In,out,shake it all about,the EU ,what's best to vote.

[Daisyonthegreen]

Nothing on here,or am I wrong,I'm a newbie so be patient with me.
Anyhow here goes it's the Referendum on the European Union on the 23 June this year.
I'm voting Leave.
How's about you guys?

I can hardly blame you for that, Chalalala.

When I was 24 I decided to exercise my right to free movement by going to live in another country for a while, just because I could. I had a great time, met people from all over the world, learned another language and met a wonderful man who I love very much. The whole experience has enriched my life in more ways than I can count. I now have a very different outlook on life, and I am more employable as a result. But for me, the most significant thing is that I would not have met the man I love if I had not been able to just go and live in his country, for no reason other than because I wanted to.

I grew up understanding that that was my right, as an EU citizen. I am proud to be an EU citizen. It feels like part of my national identity, as well as being British.

I recognise that not everyone will choose to exercise these rights (although they almost certainly benefit from other rights arising from EU law), but I would want my children to have the same opportunity that I did. My children will have EU citizenship regardless of what the UK chooses to do, but I would feel the same way if I had children with another British person.

Seems to me that as much as the Brexit supporters are all tagged with the racist tag, the vast majority of Stay voters are doing so because of their personal circumstances.

As much as they like to claim they are looking at the big picture, in reality they are as narrowly focused as they claim the other side to be.

butteredmuffin - I could have pretty much written your post. I'd hate for others to lose that opportunity.

Um, well that is clearly not true in my case, since I have an easy route to another EU passport if we do leave. I don't really stand to lose any of the rights I currently have through my EU citizenship, and in addition I get to hedge my bets. If the UK post Brexit is such a huge success story that the rest of the EU looks on in envy, I can live here. If it is a complete disaster, I can "abscond abroad".

So yes, I'm clearly voting in my own interests and against everyone else's...

"I think the only coherent position for Brexit supporters to take is to advocate that we leave the single market, accept that this will have negative economic consequences, but argue that it is an economic price worth paying for the recovery of British sovereignty."

That is my position, however I don't believe it will have negative consequences. The EU single market has almost evolved into a unified market and I am dead set against that. I am in favour of looser single markets that exist within other non-EU trading blocs but not one that is designed to result in full political union.

I agree, with the following caveat. I think we can be fairl certain that brexit will make us worse off over the short to medium term (the debate is apparently hurting employment figures now). I don't think we can be certain of the consequences over the longer term, partly because the EU is not static, and if we stay in, it may well move in a direction which leaves us marginalized anyway (closer Eurozone integration etc).

I think the markets will have fully factored in the result they consider most likely, by the referendum day anyway. If anything the result will provide certainty rather than uncertainty

I do believe the whole issue is over-blown. Iceland and Turkey trade tariff-free with the EU. Trade will continue. Major companies are still expressing confidence in the UK regardless of the result, as Boeing, Avon and Aston Martin recent announcements to bring their HQ or manufacturing plants to the UK and trade here show.

Yannis Varofoukis was being very gloomy about the EU on Channel 4 news this evening calling the Greek crisis the methane gas leak before the big explosion

He thought BREXIT would just hasten the collapse of the EU.

WidowWadman

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees the value in these rights!

butteredmuffin - there's many of us who feel that way, I'm sure.

I grew up understanding that that was my right, as an EU citizen. I am proud to be an EU citizen. It feels like part of my national identity, as well as being British.

I feel the exact same way (French not British). And in my experience people who have studied/worked in other EU countries as young adults tend to feel the same way too. As you say, it just enriches your life, and I want my children to grow up with the same wide horizon I did.

HelpfulChap I'm a permanent resident and have British children, so I'm fairly sure I wouldn't get kicked out, but thanks for your concern.

The purpose of the EU is ever-closer union until it all becomes one country. How culturally "enriching" will it be then, once all the wonderful differences have been ironed out?

Helpfulchap,
Everyone should be voting due to their circumstances. This is the big picture! This is why I ask that a brixit supporter give a direct detailed example from their life would be improved by exit - not reandom "Red Tape " references or ukip links but an actual detailed example. I've given examples of how my life and industry has been improved by EU membership in recent posts.
Daisy,
I've no idea how you can claim that all parents would vote to leave. I'm a parent and believe that remaining in the EU is critical to my children's future.

"Ever-closer union" is a bit of an unhelpful soundbite, in my opinion.

