Brexit survey - Impact of the Greek crisis

[Varinia]

If you voted to LEAVE the EU in last year’s referendum, please give up 2 minutes of your time to complete a very short survey conducted by the University of Bedfordshire (demographics and two questions only) on the effect of the Greek crisis on your decision to vote leave.
If you can, please also share with friends and family where relevant as we're looking for as large a sample as possible.
Thank you very much in advance

bedshealthsciences.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ebT7Lg8u33L3ctn

Its also still not as bad as the "breaking point" poster.

Whataboutery, Danny.

Just because the Breaking Point poster was a disgusting piece of work, it doesn't change the fact that the EU 'advert' was disgusting too.

It does look bad.

However the EU isn't an inherently racist institution and has promoted laws relating to equality. This was one video produced by a part of the commission in 2012 which was poorly thought out, with its blantat references to things like Kill Bill etc.

The "Breaking Point" poster was one which was created by an organisation that is inherently racist and xenophobic and which exploited people's prejudices in order to get them to vote a certain way.

purits Because whenever a country has a vote and the EU don't like the result, the EU keep telling them to run the vote again until the country votes the 'proper'way (see Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty).
The EU doesn't like it when the populace don't do as they are told.

2nd Nice Treaty referendum in Ireland was held against a backdrop of different circumstances from the first one. In the first referendum, voters felt that Ireland's neutrality could be compromised. Voters felt these were addressed by certain assurances protecting neutrality being put in place for the second referendum.

"The Irish government, having obtained the Seville Declaration on Ireland's policy of military neutrality from the European Council, decided to have another referendum on the Treaty of Nice on Saturday, 19 October 2002. Two significant qualifications were included in the second proposed amendment, one requiring the consent of the Dáil for enhanced cooperation under the treaty, and another preventing Ireland from joining any EU common defence policy."

Lisbon Treaty : I know less about the changes but again certain issues seem to have been agreed for the second referendum on the treaty in the form of a protocol.

"The Taoiseach, ..., won guarantees from European Union leaders that Irish policies on tax, abortion and military neutrality would not be affected by Ireland ratifying the treaty.

"Mr Cowen needed the guarantees in the form of a "protocol" - the most legally watertight form of EU agreement. He said he could not reverse last year's Irish No to the treaty without the protocol."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5579684/Ireland-to-hold-second-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

Neutrality is always a big one. So both referenda were carried out a second time with guarantees which were not in place the first time round.

It is just disingenuous when people trot the Nice and Lisbon Treaty referenda out as an example of something to suit their agenda without knowing there had

a) been a stumbling block was.
b) what the stumbling block was
c) how the stumbling block had been dealt with

So the issues people were worried about in the treaties the first time around had been put to bed. So 2nd referenda in both cases in different context from the first.

I agree Caileach, its often used as the EU been undemocratic, when its not.

But like lots of points in the referendum, its a half truth, or partial truth and then used to back an argument that the full facts wouldn't let it do.

Danny Turkey is geographically closer to the EU than the UK, but no freedom of movement. Libya is closer to Greece and Italy than the UK - neighbours, but no free movement. In 2007, when Romania joined, Turkey had a higher GDP per capita, as had Libya. Why the colour bar?

Carol, because of the human rights record of Turkey, Turkey is however part of the customs union and its citizens have visa free travel.

If Turkey met the conditions of membership it would be a member.

Free movement is a right conferred on EU citizens by dint of their nationality and therefore by their membership of the EU, not colour. Also on associated members. Again by nationality and not colour. What a strange comment about a colour bar.

Non-EU people do not have that right because they are not EU citizens or associated members and do not benefit from the four freedoms.

Maybe the UK once 'free' from the EU shackles could do a trade agreement with Turkey. British people Johnson do seem very keen on Turkey joining a trade bloc. And with the UK, views on human rights won't be a stumbling block, I presume, as May is very happy to sell them weapons.

Danny Turkey do not have visa free travel to EU. Turkey has been an associate member since 1963. The only reason they are not allowed to join is racism.
In 1999 the EU recognised them as on an equal footing to other candidates. Austria and France have repeatedly blocked membership. Why?
What about North Africa, as a closer neighbour to Southern EU countries than UK, Sweden etc? I thought neighbours got together?
Cailleach1 Why is EU membership blocked to majority non-white countries?

Turkey is expected to have visa free access very soon though is it not? I do remember this being made a big thing out of when the leave debate was going on.

