# Brexit busted.



## Tommy Tainant

Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away

The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.

The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.

The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.

They cannot answer the most basic question.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.









 And what is that ?


----------



## there4eyeM

Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).


----------



## Tommy Tainant

there4eyeM said:


> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).


Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".


----------



## Maggdy

Tommy Tainant said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
Click to expand...



The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it. 
It is also needed the moral behavior.



> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Maggdy said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it.
> It is also needed the moral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Migration is an issue that Europe needs to agree on. It is not fair to Greece and Italy to bear the load whilst the UK looks the other way.


----------



## montelatici

About 10% of Italy's registered population are now immigrants.  Unregistered who knows.  This population is destined to grow dramatically.  And, contrary to popular belief, most of the migrants remain in Italy unlike in Greece.  They work in agriculture mostly at very low wages because they are mostly uneducated sub-saharans who are a benefit for tomato, olive and grape harvests.  But, at some point they become too many to handle.


----------



## Challenger

I'm voting to stay in, but I've always been an "internationalist/federalist" and having travelled throughout most of Europe, I like the idea of a single currency and no border controls within the E.U. I don't mind surrendering national sovereignty so long as I can vote for whoever represents my views and aspirations in an effective Europe-wide government. I agree however the E.U. as it stands needs a major reform of it's institutions and some of it's policies.


----------



## there4eyeM

The EU is not only a good idea, it is necessary. There are many flaws, and lessons could have been better learned from the US experiment (not to try to make a US of E, exactly, just learn from example of what works and what doesn't). States were not ready to infringe sovereignty, missing the fact that it was just that national individualism that menaced peace and prosperity.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
Click to expand...







 Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> I'm voting to stay in, but I've always been an "internationalist/federalist" and having travelled throughout most of Europe, I like the idea of a single currency and no border controls within the E.U. I don't mind surrendering national sovereignty so long as I can vote for whoever represents my views and aspirations in an effective Europe-wide government. I agree however the E.U. as it stands needs a major reform of it's institutions and some of it's policies.








 For internationalist/federalist read neo Marxist supremacist that would applaud the mass murder of anyone that opposes the neo Marxist dogma.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Challenger said:


> I'm voting to stay in, but I've always been an "internationalist/federalist" and having travelled throughout most of Europe, I like the idea of a single currency and no border controls within the E.U. I don't mind surrendering national sovereignty so long as I can vote for whoever represents my views and aspirations in an effective Europe-wide government. I agree however the E.U. as it stands needs a major reform of it's institutions and some of it's policies.


I think that this is where most sensible people are. Staying in will also protect jobs and should lead to greater investment as the uncertainty clears. It will also protect our human rights from politicians who cannot be trusted. Sick pay,holiday pay, minimum wages ,all under threat.
 Why take the risk ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.
Click to expand...

Just picking up one point. Our NHS is floundering because the tories have cut funding every year they have been in power. In actual fact it would collapse completely if you kick out the migrant workers. I cant even be arsed to address the rest of your froth. There is no substance to any of it.


----------



## Challenger

More drivel about E.U. funding. Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Spain contribute around half the E.U. budget, but what everyone forgets is that rebate Thatcher negotiated that gives us back 2/3rds of what we pay in, so we shouldn't bitch that much when you consider Germany pays "more than the 19 lowest-paying member states combined." Germany, France and Italy pay in more than we do and we're the second largest economy in the E.U. BBC NEWS | Europe | Paying for the EU budget


----------



## Mindful

Obama's Brexit message.


We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just picking up one point. Our NHS is floundering because the tories have cut funding every year they have been in power. In actual fact it would collapse completely if you kick out the migrant workers. I cant even be arsed to address the rest of your froth. There is no substance to any of it.
Click to expand...





 The NHS was floundering more under Labour than it is now because of the numbers of migrants with untreatable diseases. We eradicated many social diseases in the UK like T.B. and Polio only to see them re-emerge in numbers during the 1990's. Then the AIDS epidemic  amongst Africans that flooded the NHS hoping for a miracle cure. That is why G.B. stole money from the pensioners leaving many destitute. It is the migrant workers that cost the NHS dear as many don't understand English and cant relay the prescription rules properly. In some cases they have even prescribed the wrong medication and killed the patient. The medical professions many groups have reported how their is a glut of British nurses and doctors that are sacked at the end of their training while overseas medical professionals were given the jobs and had their moving fees paid.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just picking up one point. Our NHS is floundering because the tories have cut funding every year they have been in power. In actual fact it would collapse completely if you kick out the migrant workers. I cant even be arsed to address the rest of your froth. There is no substance to any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NHS was floundering more under Labour than it is now because of the numbers of migrants with untreatable diseases. We eradicated many social diseases in the UK like T.B. and Polio only to see them re-emerge in numbers during the 1990's. Then the AIDS epidemic  amongst Africans that flooded the NHS hoping for a miracle cure. That is why G.B. stole money from the pensioners leaving many destitute. It is the migrant workers that cost the NHS dear as many don't understand English and cant relay the prescription rules properly. In some cases they have even prescribed the wrong medication and killed the patient. The medical professions many groups have reported how their is a glut of British nurses and doctors that are sacked at the end of their training while overseas medical professionals were given the jobs and had their moving fees paid.
Click to expand...

You really are a foul individual arent you ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.


He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
I think we know the answer to that.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
Click to expand...


It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
Click to expand...

No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
Its not gonna happen.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.
Click to expand...

Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.
Click to expand...


You felt the need to tell me about it?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You felt the need to tell me about it?
Click to expand...

Suck it up Babe.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just picking up one point. Our NHS is floundering because the tories have cut funding every year they have been in power. In actual fact it would collapse completely if you kick out the migrant workers. I cant even be arsed to address the rest of your froth. There is no substance to any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NHS was floundering more under Labour than it is now because of the numbers of migrants with untreatable diseases. We eradicated many social diseases in the UK like T.B. and Polio only to see them re-emerge in numbers during the 1990's. Then the AIDS epidemic  amongst Africans that flooded the NHS hoping for a miracle cure. That is why G.B. stole money from the pensioners leaving many destitute. It is the migrant workers that cost the NHS dear as many don't understand English and cant relay the prescription rules properly. In some cases they have even prescribed the wrong medication and killed the patient. The medical professions many groups have reported how their is a glut of British nurses and doctors that are sacked at the end of their training while overseas medical professionals were given the jobs and had their moving fees paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a foul individual arent you ?
Click to expand...







Because I tell the truth about the Labour party and the other neo Marxists.  You don't like seeing the truth because you know it will destroy your fellow neo Marxists one day. The evidence is there and you know it and you are losing the arguments every time.   It is you that is the foul individual, and you are a hanger on of an even fouler political ideology.  

 SO WHO WILL BE FIRST ON YOUR LIST IF YOU EVER GET ABSOLUTE POWER TO BE DISSAPPEARED ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
Click to expand...







 Better than the little taff's that want to live in the 17C isn't it


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
Click to expand...







 So that tom,my tainted can keep getting his handouts from the E.U. and the English taxpayers. You have nothing to give the UK now the mines are closed, apart from water and sheep, so should have your subsidies cut.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just picking up one point. Our NHS is floundering because the tories have cut funding every year they have been in power. In actual fact it would collapse completely if you kick out the migrant workers. I cant even be arsed to address the rest of your froth. There is no substance to any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NHS was floundering more under Labour than it is now because of the numbers of migrants with untreatable diseases. We eradicated many social diseases in the UK like T.B. and Polio only to see them re-emerge in numbers during the 1990's. Then the AIDS epidemic  amongst Africans that flooded the NHS hoping for a miracle cure. That is why G.B. stole money from the pensioners leaving many destitute. It is the migrant workers that cost the NHS dear as many don't understand English and cant relay the prescription rules properly. In some cases they have even prescribed the wrong medication and killed the patient. The medical professions many groups have reported how their is a glut of British nurses and doctors that are sacked at the end of their training while overseas medical professionals were given the jobs and had their moving fees paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a foul individual arent you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I tell the truth about the Labour party and the other neo Marxists.  You don't like seeing the truth because you know it will destroy your fellow neo Marxists one day. The evidence is there and you know it and you are losing the arguments every time.   It is you that is the foul individual, and you are a hanger on of an even fouler political ideology.
> 
> SO WHO WILL BE FIRST ON YOUR LIST IF YOU EVER GET ABSOLUTE POWER TO BE DISSAPPEARED ?
Click to expand...

The irony is that time and again your wacky claims are exposed as lies and you still come back for more.


----------



## Mindful

Brexit will hasten collapse of European Union



Brexit risks hastening the collapse of the European Union and plunging the continent into the chaos of the 1930s, said Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister.

The academic economist, who was briefly in charge of the country’s finance ministry at the height of the Eurozone crisis, delivered the warning to a high profile audience of business leaders at the Global Financial Markets Forum in Abu Dhabi.

British prime minister David Cameron has set June 23rd as the date for a referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union.

“The disintegration of the European Union will push us in to the…1930s,” Varoufakis said, predicting “a deflationary Deutsche Mark zone east of the Rhine and North of the Alps which would leave millions of working poor unemployed, and send the rest of Europe to “a cesspool of very high inflation”. 

“The only people who will benefit from that will be the ultranationalists – the Marine Le Pens, the Golden Dawns,” he said. 

While Mr Varoufakis said that he would be tempted to vote to leave the European Union, were he to have a vote, in order to give Brussels and Cameron “a bloody nose”, he said that a vote to leave would turn Europe into “that kind of divided continent that would become a black hole that would consume Britain as well”. 

“So it is not in the interest of Britain to get out of this terrible Europe,”


----------



## Mindful

The European Union faces so many different crises that it has been—until now—impossible to predict the precise catalyst for its likely demise. The obvious candidates for destroying the EU include the looming refugee crisis, the tottering banking structure that is resistant to both bail-outs and bail-ins, the public distrust of the political establishment, and the nearly immobilized EU institutions.

But the most immediate crisis that could spell the EU’s doom is Prime Minister David Cameron’s failure to wrest from Brussels concessions that he needs in order to placate the increasingly euroskeptic British public. Prime Minister Cameron has failed because the EU cannot grant the necessary concessions. There are three special reasons, as well as one underlying reality, that have made Cameron’s task impossible.

First, a profound reform of the EU-British relationship, which Cameron initially promised, was always impossible, because it required a “treaty change” in each of the twenty-eight EU member-states, and that could not happen without approval by either parliamentary votes or, and this is especially difficult, national referenda that Brussels dreads. There is simply no appetite in Europe to run such risks in order to appease the UK.

Second, Cameron was willing to settle for a compromise, but failed to obtain most of what he needed, because Brussels fears that other member states will follow the British example and demand similar accommodations. That would result in a “smorgasbord EU” in which each country could pick and choose what serves its own best interests. In other words, it would make a mockery of “an ever closer Europe.”

And so, Cameron ended up with what one Conservative Member of Parliament, Jacob Rees-Mogg, called a "thin gruel [of a reform] has been further watered down."

The EU Will Likely Implode


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your vies, if they are you are being very racist. Those who have the intelligence can see that the E.U. is forcing the UK to pay more and more for less and less. Our economy is growing and the E.U. want more of the pie, so put obstacles in the way. Our welfare bill is soaring and the EU want us to take in even more criminal migrants. Our NHS is floundering under the pressure of migrants demanding treatment. Our schools are failing because so many pupils don't understand English, so have to be educated in basics first leaving the English speaking pupils to sit bored in class.
> 
> 
> 
> Just picking up one point. Our NHS is floundering because the tories have cut funding every year they have been in power. In actual fact it would collapse completely if you kick out the migrant workers. I cant even be arsed to address the rest of your froth. There is no substance to any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NHS was floundering more under Labour than it is now because of the numbers of migrants with untreatable diseases. We eradicated many social diseases in the UK like T.B. and Polio only to see them re-emerge in numbers during the 1990's. Then the AIDS epidemic  amongst Africans that flooded the NHS hoping for a miracle cure. That is why G.B. stole money from the pensioners leaving many destitute. It is the migrant workers that cost the NHS dear as many don't understand English and cant relay the prescription rules properly. In some cases they have even prescribed the wrong medication and killed the patient. The medical professions many groups have reported how their is a glut of British nurses and doctors that are sacked at the end of their training while overseas medical professionals were given the jobs and had their moving fees paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a foul individual arent you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I tell the truth about the Labour party and the other neo Marxists.  You don't like seeing the truth because you know it will destroy your fellow neo Marxists one day. The evidence is there and you know it and you are losing the arguments every time.   It is you that is the foul individual, and you are a hanger on of an even fouler political ideology.
> 
> SO WHO WILL BE FIRST ON YOUR LIST IF YOU EVER GET ABSOLUTE POWER TO BE DISSAPPEARED ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irony is that time and again your wacky claims are exposed as lies and you still come back for more.
Click to expand...






No lies unless you count yours, we can all see how few there are who support islamonazi immigration and terrorism these days. Your dogma is no longer valid


----------



## Vikrant

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You felt the need to tell me about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suck it up Babe.
Click to expand...


I do not think that the EU is in the interest of the US. I also think that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU.


----------



## Mindful

Vikrant said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasnt. They are currently in the middle of trade negotiations, why should Britain jump the queue ?
> He also said that it would happen but not any time soon.
> People are being sold a step in the dark dressed up as La La Land.
> Its not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You felt the need to tell me about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suck it up Babe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that the EU is in the interest of the US. I also think that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU.
Click to expand...


Obama made it clear yesterday that in terms of trading, the EU is in the interest of the US. He said there could be a US-UK trade agreement “down the line” but warned: “It’s not going to happen any time soon, because our focus is on negotiating with a big bloc, the EU."


----------



## westwall

The UK should never have gotten herself embroiled in the abortion that is the EU.  Wealthy countries are forced to impoverish their people to prop up corrupt governments who pander to imbeciles.  Take Greece as an example.  A wonderful country to visit but the Public Sector sucks the country dry.  The UK and Germany have been forced to prop up that corrupt government for years.


----------



## Mindful

westwall said:


> The UK should never have gotten herself embroiled in the abortion that is the EU.  Wealthy countries are forced to impoverish their people to prop up corrupt governments who pander to imbeciles.  Take Greece as an example.  A wonderful country to visit but the Public Sector sucks the country dry.  The UK and Germany have been forced to prop up that corrupt government for years.



It started off as a loose trading  alliance of Northern European states, known as the Common Market. The British, who weren't that enthusiastic about it, were refused entry by the French. De Gaulle saying he knew how the British 'were'.

Eventually, after much lobbying by passionate pro Europeans, Britain became a member.

Since then, the whole creation has morphed into a bureaucratic monster.


----------



## westwall

Mindful said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK should never have gotten herself embroiled in the abortion that is the EU.  Wealthy countries are forced to impoverish their people to prop up corrupt governments who pander to imbeciles.  Take Greece as an example.  A wonderful country to visit but the Public Sector sucks the country dry.  The UK and Germany have been forced to prop up that corrupt government for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It started off as a loose trading  alliance of Northern European states, known as the Common Market. The British, who weren't that enthusiastic about it, were refused entry by the French. De Gaulle saying he knew how the British 'were'.
> 
> Eventually, after much lobbying by passionate pro Europeans, Britain became a member.
> 
> Since then, the whole creation has morphed into a bureaucratic monster.
Click to expand...







As was intended.


----------



## Mindful

westwall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK should never have gotten herself embroiled in the abortion that is the EU.  Wealthy countries are forced to impoverish their people to prop up corrupt governments who pander to imbeciles.  Take Greece as an example.  A wonderful country to visit but the Public Sector sucks the country dry.  The UK and Germany have been forced to prop up that corrupt government for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It started off as a loose trading  alliance of Northern European states, known as the Common Market. The British, who weren't that enthusiastic about it, were refused entry by the French. De Gaulle saying he knew how the British 'were'.
> 
> Eventually, after much lobbying by passionate pro Europeans, Britain became a member.
> 
> Since then, the whole creation has morphed into a bureaucratic monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As was intended.
Click to expand...


By whom?


----------



## Dale Smith

Tommy Tainant said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
Click to expand...

 Why would anyone want to stay in the E.U which is ran by criminal international bankers that robbed every country in it of their sovereignty??


----------



## Mindful

*
THERE4EYEM SAID: ↑
Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).*

What do you mean one can never sure about the Brits?

We don't have any virulence against the French. They do towards us. They don't like the way we cook vegetables.


----------



## westwall

Mindful said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK should never have gotten herself embroiled in the abortion that is the EU.  Wealthy countries are forced to impoverish their people to prop up corrupt governments who pander to imbeciles.  Take Greece as an example.  A wonderful country to visit but the Public Sector sucks the country dry.  The UK and Germany have been forced to prop up that corrupt government for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It started off as a loose trading  alliance of Northern European states, known as the Common Market. The British, who weren't that enthusiastic about it, were refused entry by the French. De Gaulle saying he knew how the British 'were'.
> 
> Eventually, after much lobbying by passionate pro Europeans, Britain became a member.
> 
> Since then, the whole creation has morphed into a bureaucratic monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By whom?
Click to expand...









The globalists who are pushing it.


----------



## Mindful

westwall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK should never have gotten herself embroiled in the abortion that is the EU.  Wealthy countries are forced to impoverish their people to prop up corrupt governments who pander to imbeciles.  Take Greece as an example.  A wonderful country to visit but the Public Sector sucks the country dry.  The UK and Germany have been forced to prop up that corrupt government for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It started off as a loose trading  alliance of Northern European states, known as the Common Market. The British, who weren't that enthusiastic about it, were refused entry by the French. De Gaulle saying he knew how the British 'were'.
> 
> Eventually, after much lobbying by passionate pro Europeans, Britain became a member.
> 
> Since then, the whole creation has morphed into a bureaucratic monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The globalists who are pushing it.
Click to expand...



You mean a master plan? 

Like: Pax Europa: The United States of Europe and the Merovingian Master Plan.


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched and heard what he said. It seems you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You felt the need to tell me about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suck it up Babe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that the EU is in the interest of the US. I also think that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama made it clear yesterday that in terms of trading, the EU is in the interest of the US. He said there could be a US-UK trade agreement “down the line” but warned: “It’s not going to happen any time soon, because our focus is on negotiating with a big bloc, the EU."
Click to expand...


If it succeeds, EU will emerge as a competitor to the US dominance. This is not good from American perspective. I am surprised that Obama missed this detail.


----------



## montelatici

Vikrant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had it on the radio. I had to pull over because I was cheering every word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You felt the need to tell me about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suck it up Babe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that the EU is in the interest of the US. I also think that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama made it clear yesterday that in terms of trading, the EU is in the interest of the US. He said there could be a US-UK trade agreement “down the line” but warned: “It’s not going to happen any time soon, because our focus is on negotiating with a big bloc, the EU."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it succeeds, EU will emerge as a competitor to the US dominance. This is not good from American perspective. I am surprised that Obama missed this detail.
Click to expand...


First of all the EC was not a loose trading agreement between northern European states.  The Treaty of Rome which started the whole thing was between France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands Luxembourg and West Germany.  France and Italy at the time together represented more than half of the GDP of the organization.  West Germany was very poor at the time.

The UK begged to join but France resisted the UK's entry for a long time.  France. rightfully determined that the UK would be a Trojan Horse for the U.S. that would weaken Europe.  They were right.  Italy joined Germany in support of a British entry, and France had to agree to the UK entry.  That was the worst mistake ever made by the EC and it affected the ability for Europe to integrate into the United States of Europe that had been the original intention.  That was actually Churchill's intention although it was taken up by Jacques Delors the mythical father of the European Union.  Britain's pot shots at the Union and its insistence on maintaining its separation has stopped European integration for decades.  Hopefully Britain will vote to leave and the European project will progress.  Europe can only survive as a single entity, the U.S., Russia, China and up and coming India will become to strong for individual European states to compete.


