New Poll. Europe: In or Out

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I see the "INS" have taken the lead.

A poll of Brighton supporters who predominantly hail from the most liberal and "European" of all British cities is not representative of the U.K. as a whole.

The biggest surprise is that it's close.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No, that's Gove actually.

(In any sort of real-world situation no judge will overturn the legally arrived at decision of all EU heads of state. Mr Gove is, to coin a word, scaremongering.)

I would agree with you but I'm yet to see any evidence that this deal is legally binding as yet. Not a single members parliament has voted on it yet.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Not sure how it worked 50 years ago. But currently within eu member states you can live move work freely. If uk votes to leave that right would be gone for all eu nationals here and uk expats in other eu states. No one knows what is going to happen. You might be voting out and then surrendering your rigth to live and work freely in any eu state. Therfore my partner who is french might have to leave her home and family in the uk.

What a load of poppycock. I spend quite a lot of time in France and I've bumped into people living there from the US, Canada, India, South Africa and Australia. As far as I'm aware none of those countries belong to the EU so why would it be any different after Brexit ? I'm pretty sure you don't have to wander very far in Brighton to find people living here from non-EU states either.

 

[beorhthelm]

No, that's Gove actually.

(In any sort of real-world situation no judge will overturn the legally arrived at decision of all EU heads of state. Mr Gove is, to coin a word, scaremongering.)

its not scaremongering, its a perfectly reasonable observation that the deal Cameroon has made has no legal foundation. it will need to put into treaties to be solidified, at the moment its basically an IOU that they will put these clauses in the next treaty. in the mean time the European Court may see a case before it touching on the areas concerned, and have to follow the law provided by the existing treaties and leglisation.

this actually drives right the heart of the problem of the EU, how we have lost sovereignty to the foreign courts for many domestic matters.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

its not scaremongering, its a perfectly reasonable observation that the deal Cameroon has made has no legal foundation. it will need to put into treaties to be solidified, at the moment its basically an IOU that they will put these clauses in the next treaty. in the mean time the European Court may see a case before it touching on the areas concerned, and have to follow the law provided by the existing treaties and leglisation.

this actually drives right the heart of the problem of the EU, how we have lost sovereignty to the foreign courts for many domestic matters.

I believe the agreement is being registered at the UN in the next day or so, and becomes part of International Law at that point

 

[drew]

The thing is this is a bit like the recent effort where civil servants write to 100 FTSE bigwigs and 36 sign a letter.This is somwhow an endorsement we must stay in the EU because look who has signed.
They don’t want to shout about the 64 that didn’t sign.

The same thing applies here,civil servants write to the former bigwigs of these 7 departments and 13 reply endorsing a letter and somehow it confirms we can only be safe if we stay in the EU.

What about the 43 who didn’t agree and didn’t sign?

So you are trying to put an 'out' spin on these two things. You would have some credibility if the those that hadn't signed supporting the 'in' campaign actually had signed an alternative supporting the 'out' camp. At the moment, I don't think they have.

 

[drew]

What a load of poppycock. I spend quite a lot of time in France and I've bumped into people living there from the US, Canada, India, South Africa and Australia. As far as I'm aware none of those countries belong to the EU so why would it be any different after Brexit ? I'm pretty sure you don't have to wander very far in Brighton to find people living here from non-EU states either.

Haven't they all had to get visas? Think the cut of is if you are staying longer than 90 days.

 

[beorhthelm]

I believe the agreement is being registered at the UN in the next day or so, and becomes part of International Law at that point

i dont know how much weight that has, whether it merely holds the other EU nations to recognise the agreement when the time comes to enshrine it in an actual treaty. im sure i read somewhere that it amounts to notarizing the agreement.

here's what the Attorney General says in rejecting Gove's point (from Guardian):

“It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements between the 28 nation states of the EU. This is one of those agreements, with equivalent legal force to other agreements such as treaties.
“That is not just my opinion – it is the opinion of this government’s lawyers, lawyers for the EU, and, I suspect, the majority of lawyers in this country.”