Turkey hasn't improved its human rights record, and there is the issue of Greece and territorial issues, the treatment of minorities. Turkey also only abolished the death penalty in 2004, you can't be in the EU and have the death penalty.

North Africa may be closer to some European Countries, but all of the EU countries share more borders with other EU countries than they do North Africa.

Your desperation to make the EU out to be racist is frankly very funny, but it is desperate. Own your victory, you only won because you pandered to the prejudices of lots of the people that voted with you.

"That's what makes me angry because if you are using these things to back up an argument then at least know a bit about what you are talking about!"

I totally agree with that QofF. But its a vain hope, when indeed, the vast majority are reliant on MSM for overseas news. The lack of interaction with say Italians, or speaking Italian, or even understanding how the Italian systems work, means were almost 100% reliant on MSM. Even, when we share the same language, social media platforms, as with the US, there was/is a huge number of UK residents who didnt/still dont, understand the US electoral system for example. If we're still struggling with basics with shared language, shared media nations, what chance have we got with understanding Spiros' position in Greece?

Totally and unhealthily reliant on MSM, but Id still argue its a tad unfair to then blame some UK posters for either repeating MSM back, or taking a view clearly MSM intend them to take.

What has been great on here, Bananagio particularly, is she has posted many times over the last year explaining her and or, the position in Italy. Her posts have been really really informative, and a great insiders view. I hope my post earlier didnt offend, I was rather clumsily, attempting to explain why we are and will remain, impossibly ignorant to Greece, Italy, and others positions.

"Turkey is expected to have visa free access very soon though is it not? "

No.

But Ill refer you to the post Ive just made immediately above.

Well, Visa free access was being discussed last year, and there were a few conditions laid out for it, but that was prior to the coup and subsequent crack down, which I think has had an influence.

Rorty, a No is still information!

I'm sure they'll be equally grateful if you fill in the survey, regardless of whether for you there was a connection or not.

It makes for a more accurate study.

The study might actually be distorted if the only people who answered were those who felt Greece affected their decision, and had interesting and detailed explanations of why.

Danny I agree some Leavers are racist. You have to accept that the EU is also.
If immigration is such a great thing, why is the EU in turmoil over non-EU refugees coming into Italy and Greece and having to share them out on a quota system? Surely Greece and Italy should be desperate to hold onto them for the economic benefits they bring?

Danny Could you give me your view on the remain voters who are not happy with freedom of movement and current levels of immigration?

Are they racist?

If they are not, please can you explain why they are not, but, in your view, leave voters who are not happy with freedom of movement and current levels of immigration are?

Latest Ashcroft poll

the negotiations come down to striking a balance between access to the single market and controlling immigration, most voters would give the latter a higher priority. As well as two thirds of Leave voters, nearly one in five Remain voters (including nearly three in ten of those who voted Conservative in 2015) said controlling immigration was more important

lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/04/new-political-landscape-britain-expects-brexit/

"Cailleach1 Why is EU membership blocked to majority non-white countries?"

I don't think there are any majority non-white European countries. Members aren't simply the colonies or former colonies. It is not the Commonwealth.

Caillech1 Which brings me back to Turkey - why have Austria and France vetoed them apart from skin colour?

Danny or anyone got an answer to why the migrant crisis was a crisis if uncontrolled immigration is such a great thing? Why does the EU not just have open borders?

The only reason [Turkey is] not allowed to join is racism.

I think Turkey's lamentable human rights record, the quasi-dictator it currently has in charge and its illegal occupation of another EU country's territory have something to do with the EU's refusal to allow it to become a full member.

Agreed Lala, Carol, I think your attempts to justify that the EU is racist smack of desperation really.

Danny I would be really interested in your view on whether remain voters who prioritise control of immigration over membership of the single market (estimated as a fifth in the latest Ashcroft poll, see above) are racists?

I'd ask for their reasons first.

However the majority of reasons given tend to be not to do with immigration, public services, benefits, low wages ( very marginal, in certain areas and occupations, made utterly inconsequential due to the tax threshold increases) social housing and house prices.

I

I don't understand your answer. You have been quite clear that you believe leave voters were motivated by wanting to control EU immigration and that, in your view, this is due to their "prejudices" and is not a "legitimate" view.

Does the same apply to the remain voters who want to control EU immigration? Are they motivated by "prejudice" and is their view "not legitimate"?

Is there some difference in whether some one who wants control of EU immigration is racist or predjudiced, depending on whether they voted leave or remain? If there is, please can you explain the basis for this difference as I find it quite confusing?