----------



## Vikrant

montelatici said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You felt the need to tell me about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Suck it up Babe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that the EU is in the interest of the US. I also think that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama made it clear yesterday that in terms of trading, the EU is in the interest of the US. He said there could be a US-UK trade agreement “down the line” but warned: “It’s not going to happen any time soon, because our focus is on negotiating with a big bloc, the EU."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it succeeds, EU will emerge as a competitor to the US dominance. This is not good from American perspective. I am surprised that Obama missed this detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all the EC was not a loose trading agreement between northern European states.  The Treaty of Rome which started the whole thing was between France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands Luxembourg and West Germany.  France and Italy at the time together represented more than half of the GDP of the organization.  West Germany was very poor at the time.
> 
> The UK begged to join but France resisted the UK's entry for a long time.  France. rightfully determined that the UK would be a Trojan Horse for the U.S. that would weaken Europe.  They were right.  Italy joined Germany in support of a British entry, and France had to agree to the UK entry.  That was the worst mistake ever made by the EC and it affected the ability for Europe to integrate into the United States of Europe that had been the original intention.  That was actually Churchill's intention although it was taken up by Jacques Delors the mythical father of the European Union.  Britain's pot shots at the Union and its insistence on maintaining its separation has stopped European integration for decades.  Hopefully Britain will vote to leave and the European project will progress.  Europe can only survive as a single entity, the U.S., Russia, China and up and coming India will become to strong for individual European states to compete.
Click to expand...


EU is a no go. Simply because on one hand it has ordinary countries like Italy and on another it has exceptional countries like England ( via UK). Even now, Germany and up to some extent France bear the major grunt for EU; population in those countries especially Germany is growing tired of supporting countries like Italy that do not want to carry their own weight. People in UK particularly in England believe they are born to be exceptional people; thus they will never agree to be a part of the system which puts them at par with ordinary countries like Italy.


----------



## Mindful

What was Obama talking about?

Pulling up the drawbridge?


----------



## Drummond

The EU is a mutated version of the old EEC. The EC was a trading bloc, and nothing more. The EU is a political entity .. with its own Parliament .. and it seeks to part-run all of its Member States, robbing them of a measure of their autonomy in the process.

Immigration is one major issue. The UK currently has no real hope of controlling its borders with anything like meaningful effectiveness. The EU insists upon the free movement of people across all of its Member States - this a foundling principle which they insist they will not abandon. The UK is stuck with loss of control as a result.

Try imagining the US as part of a wider federation of powers, say, combined politically with Mexico and Canada. Then try imagining that there was a Parliamentary body .. with the officials running it UNELECTED .. which had governing, overruling powers over all of the individual Governments which each country maintained. Would US citizens stand for their loss of sovereignty, the loss of freedom to be sure, from one day to the next, that the laws they obeyed were THEIR laws, that THEY has decided upon ??


----------



## Drummond

there4eyeM said:


> The EU is not only a good idea, it is necessary. There are many flaws, and lessons could have been better learned from the US experiment (not to try to make a US of E, exactly, just learn from example of what works and what doesn't). States were not ready to infringe sovereignty, missing the fact that it was just that national individualism that menaced peace and prosperity.



The EU is what the EEC became, once the 'nature abhors a vacuum' phenomenon was settled. The EU is now full of power-mongers, seeking to, insisting upon, exerting their political influence across all of its Member States. The EU Parliament exists for this purpose.

The EU is a perversion of the original vision, as represented by the older EEC ... only ever intended to be a trading bloc. Now, those wanting to grab and wield power are in charge.


----------



## Mindful

I posted this elsewhere. Should have posted it here.

*THE SHORTEST QUEUE IN THE WORLD.*
By David Vance On April 24th, 2016 at 10:53 pm 

During his tour of the UK, in a desperate attempt to prop up the pitiful Cameron, Obama INSISTED that were the UK to leave the EU it would find itself “at the back of the queue of Nations seeking to negotiate Free Trade deals with the USA”

US President Barack Obama warned Britain would be in the “back of the queue” for striking trade deals with the US if it left the EU. Speaking at a joint press conference with David Cameron, Mr Obama said UK voters must decide their own future but their decision could affect US prosperity.

The political and media establishment promptly presented this as a damning indictment of the BREXIT case. Slam dunk.

Except.

Except no one in the media thought to ask just how many other Nations are currently_ in the queue_ that Obama would place us at the back of!

The answer is…ZERO.

No Nation is currently in the process of conducting Free Trade deals with the US.

Yes, the EU is trying to seal a deal – but that is not a given and there is vast European opposition to it. EU aside, not ONE Nation is in the queue. So, if we leave the EU, we go to the top of the queue despite Obama’s phoney duplicitous rhetoric, lapped up by our useless media.

There is one more factor that the Media overlooked.





Whether we are at the top of “the queue” or not even in the “queue” we have nothing to fear.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Maggdy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it.
> It is also needed the moral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Migration is an issue that Europe needs to agree on. It is not fair to Greece and Italy to bear the load whilst the UK looks the other way.
Click to expand...


The UK is already overcrowded, its infrastructure creaking under the 'weight' of the immigration levels we already suffer. To what additional extent would you insist we suffer even more of the same ?


----------



## Drummond

Mindful said:


> I posted this elsewhere. Should have posted it here.
> 
> *THE SHORTEST QUEUE IN THE WORLD.*
> By David Vance On April 24th, 2016 at 10:53 pm
> 
> During his tour of the UK, in a desperate attempt to prop up the pitiful Cameron, Obama INSISTED that were the UK to leave the EU it would find itself “at the back of the queue of Nations seeking to negotiate Free Trade deals with the USA”
> 
> US President Barack Obama warned Britain would be in the “back of the queue” for striking trade deals with the US if it left the EU. Speaking at a joint press conference with David Cameron, Mr Obama said UK voters must decide their own future but their decision could affect US prosperity.
> 
> The political and media establishment promptly presented this as a damning indictment of the BREXIT case. Slam dunk.
> 
> Except.
> 
> Except no one in the media thought to ask just how many other Nations are currently_ in the queue_ that Obama would place us at the back of!
> 
> The answer is…ZERO.
> 
> No Nation is currently in the process of conducting Free Trade deals with the US.
> 
> Yes, the EU is trying to seal a deal – but that is not a given and there is vast European opposition to it. EU aside, not ONE Nation is in the queue. So, if we leave the EU, we go to the top of the queue despite Obama’s phoney duplicitous rhetoric, lapped up by our useless media.
> 
> There is one more factor that the Media overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether we are at the top of “the queue” or not even in the “queue” we have nothing to fear.



Nicely put.

Additionally, as the Express pointed out on Sunday .. Obama, in making this threat, did so in the knowledge that he would have no power to implement any such policy, or approach, by the time it became an 'issue'. Obama was making a threat he could not back up, BUT, he made it to frighten the 'Brexit' sympathisers into reconsidering. 

Blackmail .. pure & simple ....


----------



## Iceweasel

At least you Europeans now know what we have been dealing with, with our dictator in chief. Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggdy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it.
> It is also needed the moral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Migration is an issue that Europe needs to agree on. It is not fair to Greece and Italy to bear the load whilst the UK looks the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK is already overcrowded, its infrastructure creaking under the 'weight' of the immigration levels we already suffer. To what additional extent would you insist we suffer even more of the same ?
Click to expand...

Our infrastructure is creaking under the weight of nobody paying their taxes. Immigrants keep the NHS afloat.


----------



## Drummond




----------



## Mindful

Iceweasel said:


> At least you Europeans now know what we have been dealing with, with our dictator in chief. Sorry 'bout that.



I knew about it,long before his coronation.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> View attachment 72806



They should get rid of Strasbourg for a start. Just a gravy train for some MEP's.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggdy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it.
> It is also needed the moral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Migration is an issue that Europe needs to agree on. It is not fair to Greece and Italy to bear the load whilst the UK looks the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK is already overcrowded, its infrastructure creaking under the 'weight' of the immigration levels we already suffer. To what additional extent would you insist we suffer even more of the same ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our infrastructure is creaking under the weight of nobody paying their taxes. Immigrants keep the NHS afloat.
Click to expand...


Illegal immigrants, by their very nature, are also unlikely to pay tax (income tax, anyway ..).

But as for the 'legal' ones ... I've a couple of simple questions for you. I'd like an honest answer, please ..

How many is TOO many to take ? Would you agree that the UK has finite resources, finite space, a finite capacity to cope with increasing numbers coming here ? Specifically .. would you set any limit to the numbers entering the UK ... and .. what IS that limit, in your view ?

OR ... do you not accept any need for any limits at any time ? We can take anyone ... forever ... eh ?

A pro-EU vote is a vote which says we are mandated to take ANY quantity of EU citizens who choose to move here. No discussion about capacity to cope ... just the mandate to TAKE THEM ALL. You think that's reasonable, OR, do you think this is a tyranny we should be rid of ??


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggdy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it.
> It is also needed the moral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Migration is an issue that Europe needs to agree on. It is not fair to Greece and Italy to bear the load whilst the UK looks the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK is already overcrowded, its infrastructure creaking under the 'weight' of the immigration levels we already suffer. To what additional extent would you insist we suffer even more of the same ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our infrastructure is creaking under the weight of nobody paying their taxes. Immigrants keep the NHS afloat.
Click to expand...


What do you mean *nobody* paying their taxes?  You pay tax every time you buy something.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggdy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a straight choice between what you know and the great unknown.
> The EU does need reform but even if it was the land of milk and honey there are some who would want out.
> Essentially they yearn for the old days of Empire when Britain was white and we could lord it over the "darkies".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hungarian government says it is needed not only the reforms it.
> It is also needed the moral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”*, the statement reads.
> 
> Comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister are unacceptable
> April 13, 2016
> 
> Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has said that comments by Luxembourg’s foreign minister Jean Asselborn relating to the Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian migration policy are “unacceptable and shameful”.
> In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Hungarian news agency MTI on Tuesday, Mr. Szijjártó reacted to comments by Mr. Asselborn which were critical of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Hungarian migration policy. Referring to next Tuesday’s meeting between Mr. Orbán and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Mr. Asselborn said that it is mysterious as to why such a real European as Helmut Kohl should be receiving “such dubious figures”. He added that if Germany had reacted in a Hungarian way, with “barbed wire and batons”, the European Union would have fallen apart. In the same interview Mr. Asselborn praised Germany’s migration policy.
> 
> In his statement, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that the Hungarian people have elected the Hungarian government and the Prime Minister twice in a row with decisive majorities, and therefore Mr. Asselborn should respect the decision of the Hungarian electorate.
> 
> He said that from the beginning of the illegal migration crisis Hungary has taken the same standpoint: external borders must be protected, rules must be adhered to, and uncontrolled masses of people must not cross through Europe. He added that now “former critics of Hungary admit that the Hungarian solution is working”, and the EU is now focusing on the protection of external borders.
> 
> The Minister said that pursuing Mr. Asselborn’s policy for handling illegal migration would result in unforeseeable repercussions: “the terror threat would increase, public safety would weaken, and there would be arbitrary, confused situations instead of adherence to rules”.
> 
> “We call on Mr. Asselborn to stop agitating against adherence to European regulations”, the statement reads.
> 
> (MTI) Source: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-o...uxembourg-s-foreign-minister-are-unacceptable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Migration is an issue that Europe needs to agree on. It is not fair to Greece and Italy to bear the load whilst the UK looks the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK is already overcrowded, its infrastructure creaking under the 'weight' of the immigration levels we already suffer. To what additional extent would you insist we suffer even more of the same ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our infrastructure is creaking under the weight of nobody paying their taxes. Immigrants keep the NHS afloat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigrants, by their very nature, are also unlikely to pay tax (income tax, anyway ..).
> 
> But as for the 'legal' ones ... I've a couple of simple questions for you. I'd like an honest answer, please ..
> 
> How many is TOO many to take ? Would you agree that the UK has finite resources, finite space, a finite capacity to cope with increasing numbers coming here ? Specifically .. would you set any limit to the numbers entering the UK ... and .. what IS that limit, in your view ?
> 
> OR ... do you not accept any need for any limits at any time ? We can take anyone ... forever ... eh ?
> 
> A pro-EU vote is a vote which says we are mandated to take ANY quantity of EU citizens who choose to move here. No discussion about capacity to cope ... just the mandate to TAKE THEM ALL. You think that's reasonable, OR, do you think this is a tyranny we should be rid of ??
Click to expand...


I notice the Pope took Moslems back with him.And left the Christians in Lesbos.


----------



## Drummond




----------



## Tommy Tainant

If we leave the EU we would be at the mercy of the Tories. Too awful to contemplate. Our rights and jobs are better protected in the EU.


----------



## Drummond




----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> If we leave the EU we would be at the mercy of the Tories. Too awful to contemplate. Our rights and jobs are better protected in the EU.



H'm. You want EU membership to continue because you're anti-Tory ?? 

It's an interesting view .. one that, logically, violates respect for UK democracy ? After all, the Conservatives WERE voted in, by the British people, to Government, to, ahem, GOVERN ....

..._* except that you'd prefer the EU to overrule them, legislatively speaking ??*_

You offer us what the pro-EU mongers have been indulging in ... an effort at scaremongering, and this based on what's becoming a persistent 'WE DON'T KNOW' mantra. Even 'accepting' the statement ... then, WE DON'T KNOW means you do* NOT* know. 

So, why assume the worst - baselessly so .. ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we leave the EU we would be at the mercy of the Tories. Too awful to contemplate. Our rights and jobs are better protected in the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H'm. You want EU membership to continue because you're anti-Tory ??
> 
> It's an interesting view .. one that, logically, violates respect for UK democracy ? After all, the Conservatives WERE voted in, by the British people, to Government, to, ahem, GOVERN ....
> 
> ..._* except that you'd prefer the EU to overrule them, legislatively speaking ??*_
> 
> You offer us what the pro-EU mongers have been indulging in ... an effort at scaremongering, and this based on what's becoming a persistent 'WE DON'T KNOW' mantra. Even 'accepting' the statement ... then, WE DON'T KNOW means you do* NOT* know.
> 
> So, why assume the worst - baselessly so .. ?
Click to expand...

Im not British, I am Welsh and we have never voted for a tory government,
Im not a big fan of these little pictures but fundamentally there are two opposing views on the EU membership.
The outers focus on borders and immigration.
The remain focus on jobs and investment.
It is too big a risk to leave the EU and put jobs at risk.
The biggest employer in North Wales is Airbus and they have written to all their employees, including my family members, with their concerns.
If you can guarantee that there is nothing to worry about I will look at it again but you cant.


----------



## Drummond

You seem to be under the illusion that Wales is not a part of the UK ? Does it have no presence in Westminster, no MP's who form part of the balance of power in the House of Commons ? There may be a Welsh Parliament (of sorts) at Cardiff Bay ... but their legislative powers are limited, as I'm sure you know (but would rather you didn't have to acknowledge ?).

Interestingly, you seem to want to shun such a lawful, fully established Governmental power that Westminster DOES legitimately have over Wales. Until Wales achieves full independence from the UK ... and please, tell us all how likely THAT is .. !! .. it seems that instead you want to make sure that the EU renders our UK Government powerless, by continuing to make the inroads it already has.

And, for why ?_* Because you hate the Tories ?*_

Here's a question. You evidently don't like acknowledging Westminster's legislative powers over Wales ... BUT ... you wholly _*welcome*_ the very same thing, from outside these shores entirely, from the European Union ?? 

You don't see a similarity of status quo there, of legislative process, of one outside power (outside of Wales) being 'OK' to influence Wales, whereas the other 'is not' ... ??

Do I detect double standards at work .. ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> You seem to be under the illusion that Wales is not a part of the UK ? Does it have no presence in Westminster, no MP's who form part of the balance of power in the House of Commons ? There may be a Welsh Parliament (of sorts) at Cardiff Bay ... but their legislative powers are limited, as I'm sure you know (but would rather you didn't have to acknowledge ?).
> 
> Interestingly, you seem to want to shun such a lawful, fully established Governmental power that Westminster DOES legitimately have over Wales. Until Wales achieves full independence from the UK ... and please, tell us all how likely THAT is .. !! .. it seems that instead you want to make sure that the EU renders our UK Government powerless, by continuing to make the inroads it already has.
> 
> And, for why ?_* Because you hate the Tories ?*_
> 
> Here's a question. You evidently don't like acknowledging Westminster's legislative powers over Wales ... BUT ... you wholly _*welcome*_ the very same thing, from outside these shores entirely, from the European Union ??
> 
> You don't see a similarity of status quo there, of legislative process, of one outside power (outside of Wales) being 'OK' to influence Wales, whereas the other 'is not' ... ??
> 
> Do I detect double standards at work .. ?


I feel a lot more confident in Brussels than in Eton. Human rights,employment rights,womens rights are all secured in Europe. The tories want to water these down and replace it with some bogus charter. God knows what that idiot Farago wants but it will probably include sending kids up chimneys.

I notice that you swerve the economic argument. Jobs are safer in the EU and we will attract a lot more investment when this nonsense is settled. However much you dream of a return of empire that doesnt pay the bills.


----------



## Drummond

To summarise ... you have chosen your preferred INTERVENTIONIST Governmental power, and you're guided by your personal choice ... you don't like the Tories, so you reject their - WHOLLY LAWFUL - Government, the decisions they take, out of hand. Instead, you choose a source of intervention that is foreign to the UK, and want the Welsh people to be governed by THEM, instead.

You assume a lot about the future the EU would give us - seen through rose coloured spectacles, with no likelihood of future difficulties ? I suggest ... a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

*And, to hell with the last UK election, then, which saw the Conservatives elected ? You've no respect for that vote, or the will of UK citizens in choosing what they did ?
*
_*You'll only respect democratic process, when it brings you a result that you, personally, approve of ??*_


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the illusion that Wales is not a part of the UK ? Does it have no presence in Westminster, no MP's who form part of the balance of power in the House of Commons ? There may be a Welsh Parliament (of sorts) at Cardiff Bay ... but their legislative powers are limited, as I'm sure you know (but would rather you didn't have to acknowledge ?).
> 
> Interestingly, you seem to want to shun such a lawful, fully established Governmental power that Westminster DOES legitimately have over Wales. Until Wales achieves full independence from the UK ... and please, tell us all how likely THAT is .. !! .. it seems that instead you want to make sure that the EU renders our UK Government powerless, by continuing to make the inroads it already has.
> 
> And, for why ?_* Because you hate the Tories ?*_
> 
> Here's a question. You evidently don't like acknowledging Westminster's legislative powers over Wales ... BUT ... you wholly _*welcome*_ the very same thing, from outside these shores entirely, from the European Union ??
> 
> You don't see a similarity of status quo there, of legislative process, of one outside power (outside of Wales) being 'OK' to influence Wales, whereas the other 'is not' ... ??
> 
> Do I detect double standards at work .. ?
> 
> 
> 
> I feel a lot more confident in Brussels than in Eton. Human rights,employment rights,womens rights are all secured in Europe. The tories want to water these down and replace it with some bogus charter. God knows what that idiot Farago wants but it will probably include sending kids up chimneys.
> 
> I notice that you swerve the economic argument. Jobs are safer in the EU and we will attract a lot more investment when this nonsense is settled. However much you dream of a return of empire that doesnt pay the bills.
Click to expand...


The EU only looks after its own interests. Jobs are as safe as the EU decrees. We have ONE vote only.

