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?

Helpful
My statement that total security is not possible outside of a police state is not an attack on women or women's rights! It's a recognition of the fact we will never prevent all terrorist crimes or all violent crimes whilst we maintain any personal liberty. This was in reaction to your comment that government is not doing it's job if a single UK person is injured.

The EUs own border agency admits that there were 1.8mn illegal crossings into Europe in 2015. Up 600% from 2014.

2016 is likely to be just as bad.

Hope you ladies like EastEnders and Coronation Street, its what your evenings are going to consist of sooner than you might think.

Thankfully it looks like the Dutch have seen sense already. Why do you think the Govt is spending £9 million on pro-EU propaganda over the next couple of months? They know Leave will win a straight vote.

HelpfulChap I think we all want a straight vote. So far I've been contacted 3 times by the "leave" campaign (twice in person, once by mail), and 0 times by the "stay" campaign.

But we are agreed about one thing, I think Brexit is likely to win the referendum. Because people are scared.

The Uk would have to opt in to Schengen for things to change. The other 27 can not out vote the UK on this isssue.

At the moment, but you see how with organ donation we may soon have to actively vote out, rather than Out continuing to be the default position. The assumption will be everyone wants to donate on coma or death.

I find it extraordinary that none of you understand how things can change rapidly. Some people's lives in other parts of the world have changed overnight.

did you miss what I posted earlier about a change in law requiring a UK referendum?

international law is protecting the UK Schengen agreement very thoroughly. Now you can choose to believe international law is meaningless, but then we may as well assume the EU will decide to annex the UK, in which case why are we even bothering to have a referendum.

Waffle: So you recognise that you have been consistently wrong on this very important Schengen issue. Thank you.

UK does not have to join the Schengen system. This special status is secured by a legally binding Protocol to the EU Treaties

I know all this, but don't any of you compute that pressure can be brought to bear in some way on our govt of the day, in an area important to UK. It's called horse trading, and some time some participants have to give up more than other participants. Negotiation is based on not only what is mutually beneficial, but the best one party can get for itself by using leverage, even if this meaning disadvantaging one or two members.

The poor man of the EU is currently doing latrine duty - Greece. That is leverage being used against Greece with the carrot & stick that their debt will be reduced if they do not display their attitude to so many migrants landing on your shores,and process them for us.

And you think that the UK is going to be in a position to negotiate better deals on its own than as part of the EU. Really?

It's the difference between taking a chance and going self-employed (and all that that can bring you, or not) or staying in a reasonably safe PAYE job. I don't know if there any enough politicians who understand what being individualistic and independent actually means, and what loving and standing up for your country also means.

It's the difference between taking a chance and going self-employed (and all that that can bring you, or not) or staying in a reasonably safe PAYE job.

That's not an unreasonable comparison. But I would disagree that preferring the second option necessarily means you love your country any less. In fact politicians may have a duty of care not to pick a high risk, high reward path for the country, if there is a safer but less exciting option available.

Those individuals who have 'made it' big in business were all stand-alone people who trode their own paths. They understood that they would either succeed or fall, but just because you can fail does not mean you should not try to exercise your full talent/ideas/independence - whatever it might be. For us it would mean having a large influence on the life and direction of our country. At the moment it is fragmented into ethnic tribes. Of course, foreign-born people will mostly want to live amongst their own kind but I am speaking of a refusal to integrate. Moreover most never had any intention to integrate - to my mind that is a very hostile attitude.

I am a Londoner. There are a few areas in East London where no one living there has to venture outside of it. Those who also work in the same environment can go for months & months before they see another type of face. Those that commute, do not commute very far and work in a trade run by and employing not only their countrymen, but usually persons from the same small area of their country of origin. They have replicated the narrow confines of life because that is how they prefer it. But that is not good for anyone else.

The UK constantly hands more power to the EU without any referendum.

Every day that we are part of the EU and are bound to accept laws made in Brussles and handed to us, we are handing more power to the EU.

Theresa May, despite her carefully stage-managed performance at the Tory party at which she tried to signal her faux Eurosceptism, then voluntarily signed the UK into the European Arrest Warrant, - yet another transfer if power from the people of the Uk to the EU, without a referendum.

The EAW came into force in 2004. Nothing to do with Theresa May.

Waffle there is certainly a discussion to be had about multiculturalism and integration, but I'm not sure this is the right thread, because immigration has happened and will continue to happen with or without Brexit.

