How would you vote if there was an EU Referendum tomorrow on British Membership?

[worryworts]

I know this is completely unscientific and there are a lot of variables to factor in but if there was an EU Referendum tomorrow on British Membership how would you vote if the only options were staying in (with things as they are now) or out (and into the great unknown)? There seems to be a lot of hysteria on both sides of the argument.

I'm leaning towards out.

In.

We are no longer the special snowflakes that we think we are and will have almost no influence on the world stage.

I agree that the average person doesn't really understand the benefits of the EU. I only do because it was part of my degree. You usually get the newspapers doing for and against tables for these things which are useful to explain things in layman's terms but I haven't seen any yet.

Out.

If there were one I would vote to stay in and I am fairly sure we will stay in.

In

Out.

This is (another) awful move on Cameron's part. The brake on the EU re the UK for years has been not having a valid mandate and knowing the electorate are on the brink of wanting out and will walk if pushed too far. If they ever get a mandate, the kid gloves will come straight off and there will be nothing anyone can do about what they decide to inflict here.

KenAdams, is it possible to summarise the benefits then as I'm in the camp of not realising as I can't see any benefits at all!

Out.

Quite surprised at so many out votes on MN though. Hardly a fair rep of the nation but interesting poll nonetheless.

In. Leaving the EU would have a catastrophic effect on the area I work in. We are stronger together. For those saying the EU is undemocratic - remember you vote for your MEP. Other decisions are made by government representatives so would also have been voted in. It has a complicated structure that makes it look unpenetrable at times though!

i am old enough to remember voting to join the EU in the 70's, I do not regret that decision.

We are Europeans, not those xenophobic beings that believe British is best.

If we leave the EU many people involved in manufacturing will lose their jobs as manufacturers will move production to Spain or Greece so they will not have the crippling import export taxes.
Prices will rise, it is inevitable, the amount that will be saved by not paying into the EU will not filter down to any of us, over the last 50 years we have become less and less self sufficient as a nation, we need to import, everything will cost so much more.

For one oneowlgirl the minimum wage, holiday entitlement, extended maternity leave, maternity pay etc. all benefits we get due to the EU social chapter. All would be at risk if we left the EU.

Out.

Stay in.

Question to the Out voters :
Which particular bit of the EU do you think is undemocratic?
Please name which body?
And please name its UK equivalent which is more democratic

We're still part of Europe if we leave the EU. We're not going to magically float away into the Atlantic. (To all those who would feel 'less European if we leave).

kinky
We're still part of Europe if we leave the EU. We're not going to magically float away into the Atlantic.

Indeed, but think of it as one person telling the rest of the house share that she hates them and is moving out and then storming off to the pub.
While she's out the others will change the locks and make it VERY VERY hard for her to access her stuff and carry on with her life.

The EU will make it VERY tricky for the British in the short term

• holidays
• expats
• trade
• money trading in the city
• any utility companies you deal with who are EU owned
• car parts
• France removing all UK security from the tunnel and ferry ports

Things will settle down but even the short term hit to the UK will be catastrophic

As someone who has direct experience in the EU institutions, I would probably vote out. It wouldn't be with frothing glee though.

Within the institutions, there is massive resistance to any kind of reform or change. There is also incredibly little foresight, which can be utterly mind boggling at times. Not all departments will be awful, but it isn't a minority. Of course, you get some absolutely incredible, brilliant, mind boggling clever people working in Brussels. But that doesn't mean the system they are working within is any better.

If we vote to stay in, the UK will be told in no uncertain terms "you voted to stay in. Your people are happy. Therefore stop complaining and just do as we say". That's honestly not an exaggeration.

And really, the EU isn't very democratic. I don't think anyone who has worked in the European Parliament could argue otherwise. Likewise, the biggest player in putting together legislation is the Commission, and citizens get literally zero say in their appointments.

TalkinPease - I disagree with you actually. Although the Institutions might be very angry with the UK, and there would be some necessary public condemnation from others to appease Brussels, really there's no reason for any resentment between member states. If anything, France, Spain and Poland will be very keen to maintain good bi lateral relations with us. Exactly how many citizens do you think are living in the UK from those places? With employment in those countries at such dire levels, they will be keen to avoid a sudden influx of expats.