Human rights ... TERRORISTS have won 'human rights' for themselves from the EU Court !!

The Conservatives are fed up with EU excesses ... and injustices. IF we exit the EU, then a LAWFUL alternative can be put in place, one terrorists cannot hope to take advantage of !!!!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> To summarise ... you have chosen your preferred INTERVENTIONIST Governmental power, and you're guided by your personal choice ... you don't like the Tories, so you reject their - WHOLLY LAWFUL - Government, the decisions they take, out of hand. Instead, you choose a source of intervention that is foreign to the UK, and want the Welsh people to be governed by THEM, instead.
> 
> You assume a lot about the future the EU would give us - seen through rose coloured spectacles, with no likelihood of future difficulties ? I suggest ... a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> *And, to hell with the last UK election, then, which saw the Conservatives elected ? You've no respect for that vote, or the will of UK citizens in choosing what they did ?
> *
> _*You'll only respect democratic process, when it brings you a result that you, personally, approve of ??*_


Why does my not sharing your love of Britishness threaten you so much ?
We are what we are and I feel Welsh and European. 

The arguments you are presenting are wholly emotional and require me to buy into a vision of something that may or may not happen . You are offering me a step in the dark.

How will leaving the EU protect jobs ?
How will it encourage investment ?
How will it protect our public services ?
How will it protect our human rights ?


----------



## Drummond

Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !

Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ? 

Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.

Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?

Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!

Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???


Again there is more heat than light.
Show me some facts rather than your opinion.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mega Lolz as my kids say.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is more heat than light.
> Show me some facts rather than your opinion.
Click to expand...


H'm. You've no direct reply to offer me at all ? This is the best attempt at a comeback you have to offer ?

Rejecting the electorate's decision to vote in a Conservative Government, one acting as a governing power for Wales (because it IS one) is no proof of any 'love of Britishness', when you make it clear that_* you want Brussels to govern you, rather than the will of the British people !!!*_

'Love of Britishness' cannot equate to being far more open and accepting of rule by a foreign power. I note, in fact, that you have _*no*_ love of being British ? Well, yes._* You prove it by being pro-EU.*_

Quite.

But never mind. You want facts that support my side of this argument. Well, you need to be reminded that I've already posted some. See this link to a previous post ..

*Brexit busted.*

... and what's posted there.

Now try this ...

*Chart: How much does Britain pay into the EU and what does it get back?*


> Being a member of the European Union has been a one-way street for Britain. Contributions from Britain to the EU budget have outstripped the benefits received in every single year  of membership.
> 
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about *€260 billion (£228 billion)*. It has received back  in benefits* just €163 billion (£143 billion).* The difference of €97 billion (£85 billion at today’s exchange rate) has been Britain’s subsidy to the European project.



Isn't it high time we stopped the EU from ripping us off, and used the billions we save for the welfare of the BRITISH (in line with your love of the British, eh) ??? Leaving the EU will fit the bill nicely ...

Try considering this outrage ...!! ....

*Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty*



> Britain yesterday surrendered 1,000 years of legal sovereignty in return for a European extradition treaty.
> 
> Judges and magistrates across the continent _will be given the power to demand the arrest and handover of British citizens simply by naming them as suspects. _
> 
> The pact sweeps away the right of people in this country to turn to the courts here for defence against charges abroad.
> 
> Also brushed aside will be _the historic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the habeas corpus protection against unjustified imprisonment. _
> 
> The treaty, being rushed through as part of the war on terror, covers 32 categories ranging from fraud and rape to 'xenophobia' and ' corruption' - offences which are currently not recognised in British law.
> 
> Agreement on the European arrest warrant came as the last country standing against it - Italy - backed down. It is now certain to be approved at a weekend EU summit in Belgium.
> 
> Tony Blair and British ministers have pushed enthusiastically for the extradition deal. But human rights activists and Eurosceptics have condemned an agreement that will abolish the powers of courts in all EU countries to resist extradition demands for the 32 crimes - beyond checking that warrants have been correctly issued.
> 
> Critics point to Greece - the country that has held 12 British planespotters in jail for more than a month on questionable spying charges - as an example of the legal systems to which the Government is handing unprecedented powers over Britons._ They say the loss of the ability to challenge extradition in a British court will end the over-riding principle of the court will end the over-riding principle of the presumption of innocence. _
> 
> Suspects will in effect face examination by a magistrate or judge to whom they must demonstrate their innocence under the Napoleonic code favoured in much of Europe.
> 
> Another ancient right to be infringed will be habeas corpus, the right to demand the release of anyone from imprisonment unless a good reason for holding them is demonstrated in court.



I wish you joy in reading into this any evidence that the EU has any 'love of Britishness' ... OR ... that anyone supporting this would have any such regard for us, and our rights .....
_*
OF COURSE we should leave the EU ... & the sooner the better.*_


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> I posted this elsewhere. Should have posted it here.
> 
> *THE SHORTEST QUEUE IN THE WORLD.*
> By David Vance On April 24th, 2016 at 10:53 pm
> 
> During his tour of the UK, in a desperate attempt to prop up the pitiful Cameron, Obama INSISTED that were the UK to leave the EU it would find itself “at the back of the queue of Nations seeking to negotiate Free Trade deals with the USA”
> 
> US President Barack Obama warned Britain would be in the “back of the queue” for striking trade deals with the US if it left the EU. Speaking at a joint press conference with David Cameron, Mr Obama said UK voters must decide their own future but their decision could affect US prosperity.
> 
> The political and media establishment promptly presented this as a damning indictment of the BREXIT case. Slam dunk.
> 
> Except.
> 
> Except no one in the media thought to ask just how many other Nations are currently_ in the queue_ that Obama would place us at the back of!
> 
> The answer is…ZERO.
> 
> No Nation is currently in the process of conducting Free Trade deals with the US.
> 
> Yes, the EU is trying to seal a deal – but that is not a given and there is vast European opposition to it. EU aside, not ONE Nation is in the queue. So, if we leave the EU, we go to the top of the queue despite Obama’s phoney duplicitous rhetoric, lapped up by our useless media.
> 
> There is one more factor that the Media overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether we are at the top of “the queue” or not even in the “queue” we have nothing to fear.









 Nor does he realise that trade is a two way street and if he expects to sell American goods in the UK he would then be at the back of the queue for doing so. The US has more to lose when it loses its already lucrative markets in the UK


----------



## Mindful

*Obama tells Britain: EU membership makes you stand taller on the world stage.*

*What crap!*


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mega Lolz as my kids say.










 We know what it has done very well thank you, we see it every day when another murderer is granted freedom to murder again. Another rapist freed to rape an old woman or a child, another violent thief given the right to attack the weak. Where are the human rights of their victims, or don't we as law abiding victims have any. Is it only the dregs of foreign society that have invaded our nation that have the right to be safe from attack, safe from retribution, safe from punishment and safe from being deported. Even the government appointed leader of the UK arm has stated that it is wrong and has told the truth about the ECHR just recently.


----------



## Mindful

Obama’s main point is that EU membership amplifies Britain’s global voice. That…

_‘A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain’s global leadership; it enhances Britain’s global leadership.’_

This is certainly a new line, and one the Prime Minister doesn’t make  – perhaps understandably. Not many in Britain think that we need the EU to add an inch to our shoes on the world stage, or that many countries heed us because our Prime Minister attend Brussels summits. Is the president really saying that Britain is now so remote to him (and America) that we’re seen primarily as an EU member, rather than the world’s fifth-largest economy in possession of one of the world’s fourth-largest largest military? But as Anne Applebaum argues in this week’s magazine, even this may be an exaggeration: a great many Americans, she says, just don’t think about Britain at all.

From The Spectator.


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this elsewhere. Should have posted it here.
> 
> *THE SHORTEST QUEUE IN THE WORLD.*
> By David Vance On April 24th, 2016 at 10:53 pm
> 
> During his tour of the UK, in a desperate attempt to prop up the pitiful Cameron, Obama INSISTED that were the UK to leave the EU it would find itself “at the back of the queue of Nations seeking to negotiate Free Trade deals with the USA”
> 
> US President Barack Obama warned Britain would be in the “back of the queue” for striking trade deals with the US if it left the EU. Speaking at a joint press conference with David Cameron, Mr Obama said UK voters must decide their own future but their decision could affect US prosperity.
> 
> The political and media establishment promptly presented this as a damning indictment of the BREXIT case. Slam dunk.
> 
> Except.
> 
> Except no one in the media thought to ask just how many other Nations are currently_ in the queue_ that Obama would place us at the back of!
> 
> The answer is…ZERO.
> 
> No Nation is currently in the process of conducting Free Trade deals with the US.
> 
> Yes, the EU is trying to seal a deal – but that is not a given and there is vast European opposition to it. EU aside, not ONE Nation is in the queue. So, if we leave the EU, we go to the top of the queue despite Obama’s phoney duplicitous rhetoric, lapped up by our useless media.
> 
> There is one more factor that the Media overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether we are at the top of “the queue” or not even in the “queue” we have nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does he realise that trade is a two way street and if he expects to sell American goods in the UK he would then be at the back of the queue for doing so. The US has more to lose when it loses its already lucrative markets in the UK
Click to expand...


I re-appraised his public interviews, one with the BBC. And it seems to me that he isn't clear on detail, and contradicts himself.

One minute he says the US  wants to trade with one big  EU block. The next, by saying the UK would go to the back if the queue, he implies he would deal with individual states.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mega Lolz as my kids say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know what it has done very well thank you, we see it every day when another murderer is granted freedom to murder again. Another rapist freed to rape an old woman or a child, another violent thief given the right to attack the weak. Where are the human rights of their victims, or don't we as law abiding victims have any. Is it only the dregs of foreign society that have invaded our nation that have the right to be safe from attack, safe from retribution, safe from punishment and safe from being deported. Even the government appointed leader of the UK arm has stated that it is wrong and has told the truth about the ECHR just recently.
Click to expand...

Again you drivel on in a fact free ramble. Give some examples and relate them specifically to the ECHR. I will be back around xmas to see how you are getting on. Thats if the muzzies hvent banned xmas natch.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is more heat than light.
> Show me some facts rather than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H'm. You've no direct reply to offer me at all ? This is the best attempt at a comeback you have to offer ?
> 
> Rejecting the electorate's decision to vote in a Conservative Government, one acting as a governing power for Wales (because it IS one) is no proof of any 'love of Britishness', when you make it clear that_* you want Brussels to govern you, rather than the will of the British people !!!*_
> 
> 'Love of Britishness' cannot equate to being far more open and accepting of rule by a foreign power. I note, in fact, that you have _*no*_ love of being British ? Well, yes._* You prove it by being pro-EU.*_
> 
> Quite.
> 
> But never mind. You want facts that support my side of this argument. Well, you need to be reminded that I've already posted some. See this link to a previous post ..
> 
> *Brexit busted.*
> 
> ... and what's posted there.
> 
> Now try this ...
> 
> *Chart: How much does Britain pay into the EU and what does it get back?*
> 
> 
> 
> Being a member of the European Union has been a one-way street for Britain. Contributions from Britain to the EU budget have outstripped the benefits received in every single year  of membership.
> 
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about *€260 billion (£228 billion)*. It has received back  in benefits* just €163 billion (£143 billion).* The difference of €97 billion (£85 billion at today’s exchange rate) has been Britain’s subsidy to the European project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it high time we stopped the EU from ripping us off, and used the billions we save for the welfare of the BRITISH (in line with your love of the British, eh) ??? Leaving the EU will fit the bill nicely ...
> 
> Try considering this outrage ...!! ....
> 
> *Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain yesterday surrendered 1,000 years of legal sovereignty in return for a European extradition treaty.
> 
> Judges and magistrates across the continent _will be given the power to demand the arrest and handover of British citizens simply by naming them as suspects. _
> 
> The pact sweeps away the right of people in this country to turn to the courts here for defence against charges abroad.
> 
> Also brushed aside will be _the historic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the habeas corpus protection against unjustified imprisonment. _
> 
> The treaty, being rushed through as part of the war on terror, covers 32 categories ranging from fraud and rape to 'xenophobia' and ' corruption' - offences which are currently not recognised in British law.
> 
> Agreement on the European arrest warrant came as the last country standing against it - Italy - backed down. It is now certain to be approved at a weekend EU summit in Belgium.
> 
> Tony Blair and British ministers have pushed enthusiastically for the extradition deal. But human rights activists and Eurosceptics have condemned an agreement that will abolish the powers of courts in all EU countries to resist extradition demands for the 32 crimes - beyond checking that warrants have been correctly issued.
> 
> Critics point to Greece - the country that has held 12 British planespotters in jail for more than a month on questionable spying charges - as an example of the legal systems to which the Government is handing unprecedented powers over Britons._ They say the loss of the ability to challenge extradition in a British court will end the over-riding principle of the court will end the over-riding principle of the presumption of innocence. _
> 
> Suspects will in effect face examination by a magistrate or judge to whom they must demonstrate their innocence under the Napoleonic code favoured in much of Europe.
> 
> Another ancient right to be infringed will be habeas corpus, the right to demand the release of anyone from imprisonment unless a good reason for holding them is demonstrated in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you joy in reading into this any evidence that the EU has any 'love of Britishness' ... OR ... that anyone supporting this would have any such regard for us, and our rights .....
> _*
> OF COURSE we should leave the EU ... & the sooner the better.*_
Click to expand...


You misrepresent me. I would prefer my country to govern itself,within the structure of the EU and benefiting from . membership. All I want from Britain is a good neighbour.

To address your other points.

I dont give a shit about British sovereignty or influence in the world. 

You seem to be more concerned about Britains influence in the world which is an intangible but not bothered about jobs and investment. 

Companies have set up in the UK to get access to the EU. If we came out they may very well move to Europe. Its not a difficult proposition to understand. We have a fragile economy and we dont need the uncertainty that will follow.  

Finally Mrs May has already destroyed habeas corpus with her anti terrorism laws.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mega Lolz as my kids say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know what it has done very well thank you, we see it every day when another murderer is granted freedom to murder again. Another rapist freed to rape an old woman or a child, another violent thief given the right to attack the weak. Where are the human rights of their victims, or don't we as law abiding victims have any. Is it only the dregs of foreign society that have invaded our nation that have the right to be safe from attack, safe from retribution, safe from punishment and safe from being deported. Even the government appointed leader of the UK arm has stated that it is wrong and has told the truth about the ECHR just recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you drivel on in a fact free ramble. Give some examples and relate them specifically to the ECHR. I will be back around xmas to see how you are getting on. Thats if the muzzies hvent banned xmas natch.
Click to expand...







 Like this



Child rapist used 'human rights' to fight deportation - then struck again


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is more heat than light.
> Show me some facts rather than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H'm. You've no direct reply to offer me at all ? This is the best attempt at a comeback you have to offer ?
> 
> Rejecting the electorate's decision to vote in a Conservative Government, one acting as a governing power for Wales (because it IS one) is no proof of any 'love of Britishness', when you make it clear that_* you want Brussels to govern you, rather than the will of the British people !!!*_
> 
> 'Love of Britishness' cannot equate to being far more open and accepting of rule by a foreign power. I note, in fact, that you have _*no*_ love of being British ? Well, yes._* You prove it by being pro-EU.*_
> 
> Quite.
> 
> But never mind. You want facts that support my side of this argument. Well, you need to be reminded that I've already posted some. See this link to a previous post ..
> 
> *Brexit busted.*
> 
> ... and what's posted there.
> 
> Now try this ...
> 
> *Chart: How much does Britain pay into the EU and what does it get back?*
> 
> 
> 
> Being a member of the European Union has been a one-way street for Britain. Contributions from Britain to the EU budget have outstripped the benefits received in every single year  of membership.
> 
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about *€260 billion (£228 billion)*. It has received back  in benefits* just €163 billion (£143 billion).* The difference of €97 billion (£85 billion at today’s exchange rate) has been Britain’s subsidy to the European project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it high time we stopped the EU from ripping us off, and used the billions we save for the welfare of the BRITISH (in line with your love of the British, eh) ??? Leaving the EU will fit the bill nicely ...
> 
> Try considering this outrage ...!! ....
> 
> *Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain yesterday surrendered 1,000 years of legal sovereignty in return for a European extradition treaty.
> 
> Judges and magistrates across the continent _will be given the power to demand the arrest and handover of British citizens simply by naming them as suspects. _
> 
> The pact sweeps away the right of people in this country to turn to the courts here for defence against charges abroad.
> 
> Also brushed aside will be _the historic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the habeas corpus protection against unjustified imprisonment. _
> 
> The treaty, being rushed through as part of the war on terror, covers 32 categories ranging from fraud and rape to 'xenophobia' and ' corruption' - offences which are currently not recognised in British law.
> 
> Agreement on the European arrest warrant came as the last country standing against it - Italy - backed down. It is now certain to be approved at a weekend EU summit in Belgium.
> 
> Tony Blair and British ministers have pushed enthusiastically for the extradition deal. But human rights activists and Eurosceptics have condemned an agreement that will abolish the powers of courts in all EU countries to resist extradition demands for the 32 crimes - beyond checking that warrants have been correctly issued.
> 
> Critics point to Greece - the country that has held 12 British planespotters in jail for more than a month on questionable spying charges - as an example of the legal systems to which the Government is handing unprecedented powers over Britons._ They say the loss of the ability to challenge extradition in a British court will end the over-riding principle of the court will end the over-riding principle of the presumption of innocence. _
> 
> Suspects will in effect face examination by a magistrate or judge to whom they must demonstrate their innocence under the Napoleonic code favoured in much of Europe.
> 
> Another ancient right to be infringed will be habeas corpus, the right to demand the release of anyone from imprisonment unless a good reason for holding them is demonstrated in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you joy in reading into this any evidence that the EU has any 'love of Britishness' ... OR ... that anyone supporting this would have any such regard for us, and our rights .....
> _*
> OF COURSE we should leave the EU ... & the sooner the better.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misrepresent me. I would prefer my country to govern itself,within the structure of the EU and benefiting from . membership. All I want from Britain is a good neighbour.
> 
> To address your other points.
> 
> I dont give a shit about British sovereignty or influence in the world.
> 
> You seem to be more concerned about Britains influence in the world which is an intangible but not bothered about jobs and investment.
> 
> Companies have set up in the UK to get access to the EU. If we came out they may very well move to Europe. Its not a difficult proposition to understand. We have a fragile economy and we dont need the uncertainty that will follow.
> 
> Finally Mrs May has already destroyed habeas corpus with her anti terrorism laws.
Click to expand...







