Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


If you aren't sure how to do that, see this thread:

If you still can't log in, email whu*** (where *** is replaced by numbers I am sure you can work out.) giving the name of the browser and whether you are on PC or mobile device.
Categories +
Table +
PhysioRoom +

The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

edited November 2016 in Miscellaneous
Thought it would be good to gauge opinion on one of the most important upcoming decisions to determine the future of the U.K.

In sure it is likely to be every bit as divisive and emotive as the countless debates about our former manager and captain!!


  • Summary of the agreed changes to the status quo.

    1. A seven-year term for the 'emergency brake' to restrict EU migrants in the UK claiming in-work benefits.
    2. Child benefit payments indexed to the cost of living for children living outside the UK
    3. Any single non-eurozone country able to trigger a debate about ‘problem’ eurozone laws.
    4. An opt-out stating that EU treaty references to 'ever-closer union' don't apply to the UK.

    I would have voted 'in' before this 'new deal', and will still vote 'in' (if I'm eligible to vote, which I think I will be).

    I wonder if anyone who would have voted out before, will be persuaded otherwise now. ;hmm
  • I remain firmly in the "In" camp and will be campaigning for us to stay.
  • I must admit I'm truly undecided. I remain to be convinced that the deal gives the UK to be fully in control of areas that matter to it most (and I'm not talking about allowing us to price are fruit and veg in pounds and ounces)
  • Straight croissants rather than bendy, very important. ;wink
  • Out - Never wanted in in the first place and nothing has happened since to change my mind.
    This new "deal" is just tinkering and will probably be torn up by the EU at the first opportunity anyway.
  • I would vote in - globalization is a fact of today's world, I feel that the days of our ability to influence world affairs and effectively trade as an independent nation are behind us, but it was a good effort and fun whilst it lasted ;wink

  • In, always in.
  • In. I'm not convinced we'd be better off out.
  • Definitely out, this 'deal' really is nothing and is likely to be overturned by the European Parliament straight after a UK referendum if the UK votes 'in'. Personally the argument for me has always been about self-determination. How we do will depend on us not Europe. Europe as a whole is regressing, we are already in a Global economy not a European one.

    I am English but also European and happy to work closely with Europe but I am not happy to be in a position where we have so little control over what can and cannot be done in our own country. I am happy to be a member of a European Free Trade area, which is all the British People have ever had the opportunity to vote for/against, we have never been given the right to vote for the European Project as it now is.

    One of the discussions that sums it all up for me is this new position where 55% of European sovereign governments have to be against a European law/regulation/decision before the European Government will reconsider it (not change it). Once re-considered they can still implement it even though a majority is against it. This is clearly not a democracy.
  • In but much more has to be done to make the EU more efficient and less wasteful
  • Early exit poll shows: -
    8 In, 2 Out and 1 Undecided
  • IronHerb said:

    Early exit poll shows: -
    8 In, 2 Out 1 Undecided and one Nee ;llama

    Fixed it for ya! ;ok ;wink
  • Out! I never wanted to join in the first place. We have given away too much including our rights to our own law above EU law. We don't have control over our own country. We play second fiddle to Brussels unelected government.
    Norway are not in the EU and they manage to survive by forming economical alliances with traders in th EU and outside.
    The money we pay in each week would help get our NHS back to how it should be!
  • I think I'm leaning towards the OUT vote
  • Undecided. But I would like the Government to have more power and being able to distinguish our own laws without the interception of Brussels.

    It has been a get out of jail card for people who may be truly guilty and then play the Human Rights card and Brussels delivers a not guilty decision.

    I would also like to see pathetic laws thrown out, especially those affecting the shape, size and the manner that we weigh our foods.

    I would like to understand more about how small businesses would fair from pulling out of the EU. Before making my decision.

  • edited February 2016
    Re Human Rights - not really anything to do with European Union.

    The UK is a signatory to the Convention on Human Rights. If we left the EU, we'd still be bound by that signature.

    Personally speaking, I think if the UK has done anything good in the international stage it is to stand up for human rights and take a lead in establishing the UN Convention on Human Rights to secure rights for ALL of us - I think we should be proud of that, not try to weaken it.

    The facts, rather than the myths:
  • MJ, the International Court of Human Rights is separate to the EU, so the Human Rights card is not actually part of the EU debate, although many will think it is.