Why on earth would countries suddenly introduce visa requirements? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Why would France remove security from the borders? That's not subject to an EU agreement.

What the UK would look to do (I imagine) would be to negotiate very easy terms for northern/western european citizens to come and work in the UK, and introduce very strict requirements for poorer (most likely Eastern) counterparts. These would obviously be reciprocal, because that's how negotiations work. The EU as an entity can't get involved in bi-lateral relations, so wouldn't really get much say.

Just to add: If I thought that the institutions were in any way willing or capable to make massive reforms (hello spending accountability?), then I would definitely be voting to remain in.

Out

out, out, out
thank you themonkey for your inside knowledge on the EU
the EEC as it then was was set up after the 2nd World War to ensure some kind of economic stability in Europe
the 1972 referendum was based on the economic benefits and less about the way the EU has moved since then or the massive increase in member countries.
we are not a world power whether we stay in the EU or not and nor should we aspire to be (world power that is)

the biggest player in putting together legislation is the Commission, and citizens get literally zero say in their appointments.

A bit like the UK's Civil service

and the UK's House of Lords

sorry but I see frying pan and fire lined up here

Talkin why do you imagine there would be such animosity? Isn't it possible for us to leave the EU without making enemies?

Talkin why do you imagine there would be such animosity?
Because most of the arguments are so blatantly incorrect

to Accuse the European Commission of being undemocratic is like accusing MI6 of being undemocratic
its a funded appointment based body, nominally controlled by an elected body - the European / UK Parliament

the fact that Brits CBA to vote, so UKIP get in, take the money and never attend
is not the EU's problem
its Britain's

Leaving the EU would be an economic catastrophe for the poor,
even worse than the one that was averted by the undemocratic House of Lords

sorry got my dates messed up
The United Kingdom referendum of 1975 was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973
So the impetus was after only 2 years in the EEC - do we stay in or leave when I suspect most people did not understand the implications
that said - a third of the voters said 'leave'

Can someone enlighten me?

What's to stop the UK from not allowing other European citizens into the UK, other than the other opposing countries doing the same to British people travelling abroad? After all a lot of complaints regarding immigration is related to the so called influx of eastern Europeans into Britain. So what's stopping us from saying that Romanians for example can no longer come into the UK without a visa? Would there be financial penalties from the EU?

chipped - because to do so whilst in the UK goes against the Treaties, which we have signed up to. Freedom of Movement is a basic tenant of EU membership. There's absolutely no way we could simply say "yeah, you have restrictions now". Any country that did so would be taken to court and infracted (basically, fined an absolute fuck ton of money). There would be massive political consequences as well. It's not even a remote possibility.

TalkinPease - it's not about whether or not people get involved in the European Elections. Even if they do, people will (naturally) tend to vote for a person affiliated to their preferred domestic political party, which actually counts for jack shit once the elected Parliamentarian aligns themselves with the Parliamentary groupings. Likewise, who are European Parliamentarians actually accountable to? At least with national MP's, they have constituent times. They are accountable to the domestic press. After the expenses scandals, they are much more financially accountable. Something like the expenses scandal simply wouldn't happen in the European Parliament. There isn't any "domestic press" to keep an eye on them. They are literally far removed from anyone they might be accountable to, save their limited visits back home.

The House of Lords doesn't have that much power, especially compared to the European Parliament.

Comparing the UK civil service to the Commission is teetering a bit on the obtuse. The civil service puts forward legislation on the basis of what the ruling party tells them to. There's also much more focus on other areas, beside constantly pushing out new laws. The Commission pretty much exists entirely to present new legislation. They can take instructions from the Parliament, but basically spend most of their time thinking up new legislation to shove through so the President has some nice concrete stuff to point at, at the end of their term. The difference is, they only need to point to legislation passed. Whether or not it actually WORKS, and following up on how it's actually practically IMPLEMENTED is not something they really give a shit about. Two member states can have exactly the same wording in their laws, but only one of them might actually bother to enforce it at any level.