 Then when are you going to be a good neighbour yourself as it was you lot that decided to be anti English all those years ago


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is more heat than light.
> Show me some facts rather than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H'm. You've no direct reply to offer me at all ? This is the best attempt at a comeback you have to offer ?
> 
> Rejecting the electorate's decision to vote in a Conservative Government, one acting as a governing power for Wales (because it IS one) is no proof of any 'love of Britishness', when you make it clear that_* you want Brussels to govern you, rather than the will of the British people !!!*_
> 
> 'Love of Britishness' cannot equate to being far more open and accepting of rule by a foreign power. I note, in fact, that you have _*no*_ love of being British ? Well, yes._* You prove it by being pro-EU.*_
> 
> Quite.
> 
> But never mind. You want facts that support my side of this argument. Well, you need to be reminded that I've already posted some. See this link to a previous post ..
> 
> *Brexit busted.*
> 
> ... and what's posted there.
> 
> Now try this ...
> 
> *Chart: How much does Britain pay into the EU and what does it get back?*
> 
> 
> 
> Being a member of the European Union has been a one-way street for Britain. Contributions from Britain to the EU budget have outstripped the benefits received in every single year  of membership.
> 
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about *€260 billion (£228 billion)*. It has received back  in benefits* just €163 billion (£143 billion).* The difference of €97 billion (£85 billion at today’s exchange rate) has been Britain’s subsidy to the European project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it high time we stopped the EU from ripping us off, and used the billions we save for the welfare of the BRITISH (in line with your love of the British, eh) ??? Leaving the EU will fit the bill nicely ...
> 
> Try considering this outrage ...!! ....
> 
> *Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain yesterday surrendered 1,000 years of legal sovereignty in return for a European extradition treaty.
> 
> Judges and magistrates across the continent _will be given the power to demand the arrest and handover of British citizens simply by naming them as suspects. _
> 
> The pact sweeps away the right of people in this country to turn to the courts here for defence against charges abroad.
> 
> Also brushed aside will be _the historic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the habeas corpus protection against unjustified imprisonment. _
> 
> The treaty, being rushed through as part of the war on terror, covers 32 categories ranging from fraud and rape to 'xenophobia' and ' corruption' - offences which are currently not recognised in British law.
> 
> Agreement on the European arrest warrant came as the last country standing against it - Italy - backed down. It is now certain to be approved at a weekend EU summit in Belgium.
> 
> Tony Blair and British ministers have pushed enthusiastically for the extradition deal. But human rights activists and Eurosceptics have condemned an agreement that will abolish the powers of courts in all EU countries to resist extradition demands for the 32 crimes - beyond checking that warrants have been correctly issued.
> 
> Critics point to Greece - the country that has held 12 British planespotters in jail for more than a month on questionable spying charges - as an example of the legal systems to which the Government is handing unprecedented powers over Britons._ They say the loss of the ability to challenge extradition in a British court will end the over-riding principle of the court will end the over-riding principle of the presumption of innocence. _
> 
> Suspects will in effect face examination by a magistrate or judge to whom they must demonstrate their innocence under the Napoleonic code favoured in much of Europe.
> 
> Another ancient right to be infringed will be habeas corpus, the right to demand the release of anyone from imprisonment unless a good reason for holding them is demonstrated in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you joy in reading into this any evidence that the EU has any 'love of Britishness' ... OR ... that anyone supporting this would have any such regard for us, and our rights .....
> _*
> OF COURSE we should leave the EU ... & the sooner the better.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misrepresent me. I would prefer my country to govern itself,within the structure of the EU and benefiting from . membership. All I want from Britain is a good neighbour.
> 
> To address your other points.
> 
> I dont give a shit about British sovereignty or influence in the world.
> 
> You seem to be more concerned about Britains influence in the world which is an intangible but not bothered about jobs and investment.
> 
> Companies have set up in the UK to get access to the EU. If we came out they may very well move to Europe. Its not a difficult proposition to understand. We have a fragile economy and we dont need the uncertainty that will follow.
> 
> Finally Mrs May has already destroyed habeas corpus with her anti terrorism laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then when are you going to be a good neighbour yourself as it was you lot that decided to be anti English all those years ago
Click to expand...



They don't even speak Welsh in Swansea. Only English.


----------



## there4eyeM

Many French people are saying, "If England wants to go, go! We're tired of making agreements for Europe and then exceptions for England".


----------



## Mindful

there4eyeM said:


> Many French people are saying, "If England wants to go, go! We're tired of making agreements for Europe and then exceptions for England".



What exceptions?

It's a French/German show, with client states.

Always has been.


----------



## there4eyeM

Oversimplified, of course, but those two do have the biggest economies and large populations. It is only 'democratic' that they have weight.


----------



## Mindful

Of course.


----------



## there4eyeM

Europe would doubtless run much more efficiently and prosperously if The Two did really run it. French inventiveness and productivity combined with Teutonic energy and productivity would be terrific. But, then dictatorships, too, are so tidy and efficient. Not to be desired, however.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is more heat than light.
> Show me some facts rather than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H'm. You've no direct reply to offer me at all ? This is the best attempt at a comeback you have to offer ?
> 
> Rejecting the electorate's decision to vote in a Conservative Government, one acting as a governing power for Wales (because it IS one) is no proof of any 'love of Britishness', when you make it clear that_* you want Brussels to govern you, rather than the will of the British people !!!*_
> 
> 'Love of Britishness' cannot equate to being far more open and accepting of rule by a foreign power. I note, in fact, that you have _*no*_ love of being British ? Well, yes._* You prove it by being pro-EU.*_
> 
> Quite.
> 
> But never mind. You want facts that support my side of this argument. Well, you need to be reminded that I've already posted some. See this link to a previous post ..
> 
> *Brexit busted.*
> 
> ... and what's posted there.
> 
> Now try this ...
> 
> *Chart: How much does Britain pay into the EU and what does it get back?*
> 
> 
> 
> Being a member of the European Union has been a one-way street for Britain. Contributions from Britain to the EU budget have outstripped the benefits received in every single year  of membership.
> 
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about *€260 billion (£228 billion)*. It has received back  in benefits* just €163 billion (£143 billion).* The difference of €97 billion (£85 billion at today’s exchange rate) has been Britain’s subsidy to the European project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it high time we stopped the EU from ripping us off, and used the billions we save for the welfare of the BRITISH (in line with your love of the British, eh) ??? Leaving the EU will fit the bill nicely ...
> 
> Try considering this outrage ...!! ....
> 
> *Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain yesterday surrendered 1,000 years of legal sovereignty in return for a European extradition treaty.
> 
> Judges and magistrates across the continent _will be given the power to demand the arrest and handover of British citizens simply by naming them as suspects. _
> 
> The pact sweeps away the right of people in this country to turn to the courts here for defence against charges abroad.
> 
> Also brushed aside will be _the historic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the habeas corpus protection against unjustified imprisonment. _
> 
> The treaty, being rushed through as part of the war on terror, covers 32 categories ranging from fraud and rape to 'xenophobia' and ' corruption' - offences which are currently not recognised in British law.
> 
> Agreement on the European arrest warrant came as the last country standing against it - Italy - backed down. It is now certain to be approved at a weekend EU summit in Belgium.
> 
> Tony Blair and British ministers have pushed enthusiastically for the extradition deal. But human rights activists and Eurosceptics have condemned an agreement that will abolish the powers of courts in all EU countries to resist extradition demands for the 32 crimes - beyond checking that warrants have been correctly issued.
> 
> Critics point to Greece - the country that has held 12 British planespotters in jail for more than a month on questionable spying charges - as an example of the legal systems to which the Government is handing unprecedented powers over Britons._ They say the loss of the ability to challenge extradition in a British court will end the over-riding principle of the court will end the over-riding principle of the presumption of innocence. _
> 
> Suspects will in effect face examination by a magistrate or judge to whom they must demonstrate their innocence under the Napoleonic code favoured in much of Europe.
> 
> Another ancient right to be infringed will be habeas corpus, the right to demand the release of anyone from imprisonment unless a good reason for holding them is demonstrated in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you joy in reading into this any evidence that the EU has any 'love of Britishness' ... OR ... that anyone supporting this would have any such regard for us, and our rights .....
> _*
> OF COURSE we should leave the EU ... & the sooner the better.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misrepresent me. I would prefer my country to govern itself,within the structure of the EU and benefiting from . membership. All I want from Britain is a good neighbour.
> 
> To address your other points.
> 
> I dont give a shit about British sovereignty or influence in the world.
> 
> You seem to be more concerned about Britains influence in the world which is an intangible but not bothered about jobs and investment.
> 
> Companies have set up in the UK to get access to the EU. If we came out they may very well move to Europe. Its not a difficult proposition to understand. We have a fragile economy and we dont need the uncertainty that will follow.
> 
> Finally Mrs May has already destroyed habeas corpus with her anti terrorism laws.
Click to expand...


Points:

1. Wales is not independent from the UK. It can only govern itself to a very limited extent, as you must well know. To be its 'own' entity, it'd first have to vote for full independence. If you think that's likely, you're dreaming.

2. IF Wales became 'independent', it'd then have to apply as its own entity for membership of the EU ! And in the unlikely scenario where the EU said 'yes' ....

3. .. then Wales would, again, CEASE to be any independent body ... it'd have to obey all the strictures the EU would insist upon -- which is the exact OPPOSITE of Wales governing itself !! If you want Wales to be tied into the EU, the EU would insist upon having a say in how Wales was run, and it would interfere in any number of ways, just as they do right now, with the UK. So, you are NOT arguing for an 'independent' Wales !!!

4. You have a contempt for British standing in the world, and presumably, therefore, for Britain as a whole. Duly noted - I agree, it explains much.

5. Jobs and investment are likely to be enhanced, once we look to GREATER market opportunities, and can govern our OWN trade deals !! The EU doesn't permit us full latitude to do that.

6. Only a minority of Companies have used the UK as a pipeline to the EU ... a greater majority just trade with us. Isn't it better for the UK to deal with them, as the UK chooses to, without having to worry about EU interference in such deals ???

7. Mrs May is tough on terrorists. The European Court of Human Rights has made decisions proving the opposite .....


----------



## Phoenall

there4eyeM said:


> Oversimplified, of course, but those two do have the biggest economies and large populations. It is only 'democratic' that they have weight.







How is it democratic to have unelected eurocrats make decisions based on the neo Marxist principles and dogma for the rest or Europe. The people of Europe should be doing that through their elected representatives. How can the EU say that all member states will hand over 25% of their income to keep afloat other nations that don't want to pay their way.


----------



## Phoenall

there4eyeM said:


> Europe would doubtless run much more efficiently and prosperously if The Two did really run it. French inventiveness and productivity combined with Teutonic energy and productivity would be terrific. But, then dictatorships, too, are so tidy and efficient. Not to be desired, however.







 Then we would have another European war as the two nations can not tolerate each other


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'love of Britishness' involves DISTANCING yourself from the rest of the UK. Therefore, it's nothing of the kind. You'd rather bury your identity within the EU colossus than respect the UK, its Government, its electorate !
> 
> Leaving the EU means we look to other markets ... and there's MORE out there, than the EU offers. This means greater trade in prospect, greater prosperity, which will encourage investment. Remember .. being tied into the EU means we are tied into its fortunes. How threatened was EU unity and stability by the Greek financial situation ? Do you think that other worse threats to stability don't exist ? Spain ? Portugal ?
> 
> Being dictated to by the EU means that if our public services do well one day, the next, they may not. Our interests would be dictated by people who do NOT put us FIRST.
> 
> Since when did a court inclined to be lenient to terrorists, protect human rights ?!?
> 
> Leave the EU .. we decide our own fate, our own priorities. Stay in the EU ... we have it all dictated to us. And by a FOREIGN power !!!
> 
> Still choosing to ignore, or disregard, the BRITISH electorate, who had the temerity to vote the Conservatives in power .. ???
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is more heat than light.
> Show me some facts rather than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H'm. You've no direct reply to offer me at all ? This is the best attempt at a comeback you have to offer ?
> 
> Rejecting the electorate's decision to vote in a Conservative Government, one acting as a governing power for Wales (because it IS one) is no proof of any 'love of Britishness', when you make it clear that_* you want Brussels to govern you, rather than the will of the British people !!!*_
> 
> 'Love of Britishness' cannot equate to being far more open and accepting of rule by a foreign power. I note, in fact, that you have _*no*_ love of being British ? Well, yes._* You prove it by being pro-EU.*_
> 
> Quite.
> 
> But never mind. You want facts that support my side of this argument. Well, you need to be reminded that I've already posted some. See this link to a previous post ..
> 
> *Brexit busted.*
> 
> ... and what's posted there.
> 
> Now try this ...
> 
> *Chart: How much does Britain pay into the EU and what does it get back?*
> 
> 
> 
> Being a member of the European Union has been a one-way street for Britain. Contributions from Britain to the EU budget have outstripped the benefits received in every single year  of membership.
> 
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about *€260 billion (£228 billion)*. It has received back  in benefits* just €163 billion (£143 billion).* The difference of €97 billion (£85 billion at today’s exchange rate) has been Britain’s subsidy to the European project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it high time we stopped the EU from ripping us off, and used the billions we save for the welfare of the BRITISH (in line with your love of the British, eh) ??? Leaving the EU will fit the bill nicely ...
> 
> Try considering this outrage ...!! ....
> 
> *Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain yesterday surrendered 1,000 years of legal sovereignty in return for a European extradition treaty.
> 
> Judges and magistrates across the continent _will be given the power to demand the arrest and handover of British citizens simply by naming them as suspects. _
> 
> The pact sweeps away the right of people in this country to turn to the courts here for defence against charges abroad.
> 
> Also brushed aside will be _the historic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the habeas corpus protection against unjustified imprisonment. _
> 
> The treaty, being rushed through as part of the war on terror, covers 32 categories ranging from fraud and rape to 'xenophobia' and ' corruption' - offences which are currently not recognised in British law.
> 
> Agreement on the European arrest warrant came as the last country standing against it - Italy - backed down. It is now certain to be approved at a weekend EU summit in Belgium.
> 
> Tony Blair and British ministers have pushed enthusiastically for the extradition deal. But human rights activists and Eurosceptics have condemned an agreement that will abolish the powers of courts in all EU countries to resist extradition demands for the 32 crimes - beyond checking that warrants have been correctly issued.
> 
> Critics point to Greece - the country that has held 12 British planespotters in jail for more than a month on questionable spying charges - as an example of the legal systems to which the Government is handing unprecedented powers over Britons._ They say the loss of the ability to challenge extradition in a British court will end the over-riding principle of the court will end the over-riding principle of the presumption of innocence. _
> 
> Suspects will in effect face examination by a magistrate or judge to whom they must demonstrate their innocence under the Napoleonic code favoured in much of Europe.
> 
> Another ancient right to be infringed will be habeas corpus, the right to demand the release of anyone from imprisonment unless a good reason for holding them is demonstrated in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you joy in reading into this any evidence that the EU has any 'love of Britishness' ... OR ... that anyone supporting this would have any such regard for us, and our rights .....
> _*
> OF COURSE we should leave the EU ... & the sooner the better.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misrepresent me. I would prefer my country to govern itself,within the structure of the EU and benefiting from . membership. All I want from Britain is a good neighbour.
> 
> To address your other points.
> 
> I dont give a shit about British sovereignty or influence in the world.
> 
> You seem to be more concerned about Britains influence in the world which is an intangible but not bothered about jobs and investment.
> 
> Companies have set up in the UK to get access to the EU. If we came out they may very well move to Europe. Its not a difficult proposition to understand. We have a fragile economy and we dont need the uncertainty that will follow.
> 
> Finally Mrs May has already destroyed habeas corpus with her anti terrorism laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Points:
> 
> 1. Wales is not independent from the UK. It can only govern itself to a very limited extent, as you must well know. To be its 'own' entity, it'd first have to vote for full independence. If you think that's likely, you're dreaming.
> 
> 2. IF Wales became 'independent', it'd then have to apply as its own entity for membership of the EU ! And in the unlikely scenario where the EU said 'yes' ....
> 
> 3. .. then Wales would, again, CEASE to be any independent body ... it'd have to obey all the strictures the EU would insist upon -- which is the exact OPPOSITE of Wales governing itself !! If you want Wales to be tied into the EU, the EU would insist upon having a say in how Wales was run, and it would interfere in any number of ways, just as they do right now, with the UK. So, you are NOT arguing for an 'independent' Wales !!!
> 
> 4. You have a contempt for British standing in the world, and presumably, therefore, for Britain as a whole. Duly noted - I agree, it explains much.
> 
> 5. Jobs and investment are likely to be enhanced, once we look to GREATER market opportunities, and can govern our OWN trade deals !! The EU doesn't permit us full latitude to do that.
> 
> 6. Only a minority of Companies have used the UK as a pipeline to the EU ... a greater majority just trade with us. Isn't it better for the UK to deal with them, as the UK chooses to, without having to worry about EU interference in such deals ???
> 
> 7. Mrs May is tough on terrorists. The European Court of Human Rights has made decisions proving the opposite .....
Click to expand...






1)  The welsh could not afford to govern itself it relies on English taxes too much, it has no GDP of its own to talk of.

2)  The EU has already said that it would be hard for the Union to become members without England bing part of the deal.

3)  Of course he isn't he is arguing along purely racist lines because the English beat the Welsh and took control.

4)  Typical Welsh racism

5)  Correct and we wont be hindered by EU rules stopping us from subsidising our industries

6)  YES

7)  Correct , and also on rapists, murderers and other criminals that use the ECHR as a means to evade punishment. We should do as Germany and France do and deport first and then allow them to contest the deportation


----------



## there4eyeM

Phoenall said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe would doubtless run much more efficiently and prosperously if The Two did really run it. French inventiveness and productivity combined with Teutonic energy and productivity would be terrific. But, then dictatorships, too, are so tidy and efficient. Not to be desired, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we would have another European war as the two nations can not tolerate each other
Click to expand...


This information is based on what, exactly? How many French have you polled? Or perhaps you have spent time in France and can tell us about attitudes expressed to you.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

The ECHR protects all of us and was actually drafted by British lawyers after the second world war.

You misunderstand the basic nature of a human rights bill. It is there to protect EVERYBODY. This means everybody and not just people we approve of.
Ask yourself if you would like to be held for weeks on end without being charged or even being told what you were guilty of.
You wouldnt like it and it is not right that you should be treated that way. But the law that protects you should protect everybody else as well. That is beyond debate.

I will also share with you the thoughts of one of the UKs leading company.
Airbus executives write staff letter warning of Brexit dangers

That is something tangible. Your opinion is not relevant because you do not know. You are selling a La La land idea from the 50s.

You think that you can ban immigrants from the EU when you leave but any trade deal would stipulate freedom of movement. That is what the Swiss had to sign up to.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> The ECHR protects all of us and was actually drafted by British lawyers after the second world war.
> 
> You misunderstand the basic nature of a human rights bill. It is there to protect EVERYBODY. This means everybody and not just people we approve of.
> Ask yourself if you would like to be held for weeks on end without being charged or even being told what you were guilty of.
> You wouldnt like it and it is not right that you should be treated that way. But the law that protects you should protect everybody else as well. That is beyond debate.
> 
> I will also share with you the thoughts of one of the UKs leading company.
> Airbus executives write staff letter warning of Brexit dangers
> 
> That is something tangible. Your opinion is not relevant because you do not know. You are selling a La La land idea from the 50s.
> 
> You think that you can ban immigrants from the EU when you leave but any trade deal would stipulate freedom of movement. That is what the Swiss had to sign up to.



There's a grain of truth - at minimum - in your first statement. The ECHR is there 'to protect everybody'. That's to say .. their interests.

This includes *convicted murderers *.. the ECHR cares a lot about them. See ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...grow-to-boycott-toxic-human-rights-court.html



> *A major revolt against Europe’s influence over British affairs was triggered tonight after judges in Strasbourg ruled that “life means life” sentences given to the most heinous criminals breach their human rights.*
> 
> The European Court of Human Rights agreed that a “whole life” tariff, which forces murderers to die in jail, was “inhuman and degrading” after an appeal was brought by Jeremy Bamber, who killed five members of his family in 1985.
> 
> The court proposed that those serving life with no possibility of parole should have their cases reviewed after 25 years, following which they could be freed.
> 
> The decision means that prisoners serving whole life tariffs, including some of Britain’s most notorious killers such as Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, and Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, could be granted permission to seek parole.
> 
> The ruling prompted a furious reaction from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. *But ministers have no right of appeal against the ruling and the Government has six months to act upon the decision.*
> 
> David Cameron said that he was “very, very disappointed” and “profoundly disagrees” with the court’s decision.