so in his pro-EU opinion and the opinion of many pro-EU laywers, this agreement will be taken into account. thats the best he can offer. and its not the European Court's opinion, who may well differ. faced a tricky case, having to decide between upholding an agreement over dinner between leaders, or a treaty ratified by 28 members parliaments, which do you think the European Court will give most weight to?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

i dont know how much weight that has, whether it merely holds the other EU nations to recognise the agreement when the time comes to enshrine it in an actual treaty. im sure i read somewhere that it amounts to notarizing the agreement.

here's what the Attorney General says in rejecting Gove's point (from Guardian):

“It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements between the 28 nation states of the EU. This is one of those agreements, with equivalent legal force to other agreements such as treaties.
“That is not just my opinion – it is the opinion of this government’s lawyers, lawyers for the EU, and, I suspect, the majority of lawyers in this country.”

so in his pro-EU opinion and the opinion of many pro-EU laywers, this agreement will be taken into account. thats the best he can offer. and its not the European Court's opinion, who may well differ. faced a tricky case, having to decide between upholding an agreement over dinner between leaders, or a treaty ratified by 28 members parliaments, which do you think the European Court will give most weight to?

You misunderstand both how binding 'taking into account' is, and also how the 'agreement over dinner' is afforded the same weight as a treaty under the Vienna Convention on treaties.

Whilst any law on the planet can be challenged in court, this agreement has no more vulnerabilty to being overturned in court than any full EU treaty.

 

[pastafarian]

So you are trying to put an 'out' spin on these two things. You would have some credibility if the those that hadn't signed supporting the 'in' campaign actually had signed an alternative supporting the 'out' camp. At the moment, I don't think they have.

There is no out spin here,even though I am an outer.

The point is some former heads of these military departments have signed,plenty more former heads of these military departments did not sign

This does not suggest we would be better off OUT at all. All it says is that the claim we are better off IN with regards to security doesnt really hold much water.

The better off IN for security reason claims are usually full of holes anyway.

 

[Eeyore]

The thing is this is a bit like the recent effort where civil servants write to 100 FTSE bigwigs and 36 sign a letter.This is somwhow an endorsement we must stay in the EU because look who has signed.
They don’t want to shout about the 64 that didn’t sign.

The same thing applies here,civil servants write to the former bigwigs of these 7 departments and 13 reply endorsing a letter and somehow it confirms we can only be safe if we stay in the EU.

What about the 43 who didn’t agree and didn’t sign?

Your point would have validity when such people sign a letter or whatever backing the call to leave. I think,in the case of 'big business' a lot of them are staying out of it.

 

[drew]

There is no out spin here,even though I am an outer.

The point is some former heads of these military departments have signed,plenty more former heads of these military departments did not sign

This does not suggest we would be better off OUT at all. All it says is that the claim we are better off IN with regards to security doesnt really hold much water.

The better off IN for security reason claims are usually full of holes anyway.

Of course you are putting an out spin on it. Don't quite see why you are denying it. You want out so you are going to comment on that basis.

I'll state again, as it stands, it would seem more people of note have signed a letter stating we should stay in rather than leave. They may not be the majority of people of note but until there are more signing a letter to leave the EU then of course it 'holds water'.

 

[pastafarian]

Of course you are putting an out spin on it. Don't quite see why you are denying it. You want out so you are going to comment on that basis.

I'll state again, as it stands, it would seem more people of note have signed a letter stating we should stay in rather than leave. They may not be the majority of people of note but until there are more signing a letter to leave the EU then of course it 'holds water'.

you are free to interpret what I know I am trying to say,even if I may not be making myself clear.
If all the former heads of these military departments had signed a letter saying our security was vital to being part of the EU I would sit up and listen. They havnt though,less than 25% of the former heads of these departments listed signed.

I fail to be impressed by this number or convinced the idea they are signing up for therefore holds much water.

This does NOT validate any claim we are better off out either, it just means in this instance the remaining IN claims simply fail.

 

[drew]

you are free to interpret what I know I am trying to say,even if I may not be making myself clear.
If all the former heads of these military departments had signed a letter saying our security was vital to being part of the EU I would sit up and listen. They havnt though,less than 25% of the former heads of these departments listed signed.

I fail to be impressed by this number or convinced the idea they are signing up for therefore holds much water.

This does NOT validate any claim we are better off out either, it just means in this instance the remaining IN claims simply fail.

Whatever!!!

The ins will say 25% have signed in support and 75% haven't signed to pull out.

