How will you vote in the EU referendum? (Thread 2)

What's wrong with a European army if we must have an army?
At the moment we do not fight anywhere on our own but as part of a UN army.

We as individuals did not have a say as to whether we sent troops to Syria. It was voted in parliament.
No different to MEPs voting in a European parliament. We vote MEPs in just as we do MPs.

Durhamjen

Yes our democratically elected MP's voted on whether or not we extended air cover into Syria to fight ISIS.

Am I getting this right. You were adamant in your position that British Forces should not enter into Syrian Air Space and not cross the Iraq border but you would happily let unelected MEP's take that decision and instruct our Armed Forces to do so. That is not acceptable to me but we all have different views .

I understand why countries are voicing an opinion that they want the UK to stay in the EU. It's because the UK presence is seen as a must. They cannot imagine the UK not being part of key discussions in matters of European security for example. Without Britain the EU, Europe will be far less effective and forceful in foreign relations, security and defence.. They should have given Cameron more to come back to the voter with instead they made the British voter feel as though they would be happier without us.

Oddly the Conservative UK Government's presence in the EU Commission/Parliament has been 'trashed', Cameron openly 'mocked' by some GN posters on a regular basis yet those same posters are now giving the impression that the UK must stay in the EU because presumably we do have influence. If that is not the reason what is it they believe ' The World ' finds it a must the UK remains in the European Union.

POGS, MEPs are elected!
I elected mine, and I assume you elected yours. Or didn't you bother to vote.

You really ought to try and read to the end of a sentence. I said what's wrong with a European army IF WE MUST HAVE AN ARMY.

I also wrote we vote MEPs in just as we do MPs.

I think you are getting tired.

Nope, not remotely tired, thank you for thinking of my welfare.

Yes we do elect our MEP's but we don't elect the MEP's in Spain, France, Latvia, Poland etc do we!. Yet you would happily let them impose a dictat that would subject our British Armed Forces to take an armed combat role as and where the European Union Parliament decree. In other words we must do their bidding , even if we do not agree in our country.

POGS for PM?! She'd get my vote.

With Chrissy for Deputy?

What about the veto - has that gone?

No welsh and we are good at using ours.

I do think there should be a third option - stay in, but with serious reform. I don't like the idea of Eurocrats complacently assuming that a majority for 'in' would mean that the majority are happy with the EU as it is. As I am sure they will.

I still haven't entirely made up my mind TBH - I can see reasons on both sides. One thing I particularly loathe about the EU is how the likes of Kinnock and Mandelson could simply be 'cronied' into influential and very highly paid positions, without a single democratic vote being cast.

I'm on a roll here?

The NI system will be reviewed with the principle outlined above being introduced to this system. This will result in a greater revenue and a dedicated tax will be set up exclusively for the NHS. This will be reviewed annually. Steps will be taken to ensure that future governments cannot touch this nor have any influence in the NHS

From Daniel Hannan in the DM this morning.
NSPCC
Oxfam
Action Aid
One world Action, received £43,000,000 in one year. Now I don't choose to support 2 of these charities for personal reasons, but I have no choice who the EU give my money to.
These are just some of the 'charities' who signed a joint letter voting for in.
Why would that be, mmmm, let me think.

Oh?Wrong thread! Sorry to confuse.

The U.K. Government gives billions to charity, presumably some you don't support

Yes - thought there was still a veto - so we could vote nit yo send troops anywhere - Knicks the stuffing out of some arguments.

Are you saying that those charities do not need the money, petra?

Just heard on the radio this morning that the biggest foodbank in the country, in the west end of Newcastle, is now going to provide hot meals for parents as well as children after school. This is because they no longer qualify for certain benefits and therefore cannot get free school meals.
I am ashamed that this is happening in this country.
The EU is going to look into whether their human rights are being taken away from them.
Thank heavens for these charities and the EU.

I support Action Aid for what they do in third world countries.

www.actionaid.org.uk/blog/campaigns/2016/04/04/panama-papers-and-the-broken-global-tax-system

This is how our politicians help them. Those who complain about charities being given monetary help should realise that it's a drop in the ocean compared with how much the tax system removes from those countries.

By the way, One World Action does not exist any more, so presumably his story is an old one.

I have no faith in any of these major charities. What I'm saying, is, these charities have a vested interest in voting to stay in. I don't believe that most heads of charities are there for greater good, more for there own fiefdom.

But it's the other way round.
They got money from the EU a long time before the referendum was even thought about.
Do you expect them to stop taking the money because of the referendum?
That would not be sensible, would it?

Have you looked at the Action Aid link? They need the money from the EU because companies worldwide are taking money from third world countries.
The best way to ensure these charities do not take the money that you do not want to give them is to stop international companies from fleecing the countries in the first place.
It's not just companies; in some cases it's their own governments.
Aren't you concerned about that?

Just received my leaflet through the post.
It's entitled "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK".

However, quite a few of the members of the government do not believe that, so it's actually a big lie.

It is the official government line so it's not a lie to say "the government believes". Like most things that some people paint in black and white, it isn't truthful to call that statement a lie. The whole caboodle, like everything else human, is not that simple.

I'm really glad you don't want to be Prime Minister, dj. I find your posts scarily authoritarian and uncompromising, not good traits in a PM.

"It is quite bizarre how individuals with a clear and evident conflict of interest become appointed to positions of power and influence within essential state functions.

Yet more evidence of the game being rigged by ensuring the key decision makers will always support the desired outcome of the government. Yet more evidence of an elected dictatorship (AKA the establishment)."

You'd rather have this lot, would you?

I may be mistaken, but I took thatbags post to be about you, Dj, not about "this lot". Nothing to do with wanting any particular party or group in power.

I agree that your posts are " scarily authoritarian and uncompromising" and I sense that I am not alone. Perhaps you feel that, unlike "this lot", you are exempt from being commented on.

Yes, Elegran, the obvious 'bullying' of a new poster was mentioned, but dismissed with 'Have I been reported to GNHQ' or words to that effect. It's all hectoring one-sided propaganda from certain individuals, and acidic sarcasm if anyone dares to put another opinion forward.

No wonder people leave Gransnet.