THIS is the nature of the ECHR's decision-making ... being soft even on serial killers, trash who could certainly be suspected of being a danger to society, if ever released !! And .. IN A WAY THAT INTENDS TO OVERRULE A COUNTRY'S OWN CONCERNS.

What's more, this is no 'la la land' idea from the 1950's. I'm talking about recent history !!!

I'd rather a law be applied over-zealously, than be so watered down - or even overruled ! - by EU interference that justice becomes meaningless, people needlessly threatened by its consequences. Do you understand that, or are your rose-coloured glasses so directed in the EU's favour that you'd forgive them ANY excess ??

I'm glad you mentioned the Swiss. Well spotted ! But let's see what THEY had to take a little more realistically, shall we ?

EU Terrorizes Switzerland Over Vote to Limit Immigration



> The European Union is terrorizing voters in Switzerland and threatening retaliation against the tiny nation, *which is not in the EU*, after the Swiss voted on February 9 to limit immigration in a national referendum. Amid* outrageous verbal attacks on the Swiss themselves — senior EU officials have been suggesting that “xenophobia” was behind the vote — out-of-touch European politicians and bureaucrats are even warning that Switzerland could lose its current bilateral access to the “common market” ruled by the emerging super-state in Brussels.*
> 
> The EU, famous for ignoring the public to impose its will, has already started adopting the “consequences” promised by its apparatchiks. According to news reports, the unaccountable regime just suspended talks with Switzerland on incorporating Swiss utilities into the broader European energy market. “No technical negotiations on the electricity agreement are foreseen between Switzerland and the EU at the moment in light of the new situation,” European Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen announced to reporters in Brussels on February 11. More pain has been promised.



This is how the EU treats NON-members. With breathtaking, bullying arrogance !!! To ask you a silly question ... do you REALLY want anything to do with people who'll behave so arrogantly ? Who insist upon bending others to its will, whether or not any form of formalised association with them exists ??

Thank you for mentioning the Swiss. Their case is an especially damning one ... *against the EU.*


----------



## Igrok_

Mindful said:


> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.


what is the interest of USA in UK remaining in EU?


----------



## Phoenall

there4eyeM said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe would doubtless run much more efficiently and prosperously if The Two did really run it. French inventiveness and productivity combined with Teutonic energy and productivity would be terrific. But, then dictatorships, too, are so tidy and efficient. Not to be desired, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we would have another European war as the two nations can not tolerate each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This information is based on what, exactly? How many French have you polled? Or perhaps you have spent time in France and can tell us about attitudes expressed to you.
Click to expand...







 Common knowledge


----------



## Phoenall

Igrok_ said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> what is the interest of USA in UK remaining in EU?
Click to expand...






 A ready market to dump goods through the UK


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> The ECHR protects all of us and was actually drafted by British lawyers after the second world war.
> 
> You misunderstand the basic nature of a human rights bill. It is there to protect EVERYBODY. This means everybody and not just people we approve of.
> Ask yourself if you would like to be held for weeks on end without being charged or even being told what you were guilty of.
> You wouldnt like it and it is not right that you should be treated that way. But the law that protects you should protect everybody else as well. That is beyond debate.
> 
> I will also share with you the thoughts of one of the UKs leading company.
> Airbus executives write staff letter warning of Brexit dangers
> 
> That is something tangible. Your opinion is not relevant because you do not know. You are selling a La La land idea from the 50s.
> 
> You think that you can ban immigrants from the EU when you leave but any trade deal would stipulate freedom of movement. That is what the Swiss had to sign up to.









 Isnt that what the neo Marxist labour party proposed when the courts found Griffin innocent of all charges. They wanted to arrest without warrant or due cause anyone that opposed their political views and actions. Then to keep them under lock and key indefinitely.
 Once the neo Marxists saw how they could manipulate the ECHR they ran with it all the way, and so we had rapists, murderers and violent thugs given their freedom under European Human Rights laws for such things as a human right to a family life  or ties to a pet cat


----------



## there4eyeM

Phoenall said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe would doubtless run much more efficiently and prosperously if The Two did really run it. French inventiveness and productivity combined with Teutonic energy and productivity would be terrific. But, then dictatorships, too, are so tidy and efficient. Not to be desired, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we would have another European war as the two nations can not tolerate each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This information is based on what, exactly? How many French have you polled? Or perhaps you have spent time in France and can tell us about attitudes expressed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common knowledge
Click to expand...


It is a pleasure to report that 'Common' is incorrect.


----------



## Drummond

Igrok_ said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> what is the interest of USA in UK remaining in EU?
Click to expand...


I think Obama's following a Leftie globalist agenda .. caring more about the viability of massive power blocs than seeing individual nations remain as independent powers. It says something for Obama's determination to see the UK remain, that he threatens the UK with a threat he personally will be unable to follow up on, and one he cannot know WILL be followed up on, as he's so near the end of his Presidency !!


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> what is the interest of USA in UK remaining in EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Obama's following a Leftie globalist agenda .. caring more about the viability of massive power blocs than seeing individual nations remain as independent powers. It says something for Obama's determination to see the UK remain, that he threatens the UK with a threat he personally will be unable to follow up on, and one he cannot know WILL be followed up on, as he's so near the end of his Presidency !!
Click to expand...


Nothing but eulogising the "special relationship", Churchill and the rest of the blah blah.

And later, threatens with the back of the queue.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Tommy Tainant said:


> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.



I don't know why I should care.


----------



## Drummond

Mindful said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> what is the interest of USA in UK remaining in EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Obama's following a Leftie globalist agenda .. caring more about the viability of massive power blocs than seeing individual nations remain as independent powers. It says something for Obama's determination to see the UK remain, that he threatens the UK with a threat he personally will be unable to follow up on, and one he cannot know WILL be followed up on, as he's so near the end of his Presidency !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but eulogising the "special relationship", Churchill and the rest of the blah blah.
> 
> And later, threatens with the back of the queue.
Click to expand...


Yes - what a disgusting hypocrite.


----------



## Drummond

BuckToothMoron said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I do, either.

Are you British or American ? Obviously, the answer to 'why' would vary between the two.

If British ... well ... DO you want a foreign power encroaching more and more into the way your country is run ? Because if you're happy with that .. it means that you want a couple of dozen foreign powers deciding for you what may be best for you (we have only one vote, in those 2 dozen plus votes ...). 

You may be OK with that, somehow hoping you're always going to be 'better off' if others, who are looking after THEIR interests, not yours, interfere as they choose to. And I suppose there truly IS an infintesimally small chance it'll work out that way. It's not exactly likely, though ..... and with the EU draining away much-needed funds to a greater extent than we ever gain .. over the past THIRTY TWO straight years !! .... well, what's happened so far isn't encouraging.

Do we have a right to control immigration ? If NO, then other EU citizens may take our jobs. Is that a good thing ?

Do we have a right to be OURSELVES ... with an identity all our own ? Or, over time, will we become ever-more subsumed to EU diktat from other cultures ?

Perhaps .... you 'shouldn't care'. But perhaps others of us should. Perhaps we have a right to.

As for how much longer we will have that right .... well, who knows - eh ?


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I do, either.
> 
> Are you British or American ? Obviously, the answer to 'why' would vary between the two.
> 
> If British ... well ... DO you want a foreign power encroaching more and more into the way your country is run ? Because if you're happy with that .. it means that you want a couple of dozen foreign powers deciding for you what may be best for you (we have only one vote, in those 2 dozen plus votes ...).
> 
> You may be OK with that, somehow hoping you're always going to be 'better off' if others, who are looking after THEIR interests, not yours, interfere as they choose to. And I suppose there truly IS an infintesimally small chance it'll work out that way. It's not exactly likely, though ..... and with the EU draining away much-needed funds to a greater extent than we ever gain .. over the past THIRTY TWO straight years !! .... well, what's happened so far isn't encouraging.
> 
> Do we have a right to control immigration ? If NO, then other EU citizens may take our jobs. Is that a good thing ?
> 
> Do we have a right to be OURSELVES ... with an identity all our own ? Or, over time, will we become ever-more subsumed to EU diktat from other cultures ?
> 
> Perhaps .... you 'shouldn't care'. But perhaps others of us should. Perhaps we have a right to.
> 
> As for how much longer we will have that right .... well, who knows - eh ?
Click to expand...


Americans are not particularly interested in Britain.

Obama makes that more than obvious.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

BuckToothMoron said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
Click to expand...

Most people dont care. The whole brexit nonsense has been driven by scared old people who yearn for the 50s.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most people dont care.* The whole brexit nonsense has been driven by scared old people who yearn for the 50s.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that for a second. Bear in mind that the Conservative promise to hold a Referendum might well have finally won them their last election victory. Do you know that it didn't ?? Maybe the Conservatives you have such a dislike for, might've lost had they not made that promise ?

People DO care about immigration, and everyone knows we cannot get full control of our own borders until we're shot of the EU .. the EU absolutely insists on porous borders for all EU Member States .. regardless of country or more 'local' concerns being expressed.

Even you must agree that there's a remarkably even split between the 'pro' and 'anti' camps on this issue. Nobody possessing creditable authority to judge, is confidently predicting a victory for either side, as of now, are they ? So ... people DO care. You might wish otherwise, but then, that's just your own wish.

So tell me,what's your ideal ? That we march on to a future where no part of the present-day UK can be said to be self-governing ? That we take our orders from foreigners, laws from them, diktats from them, we pay more to them than we ever receive in return (as we have done, for decades !) ... we can forget* ever* controlling our borders .._ because we cannot even control our own destiny ??_

You've indicated you want an independent Wales (which is NOT on the cards for the foreseeable future), EXCEPT, you'd rather it wasn't independent from the EU. Therefore, you don't want independence ..._ *at all*_ ... just to choose a new set of 'overseeing masters' governing Wales.

And you want them, as an alternative to the UK electorate's own voting preference .... something you'd see overruled, even though Welsh people themselves took part in that process ....

Well, I say NO. Let the UK be, finally, fully self-governing. Let it determine its own fate !!! Is that really so terrible ???


----------



## Tommy Tainant

What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?

The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
Its a grim prospect.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Mindful said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I do, either.
> 
> Are you British or American ? Obviously, the answer to 'why' would vary between the two.
> 
> If British ... well ... DO you want a foreign power encroaching more and more into the way your country is run ? Because if you're happy with that .. it means that you want a couple of dozen foreign powers deciding for you what may be best for you (we have only one vote, in those 2 dozen plus votes ...).
> 
> You may be OK with that, somehow hoping you're always going to be 'better off' if others, who are looking after THEIR interests, not yours, interfere as they choose to. And I suppose there truly IS an infintesimally small chance it'll work out that way. It's not exactly likely, though ..... and with the EU draining away much-needed funds to a greater extent than we ever gain .. over the past THIRTY TWO straight years !! .... well, what's happened so far isn't encouraging.
> 
> Do we have a right to control immigration ? If NO, then other EU citizens may take our jobs. Is that a good thing ?
> 
> Do we have a right to be OURSELVES ... with an identity all our own ? Or, over time, will we become ever-more subsumed to EU diktat from other cultures ?
> 
> Perhaps .... you 'shouldn't care'. But perhaps others of us should. Perhaps we have a right to.
> 
> As for how much longer we will have that right .... well, who knows - eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans are not particularly interested in Britain.
> 
> Obama makes that more than obvious.
Click to expand...


Why should we be concerned with Britan....tea?


----------



## Mindful

BuckToothMoron said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I do, either.
> 
> Are you British or American ? Obviously, the answer to 'why' would vary between the two.
> 
> If British ... well ... DO you want a foreign power encroaching more and more into the way your country is run ? Because if you're happy with that .. it means that you want a couple of dozen foreign powers deciding for you what may be best for you (we have only one vote, in those 2 dozen plus votes ...).
> 
> You may be OK with that, somehow hoping you're always going to be 'better off' if others, who are looking after THEIR interests, not yours, interfere as they choose to. And I suppose there truly IS an infintesimally small chance it'll work out that way. It's not exactly likely, though ..... and with the EU draining away much-needed funds to a greater extent than we ever gain .. over the past THIRTY TWO straight years !! .... well, what's happened so far isn't encouraging.
> 
> Do we have a right to control immigration ? If NO, then other EU citizens may take our jobs. Is that a good thing ?
> 
> Do we have a right to be OURSELVES ... with an identity all our own ? Or, over time, will we become ever-more subsumed to EU diktat from other cultures ?
> 
> Perhaps .... you 'shouldn't care'. But perhaps others of us should. Perhaps we have a right to.
> 
> As for how much longer we will have that right .... well, who knows - eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans are not particularly interested in Britain.
> 
> Obama makes that more than obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we be concerned with Britan....tea?
Click to expand...


Did anyone say you should?

Tea comes from India.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people dont care. The whole brexit nonsense has been driven by scared old people who yearn for the 50s.
Click to expand...






No it is run by people who can see the problems with uncontrolled immigration an multiculturalism. We see the feckless who don't want to work live off the sweat f those who do work, and complain when they are told to pay something back. We see the immigrants flooding the land and leaving trails of filth behind demanding money with threats We see the champagne socialists living the good life demanding we give up more to support those less able than us. We see the mass rapes of children by foreign invaders, the increasing crime rates and the lowering of standards in our hospitals.

 That is what we see and don't like it, so getting out of the EU will lead to all this stopping and you having to get a proper Job.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?
> 
> The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
> You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
> You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
> Its a grim prospect.






It cant control its borders

It cant deport criminals

it cant set its own level of vat

it cant grow certain plants

it cant set its own laws if they go against the EU

WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR BORDERS AS THE EU HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN WE DO

WE WILL ONLY INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT AMONGST IMMIGRANTS AS WE EILL DICTATE WHO WORKS AND NOT THE EU

ONLY FOR THE EU AND THE WORKSHY WHO WILL LOSE ALL THAT MONEY THEY HAVE NEVER EARNED.


THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SCARED OF, LOSING YOUR SEAT ON THE WELFARE GRAVY TRAIN


----------



## Tommy Tainant

The Uk sets its own laws.In fact different parts of the UK have different laws. Its the same all over Europe.
We set our own taxes,just like the rest of Europe.
Our levels of immigration will not change or we will not get a proper trade deal with the EU.
Brexit will hasten the break up of the UK because the Scots will go straight away and the Welsh will go within a decade.
The Celtic nations will join the EU and take all the investment that England would have got.   

It cant control its borders
There will be no change on this.
It cant deport criminals
Yes it can.It happens every day.
it cant set its own level of vat
Yes it can. It was changed a couple of years ago and is always under review.
it cant grow certain plants
???????????????? Oh the horror !
it cant set its own laws if they go against the EU
Yes they can. What specific law do you mean ?
WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR BORDERS AS THE EU HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN WE DO
I doubt it. See previous answer.
WE WILL ONLY INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT AMONGST IMMIGRANTS AS WE EILL DICTATE WHO WORKS AND NOT THE EU
Classic brexit bullshit. You claim they are only coming for the benefits but er lets put them out of work. Muppet.
ONLY FOR THE EU AND THE WORKSHY WHO WILL LOSE ALL THAT MONEY THEY HAVE NEVER EARNED.
This needs to be translated as it makes no sense.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people dont care. The whole brexit nonsense has been driven by scared old people who yearn for the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is run by people who can see the problems with uncontrolled immigration an multiculturalism. We see the feckless who don't want to work live off the sweat f those who do work, and complain when they are told to pay something back. We see the immigrants flooding the land and leaving trails of filth behind demanding money with threats We see the champagne socialists living the good life demanding we give up more to support those less able than us. We see the mass rapes of children by foreign invaders, the increasing crime rates and the lowering of standards in our hospitals.
> 
> That is what we see and don't like it, so getting out of the EU will lead to all this stopping and you having to get a proper Job.
Click to expand...

Right on cue.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?
> 
> The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
> You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
> You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
> Its a grim prospect.



Answer: run its own affairs, without Europe forever looking over its shoulder to see if they can, or want to, apply a veto over what we decide to do !!

The UK Parliament (which you are no fan of ?) ... does set its own taxes, and yes, it can set its own laws. What you omit to say is that if a UK law is proposed which violates EU law, _*EU LAW OVERRIDES IT *_.. so, whatever 'freedom' of that kind we have, it's curtailed by EU authority over us. Basically, this amounts to a 'do as you like, so long as you never actually defy us' mandate.

Your claim that the UK will be unable to control its own borders if trade with the EU continues, is obviously nonsense. Will European companies fight pitched battles with border control officials ? Will they actively smuggle illegal immigrants across the Channel ? Or will they just send people to invade the Houses of Parliament, the moment we try to pass restrictive legislation, to disrupt such proceedings ?

No, that's rubbish. Get shot of the EU, and we immediately regain full legislative and practical control over our borders. If we don't, then the EU tells us that we MUST accept its citizens, unless we can muster a very good reason to reject any of them ... on a case-by-case basis, of course ....

You say we'll increase unemployment. Really ? Well, how about ... UK CITIZENS getting the jobs that the EU lot would otherwise grab ?? Your argument might make a form of sense if one assumes that the EU is the only market out there, the only source of business existing in the world .. but of course, it isn't. _Far from it !_ We will be* expanding* our trade and business opportunities, once we're free of EU restrictions .. in the longer term, we are bound to know increased prosperity and an increased influx of business interest from those who'd rather deal with us, not the restrictive bureaucratic nightmare that the EU offers them.

You mention technology. I'm not aware that the EU offers superior technologies and opportunities to, say, Silicon Valley ? Since when were the EU as a whole world leaders in that field ? Everyone knows that America and Japan are better, more innovative sources !!

Back to the 'what EU law don't you like' point ... well, the very fact of EU citizen migrant freedoms is an obvious choice. But also try this, a disturbing aspect of that problem:

UK benefits test 'breaches EU law'

It's an example of a clash between UK and EU laws, with the EU wishing to strenuously challenge us ...



> A UK "right to reside" test on EU nationals based in the country is a breach of EU law, the European Commission warned today.
> 
> Brussels threatened it will take legal action unless the test - which determines who qualifies for specific social security benefits - is dropped.
> 
> A Commission statement said the Government has two months to advise Brussels what it is doing to bring domestic social security rules in line with EU requirements.
> 
> "Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the UK to the EU's Court of Justice," said a statement.
> 
> Conservative MEP Julie Girling slammed the move as an interference by "unelected bureaucrats" in UK domestic policy.
> 
> Ms Girling, the Tory spokesman on employment and social affairs in the European Parliament, went on:_* "British taxpayers will want to know why their hard-earned money should now be directed straight into the pockets of any EU national who chooses to come here and make a claim.
> 
> "This can only lead to a boom in benefits tourism. And with our generous system, Britain will be destination of choice."*_



I'll just ask you outright ... how ON EARTH isn't this a totally unfair imposition on the British taxpayer ... to say nothing of an incentive for EU nationals to come over here and sponge off of us ??


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> The Uk sets its own laws.In fact different parts of the UK have different laws. Its the same all over Europe.
> We set our own taxes,just like the rest of Europe.
> Our levels of immigration will not change or we will not get a proper trade deal with the EU.
> Brexit will hasten the break up of the UK because the Scots will go straight away and the Welsh will go within a decade.
> The Celtic nations will join the EU and take all the investment that England would have got.
> 
> It cant control its borders
> There will be no change on this.
> It cant deport criminals
> Yes it can.It happens every day.
> it cant set its own level of vat
> Yes it can. It was changed a couple of years ago and is always under review.
> it cant grow certain plants
> ???????????????? Oh the horror !
> it cant set its own laws if they go against the EU
> Yes they can. What specific law do you mean ?
> WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR BORDERS AS THE EU HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN WE DO
> I doubt it. See previous answer.
> WE WILL ONLY INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT AMONGST IMMIGRANTS AS WE EILL DICTATE WHO WORKS AND NOT THE EU
> Classic brexit bullshit. You claim they are only coming for the benefits but er lets put them out of work. Muppet.
> ONLY FOR THE EU AND THE WORKSHY WHO WILL LOSE ALL THAT MONEY THEY HAVE NEVER EARNED.
> This needs to be translated as it makes no sense.



