Almost There! Hexus EU Referendum Straw Poll #2

[TeePee]

eh? How? Seems to me only if it results in a coup. In which case there's another good reason not to vote out...

Well, you ditch all the European ones! Less government is a good thing.

[Corky34]

However, one thing that I think is 100% clear and should be 100% understood by everyone voting in this referendum is that any notion of repatriation or a status-quo vote on the remain side is an unreality. It won't happen.

You say that but it already has, take the CFP for example, that's seen powers to manage fish stocks flow away from EU institutions to the regions, a power that in our region probably wasn't handled very well seeing as just three companies have been given two-thirds of our agreed maximum sustainable yield.

EDIT: Added to the CFP is how the 2015 Conservative manifesto said they'd already taken action to return around 100 powers, a claim that was fact checked and found to be true, so you see this claim that powers are never returned, that the EU only takes and never gives back is false.

....but a smallish proportion of our budget.

IIRC It's smaller than smallish it's tiny, it's less than %2 of total government expenditure.
Heck we lose three times that amount in (officially) estimated tax avoidance.

That's true, but only part of the manifesto commitment.

What you missed was .... "and replace it with a British Bill of Rights".

I didn't miss it on purpose i just thought as we have no idea what a British Bill of Rights would look like it was to open to speculation, maybe it would afford more protections, maybe less, if i had to guess though I'd plump for the later, that's even if it ever got written as knowing our parliamentarians they'd be arguing about it for decades.

Well, you ditch all the European ones! Less government is a good thing.

Yea who needs more of a system whereby states or communities are controlled, let's have anarchy... J/K

[cheesemp]

I'll see your Gove/Johnson, and raise you Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Gordon Brown, Mandelson, Juncker et. al.

And for a knockout, Tony Blair.

Ok how about Murdock, Farrage, Keith Chegwin and the daily Mail?

[Bagnaj97]

I'll see your Gove/Johnson, and raise you Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Gordon Brown, Mandelson, Juncker et. al.
And for a knockout, Tony Blair.

Ok how about Murdock, Farrage, Keith Chegwin and the daily Mail?

[Saracen]

...

I didn't miss it on purpose i just thought as we have no idea what a British Bill of Rights would look like it was to open to speculation, maybe it would afford more protections, maybe less, if i had to guess though I'd plump for the later, that's even if it ever got written as knowing our parliamentarians they'd be arguing about it for decades.

....

I can't provide a link, but I remember a TV interview where Cameron said, in his own words, that it would be pretty much the same rights. It could, in fact, be used almost word for word from the HRA, except for the bit about the court.

The intention was not to change the rights, but to do two things :-

- turn the ECtHR's rulings into advisory not binding rulings, and return discretion to UK courts

- to remove the Court's ability to require Parliament to amend legislation to comply with activist ECtHR judges interpretation of the Convention.

And on a similar basis, to change the balance from all righrs, to rights and responsibilities.


One way of looking at this is that the HRA gold-plated ECHR principles and, by our own doing gave those judges too much say. Changing the HRA, especially s.2, redresses the balance to reflect that in, for example, Germany, and make it explicity clear that the will, especially as expressed in Parliamentary Acts, are sovereign and national judges are not able to use ECtHR rulings to overrule Parliament.

In Germany, for instance, it is explicitly clear that in any clash between ECtHR rulings and German Basic law, the German Constitutional Court is supreme, not the ECtHR. The Bill of Righrs proposal is to shift the balance of power here back to the Supreme Court and Parliament and away from the ECtHR.

And, after all, if the UK is under the same obligation as Germany to respect ECHR principles in domestic law, but the HRA gold-plates it by Act of Parliament, then an Act of Parliament can un-goldplate it too, and provided the replacement Bill of Rights still meets ECHR principles in a similar way and to the same extent as Germany, we will still be meeting ECHR obligations and principles because nithing in those requires it to be gold-plated.

This, and more, was spelt out by the Tories at the time, but the media likes to sensationalise stories because it tends to generste lots of heat and fury in TV studies even if it doesn't generate much light, and to not bother with 'boring' details. After all, rarely does media let actual facts get in the way of a good story.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So,China,Japan,India and the US want us to stay - I thought they would probably be some of the largest outside EU countries we would want to make trade trades deals with if we did BREXIT. Intriguing.

At least we still have Russia who is pro-Brexit. Oh,but they will probably want us to join the Eurasian Economic Union,which they head. No,that is not going to work.

[Saracen]

Ok how about Murdock, Farrage, Keith Chegwin and the daily Mail?

Who pays any serious attention to the Mail?