It is never going to become a European superstate, since none of the member states actually want that to happen. EU law actually has pretty strict delimitations on what is within the competence of the EU and what is within the competence of the member states. Healthcare, for example, will never be harmonised. This has been seen many times in EU litigation. For example, the Commission tries to adopt a harmonising measure on free movement grounds (for example, regarding the advertising of tobacco products) and gets challenged in the European Court of Justice on the grounds that this is a measure relating to public health, which is within the competence of the member states and not the EU.

When the Commission tries to overstep its competence, someone usually makes a challenge and the European Court of Justice has no problem telling the Commission to get back in its box.

I know this doesn't help the Daily Mail's "Brussels dictatorship! ahhhh!" agenda, but there you have it.

Why do you think political union is incompatible with cultural differences?

"Ever-closer union" is a bit of an unhelpful soundbite, in my opinion.

You do know the phrase "ever closer union" is an objective that is explicitly stated in the preamble to theTreaty of Rome that established the European Community, as in

"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.

Article 2 of the Treaty also talks of “closer relations between the States belonging to it”.

"Ever closer union" cannot be dismissed as a mere sound bite. It is the entire driver for the EU experiment

It's no good trying to mitigate the eventual reach of the EU by saying that certain things are currently sunset to subsidiary. We all know that The next Treaty could easily bring anything into the scope of the ECJ. The ECJ is even ruling on whether spew can deport foreign prisoners. You don't even need Treaty change. The ECJ can interpret the Treaties to extend their reach. It has already done so in its interrogation of our supposed opt out of the social chapter

This is what I find very disturbing. The conspiracy ( and I am using that word advisedly ) to pretend the EU has no political aims to be a single superstate is very dishonest The Lisbon Treaty gave the EU the legal entity that it needed to be a 'country' in its own right. It has since applied for UN membership. If the EU intended to remain a federation of member countries it would not have sought legal entity, its own ambassadors, seats in international organisations etc. it would have already had more than its fair share of international representation via its constituent member countries.

It is frankly absurd to deny the EU is on the path to ever close union. Even Cameron recognises this with this so-called 'soecail deal' that supposedly keeps us out of this objective (but which doesn't in reality).

"Ever closer union" isn't just a soundbite, it's a principle of the EU. It has been mentioned in numerous treaties starting with Lisbon in 1957. Many have interpreted this as meaning an inevitable move to a federal Europe, and this has been supported by many EU politicians.

euobserver.com/political/123183

European Commission vice-president Viviane Reding has said

“In my personal view, the eurozone should become the United States of Europe.”

“a few years ago no one could have imagined member states being prepared to cede this amount of sovereignty.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_superstate#cite_note-EU_Commission_Press_Release-4

"We need a true political union. To me this means that we need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States."

The Union of European Federalists were supportive of Juncker becoming our current President of the EU Commission.

If "ever closer union" is something Cameron wanted Britain to be exempt from (in the "deal" which isn't guaranteed to be implemented) then why is that, if it's such a harmless concept, and Cameron wants us to stay in the EU?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12148307/Britain-can-enjoy-the-good-life-after-Brexit.html

"Remain will mean an unreformed EU free to steamroller forward its plans for an EU Army, common welfare and pensions, harmonised taxes and all the other trappings of a superstate. We will have a single European country.

The supposed triumphant "deal" will not make the slightest practical difference, nor is it legally enforceable or irreversible."

I am more interested in the effect than in the words themselves. Of course, a new treaty could be agreed which would merge all the different member states into one big superstate. Will that actually happen? No. The Treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement of all the member states, several of which have a referendum lock on treaty change.

And I'm not sure how you think changing the legal status of the EU makes it a country. It doesn't, and it isn't. Clearly.

The point I am making is that the EU cannot just do whatever it likes against the will of the member states. Its decisions can be (and frequently are) challenged. (That's why I currently have 108 "essential" cases on my reading list.)

Sometimes I wonder at the nerve of the Brexit camp dubbing the remain camp "Project Fear". I would say it was the other way around, actually.

Thank you Itinary

I thought I had entered a parallel universe where white was black and the EU was just a harmless little club that we fancied joining.

I would read those links very carefully Buttered. If you are studying a Masters in EU law and truly maintain that "ever closer union" is just an unhelpful "soundbite" then, I would be questioning whether I had actually grasped this whole EU thing.