I think I've answered some of this already ? The UK can set its own laws, but ONLY if they don't clash with EU law. In the event of such a clash, EU law overrides !

We do NOT have control over our borders, as current members of the EU. Everybody knows this. Cameron made the rash promise, just a couple of years ago, to slash immigration to just tens of thousands. He's been utterly unable to keep that promise, because .. HE CANNOT.

The only chance we have of fixing that injustice is to leave the EU, and the quicker the better.

Oh, and ... I repeat an earlier comment of mine. Wales becoming an independent nation of its own (which isn't at all likely) would immediately sell that independence down the river if it then negotiated its own EU membership deal. The whole point of the EU, these days, IS to tie member States to it, legally, financially, in every power-based way possible. If you argue for any tie with the EU, you argue for Wales saying goodbye to its future (if it ever had one, or could ..) as its own nation.


----------



## Drummond

Here's an example of why businesses have preferred to NOT get tangled up with the EU .... 

Brussels bureaucracy wastes €40 billion a year



> *The European Commission is about to launch measures to curb excessive bureaucracy in the EU that costs billions of euros a year. Businesses complain they spend too much time fighting red tape.*
> 
> Yard workers shout instructions as a crate is loaded into the van by a forklift truck. Activity on this September morning is brisk even despite the recession, but freight company director Christian Dupuy has another worry on his mind: European red tape.
> 
> A self-made entrepreneur in Strasbourg, France, Mr Dupuy has big plans to expand his business, but like thousands like him, he says he is often held back by EU rules.
> 
> “There are lots of directives which are hard for us to put into practice,” he says. Keen to make his business more environmentally-friendly, Mr Durpuy wanted to take advantage of subsidies for a new EU green scheme to transfer road freight on to rails.
> 
> “But there’s no one to ask and when we got the paperwork, we found it was only in English. So we’ve had to stump up the cash to translate this document, which for many other small companies would be impossible,” he says.
> 
> In the end, the conditions were “impossible to meet”, as he found out after many phone calls: “We always have to dial many, many numbers to find someone who might be able to help. It’s the survival of the fittest.”
> 
> Christian Dupuy’s frustrations are all too common and feed into a multi-billion-euro problem. The European Commission’s anti-red tape tsar, Edmund Stoiber, says up to €40 billion is being wasted every year in the EU by excessive business rules and he is about to unveil a package of measures to simplify them._* The EU has 80,000 pages of laws, many of which Mr Stoiber says are not needed, and he wants to scrap directives that complicate administration and safety rules for companies ranging from bakeries to farms. “The problem is that we’ve created a good internal market but lots of administrative burdens to go with it. It will be a big challenge to push these proposals through but it’s essential we do it,”*_ says Wim van de Camp, a Dutch Christian Democrat MEP (CDA).



So, we see that the EU has acknowledged the mammoth task involved in reforming itself, so that it may become far _more_ business-friendly !! To anyone suggesting that jobs will be lost if we pull out of the EU, *I ask ... how many have already been lost, thanks to EU bureaucratic control-freakery ???*

Getting out of the EU would remove such a weight from businesses dealing with us ... at a stroke.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?
> 
> The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
> You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
> You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
> Its a grim prospect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: run its own affairs, without Europe forever looking over its shoulder to see if they can, or want to, apply a veto over what we decide to do !!
> 
> The UK Parliament (which you are no fan of ?) ... does set its own taxes, and yes, it can set its own laws. What you omit to say is that if a UK law is proposed which violates EU law, _*EU LAW OVERRIDES IT *_.. so, whatever 'freedom' of that kind we have, it's curtailed by EU authority over us. Basically, this amounts to a 'do as you like, so long as you never actually defy us' mandate.
> 
> Your claim that the UK will be unable to control its own borders if trade with the EU continues, is obviously nonsense. Will European companies fight pitched battles with border control officials ? Will they actively smuggle illegal immigrants across the Channel ? Or will they just send people to invade the Houses of Parliament, the moment we try to pass restrictive legislation, to disrupt such proceedings ?
> 
> No, that's rubbish. Get shot of the EU, and we immediately regain full legislative and practical control over our borders. If we don't, then the EU tells us that we MUST accept its citizens, unless we can muster a very good reason to reject any of them ... on a case-by-case basis, of course ....
> 
> You say we'll increase unemployment. Really ? Well, how about ... UK CITIZENS getting the jobs that the EU lot would otherwise grab ?? Your argument might make a form of sense if one assumes that the EU is the only market out there, the only source of business existing in the world .. but of course, it isn't. _Far from it !_ We will be* expanding* our trade and business opportunities, once we're free of EU restrictions .. in the longer term, we are bound to know increased prosperity and an increased influx of business interest from those who'd rather deal with us, not the restrictive bureaucratic nightmare that the EU offers them.
> 
> You mention technology. I'm not aware that the EU offers superior technologies and opportunities to, say, Silicon Valley ? Since when were the EU as a whole world leaders in that field ? Everyone knows that America and Japan are better, more innovative sources !!
> 
> Back to the 'what EU law don't you like' point ... well, the very fact of EU citizen migrant freedoms is an obvious choice. But also try this, a disturbing aspect of that problem:
> 
> UK benefits test 'breaches EU law'
> 
> It's an example of a clash between UK and EU laws, with the EU wishing to strenuously challenge us ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A UK "right to reside" test on EU nationals based in the country is a breach of EU law, the European Commission warned today.
> 
> Brussels threatened it will take legal action unless the test - which determines who qualifies for specific social security benefits - is dropped.
> 
> A Commission statement said the Government has two months to advise Brussels what it is doing to bring domestic social security rules in line with EU requirements.
> 
> "Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the UK to the EU's Court of Justice," said a statement.
> 
> Conservative MEP Julie Girling slammed the move as an interference by "unelected bureaucrats" in UK domestic policy.
> 
> Ms Girling, the Tory spokesman on employment and social affairs in the European Parliament, went on:_* "British taxpayers will want to know why their hard-earned money should now be directed straight into the pockets of any EU national who chooses to come here and make a claim.
> 
> "This can only lead to a boom in benefits tourism. And with our generous system, Britain will be destination of choice."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll just ask you outright ... how ON EARTH isn't this a totally unfair imposition on the British taxpayer ... to say nothing of an incentive for EU nationals to come over here and sponge off of us ??
Click to expand...


There are more British ex pats claiming benefits in Europe than there are Europeans claiming benefits here. All major studies show that European migrants make a positive contribution to our economy. Where is the problem ?

And while we are at it what will happen to ex pats working in Europe when we decide to kick out all the Europeans ? Do you think that the EU will allow you to do that without retaliation ?

You havent thought this through.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?
> 
> The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
> You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
> You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
> Its a grim prospect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: run its own affairs, without Europe forever looking over its shoulder to see if they can, or want to, apply a veto over what we decide to do !!
> 
> The UK Parliament (which you are no fan of ?) ... does set its own taxes, and yes, it can set its own laws. What you omit to say is that if a UK law is proposed which violates EU law, _*EU LAW OVERRIDES IT *_.. so, whatever 'freedom' of that kind we have, it's curtailed by EU authority over us. Basically, this amounts to a 'do as you like, so long as you never actually defy us' mandate.
> 
> Your claim that the UK will be unable to control its own borders if trade with the EU continues, is obviously nonsense. Will European companies fight pitched battles with border control officials ? Will they actively smuggle illegal immigrants across the Channel ? Or will they just send people to invade the Houses of Parliament, the moment we try to pass restrictive legislation, to disrupt such proceedings ?
> 
> No, that's rubbish. Get shot of the EU, and we immediately regain full legislative and practical control over our borders. If we don't, then the EU tells us that we MUST accept its citizens, unless we can muster a very good reason to reject any of them ... on a case-by-case basis, of course ....
> 
> You say we'll increase unemployment. Really ? Well, how about ... UK CITIZENS getting the jobs that the EU lot would otherwise grab ?? Your argument might make a form of sense if one assumes that the EU is the only market out there, the only source of business existing in the world .. but of course, it isn't. _Far from it !_ We will be* expanding* our trade and business opportunities, once we're free of EU restrictions .. in the longer term, we are bound to know increased prosperity and an increased influx of business interest from those who'd rather deal with us, not the restrictive bureaucratic nightmare that the EU offers them.
> 
> You mention technology. I'm not aware that the EU offers superior technologies and opportunities to, say, Silicon Valley ? Since when were the EU as a whole world leaders in that field ? Everyone knows that America and Japan are better, more innovative sources !!
> 
> Back to the 'what EU law don't you like' point ... well, the very fact of EU citizen migrant freedoms is an obvious choice. But also try this, a disturbing aspect of that problem:
> 
> UK benefits test 'breaches EU law'
> 
> It's an example of a clash between UK and EU laws, with the EU wishing to strenuously challenge us ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A UK "right to reside" test on EU nationals based in the country is a breach of EU law, the European Commission warned today.
> 
> Brussels threatened it will take legal action unless the test - which determines who qualifies for specific social security benefits - is dropped.
> 
> A Commission statement said the Government has two months to advise Brussels what it is doing to bring domestic social security rules in line with EU requirements.
> 
> "Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the UK to the EU's Court of Justice," said a statement.
> 
> Conservative MEP Julie Girling slammed the move as an interference by "unelected bureaucrats" in UK domestic policy.
> 
> Ms Girling, the Tory spokesman on employment and social affairs in the European Parliament, went on:_* "British taxpayers will want to know why their hard-earned money should now be directed straight into the pockets of any EU national who chooses to come here and make a claim.
> 
> "This can only lead to a boom in benefits tourism. And with our generous system, Britain will be destination of choice."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll just ask you outright ... how ON EARTH isn't this a totally unfair imposition on the British taxpayer ... to say nothing of an incentive for EU nationals to come over here and sponge off of us ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more British ex pats claiming benefits in Europe than there are Europeans claiming benefits here. All major studies show that European migrants make a positive contribution to our economy. Where is the problem ?
> 
> And while we are at it what will happen to ex pats working in Europe when we decide to kick out all the Europeans ? Do you think that the EU will allow you to do that without retaliation ?
> 
> You havent thought this through.
Click to expand...


Do those ex-pats claim benefits as easily, I wonder ? Are those benefits as generous as those offered by the UK ? Somehow, I doubt it ...

Besides ... sweepingly judgemental though this is ... I might ask if two wrongs necessarily make a 'right' .. ?

European migrants may work here (.. those that do). They nonetheless have to be catered for - they need housing, they need any or all of the social services the UK State provides for its indigenous people. Without their being here, none of that would be necessary, and jobs available would go to our OWN people.

Those coming here and relying on benefits are people who've not 'paid into the pot' as the 'locals' have, over years and decades. But, new migrants have their opportunity to take from that 'pot' they've NOT paid into. Is that right ... given that the EU doesn't like our efforts to inject some level of fairness into the process, and challenges those efforts !!!!

As for your 'EU retaliation' point ... yes, please, do expand on that ! What do you think the EU (those people you want us to think kindly of !) would like to threaten us with ?? Give us all the detail you can ......


----------



## Tommy Tainant

It will vary from country to country.
Revealed: thousands of Britons on benefits across EU
The point is that any supposed benefit to the UK is immediately cancelled out.
In fact you would be making the situation worse.Immigrants benefit our economy.
Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> It will vary from country to country.
> Revealed: thousands of Britons on benefits across EU
> The point is that any supposed benefit to the UK is immediately cancelled out.
> In fact you would be making the situation worse.Immigrants benefit our economy.
> Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence



Your link (the Guardian ... why am I not surprised ?) ... quotes a figure of 30,000 currently on benefits. That's 30,000 who haven't paid taxes over years and decades to ever contribute to what we give them ... 

So check this out ... 

Number of foreign nationals on benefits soars to 400,000



> New figures showed there were *407,000* non-UK nationals receiving the hand-outs last year, a rise of more than 118,000 since 2008, with the total bill running to hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
> 
> Data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed a sharp rise in the number of claims by immigrants from eastern European countries.
> 
> Just 12,600 were claiming work benefits in 2008 _*but this increased nearly fourfold to just under 50,000 last year, when people from Poland and seven other eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 gained full access to the benefits system*_



So you can see that OUR burden of benefit claimants outweighs that of UK residents within the EU ... presumably, the WHOLE of the EU !!!!

I note your link claiming that immigrants have paid more in taxes than they've received in benefits. OK ... if that really is true .. and considering that immigrants, in the main, are unlikely to have had any great period to do so ... the only way this makes sense is to suppose that the number of immigrants we're talking about must be *HUGE !!!*

*Think about it. How can this be incorrect ?*

So again, you're effectively arguing against yourself. Maybe that figure of 407,000 can only be explained by literally MILLIONS of immigrants, here, offsetting the burden of claims ?? If you have another explanation, please offer it.

I think I've asked you before ... please answer now._ At what point should we stop taking immigrants ... or ... do you think there is no upper limit to that number ??_


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> The Uk sets its own laws.In fact different parts of the UK have different laws. Its the same all over Europe.
> We set our own taxes,just like the rest of Europe.
> Our levels of immigration will not change or we will not get a proper trade deal with the EU.
> Brexit will hasten the break up of the UK because the Scots will go straight away and the Welsh will go within a decade.
> The Celtic nations will join the EU and take all the investment that England would have got.
> 
> It cant control its borders
> There will be no change on this.
> It cant deport criminals
> Yes it can.It happens every day.
> it cant set its own level of vat
> Yes it can. It was changed a couple of years ago and is always under review.
> it cant grow certain plants
> ???????????????? Oh the horror !
> it cant set its own laws if they go against the EU
> Yes they can. What specific law do you mean ?
> WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR BORDERS AS THE EU HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN WE DO
> I doubt it. See previous answer.
> WE WILL ONLY INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT AMONGST IMMIGRANTS AS WE EILL DICTATE WHO WORKS AND NOT THE EU
> Classic brexit bullshit. You claim they are only coming for the benefits but er lets put them out of work. Muppet.
> ONLY FOR THE EU AND THE WORKSHY WHO WILL LOSE ALL THAT MONEY THEY HAVE NEVER EARNED.
> This needs to be translated as it makes no sense.




 In your dreams as the EU has already said it is not a foregone conclusion, and that was with Scotland who had something to offer.

Once out of the EU we can close our borders as we fit, while we are in we cant as the rules forbid it
No we are stopped from doing so because of the EHRC that bans the deportation of criminals
Wrong it was changed because the EU said it needed to rise
Well if you want tasteless crap you can have it, I prefer the old British varieties.
Deporting foreign criminals who have made Britain their home
We are not allowed to stop any one from Europe from entering the country and claiming welfare, health care and education. Stop them from coming and the work will go to the British.
But they wont be in Britain so wont be a strain on our welfare.
No it doesn't it is very simple, if you don't pay then why should you get the goods.


Now toddle of and see what price the EU is putting on sheep and water these days, as whiskey and oil are worthless . Your threats don't work as without England you would be drowning in a sea of your own making because you cant make enough money to keep yourselves afloat. Look at the sums and see just what you will get from the EU compared to what you will have to pay out and give up. Like Greece you will be down to selling of your prime land to pay the next months welfare bills.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why I should care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people dont care. The whole brexit nonsense has been driven by scared old people who yearn for the 50s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is run by people who can see the problems with uncontrolled immigration an multiculturalism. We see the feckless who don't want to work live off the sweat f those who do work, and complain when they are told to pay something back. We see the immigrants flooding the land and leaving trails of filth behind demanding money with threats We see the champagne socialists living the good life demanding we give up more to support those less able than us. We see the mass rapes of children by foreign invaders, the increasing crime rates and the lowering of standards in our hospitals.
> 
> That is what we see and don't like it, so getting out of the EU will lead to all this stopping and you having to get a proper Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on cue.
Click to expand...






 No evidence to refute my claims them tainted.     What price mutton and water when the EU is awash with it.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?
> 
> The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
> You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
> You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
> Its a grim prospect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: run its own affairs, without Europe forever looking over its shoulder to see if they can, or want to, apply a veto over what we decide to do !!
> 
> The UK Parliament (which you are no fan of ?) ... does set its own taxes, and yes, it can set its own laws. What you omit to say is that if a UK law is proposed which violates EU law, _*EU LAW OVERRIDES IT *_.. so, whatever 'freedom' of that kind we have, it's curtailed by EU authority over us. Basically, this amounts to a 'do as you like, so long as you never actually defy us' mandate.
> 
> Your claim that the UK will be unable to control its own borders if trade with the EU continues, is obviously nonsense. Will European companies fight pitched battles with border control officials ? Will they actively smuggle illegal immigrants across the Channel ? Or will they just send people to invade the Houses of Parliament, the moment we try to pass restrictive legislation, to disrupt such proceedings ?
> 
> No, that's rubbish. Get shot of the EU, and we immediately regain full legislative and practical control over our borders. If we don't, then the EU tells us that we MUST accept its citizens, unless we can muster a very good reason to reject any of them ... on a case-by-case basis, of course ....
> 
> You say we'll increase unemployment. Really ? Well, how about ... UK CITIZENS getting the jobs that the EU lot would otherwise grab ?? Your argument might make a form of sense if one assumes that the EU is the only market out there, the only source of business existing in the world .. but of course, it isn't. _Far from it !_ We will be* expanding* our trade and business opportunities, once we're free of EU restrictions .. in the longer term, we are bound to know increased prosperity and an increased influx of business interest from those who'd rather deal with us, not the restrictive bureaucratic nightmare that the EU offers them.
> 
> You mention technology. I'm not aware that the EU offers superior technologies and opportunities to, say, Silicon Valley ? Since when were the EU as a whole world leaders in that field ? Everyone knows that America and Japan are better, more innovative sources !!
> 
> Back to the 'what EU law don't you like' point ... well, the very fact of EU citizen migrant freedoms is an obvious choice. But also try this, a disturbing aspect of that problem:
> 
> UK benefits test 'breaches EU law'
> 
> It's an example of a clash between UK and EU laws, with the EU wishing to strenuously challenge us ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A UK "right to reside" test on EU nationals based in the country is a breach of EU law, the European Commission warned today.
> 
> Brussels threatened it will take legal action unless the test - which determines who qualifies for specific social security benefits - is dropped.
> 
> A Commission statement said the Government has two months to advise Brussels what it is doing to bring domestic social security rules in line with EU requirements.
> 
> "Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the UK to the EU's Court of Justice," said a statement.
> 
> Conservative MEP Julie Girling slammed the move as an interference by "unelected bureaucrats" in UK domestic policy.
> 
> Ms Girling, the Tory spokesman on employment and social affairs in the European Parliament, went on:_* "British taxpayers will want to know why their hard-earned money should now be directed straight into the pockets of any EU national who chooses to come here and make a claim.
> 
> "This can only lead to a boom in benefits tourism. And with our generous system, Britain will be destination of choice."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll just ask you outright ... how ON EARTH isn't this a totally unfair imposition on the British taxpayer ... to say nothing of an incentive for EU nationals to come over here and sponge off of us ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more British ex pats claiming benefits in Europe than there are Europeans claiming benefits here. All major studies show that European migrants make a positive contribution to our economy. Where is the problem ?
> 
> And while we are at it what will happen to ex pats working in Europe when we decide to kick out all the Europeans ? Do you think that the EU will allow you to do that without retaliation ?
> 
> You havent thought this through.
Click to expand...