For Murdoch, do you mean personally (in which case, who cares) or his media empire (in which case, The Times obviously didn't get the Brexit memo).

Farage? Well, for someone whose 2nd career has been about leaving the EU, it's no surprise he wsnrs to leave the EU. I ignore the personality but agree with many (not all) of his arguments.

Chegwin? Seriously? I had to Google him.

Or there's, as I said, the PM that took the country to war on the basis of claims that are hard to conclude were anything other thanveither outright lies or rampant stupidity, deceiving both Parliament and the British people, en-masse, in the process.

I suppose I ought to thank Blair, though. Prior to him and the Iraq fiasco, I actually didn't think a British PM could be so dishonorable or deceitful, especially over going to war and getting so many people killed, but he single-handedly lifted the veil from my eyes and made me view all politicians, and I do mean absolutely ALL, though a highly active scepticism filter.

So unless someone like Ghenghis Khan is a secret Brexiteer, I'll stick with Blair for the knockout.


On a serious note, I don't give a flying fig what any 'personality' thinks, especially seeing as they all seem to want to jump on one bandwagon or another.

One of the supremely moronic decisions, IMHO, was Varsi changing her mind because she's upset at "the tone" of some comments. I mean, come on. The single most important decision the people have faced in decades, that will affect our future for decades, and she's changing camp in a fit of pique over "tone" from the campaign. Utterly pathetic. Forget the rhetoric you daft bat, Varsi, and decide on the issues.

To whit, I don't care about the opinions of Blair, Chegwin, Murdoch, David Beckham, Elton John, Jedward, Miss Piggy, Rupert Bear or for that matter, Cameron, Osborne, Boris or ol' Nige.

I care about the issues. I've made up my mind based on careful research, long consideration and my assessment of the balance. I have far, FAR more respect for opinions of members here, including those I disagree with, because we're all just normal people having a discussion and if I want my opinions or views challenged, I know from long (sometimes uncomfortable ) experience that you lot are not only well up for it, but highly capable too.

[big_hairy_rob]

I'm still very much undecided. The lack of information and overwhelming amounts of misinformation leads me to believe that no one can possibly make an informed decision. Likewise they key elements of both sides argued and backed up by 'experts' is little more than blind speculation, especially as there is no real data on which to base these 'facts'.

All I know is that Europe is not a democratic process and it needs radical changes. While not being a part may well mean that we have no say on these changes, I'm yet to see an organization as large as Europe change entirely due to internal pressure. Change appears to come predominantly from external influences, and Europe seems so resistant to change that I wonder just what it will be like in 10, 20 or 50 years time.

I honestly have no idea how leaving, or remaining in the euro zone will affect the UK, and with no basis on which to form an opinion I worry how I can make the right choice. Likewise with the insistence of some in believing that you only have a say if you vote, I'm left wondering whether there should be a third option on the ballot to allow people to give their record an ambiguous opinion, without being forced not to vote or to deface their ballot paper.

With less than 24 hours till polls open I'm really not sure how, or even if I'll vote...

[Jowsey]

I think that earlier in the other EU thread there was a suggestion of each person finding a person who is voting oppisite to them and just going to the pub for a pint and not talking politics all day.

I propose we start this up again just so i dont have to listen to another word about it! I now twitch when someone mentions the EU!

N.B. No postal votes allowed!

On a serious note. I will be happier when this is done with. This is a huge issue but im very sure there is plenty of political natters that need addressing and I, for one, cant stand another second of Johnson, Cameron et al declaring the death of the country if we vote against their opinion. The campaign's have both been nothing but disgraceful fear mongering and muck flinging and it has, once again, highlighted the inadequacy of the people who we entrust to run the country.l to do so with any amount of dignity.

[Saracen]

So,China,Japan,India and the US want us to stay - I thought they would probably be some of the largest outside EU countries we would want to make trade trades deals with if we did BREXIT. Intriguing.

At least we still have Russia who is pro-Brexit. Oh,but they will probably want us to join the Eurasian Economic Union,which they head. No,that is not going to work.

China, Japan, India and the US are acting in what they consider to be the best interests of China, Japan, India and the US, not the best interest of those directly affected, the British people. For that matter, so will Russia because, currently at least, they aren't exactly our best buds.

Russia, as far as I'm aware, have officially said it's a matter for the British people. But, it's hard to argue that a major economy like the UK leaving the EU wouldn't weaken the EU, at least, economically. And, as the Russians seem to regard the EU or at least it's expansionist tendencies, as a direct threat deeper ever close to their borders, it's pretty evident anything that weakens the EU is a valid Russian interest but I fail to see what that'scany sort of a reason to influence oyr decision over such major and direct factors as who controls our laws, who sets our trade terms, who determines right of residence in the UK, etc.