The outs will say only 25% signed in support and 75% didn't.

Whether you like it or not, it's spin.

 

[marshy68]

What a load of poppycock. I spend quite a lot of time in France and I've bumped into people living there from the US, Canada, India, South Africa and Australia. As far as I'm aware none of those countries belong to the EU so why would it be any different after Brexit ? I'm pretty sure you don't have to wander very far in Brighton to find people living here from non-EU states either.

Most of the non eu nationals will be on short term working visa and wont have the right to reside permenantly in the uk. Its not poppycock. Once out of europe you wont be allowed to travel work and live within the eu as freely as you can now. Thats a fact.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Most of the non eu nationals will be on short term working visa and wont have the right to reside permenantly in the uk. Its not poppycock. Once out of europe you wont be allowed to travel work and live within the eu as freely as you can now. Thats a fact.

If that ended up to be the case, it's a price worth paying to protect our borders properly. The EU is expecting another million migrants this year, people can go on that it won't effect us, but eventually it will. Then there is Turkey and other countries wanting to join after this. We are paying 50 million pounds a day to organisation that can never be reformed, it's completely wrong. The EU is good for lawyers, good for big business, but not good for the average man on the street.

 

[marshy68]

If that ended up to be the case, it's a price worth paying to protect our borders properly. The EU is expecting another million migrants this year, people can go on that it won't effect us, but eventually it will. Then there is Turkey and other countries wanting to join after this. We are paying 50 million pounds a day to organisation that can never be reformed, it's completely wrong. The EU is good for lawyers, good for big business, but not for the average man on the street.

If the uk leave the EU what do you think the first thing the french will do? They will ask the uk boarder force in france to leave. They will then empty all the jungle camps in northern france and ship all the immigrants/refugees down the tunnel. The french will have no legal reason not to do this. So you may want to think about camps in all over the south of england before you get too excited about being able to police your own borders. When Nigel Farage was asked about this his response was "we will disperse them". Oh right thats sorted then. You think its bad now it will be worse if we leave.

 

[drew]

If that ended up to be the case, it's a price worth paying to protect our borders properly. The EU is expecting another million migrants this year, people can go on that it won't effect us, but eventually it will. Then there is Turkey and other countries wanting to join after this. We are paying 50 million pounds a day to organisation that can never be reformed, it's completely wrong. The EU is good for lawyers, good for big business, but not good for the average man on the street.

We do protect our borders. That's why there's a migrant camp at Calais and not at Dover. Just because we wont' be in the EU won't stop us taking refugees!

As for the average man in the street not benefiting, the CBI suggests differently.

http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/ou...t-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

I suspect many of the people employed by these firms are 'the average man on the street'.

As for contribution, this year our net contribution was estimated by the OBR to be about £25m a day. That is merely the difference between what we pay and what we get back. It doesn't include the effect on business (see the CBI report)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ber-to-be-3-billion-higher-than-expected.html

 

[abc]

If that ended up to be the case, it's a price worth paying to protect our borders properly.

Genuine question: What does 'protecting our borders properly' actually mean? Its a commonly used phrase but what would actually change? It seems to me that the primary problem is that successive governments have cut back on 'border staff' (customs, passport control officers etc) and so it is easier to smuggle contraband (and even people) in than ever before. Currently we are taking less refugees than any other European country and they are sat in Calais rather than Dover. Norway has to accept freedom of EU people in the same way as EU members do in order to trade with the EU fairly.

So, what do we differently in order to 'protect our borders properly' and what would be the objective?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

If the uk leave the EU what do you think the first thing the french will do? They will ask the uk boarder force in france to leave. They will then empty all the jungle camps in northern france and ship all the immigrants/refugees down the tunnel. The french will have no legal reason not to do this. So you may want to think about camps in all over the south of england before you get too excited about being able to police your own borders. When Nigel Farage was asked about this his response was "we will disperse them". Oh right thats sorted then. You think its bad now it will be worse if we leave.

We have an agreement with the French, they wouldn't suddenly open the borders like you suggested. If the deal changed then it would be a gradual process, but you need to remember the only reason these people are here in the first place is because of the shoddy borders across the whole EU in the first place. One of the reasons why I am voting out. The EU can't seem to see their own mistakes.