 Nor have you as the EU has already said they cant do anything to them. But they can make it so the next person going for that job is an EU citizen.

You do know what the dole pays in Poland don't you, and these British claiming welfare how much is British that they are entitled to. The figures include reciprocal health care and British pensions when you look at the real truth.


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cant the UK do now that it will do out of the EU ?
> 
> The UK parliament sets taxes and laws for the UK. Which EU "law" dont you like ?
> You wont be able to control your borders if you want to trade with the EU.
> You will increase unemployment and reduce investment in technology.
> Its a grim prospect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: run its own affairs, without Europe forever looking over its shoulder to see if they can, or want to, apply a veto over what we decide to do !!
> 
> The UK Parliament (which you are no fan of ?) ... does set its own taxes, and yes, it can set its own laws. What you omit to say is that if a UK law is proposed which violates EU law, _*EU LAW OVERRIDES IT *_.. so, whatever 'freedom' of that kind we have, it's curtailed by EU authority over us. Basically, this amounts to a 'do as you like, so long as you never actually defy us' mandate.
> 
> Your claim that the UK will be unable to control its own borders if trade with the EU continues, is obviously nonsense. Will European companies fight pitched battles with border control officials ? Will they actively smuggle illegal immigrants across the Channel ? Or will they just send people to invade the Houses of Parliament, the moment we try to pass restrictive legislation, to disrupt such proceedings ?
> 
> No, that's rubbish. Get shot of the EU, and we immediately regain full legislative and practical control over our borders. If we don't, then the EU tells us that we MUST accept its citizens, unless we can muster a very good reason to reject any of them ... on a case-by-case basis, of course ....
> 
> You say we'll increase unemployment. Really ? Well, how about ... UK CITIZENS getting the jobs that the EU lot would otherwise grab ?? Your argument might make a form of sense if one assumes that the EU is the only market out there, the only source of business existing in the world .. but of course, it isn't. _Far from it !_ We will be* expanding* our trade and business opportunities, once we're free of EU restrictions .. in the longer term, we are bound to know increased prosperity and an increased influx of business interest from those who'd rather deal with us, not the restrictive bureaucratic nightmare that the EU offers them.
> 
> You mention technology. I'm not aware that the EU offers superior technologies and opportunities to, say, Silicon Valley ? Since when were the EU as a whole world leaders in that field ? Everyone knows that America and Japan are better, more innovative sources !!
> 
> Back to the 'what EU law don't you like' point ... well, the very fact of EU citizen migrant freedoms is an obvious choice. But also try this, a disturbing aspect of that problem:
> 
> UK benefits test 'breaches EU law'
> 
> It's an example of a clash between UK and EU laws, with the EU wishing to strenuously challenge us ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A UK "right to reside" test on EU nationals based in the country is a breach of EU law, the European Commission warned today.
> 
> Brussels threatened it will take legal action unless the test - which determines who qualifies for specific social security benefits - is dropped.
> 
> A Commission statement said the Government has two months to advise Brussels what it is doing to bring domestic social security rules in line with EU requirements.
> 
> "Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the UK to the EU's Court of Justice," said a statement.
> 
> Conservative MEP Julie Girling slammed the move as an interference by "unelected bureaucrats" in UK domestic policy.
> 
> Ms Girling, the Tory spokesman on employment and social affairs in the European Parliament, went on:_* "British taxpayers will want to know why their hard-earned money should now be directed straight into the pockets of any EU national who chooses to come here and make a claim.
> 
> "This can only lead to a boom in benefits tourism. And with our generous system, Britain will be destination of choice."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll just ask you outright ... how ON EARTH isn't this a totally unfair imposition on the British taxpayer ... to say nothing of an incentive for EU nationals to come over here and sponge off of us ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more British ex pats claiming benefits in Europe than there are Europeans claiming benefits here. All major studies show that European migrants make a positive contribution to our economy. Where is the problem ?
> 
> And while we are at it what will happen to ex pats working in Europe when we decide to kick out all the Europeans ? Do you think that the EU will allow you to do that without retaliation ?
> 
> You havent thought this through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do those ex-pats claim benefits as easily, I wonder ? Are those benefits as generous as those offered by the UK ? Somehow, I doubt it ...
> 
> Besides ... sweepingly judgemental though this is ... I might ask if two wrongs necessarily make a 'right' .. ?
> 
> European migrants may work here (.. those that do). They nonetheless have to be catered for - they need housing, they need any or all of the social services the UK State provides for its indigenous people. Without their being here, none of that would be necessary, and jobs available would go to our OWN people.
> 
> Those coming here and relying on benefits are people who've not 'paid into the pot' as the 'locals' have, over years and decades. But, new migrants have their opportunity to take from that 'pot' they've NOT paid into. Is that right ... given that the EU doesn't like our efforts to inject some level of fairness into the process, and challenges those efforts !!!!
> 
> As for your 'EU retaliation' point ... yes, please, do expand on that ! What do you think the EU (those people you want us to think kindly of !) would like to threaten us with ?? Give us all the detail you can ......
Click to expand...






 They are British welfare payments just paid in another nation, on top of this is reciprocal health care and allowances that the UK has to pay for so not really foreign welfare. The Majority of EU nations only pay welfare for 6 months and then they stop. They are at a lower rate than British welfare and so don't allow people to live as they would in the UK. If they were any good then Europe would be awash with workshy Brits like tainted. The Labour party changed welfare rules when they realised that they had opened the doors to those over pension age and the chronically sick and infirm. This meant that instead of having to show 39 years of N.I. payments you could get a full pension and/or welfare straight away. You could claim for children domiciled in another country as well even if they were subject to that nations welfare rules.


 What tainted is worried about is being forced to take a low paid job when his welfare is cut off and he will have to stop drinking all night so he will be fit for work the next day.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> It will vary from country to country.
> Revealed: thousands of Britons on benefits across EU
> The point is that any supposed benefit to the UK is immediately cancelled out.
> In fact you would be making the situation worse.Immigrants benefit our economy.
> Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence








 30,000 people from Britain claiming benefits in EU nations is not the same as 2 million E.U. citizens claiming welfare in the UK. Most of these from Eastern former Soviet block states that don't pay welfare. We see the results when they are reported with things like whole towns being built with British welfare money.

No positive impact or you would have invited them to colonise Wales by now.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.



Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ? 

It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !! 

You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.

Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.



I've asked you before ... please answer now._ At what point should we stop taking immigrants ... or ... do you think there is no upper limit to that number ??_


----------



## montelatici

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...


I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.







 And there is no evidence to show that the same families would not lose the same thousands if we stayed in is there. What you don't want is to lose your fantasy subsidies that you think will come your way without realising that this time next year you will be paying dearly for any returns


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







 He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby
Click to expand...


Living in  Europe as part of the American military, does not give one insight into *real *life there.

EU stickers on cars. lol


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in  Europe as part of the American military, does not give one insight into *real *life there.
> 
> EU stickers on cars. lol
Click to expand...

Nevertheless his post is spot on.We are stronger together.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you before ... please answer now._ At what point should we stop taking immigrants ... or ... do you think there is no upper limit to that number ??_
Click to expand...

There is obviously a number that would not be sustainable but that would be linked to the growth in our economy, or lack of.The economy will act as the driver on this.If the work isnt here then they wont come.

As an example I point to the movement of Irish people who moved to the UK when Ireland was struggling. Many ,many thousands of them. When the Irish economy exploded they all went back and took many Brits with them.

The same will happen over time with people from other countries. As membership of the EU raises their living standards they will have less incentive to work abroad.Then we will struggle to fill vacancies.It ebbs and flows.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence to show that the same families would not lose the same thousands if we stayed in is there. What you don't want is to lose your fantasy subsidies that you think will come your way without realising that this time next year you will be paying dearly for any returns
Click to expand...

Well there is evidence but you choose to ignore it because it doesnt support your fantasy of an all white Britain living large on what we dont spend in the EU.


----------



## Drummond

montelatici said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
Click to expand...


We should be shot of the EU ... there's no doubt of that. As to whether the EU would be better off without us ... possibly. Though - given what you say, perhaps the UK, in time, would've managed to inject some self-pride into individual Member States .. and would they have been much the better for it ?

But I'd be interested in seeing actual evidence of what you're asserting, namely, that the UK is trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the US ? I'm not aware that we are. Please back up your assertion.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in  Europe as part of the American military, does not give one insight into *real *life there.
> 
> EU stickers on cars. lol
Click to expand...


When your mother and her family are French, it sure does you moron.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in  Europe as part of the American military, does not give one insight into *real *life there.
> 
> EU stickers on cars. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your mother and her family are French, it sure does you moron.
Click to expand...


So it's personal is it?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.

IPSO Rulings - Detail


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tommy Tainant said:


> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail


And a bit more.
MORE LIES AND HYPE FROM THE DAILY MAIL ON REFUGEES


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> And a bit more.
> MORE LIES AND HYPE FROM THE DAILY MAIL ON REFUGEES
Click to expand...


Shock horror!

You read the Daily Mail?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail



I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> And a bit more.
> MORE LIES AND HYPE FROM THE DAILY MAIL ON REFUGEES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shock horror!
> 
> You read the Daily Mail?
Click to expand...


It's not the Daily Mail....


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
Click to expand...

Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.

The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.

The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love. 

"Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

More fear mongering from the Express.
ANOTHER DAILY EXPRESS ARTICLE ON MIGRATION THAT DOESN’T ADD UP

The Express group is owned by Richard "dirty" Desmond. He is a sometime gangster with links to the American mafia and made his money through porn. He is a massive brexiter and is the only national newspaper to openly support ukip.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> And a bit more.
> MORE LIES AND HYPE FROM THE DAILY MAIL ON REFUGEES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shock horror!
> 
> You read the Daily Mail?
Click to expand...

No. I do enjoy the many stories about their lies being exposed.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Daily Mail lies again.
LESSONS IN TABLOID SPIN: HOW THE DAILY MAIL LIED ABOUT AN EU STUDY


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tommy Tainant said:


> Daily Mail lies again.
> LESSONS IN TABLOID SPIN: HOW THE DAILY MAIL LIED ABOUT AN EU STUDY


IPSO Rulings - Detail
Another ruling against the Express for peddling lies.
The problem is that all of the mainstream press , The Sun,Mail,Express ,Star and Times are virulently brexit and peddle a constant diet of brexit crap. This is lapped up by those who do not think too deeply and sets the tone of the debate.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> And a bit more.
> MORE LIES AND HYPE FROM THE DAILY MAIL ON REFUGEES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shock horror!
> 
> You read the Daily Mail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I do enjoy the many stories about their lies being exposed.
Click to expand...


How strange. You being a seeker of truth, and all that.


----------



## Drummond

Drummond said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should be shot of the EU ... there's no doubt of that. As to whether the EU would be better off without us ... possibly. Though - given what you say, perhaps the UK, in time, would've managed to inject some self-pride into individual Member States .. and would they have been much the better for it ?
> 
> But I'd be interested in seeing actual evidence of what you're asserting, namely, that the UK is trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the US ? I'm not aware that we are. Please back up your assertion.
Click to expand...


Repeating my request from my previous post, as above .... 

"... I'd be interested in seeing actual evidence of what you're asserting, *namely, that the UK is trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the US ? I'm not aware that we are. Please back up your assertion."*


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail lies again.
> LESSONS IN TABLOID SPIN: HOW THE DAILY MAIL LIED ABOUT AN EU STUDY
> 
> 
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> Another ruling against the Express for peddling lies.
> The problem is that all of the mainstream press , The Sun,Mail,Express ,Star and Times are virulently brexit and peddle a constant diet of brexit crap. This is lapped up by those who do not think too deeply and sets the tone of the debate.
Click to expand...


From one so-called 'case' .. you immediately considerably expand it to generalise about other sources ? Do you really need to fudge this in order to win out ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> More fear mongering from the Express.
> ANOTHER DAILY EXPRESS ARTICLE ON MIGRATION THAT DOESN’T ADD UP
> 
> The Express group is owned by Richard "dirty" Desmond.* He is a sometime gangster with links to the American mafia and made his money through porn. He is a massive brexiter and is the only national newspaper to openly support ukip*.



Good grief. What a ridiculous attempt at character-assassination to make a self-serving point. Desperation setting in, by any chance ??


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in  Europe as part of the American military, does not give one insight into *real *life there.
> 
> EU stickers on cars. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nevertheless his post is spot on.We are stronger together.
Click to expand...


You mean, the bureaucratic tyranny is stronger .... be honest, my son .....


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives in cloud cuckoo land, and has about as much grasp of current affairs as a 6 month old baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in  Europe as part of the American military, does not give one insight into *real *life there.
> 
> EU stickers on cars. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nevertheless his post is spot on.We are stronger together.
Click to expand...







SO WHY ARE YOU THREATENING TO LEAVE THE UK ALL THE TIME IF YOU CANT GET YOUR OWN WAY. WELL NOW THE ENGLISH ARE CALLING YOUR BLUFF TO SEE IF YOU HAVE THE GONADS TO CARRY OUT YOUR THREATS


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you before ... please answer now._ At what point should we stop taking immigrants ... or ... do you think there is no upper limit to that number ??_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is obviously a number that would not be sustainable but that would be linked to the growth in our economy, or lack of.The economy will act as the driver on this.If the work isnt here then they wont come.
> 
> As an example I point to the movement of Irish people who moved to the UK when Ireland was struggling. Many ,many thousands of them. When the Irish economy exploded they all went back and took many Brits with them.
> 
> The same will happen over time with people from other countries. As membership of the EU raises their living standards they will have less incentive to work abroad.Then we will struggle to fill vacancies.It ebbs and flows.
Click to expand...








Is that like your claims that more brits are claiming welfare in the EU that EU citizens claiming welfare in the UK. That was blown apart very simply. A few welsh and scots went to Ireland and returned because they did not fit in. The majority of migrants to the UK come for the welfare handouts and if they were stopped they would not come, proven when the muslim invaders were asked what they would do if they could not get any welfare or health care in the UK, they said they would not go. The next thing to be dealt with will be the gang bosses who employ migrants to pick fruit and veg, they charge the farmers minimum wage plus 10% and pay the migrants £2 to £3 an hour and claim the rest is for their taxes and upkeep.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
Click to expand...


Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence to show that the same families would not lose the same thousands if we stayed in is there. What you don't want is to lose your fantasy subsidies that you think will come your way without realising that this time next year you will be paying dearly for any returns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is evidence but you choose to ignore it because it doesnt support your fantasy of an all white Britain living large on what we dont spend in the EU.
Click to expand...







 THEN YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THIS EVIDENCE THQAT SHOWS THAT ONLY IF WE LEAVE THE UE WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THIS EXTRA MONEY. WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS YOUR FANTASY THAT THE EU WILL WELCONE WALES INTO THE FOLD AND THROW £BILLIONS AT IT WITH NOTHING GOING THE OTHER WAY. THE TRUTH IS YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER EUROPE AND WILL NOT BE EVEN ACCEPTED ON THE NEXT 100 SHORT LISTS


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
Click to expand...


Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence to show that the same families would not lose the same thousands if we stayed in is there. What you don't want is to lose your fantasy subsidies that you think will come your way without realising that this time next year you will be paying dearly for any returns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is evidence but you choose to ignore it because it doesnt support your fantasy of an all white Britain living large on what we dont spend in the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEN YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THIS EVIDENCE THQAT SHOWS THAT ONLY IF WE LEAVE THE UE WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THIS EXTRA MONEY. WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS YOUR FANTASY THAT THE EU WILL WELCONE WALES INTO THE FOLD AND THROW £BILLIONS AT IT WITH NOTHING GOING THE OTHER WAY. THE TRUTH IS YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER EUROPE AND WILL NOT BE EVEN ACCEPTED ON THE NEXT 100 SHORT LISTS
Click to expand...


Basically there's a lot that could happen. It's a gamble. 

If the UK leaves the EU then it can stop paying money to the EU, but potentially the loss in trade, the weakening of the pound and other such things, with the only way to solve these being by joining the Schengen Zone, and this will then make things worse, not better.


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arron Banks Confirms Families Losing Thousands Of Pounds Is 'Price Worth Paying' For Brexit
> Brexit dont care about the effects of their campaign. Its all ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what ? That staying in the EU will ultimately be such a horrific prospect to endure that the loss of that sum will be chickenfeed by comparison ?
> 
> It must be blindness to the truths that have been clearly and comprehensively laid out for you that makes you insist upon remaining loyal to your side of this argument. You've been shown how much the EU is a drag, a drain, on our freedoms to prosper, as well as other freedoms. You've been shown an example of an arrogant EU trying to apply strong-arm tactics to make a NON member bend to its will !!
> 
> You simultaneously want Wales to be autonomous from the UK (because you hate the Conservatives), you want to ignore the will of the electorate, all so that - and in the name of 'independence' !! - Wales then ties itself in to EU diktats, subsumed under the weight of its non-democratic bureaucracy.
> 
> Your whole support for EU membership defies anyone wanting freedom to run their own affairs. With the best will in the world .. I have no understanding of that position, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the EU will be better off without the UK.  Most Europeans have always wanted a united states of europe.  As a kid I remember EU stickers on cars when we lived in Germany, France and Italy when my father was stationed there.  This was in the 60s.  The EU states that want to integrate can do so without the UK always trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the U.S.  Wales and Scotland will be welcomed as EU states if they care to join.  Individual European countries would be subsumed in trade negotiations with the other big blocks like the U.S., China, Russia and now even India.  Better a strong EU without the UK.  England and Northern Ireland if left alone will do fine as a U.S. satellite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should be shot of the EU ... there's no doubt of that. As to whether the EU would be better off without us ... possibly. Though - given what you say, perhaps the UK, in time, would've managed to inject some self-pride into individual Member States .. and would they have been much the better for it ?
> 
> But I'd be interested in seeing actual evidence of what you're asserting, namely, that the UK is trying to limit the EU's power on behalf of the US ? I'm not aware that we are. Please back up your assertion.
Click to expand...






Expect some of topic manipulated cut and paste that says nothing about the topic, that is his usual M.O. on other boards when tasked to prove his claims. Keep asking him and he will put you on ignore


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
Click to expand...


The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.

From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.

Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.

As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary. 

What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers. 

The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.

If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
Click to expand...


During my historical research, I noted that there was more freedom of movement in Europe before the two world wars, than there is today


----------



## frigidweirdo

Mindful said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During my historical research, I noted that there was more freedom of movement in Europe before the two world wars, than there is today
Click to expand...


Yes, almost certainly, you just went to another country, it didn't matter much if you had a passport. However the world has changed, transportation has changed massively.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
Click to expand...

There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's weird, they could do so much to shape it in the way they think it should be shaped. But it seems like they don't have a shape in mind. Just petty nationalism.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's weird, they could do so much to shape it in the way they think it should be shaped. But it seems like they don't have a shape in mind. Just petty nationalism.
Click to expand...

There is a definite need for reform but it wont happen until people commit to it. The irony is that Farages group are the laziest buggers in the EU but they have joined up with Polish neo nazis in order to trigger extra funding from the very organisation they claim to despise.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
Click to expand...







 That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.

If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.

We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again. 


 Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
Click to expand...







 A bit like the Welsh assembly then


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's weird, they could do so much to shape it in the way they think it should be shaped. But it seems like they don't have a shape in mind. Just petty nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a definite need for reform but it wont happen until people commit to it. The irony is that Farages group are the laziest buggers in the EU but they have joined up with Polish neo nazis in order to trigger extra funding from the very organisation they claim to despise.
Click to expand...