Similar arguments can be made about the others. The US tends to see the UK as a philosophical like mind and natural ally, and the French/Germans, for example, as .... let's say, independently minded. For example, compare the coincdence of votes and attitudes at UN Security Council between US-UK, and US-France. The US sees the UK as a naturally friendly voice at the heart of UK, and a sort-of proxy voice for the US, which typically counter-balances France. We leave, and the US loses its counterbalance.

Similarly, Jaoan has good UK relations and we are a good gateway to the EU. But issues like control of UK immigration policy or the ECJ overruling UK laws don't affect them. They do affect us. So it should come as no surprise where these countries think their interests lie, but what matters to us is where our best interests lie and for everyone one of us, judging that balance ought to determine how we vote not what suits Russia, Japan or the US interests.

What matters is how leaving affects us, the people.

[SeriousSam]

Here is a suggestion for an Economist who is not enamoured of EU membership.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publicatio...single-market/

About the Author

Michael Burrage is a director of Cimigo, which is based in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and conducts market and corporate strategy research in China, India and 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He is also a founder director of a start-up specialist telecom company which provides the free telephone interpreter service for aid workers and others where interpreters are scarce.

He is a sociologist by training, was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo.

He has written articles in American, European and Japanese sociological journals, conducted a comparative study of telephone usage in Tokyo, Manhattan, Paris and London for NTT, and a study of British entrepreneurs for Ernst & Young. His publications include Revolution and the Making of the Contemporary Legal Profession: England, France and the United States (OUP, 2006) and Class Formation, Civil Society and the State: A comparative analysis of Russia, France, the United States and England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). He edited Martin Trow: Twentieth-century higher education: from elite to mass to universal (Johns Hopkins, 2010).

His previous Civitas publications include Where’s the Insider Advantage? A review of the evidence that withdrawal from the EU would not harm the UK’s exports or foreign investment in the UK (July 2014) and ‘A club of high and severe unemployment: the Single Market over the 21 years 1993-2013’ (July 2015) in the Europe Debate series.

[The Hand]

Remain - Leave list

Here's an article on LibDems/Liberals who want to leave the EU:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-l...ign-49779.html

Paul Keetch was on the BBC's Daily Politics advocating to leave the EU, as well as the article in the Independent.

Edit:

That list is either out of date or biased. Prof Patrick Minford is an economist on the Leave side. The political elite in Norway seem to be the only significant grouping that actually want to join. Ordinary Norwegians want to stay out.

[Corky34]

I can't provide a link, but I remember a TV interview where Cameron said, in his own words, that it would be pretty much the same rights. It could, in fact, be used almost word for word from the HRA, except for the bit about the court.

I seem to remember something similar, however even if they replaced the Human Rights Act 1998 with a British Bill of Rights it would (afaik, inal) still mean we'd be signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (we signed that 23 years before joining the EU).

The intention was not to change the rights, but to do two things :-

- turn the ECtHR's rulings into advisory not binding rulings, and return discretion to UK courts

- to remove the Court's ability to require Parliament to amend legislation to comply with activist ECtHR judges interpretation of the Convention.

And on a similar basis, to change the balance from all righrs, to rights and responsibilities.

I maybe misunderstand what you're referring to when using the "ECtHR" acronym, are we/you talking about the "European Convention on Human Rights" or "the European Court of Human Rights"? I'm going to guess the latter. If so my understanding is leaving the EU won't effect the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, unless we withdrew from the convention anyone can still ask the European Court of Human Rights to decide whether their Convention rights have been breached.

One way of looking at this is that the HRA gold-plated ECHR principles and, by our own doing gave those judges too much say. Changing the HRA, especially s.2, redresses the balance to reflect that in, for example, Germany, and make it explicity clear that the will, especially as expressed in Parliamentary Acts, are sovereign and national judges are not able to use ECtHR rulings to overrule Parliament.

My understanding is that UK courts (the supreme) can still overrule Parliament if they think it's breached the European Convention on Human Rights, (again afaik, inal) my understanding is the only thing to change (in the event of leaving the EU and replacing the Human Rights Act 1998 with a British Bill of Rights) would be a change in what courts interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights applies, in the event of leaving and replacing the Human Rights Act 1998 it would mean someone would need to go through the UK courts first, but importantly they could then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, i say importantly because the way things are ATM is someone could go straight the courts in Strasbourg, at least that my understanding.