There are a lot of Monnet professors in UK universities, funded by the EU to preach the religion of the EU.

the EU cannot just do whatever it likes against the will of the member states

Why would we want our own decisions on the UK's affairs to be dependent on 27 other countries agreeing with us, when we can opt to take back our sovereignty and through our chosen government can make all our own decisions for the UK? That's a contrast between us being less than 3.6 per cent influential and 100 per cent influential.

Its decisions can be (and frequently are) challenged.

The UK has been routinely outvoted when it has disagreed with the EU.

Springing, you are coming across like a conspiracy theorist.

Studying at postgraduate level means you do the reading, you think for yourself and you come to your own conclusions. None of my professors are interested in teaching me what to think. The whole point is that I decide what I think and then put my point of view across.

But the knowledge of EU law that I have gained through my studies has made it clear to me that whilst the EU is far from perfect, the vast majority of the arguments being put forward by the Brexit camp are incoherent and founded in fear, not fact.

Anyway... it's past my bedtime.

"Why would we want our own decisions on the UK's affairs to be dependent on 27 other countries agreeing with us, when we can opt to take back our sovereignty and through our chosen government can make all our own decisions for the UK?"

Of course we can do that. It just means we lose the benefits that we get from our membership. It is up to the individual voter to decide whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. My view is that they do, by a considerable margin.

I am more interested in the effect than in the words themselves.

But you are studying law. Law is all about words and interpreting them literally and according to the other rules of statutory interpretation. It's not about interpreting them to any 'effect' you would like to bring about

Of course, a new treaty could be agreed which would merge all the different member states into one big superstate. Will that actually happen? No. The Treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement of all the member states, several of which have a referendum lock on treaty change.

The EU does not have a good track record of listening to the results of referendums. It tends to repeat the question until it gets the result it wants. The lock is meaningless as whether any particular proposal actually falls within the scope of the lock is itself open to interpretation

And I'm not sure how you think changing the legal status of the EU makes it a country. It doesn't, and it isn't. Clearly.

It now has Kemal entity, just like every country has. It couldn't become a country without legal entity. If it didn't plan to be a country it would not have sought legal entity but would have 'borrowed' or 'relied' on the examine legal entity of its constituent member states

The point I am making is that the EU cannot just do whatever it likes against the will of the member states. Its decisions can be (and frequently are) challenged. (That's why I currently have 108 "essential" cases on my reading list.)

Oh come on. You know the EU can bully, bribe and batter any opposition to its plans. The ECJ is just it's helpful enforcer under the pretence of legal respectability

Sometimes I wonder at the nerve of the Brexit camp dubbing the remain camp "Project Fear". I would say it was the other way around, actually.

I could equally call the EU Project Deceit, Project Dishonesty.

I fail to see how any can argue against the actual words that are uttered by people like President Schulz who , while Cameron was discussing his ''special deal' with Junckers and Tusk and assuring us the UK could keep the £, Schulz s simultaneously addressing the European Parliament and telling them "There is only room for one currency in this Union". I watched him.

Lies and deceit the hallmarks of the EU. But hey, keep playing the game

But you are studying law. Law is all about words and interpreting them literally and according to the other rules of statutory interpretation. It's not about interpreting them to any 'effect' you would like to bring about.

Clearly, you are not studying law. But thanks for explaining to me how my subject works. Most helpful.

I am always up for having a debate, but I can see you are unwilling to even consider the alternative point of view. So I am going to bow out of this now.

Nice chatting with you.

Au contraire I feel as do thousands that it is time to Leave.
I post a very good piece by Priti Patel .
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3456595/LET-S-Employment-Minister-Priti-Patel-says-quitting-Europe-make-Britain-stronger.html

That's right Buttered - we're all swivel-eyed loon, Little Englanders who
live in geriatric la la land and can't understand that sovereignty isn't really important because it just means "getting things done".

I was expecting that.

Anyone studying law and trying to insist that "ever closer union" is just an unhelpful soundbite - words fail me. Until that point i had been prepared to take your argument seriously.

It depends whether you think freedom to move between countries is more important than your country being free.

I value the freedom of democracy more than the freedom of location. Otherwise we're just less free in a bigger place. The EU is like a prison which will have its door open for just one day in June.

All I see from the EU is the "freedom" to roll over and be willingly ruled by an undemocratic institution dominated by big business.

we're all swivel-eyed loon, Little Englanders who live in geriatric la la land

Your words, not mine. I'm afraid you are coming across as more than a little bit hysterical, and I am clearly wasting my time here.