand whether you are saying you got it wrong or not.
I do know that you have professed to being careful in your choice of language before.
Thank heavens I do not think like you, I agree.

View other people's terminology means interpret what they say, does it?
Or perhaps misconstrue?
Having spent years teaching special needs, I do tend to look for the simple explanation, the easier meaning, rather than make convoluted statements.

I told you one thing that triggers why I think we should stay in the EU in case of war.
Russia.

thatbags Can you point me to where you found that info on ministers not being allowed to see letters addressed to them? (Not because I am questioning what you say, but I should like to see more about it.

Ah, thanks, obi. Had a wee look at that thread yesterday and decided to leave it where it was, so to speak. None of the apparent umbrage being taken by certain posters was your fault, obviously.

We view other peoples terminology in different ways Durhamjen. Thank goodness.

I asked a broader question than the focus of your posts concerning 'war'. The way you wish to portray my post is by making an implication I made some kind of statement posters have said categorically. ' we will be attacked by other European countries '.

It is true to say I did ask an outright question of why some think we are going to war with the other 27 countries but the context of the question is in the folllowing point raised which 'presumes' not categorically states that is anybobody's view. I have noted posts, past and present on different threads, that make references to war, safety and peace and it is a perfectly fair question to ask of what 'triggers' posters who have concerns over such matters feel put us at danger.

Apologise if anybody has read my post in a different way to how I meant it to be discussed, No. Say I perhaps could have phrased my initial post differently , Yes,maybe, because it gave an open goal for the usual challenge from those who are on a different wave length to myself.

I started a thread on it thatbags called "It will bring down David Cameron".
He is handing the whole issue very badly indeed and I read today of a piece in The Sunday Times where MPs are saying that he could win the In vote but have a vote of no confidence against him.

I hope the instruction to civil servants, who should be impartial and not be forced into unconstitutional secrecy, will be reversed and all ministers be allowed to see papers that the government they are part of is producing.

Apparently ministers who are backing Brexit have not only been prevented from looking at government documents related to the referendum (a policy which I think is wrong on principle; I would think it wrong if Cameron were an Outie and prevented Innies from seeing the papers as well), but have been denied access to letters addressed to them if the EU is mentioned at all. If this is true it is a disgrace and revoltingly authoritarian.

Unfortunately many of the young people she was speaking to will not have a vote in the referendum.
Cameron has seen to it that the registration changes have ensured that roughly 800,000 will not have a vote, many of them students.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/27/david-lidington-campaign-eu-referendum-brexit

David Lidington has been the Minister for Europe for the past six years, the longest anyone has been in the job.
Pat Glass is his Labour equivalent.
They do appear to agree on lots of things.
By the way, POGS, I did not trumpet Pat Glass. I linked to a speech she had made about staying in Europe. Hardly trumpeting.

"Why do you think the other European countries , the 27 remaining countries, are going to war against the UK.?
That presumably is the only reason you are making such statements about our security. You must hold a belief that will/could happen to make such sweeping statements."

POGS, this is what you said.
Nobody on here has said that the other EU countries will go to war with the UK if we leave the EU.
It means there has been no world war 3. A war, and killing fields do not have to start with a European country.
At the moment we are at war, but with the middle east. Cameron selling arms to Saudi is encouraging war. Weapons are so sophisticated these days that there are no "boots on the ground", as the saying goes.

Recently there have been Russian subs off the coast of Scotland. Just saying.

Durhamjen

In response to your post directed at me 01.11

I asked the question re war as previous posts on the thread had mentioned , albeit indirectly, the word war!

I watched the debate you mentioned in your post 25/02/16. 16.45 when you trumpeted MP Pat Glass. She spoke kindly of the debate being a good one and praised MP's from both side of the House.

She said this:- . "Finally I want to talk to the young people who may be listening to the debate. The European Union was formed not as a political experiment or project, nor just as an economic market:- it's first purpose was to stop the regular slaughter that went on in Western Europe every thirty years. I appreciate that the EU is not the only reason my son is not lying in some cold grave outside Ypres or Thiepval as my great - grandfather and his brother are, but we now settle our differences around a negotiating table not the battlefield. I absolutely appreciate how difficult it is to get agreement between 28 countries , but surely it is far far better than what went before. The peace dividend of the EU is huge and is as important today as it was in 1945. I want us to vote to remain in the EU ' to ensure the killing fields ' of 1914-1918 and 1939 - 1945 do not happen again to the young people of our country, today or at anytime in the future.

I cannot see her latter words as anything other than saying we stand less chance of being engaged in a war if we stay in the EU , leaving would be too dangerous a position to put ourselves in. The way I have read the occasional post since the beginning of this thread that point has to my mind been said by posters too. That's wshy I asked the question.

No doubt my reply will not appease you but it is the honest reply to your post asking for an expaination so to speak of why I asked posters what 'triggers' do they believe could result in a war if we left the EU. A fair question in my mind to those who have posted they feel for our safety outside the EU.

Jalima yes, I did realise Croatia was already a member, my phrasing was poor. I just feel the area will always be a powder keg. Also, without acknowledging the independence of Kosovo, Serbia has made moves that would not stop it or Kosovo joining. I don't fully understand how this can be, but the international lawyers have said it can, so...

Just to add to the subject of tax evasion and avoidance raised by thatbags, earlier this month the EU reached agreement with Monaco, so in the last 12 months it reached agreements with Switzerland, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco.

Also lots of extremely well-informed "remainers", especially during the last week or so. Some have considerable experience of working for the EU and are able to refute many of the more ridiculous comments.

Thanks for the tip about looking on Mumsnet, petra. I'm off to have a look...