    I do agree that the Human Rights legislation often comes across on the side of the wrong-doer rather than the victim and just wish some of our judges would stand up to the injustice that appears to be delivered all too often.
  • I'm in the out group if that makes sense
  • i think the opportunity for the UK to have a debate and vote is good, but it is long overdue. A referendum should have been held around the time of Mastricht as that changed what was essentially a trade zone/block that we'd joined in the 1970's into something very different indeed.
  • In. It's all about the economy.

    And I hear a lot about control. But what, exactly, do we not have control of. Which specific law would the out camp actually repeal or introduce.

    And it is a myth that the size and shape and method of weighing food is somehow subject to EU control against our will. And even if it was, really, so what.
  • Unfortunately it really is too late to get out without it being a self destructive act. The issue is that most of those left in know that they cannot allow it to fail as was demonstrated by the lengths gone to keep in Greece. Should we leave the terms of trade and constraints upon us will be so harsh as they will need to see us fail as a warning to others not to leave, we would be used as an example to demonstrate that entry into the EU is permanent. The idea we would be able to leave and have the best of both worlds is fanciful to say the least. Should we leave and be successful it is the end of the European Union, should we leave and fail the EU becomes stronger through fear.

    My main hope is that it is debated intelligently and the debate should not focus upon this deal which is getting all the headlines. I am not sure the figure saved through this brake on in work benefits and child benefit are really significant enough to be worthy of consideration with regard in or out. Ideologically the benefit system through the EU is flawed but to decide on that is a bit like deciding to sell your house because you don't like the curtains, there may be good reasons to sell your house but curtains is not one of them, and so there may be good reason to leave but the figures amounted to through those issues are not one. The deal for protection for the city of London was about 100 times more important but seen as secondary to the benefits issue as that is the one the media have got everyone stirred up about.

    The main problem with the EU is that it has grown too fast in an all or nothing gamble, it is a brilliant idea to have the main nations of Europe form a union as the aims and benefits are shared. Once the poorer nations were included it started to go wrong, they should have had free trade but not movement or shared currency.

    Ultimately I find an awful lot wrong with the EU but I just think we are already too far in and the risk of leaving too great. It may be better to take this deal even though it amounts to little and should the EU unravel anyhow which is always a possibility due to popular uprising then we can leave in an orderly fashion with everyone else, but to take the risk of being the first to leave and see if we can make it better on our own would be too risky.

    So at this present moment I am IN.
  • Should we leave the terms of trade and constraints upon us will be so harsh as they will need to see us fail as a warning to others not to leave

    Sorry, but you know this for sure? Where's your evidence?

    Do you really think a German company which has a strong, positive and profitable
    trading relationship with a British company will stop trading with it or impose punitive restrictions because Britain leaves the EU? I for one don't.

    What I'm keen to hear from the IN campaign is the positive reasons for staying in, rather than the threats and negative reasons for not staying in.

    Comments like an exit being a "threat to our national security" from our own prime minister are really not helpful. Is he serious? What's his rationale? We live in a society where people are prepared to randomly blow themselves and innocent people up, all whilst we are members of the EU. Personally speaking, over the last twenty years or so I feel very much less safe in this country than previously. That's not to say leaving the EU will necessarily make me feel more safe, but I certainly won't feel any more safe by staying in either.

  • edited February 2016
    re the Trading point, it's my understanding (admittedly not very sound) that it won't be for individual companies (as per your example) to decide until the govts (or in this case the EU and UK ) have put in place bilateral trade agreements....

    And therefore that a strong economic argument for staying in is that the UK govt on its own negotiating with other countries on an individual basis is unlikely to be able to negotiate such advantageous terms (since the UK market is relatively small) when compared with the power of the EU to negotiating on behalf of its member states (since that market is huge).

    I know that refers to European countries trading with those outside the EU - but isn't the principle the same?

    And so won't this be bad for UK businesses, because they will be competing in markets with EU-based companies who have an advantage over them?
  • On the security issue, isn't the argument that EU wide co-operation and information-sharing gives you more bang for your bucks, as it were, that going t alone?

    But security isn't just related to terrorist threat.
  • Mrs G

    Not being in the EU doesn't mean we aren't part of NATO, etc? And on the point of national security, and going it alone, etc, how have the likes of Switzerland coped?
This discussion has been closed.