Also I'm not sure what your problem is with a democratically elected British government making decisions on behalf of the country. If the government thinks it's in the national interest to enter an EU agreement that makes it easier to deport criminals from Britain, then that's how democracy works. We can't have referendums on everything, that'd be completely unworkable.

The EAW came into force in 2004.

For a limited time period.

Nothing to do with Theresa May.

Theresa May chose to voluntarily permanently opt back in to the EAW.

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/29/european-arrest-warrant-q-and-a

exactly - the British government made a choice - a voluntary choice - to opt in. Because they believed it was in the national interest. This is not some evil EU plot to force the UK to hand in powers, unless I'm drastically mis-reading your posts.

*exactly - the British government made a choice - a voluntary choice - to opt in. Because they believed it was in the national interest. This is not some evil EU plot to force the UK to hand in powers, unless I'm drastically mis-reading your posts

We are supposed to be consulted before any future 'transfer of power' to the EU.

The EAW opt in is a transfer of power. It's actually a diminution of the rights of the British people. that have existed for centuries. It removes the right of Habeas Corpus permanently.

It's an example of the Tories promising you one thing and doing the exact opposite.

I won't argue with you on the Tories' two-facedness, but surely that was a promise that sounded good on the election trail, but was actually entirely impractical. We can't have a referendum every other year on every EU-related matter, that's just not going to happen. That's why we elect representatives, so we don't have to vote directly on everything.

I get you're angry you were lied to, but seems to me that your beef here is with the British government, and not with the EU.

Springing:
I can go into more detail but it will not be of interest to those on this thread.

Successive UK governments have strongly supported the EAW since its introduction in 2004. It was never intended to be time limited. The UK opted out of 130 EU police and criminal justice measures in July 2013 - including the EAW - after both houses Parliament decided they wanted to opt out of the measures and then to re-join individual measures “where it is in the national interest to do so”.

The EAW has always had very strong cross party support and the UK chose again to opt back in. There was some wrangling around the process - but sentiment was very clear. That is not to say it cannot be improved - there are issues of proportionality- but with the exception of a small handful of Brexiters everyone acknowledges that the EAW is way better than the mish mash of bilateral extradition procedures it replaced.

Agree, no country can have referenda for everything. But we were duped in the 70s, believing we were entering a mutually beneficial common economic market.

As regards deportation of serious crims, I would like GB to be in a position whereby we notify that someone is being sent back to country of origin. Do you recall that UK citizen who had lived in Oz for 40 yrs (most of his life), never taken citizenship there but was still deported back to us. That's what comes from having a strong policy on returning criminals; everyone is aware of the policy and it is not negotiable. The only reason you feel it is easier to do this within the EU is because it's part of the agreement. I am talking about making policy, and making it known to the whole world so that everyone knows what GB's position is. Just like Thailand on drug smuggling.

Also I'm not sure what your problem is with a democratically elected British government making decisions on behalf of the country.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.

It's also what you have been arguing AGAINST throughout this thread.

Welcome to the other side

If the government thinks it's in the national interest to enter an EU agreement that makes it easier to deport criminals from Britain, then that's how democracy works.

The EAW is not solely about 'deporting criminals. We have that power through other means anyway. It's about sending innocent British people for trial abroad where they may be imprisoned without trial or charge, or held under conditions that would be illegal in the UK.

We can't have referendums on everything, that'd be completely unworkable.

Tell that to the Swizz. They have direct democracy.

but with the exception of a small handful of Brexiters everyone acknowledges that the EAW is way better than the mish mash of bilateral extradition procedures it replaced.

That statement would not be supported by many of the constitutional lawyers who argued against the EAW.

It was the EAW that jailed the parents of the young boy with cancer who had left the UK and taken him to Spain, something they were entitled to do and which they were wrongly imprisoned and were never put on trial for doing so.I

Haha Springing glad to see we can agree on something!

The point is not whether or not the EAW is a good thing, to be honest I have no idea - the point is that it was agreed to by the British government, ie exactly the process you're clamouring for. We can't always happy with the decisions of our government, but that's also democracy.

And yes I thought of mentioning the Swiss example, and then thought, nah, let's leave that can of worms unopened If direct democracy is what you really want though, that'll require a much bigger constitutional upheaval than Brexit!