In Germany, for instance, it is explicitly clear that in any clash between ECtHR rulings and German Basic law, the German Constitutional Court is supreme, not the ECtHR. The Bill of Righrs proposal is to shift the balance of power here back to the Supreme Court and Parliament and away from the ECtHR.

And we could do the same AFAIK, the Human Rights Act 1998 can be amended.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

China, Japan, India and the US are acting in what they consider to be the best interests of China, Japan, India and the US, not the best interest of those directly affected, the British people. For that matter, so will Russia because, currently at least, they aren't exactly our best buds.

Russia, as far as I'm aware, have officially said it's a matter for the British people. But, it's hard to argue that a major economy like the UK leaving the EU wouldn't weaken the EU, at least, economically. And, as the Russians seem to regard the EU or at least it's expansionist tendencies, as a direct threat deeper ever close to their borders, it's pretty evident anything that weakens the EU is a valid Russian interest but I fail to see what that'scany sort of a reason to influence oyr decision over such major and direct factors as who controls our laws, who sets our trade terms, who determines right of residence in the UK, etc.

Similar arguments can be made about the others. The US tends to see the UK as a philosophical like mind and natural ally, and the French/Germans, for example, as .... let's say, independently minded. For example, compare the coincdence of votes and attitudes at UN Security Council between US-UK, and US-France. The US sees the UK as a naturally friendly voice at the heart of UK, and a sort-of proxy voice for the US, which typically counter-balances France. We leave, and the US loses its counterbalance.

Similarly, Jaoan has good UK relations and we are a good gateway to the EU. But issues like control of UK immigration policy or the ECJ overruling UK laws don't affect them. They do affect us. So it should come as no surprise where these countries think their interests lie, but what matters to us is where our best interests lie and for everyone one of us, judging that balance ought to determine how we vote not what suits Russia, Japan or the US interests.

What matters is how leaving affects us, the people.

Yet the leave campaign says we are free to make deals and how the EU countries are screwing us over.

Yet as shown enough timrs all those big nations outside the EU will have no problem screwing us even more than Europe. Banana wars??

This magical notion if we close ourselves out of Europe no other organisation or country will affect our laws or economy.

Funny that - I wonder how our debtors are influencing our economy and laws. OFC,leta all hide the fact that this economic crash was down to the sub-prime crisis in the US and a poorly regulated banking system.

But farage and co know that - he never worked in the financial industry using speculation to make money.
Oh wait.

So if we cannot influence France and Germany supposedly and they are countries we are close to culturally,etc what hope do we have with the rest??

They pretty much said they would prefer as part of the EU so you can see who they support.

So playing the victim card that Germany and France are screwing us over now so we must leave.

So the rest of these other trading partners will care even less and we still will be screwed over.

So what victim card is going to be spun now?

Yes,I can see the uk having more influence over Russia,The US,India,China,Japan and Brazil than we have over countries like Germany,etc.

Riiiiiiiight.

[Ferral]

Well been reading again after posting what I did last night and decided I am going to stick with original thought and vote remain.

To be honest, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type thing. It is either vote remain or just not bother at all, as a nation we won't see anything happening overnight, hell it won't even be within a few years and if it does then as people we won't benefit from it as such, life will go on in just the same way it does now.

I don't even recall where this farce started in the first place (UKIP nutcases last general election possibly)

Reading The Guardian online there was a decent article on this whole thing, one thing that stood out though (whether true or not is another thing as everything you read at the moment seems to be full on one way or the other and no REAL facts). Either way, Iain Duncan Smith is one of the big leave voices (obnoxious loud mouth is probably a better way to describe him), this is the {insert favourite phrase / keyword here} that was ripping genuinely disabled and terminally ill patients out of beds and wheelchairs etc, sending them to undignified examinations and then sending them of to work full time as no doubt they will get better or are just a burden on society.

There is no way we should be exiting the EU and be listening to thge likes of him then, there were other examples like this given also.

Thios whole campaign has just been lies on both sides, I have had my mother and the builder going on and on about leaving, even my wife, but at the end of the day being part of the EU is doing us no harm, I like the thought of being able to grab my passport and go work in an EU country for a few month if the opportunity arisen, even being able to jsut head off and stay for a few month without needing any extra Visa's and so on.

So the rest of my family and most of my older friends are voting out but I feel we need to stay

[cheesemp]

Chegwin? Seriously? I had to Google him

It was a joke but never mind. I agree we shouldn't really look at personalities. Its why my original post highlighted some of the many reason I'm choosing Remain and just a line on personalities.

I'd didn't even touch on the risk of Scotland breaking away should we leave...