Will you be allowed a free vote in Scotland @WeeTam ? I think your Kommissars Sturgeon and Salmond will demand a yes vote from you all
I don't think it will matter, Harry, as even if the majority of Scots voters vote to leave the EU she will take it as an opportunity to take the stance of the Scottish Government policy of wanting to stay in the EU and raise the issue of Independence yet again. It's funny how some governments will pursue a political goal via referendums until they get the decision they, and not the people, want.
I'm worried, because I keep finding myself at least partially agreeing with David Cameron. If he can win a better deal, and its increasingly looking like he will, then I'll vote to stay in.
I think that's a reasonable stance to take, Clueless, as just having a opinion that can't be changed stops you having a chance of understanding the real issues.. I don't think many people at the start of it all actually believed Cameron could get any meaningful agreements with the EU, especially when you heard the early reactions and comments from the EU leaders. Personally, I would doubt that the agreements he might get will be full or strong enough to satisfy opponents to the EU. The two main obstacles that I can see that will not be met are [a] immigration and the getting back of independent control of our borders the delaying of allowances given to immigrants and their families coming into the country without work. If any one of those are not agreed to then I can see the vote swinging into the NO area as the media and anti-EU organisations will make full use of that. There has to be a clear, well defined, explanation of what has been agreed and what those agreements actually are and mean.
Dave Cam will come back with his earth shattering deal that will mean the UK will still be ruled by Euro politicians that take great pleasure in spending our 12 Billion pounds a year whilst telling us what we can and cant do in our own country . All the guy is asking for in his "negotiations" is that the UK doesnt have to pay benefits for the first 4 years. After that anyone in euroland can apply for Uk benefits.( come to britain register as unemployed,go home for 4 years,come back and its free house,healthcare,education,child benefit,pension,dentistry,etc etc etc We are already skint in this near bankrupt country so how can we pay benefits to millions of europeans that fancy coming over here? "M" ............ OUT!
The benefits bit is a largely academic point. Most eu citizens that come here do so to work. They can, because they are willing to do the jobs that many of our own people are unwilling to do, or unwilling to do properly. It's just the one that the media is milking the most. The biggest issue for me is the 'ever closer union' part. While the eurozone was falling apart, Britain struggled through. Skint, but not bankrupt. We were able to do so because we are not in the eurozone, and although we contributed to several bailouts, we were not obliged to in law. The eu ministers want to change this, which would make Britain even more vulnerable to eurozone turbulence. DC is opposing this, along with opposing other deeper referrals of authority. We have seen in recent months, the migrant crisis. Tragic as it is that so many are forced to flee their homes, we've seen that not all migrants are nice people. Some of those that did the Paris attacks were confirmed to have masqueraded as refugees, and then there's the disgraceful behaviour in cologne and other German and Austrian cities. Of course most are undoubtedly good people, but it is right that the British government should be a bit careful about who and how many we welcome. The eu wants to takeaway our right to decide, and they're not a fan of the fact that we opted out of shengan, so we still retain the right to control our boarders, even if we don't currently exercise that right with much rigueur. The eu is becoming a single superstate. Yet it is made up of such a diverse range of cultures, with diverse history and diverse allegiances. It is a good thing that we are all allied, but I'm allied with my friends and families without us dictating to each other. The eu can be a good thing, if it is a union of friendly nations, friends that can each do their own thing. Just like I can go for a pint with my mates, and I might get outvoted on choice of pub, but I'm free to go elsewhere without fallout if I want to. The eu should be the same. All friends, but the group doesn't dictate. As its heading, the eu wants to be the group of mates that calls you names if you don't go to the pub on their terms. DC is opposing this. And finally, it can't have escaped anyone's notice, the world is on the verge of war. Loads of people would like to have a direct pop at us. Russia is being a sod. China is openly taking over the world, first financially and more recently, building new military bases on newly illegally built islands, the middle east is some crazy free for all, America can't decide who to fight next. All this while Europe has a very disparate set of defence capabilities, and Britain has stripped the military to the almost comical extent that we have brand new aircraft carriers with no planes to go on them, and a dependency on European allies to build our main fighter jet, which incidentally has been reported as less capable than our almost vintage tornadoes. And our army keeps getting made redundant. As it stands at the moment, being in an effective, reasonable, manageable union with most of Europe would be a good thing. However everything has a price, and a price limit. If the eu has too much control, to the extent that it makes us vulnerable on many vectors, as it will be if left unchecked, then the price is too high.
Don't know if anyone else thinks this - but Dave's recent effort at renegotiation seems to have fallen flat on its face. Yes the UK can cut in work benefits and reject European law - but only if everyone else says we can. I think the whole point of the negotiations has been lost somewhere along the way. Assuming that other EU members support the proposals (in a fortnight) - it's a referendum this June. The only question really is, do the EU want us to close the door on the way out.
I'm not sure what's worse. An unelected boss of Europe has dictated to us, or our elected leader has tried to tell us he's won when clearly, once again, just like when he said he'd refused to pay that unexpected bill, he's achieved exactly nothing.
I never thought he would achieve anything, Europe is immovable and unbending, which is the very reason we want to leave. The poorer countries have too much to gain by maintaining things the way they are, so why would they agree to any earth shattering changes. Lets dump it and let France and Germany get on with running it, which is how the whole thing started out.
And why is DC hell bent on rushing the referendum through? We need to see a finalised, concrete proposal before we can make an informed decision as to which way to vote. We need time to hear all sides once such a proposal has been finalised. So far, it looks like we're going to be asked to vote without yet knowing what exactly we're voting for. Exactly like when DC was voted in without any clear policy.