 While Labour MEP's defraud the EU as much as they can


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
Click to expand...

My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
Is it because you have no case ?

500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.

You really are a lying piece of shit.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the brexit campaigners whip up fear by lying.
> 
> IPSO Rulings - Detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure whether or not to accept your 2/3rds estimate or not. Even if it's backed up by supporting material, do we know what the ILLEGAL tally would be ? 

But check this out ... 

Scandal of UK’s 863,000 illegal immigrants...one in four of the EU’s total



> BRITAIN’s illegal immigrant population is the highest in Europe, official figures have revealed.
> 
> The country could be home to almost 900,000 “irregular migrants”, expert studies show.
> 
> The alarming figure is 400,000 more than second-place Italy and means the UK houses nearly one in four of the EU’s unauthorised population.
> 
> Critics last night said it was further evidence that the Government needs to regain control of its borders.
> 
> The stark statistics are contained in a European Commission research project which tried to quantify the number of illegal immigrants in each EU country in 2008.
> 
> The figures are highlighted within a controversial House of Lords report published today which, despite the figures, calls on the Government to “engage” more closely with the EU’s passport-free Schengen Area, despite the figures.
> 
> The House of Lords EU committee said it “regrets” the Government’s “negative attitude to such cooperation and hope they will reconsider”.
> 
> But critics fear that removing passport requirements for travellers heading for the UK from Europe would aid more illegal immigration.



That was back in 2008. Do you remember that Cameron tried to do something about benefit tourism to the UK ? The EU weren't happy about his initiative to toughen things up here !!

David Cameron defiant over tougher EU benefit plans - BBC News



> David Cameron has defended plans to toughen welfare rules for EU migrants, saying he was sending a "clear message" to people that the UK was not a "soft touch" for claiming benefits.
> 
> He said he shared public concerns about the end of work restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians next month.
> Labour says he should have acted sooner and a European commissioner warned the UK risked being seen as "nasty".
> But the prime minister said: "British people expect fairness."
> 
> European Employment Commissioner Laszlo Andor described Mr Cameron's proposals as "an unfortunate over-reaction", adding that EU rules applied equally to all 28 member states and had been agreed to by the UK.



It isn't just that we want to take measures about benefit tourism ... it's that the EU has been against us being tough over it !! 

If we get out of the EU, the EU 'going federal' won't be our problem. If we stay in ... then we're in a worse position still ! And I reject any 'we will be disadvantaged over trade' argument. If the EU represented a greater than 50% share of available world trade, AND it could be guaranteed that no EU country would ever trade with us, I'd say you may have a point. But of course, the EU does not reach that 50% percentage. So, we may well be a lot BETTER off ...


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
Click to expand...


We all know that the EU Parliament is a 'gravy train' to all those fortunate enough to work within it. How much of that effect comes out of British contributions to the EU, I wonder ... ??

As for the EU going 'federal' ...all the more reason to be concerned for our sovereignty, if we remain !!!!! We are still better out than in.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
Click to expand...

But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all know that the EU Parliament is a 'gravy train' to all those fortunate enough to work within it. How much of that effect comes out of British contributions to the EU, I wonder ... ??
> 
> As for the EU going 'federal' ...all the more reason to be concerned for our sovereignty, if we remain !!!!! We are still better out than in.
Click to expand...

If only the MEPs were as honest and upstanding as their Westminster counterparts.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected there to be more debate. So far from the Brexit side all I see is petty nationalism with no real logic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws? 

What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?

I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen. 

The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU. 

I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?

Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> I'm not sure whether or not to accept your 2/3rds estimate or not. Even if it's backed up by supporting material, do we know what the ILLEGAL tally would be ?
> 
> But check this out ...
> 
> Scandal of UK’s 863,000 illegal immigrants...one in four of the EU’s total
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BRITAIN’s illegal immigrant population is the highest in Europe, official figures have revealed.
> 
> The country could be home to almost 900,000 “irregular migrants”, expert studies show.
> 
> The alarming figure is 400,000 more than second-place Italy and means the UK houses nearly one in four of the EU’s unauthorised population.
> 
> Critics last night said it was further evidence that the Government needs to regain control of its borders.
> 
> The stark statistics are contained in a European Commission research project which tried to quantify the number of illegal immigrants in each EU country in 2008.
> 
> The figures are highlighted within a controversial House of Lords report published today which, despite the figures, calls on the Government to “engage” more closely with the EU’s passport-free Schengen Area, despite the figures.
> 
> The House of Lords EU committee said it “regrets” the Government’s “negative attitude to such cooperation and hope they will reconsider”.
> 
> But critics fear that removing passport requirements for travellers heading for the UK from Europe would aid more illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was back in 2008. Do you remember that Cameron tried to do something about benefit tourism to the UK ? The EU weren't happy about his initiative to toughen things up here !!
> 
> David Cameron defiant over tougher EU benefit plans - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Cameron has defended plans to toughen welfare rules for EU migrants, saying he was sending a "clear message" to people that the UK was not a "soft touch" for claiming benefits.
> 
> He said he shared public concerns about the end of work restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians next month.
> Labour says he should have acted sooner and a European commissioner warned the UK risked being seen as "nasty".
> But the prime minister said: "British people expect fairness."
> 
> European Employment Commissioner Laszlo Andor described Mr Cameron's proposals as "an unfortunate over-reaction", adding that EU rules applied equally to all 28 member states and had been agreed to by the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't just that we want to take measures about benefit tourism ... it's that the EU has been against us being tough over it !!
> 
> If we get out of the EU, the EU 'going federal' won't be our problem. If we stay in ... then we're in a worse position still ! And I reject any 'we will be disadvantaged over trade' argument. If the EU represented a greater than 50% share of available world trade, AND it could be guaranteed that no EU country would ever trade with us, I'd say you may have a point. But of course, the EU does not reach that 50% percentage. So, we may well be a lot BETTER off ...
Click to expand...


Sure, it might include a lot of illegal immigrants. However EU citizens don't need to be illegal, they can just rock up and be legal. So...... why would they? 

Personally I've seen Russians on visa runs with the intention of staying in the UK. I was in a hostel in St. Petersburg and two girls there were doing that, get a six month visa, then never leave. One girl got the visa, the other didn't. 

That article is a typical Express nonsense article which tells you less than you'd need to know to make a judgement. Why? Because they're telling you what to think. 
Shitty journalism at its worst and how many people will vote to leave because they read such crap?

Yes, Cameron has restricted visas quite a bit, it's one of the few things I think he has done well at. He even imposed a three month wait for welfare. Personally I'd put it up to five years.

The EU has been against the UK? Really? Or it just imposes the same laws on everyone and the British people start getting annoyed about it? Probably the latter. But then why don't the British take a stronger stand with the EU instead of moaning all the time?

If the UK leaves the EU, the EU going federal WILL be a major problem for the UK. The stronger the EU is, the harder it will be for the UK to do what it wishes.

Imagine countries like San Marino and Andorra. How independent are they really? They have open borders with their neighbors, they have a lot of things that are essentially the same, they have to act like a small country that has no power.

Then look to larger countries like Canada, how much influence does the US have on Canada? 

The EU is about 50% of UK trade. It depends on the year, sometimes more, sometimes less. Since the economic crisis hit Europe and the US, trade with those has dropped as a percentage. 

However losing even 2% of trade would impact the UK hard.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an anti federalist core in the EU parliament. But rather than look to reform they sit apart from the process.They dont speak,they dont engage and they dont vote. They just do enough to collect the generous expenses on offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all know that the EU Parliament is a 'gravy train' to all those fortunate enough to work within it. How much of that effect comes out of British contributions to the EU, I wonder ... ??
> 
> As for the EU going 'federal' ...all the more reason to be concerned for our sovereignty, if we remain !!!!! We are still better out than in.
Click to expand...


The UK is better out than in?

How? 

Based on petty nationalism? Seeing as the Brexit side is coming up with nonsense rather than actual facts. 

Let's try the Express. 400,000 people read this trash every day. 

Even China is fed up with EU fat cats as official tells Brussels ‘stop INTERFERING’

"Even China is fed up with EU fat cats as official tells Brussels ‘stop INTERFERING’"

A Chinese official slams the EU. Well, Chinese officials slam the US and other stronger nations on a constant basis. It's a policy of China's to literally do what it likes. This has a lot to do with China, and not that much to do with the UK leaving the EU, but they dress it up.
The message "the EU is bad", but the story doesn't have much to do with this at all.

Fury over Tory minister's claim it would take YEARS to form new trade deal with Brussels

*"*
Fury over Tory minister's claim it would take YEARS to form new trade deal with Brussels*"*
"Tory MP David Nuttall said: "This is another example of the Remain camp painting the worst scenario they can imagine rather than having any belief or confidence in the abilities of ministers to negotiate new deals.""

Except the Brexit people want to leave the EU because UK ministers can't negotiate deals with the EU. Hmm.

Basically the essence of this is that the Brexit people are annoyed that the other side keeps on saying worst case scenarios, as if the British people don't need to know the worst case scenarios when making a very important decision.

""After we Vote Leave the EU will be banging on door for a trade deal which, like other trade deals would be concluded in less than two years."

Really? They say this, as if they KNOW this will happen. But clearly they don't know. But this is 2 years. 2 years of shitty deals, or no deals. Er.... right.

Experts warn European Union will ‘DISINTEGRATE’ if Britain votes to leave in June

"
Experts warn European Union will ‘DISINTEGRATE’ if Britain votes to leave in June"

Ah, just like the Euro will collapse in 2008 and then 2009, then 2010, then 2011, then 2012. 

Basically lots of reports which "experts" say could happen, but almost certainly won't. But it's all about being defiant, all about having a great political impact.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...






 You really need to learn how to read before making an even bigger fool of yourself.


 I said 500,000 Romanians camping out in PUBLIK PARKS,   you do know that the s on the end means more than one park.
 You highlight your abject racism by making false claims about what people write while adding their words. A trait shown by all neo Marxist goons and hangers on


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
Click to expand...








 And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.


 By the way it did happen

 Just one of the many camps

Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)

Then a few days later

Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch


 How about this, and read the numbers

Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a discussion between two sides who are talking different languages.
> 
> The "remainers" are generally younger, better educated and more sophisticated. They see opportunities in Europe and welcome them.
> 
> The "outers" are generally older,easily influenced  and averse to change.They dont like hearing foreign languages in the street and believe that the EU is slowly taking over the Britain they know and love.
> 
> "Remainers" dont see immigration as a big deal but "outers" have little interest in any other issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
Click to expand...







 When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.


David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.

The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.

 But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there are others who see immigration as an issue, want the EU to change, but don't see leaving as the solution to the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
Click to expand...


And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem. 

Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different. 

If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.

Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
Click to expand...


So where are these 500,000 people then ?


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
Click to expand...






 And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in

 Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.

The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> 
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
Click to expand...







 Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
Click to expand...

You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...


Do you know him personally?

He  looks like  anonymous pixels on a screen to me.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration, as an EU issue, won't change. The EU regards the free movement of EU citizens between Member States as sacrosanct ... a 'foundling principle'. Not even the massive influx of refugees from Syria (etc) has caused the EU to turn away from such a principle. Anyone believing this can become an issue where the EU as a whole will somehow be persuaded to change its policy on, are deluding themselves. *The only alternative to accepting the status quo IS to leave ... simple fact ... !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
Click to expand...


No - in theory, you could not pass an elephant through the eye of a needle. But getting that 500,000 turn up here, was a definite possibility. You'e no way at all of showing me it was an impossibility. Have you ? If you have, why haven't you offered it yet ?

In an earlier post, I posted a copy of a comparison table, showing pros and cons of Brexit. Check it out. Show me how the pro-Brexit case is full of lies and exaggerations !!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know him personally?
> 
> He  looks like  anonymous pixels on a screen to me.
Click to expand...

I am just judging him by his opinions.He is sick.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - in theory, you could not pass an elephant through the eye of a needle. But getting that 500,000 turn up here, was a definite possibility. You'e no way at all of showing me it was an impossibility. Have you ? If you have, why haven't you offered it yet ?
> 
> In an earlier post, I posted a copy of a comparison table, showing pros and cons of Brexit. Check it out. Show me how the pro-Brexit case is full of lies and exaggerations !!
Click to expand...

You just need to puree the elephant and then squirt it through. Thats the easiest way.
i dont have to prove that something that didnt happen wont happen. It hasnt happened and that is proof enough.
Your anti immigrant rhetoric is confusing me. Are they here for the benefits or to "steal" our jobs ?
How many would you like to be here ?
Who would you send home ?
How would you plan for the shortfall in the labour market ?
When you kick out the Spanish and French and they reciprocate what is the plan to compensate ex pats ?
How will you negotiate terms outside the EU that you cant negotiate inside the EU ?

Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen. There is no plan, just a series of half baked assertions that do not stand up to any scrutiny.


----------



## anotherlife

The brexit loving little englanders are stupid.  They are so stupid, that they bitch about the European Union, but they can't even begin to find new markets for half of all British products, which now go to the European Union but will be trash the day they do their brexit.  What happens to a country that gets taken over by mindless moronic thugs?


----------



## anotherlife

The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is how you look at things. People are annoyed that foreigners come in. 2/3rds of those foreigners going in aren't EU citizens and don't have that right in the first place. It's the UK GOVERNMENT that lets them in. Somehow those who want to leave the EU think it will get better if the UK leaves the EU, how they think this I have no idea.
> 
> From the point of view of EU citizens going in, the issues aren't that difficult, except for politicians of course.
> 
> Take welfare payments and unemployment payments and all that stuff. If there were a proper system in place, then EU citizens wouldn't be able to just enter the UK and take benefits, they'd be a time you'd have to work in the country before you were eligible, and not just for non-UK citizens, but for UK citizens too, because there are those on the take too who perhaps shouldn't be. A good system will make it work, and freedom of movement wouldn't be so much of a problem.
> 
> As for Syrian refugees, I think the EU needs to have a serious think about how to deal with such issues in the first place, rather than being reactionary.
> 
> What the EU needs is strong leadership in the anti-Federalist mold. Get all those who are opposed to a Federal Europe, opposed to this that and the other, to come together and to fight for that. At present you have those who want a federal Europe being strong, and those against being weak ass mother feckers.
> 
> The EU will still be there. The UK will still have to cope with the EU. The impact of the EU will be so strong if the EU goes Federal. The laws will still be made in Westminster to conform to the EU, because it'd be easier for the country to do so.
> 
> If the UK wants to deal effectively with the EU, then it'll end up having to join the Schengen Agreement. It's the Brexit people who talk about the "Norway Option", did no one tell them Norway is in the Schengen Zone? D'oh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
Click to expand...


Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?

You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out. 

The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...






The cry of the beaten neo Marxist goon when shown to be barking mad


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.






You mean like we had to do until recently.

 The original plan was signed in June 1985 by 5 of the 10 UE nations. Then in 1990 the Schengen convention abolished visas forf travel between member states. Then in 1999 they became law under the Amsterdan treaty with UK and Ireland opting out


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
Click to expand...






 It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again

I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.

The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your side of the coin isn't just the same, from the fantasy £1000 per person extra we will need to pay by 2020, that we will need to pay anyway because of rising prices and wages.
> 
> 
> By the way it did happen
> 
> Just one of the many camps
> 
> Police Round On Roma Gypsies Camped In London's West End (PICTURES)
> 
> Then a few days later
> 
> Eastern Europeans still sleeping rough in Marble Arch
> 
> 
> How about this, and read the numbers
> 
> Flood of immigrants make 'township ghettos' out of Britain's seasides
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know him personally?
> 
> He  looks like  anonymous pixels on a screen to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am just judging him by his opinions.He is sick.
Click to expand...







 No you are being your usual neo Marxist welsh racist self, something that I have faced every time I went to wales


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> The brexit loving little englanders are stupid.  They are so stupid, that they bitch about the European Union, but they can't even begin to find new markets for half of all British products, which now go to the European Union but will be trash the day they do their brexit.  What happens to a country that gets taken over by mindless moronic thugs?







WRONG AGAIN    Because of the EU we cant trade outside without the EU's permission to do so. We cant engage in free trade if it would mean an EU company would lose money by our goods being cheaper. We have ready markets for our goods in the US but we cant sell them at a price that is competitive . We could invite companies to come and set up shop here if it wasn't against EU rules to offer subsidies and lucrative start up aid, the EU has to sanction all such treaties in case it would mean a loss for any EU company.

It becomes like Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and possibly America


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
Click to expand...

Its a central tenet of the right wing that everybody is getting a better break than they are.One of the great urban myths.
I remember one nut telling me that Tesco cashiers had a secret barcode that knocked money off a migrants shopping bill. He knew because a lad in the pub had told him. You cant argue with that.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we had to do until recently.
> 
> The original plan was signed in June 1985 by 5 of the 10 UE nations. Then in 1990 the Schengen convention abolished visas forf travel between member states. Then in 1999 they became law under the Amsterdan treaty with UK and Ireland opting out
Click to expand...

Good luck going back to 1999.  The internet alone has globalized the world since that time so much, that separating yourself out of it is just asking to become a Mexico. 

Like I said, little englanders want to give up all decision influence and play into the hands of britain's competitors.  Bravo.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brexit loving little englanders are stupid.  They are so stupid, that they bitch about the European Union, but they can't even begin to find new markets for half of all British products, which now go to the European Union but will be trash the day they do their brexit.  What happens to a country that gets taken over by mindless moronic thugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN    Because of the EU we cant trade outside without the EU's permission to do so. We cant engage in free trade if it would mean an EU company would lose money by our goods being cheaper. We have ready markets for our goods in the US but we cant sell them at a price that is competitive . We could invite companies to come and set up shop here if it wasn't against EU rules to offer subsidies and lucrative start up aid, the EU has to sanction all such treaties in case it would mean a loss for any EU company.
> 
> It becomes like Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and possibly America
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that EU companies have already demolished their British competitors worldwide?  This is possible.  You can turn the UK into a Greece by suppressing the pound as you are suggesting here.  That way uk products will indeed be cheaper.  But, do you think that the rest of the world buys its stuff freely at whim?  No, trade is everywhere by existing relationships, and a new player, such as an independent Britain, will have to start at the back of every queue.  

Also, if you want to play this currency valuation game, then you will quickly find that uk banks will never allow it, and Bangladesh and others will always undercut every uk product. 

Losing even the few jobs that the British still are keeping, after stupidity of brexit?  A fitting punishment for the stupidity of the mindless bully.  Luckily, some parts, like Scotland and Wales, can break free and rejoin the EU.  It is possible that the EU wants Britain out for this exact purpose, to take Britain off the map.  Evil enough.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the UK government wanted to bring in, but because the looney lefties signed away our rights to set our own welfare laws the E.U. courts stopped it from going ahead. This meant that we had to accept 500,000 unemployable Romanians invading the UK and camping out in parks while waiting for a fully furnished house, latest OLED T.V., XBOX, PC, cell phones and then welfare as high as £20k a year.
> 
> If we leave the E.U. the whole sorry affair will collapse under unpaid debts and failing economies. Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined did not pay in half of what the UK pays in, and then we are fined the same amount for infringement of laws we never knew existed.
> 
> We wont be forced into the Schengen zone and the E.U. knows this, we will negotiate fair trade deals and be back to a level playing field again.
> 
> 
> Just one example of E.U. legislation that is unfair to UK business. Any logistics company from Europe can use UK roads free of charge while our own logistics pay taxes to drive on the road and on the fuel used. This puts up the price to the consumer that goes straight into the European logistics companies profits. So the current government introduced a simple payment to foreign hauliers of £300 a week or £10k a year for every HGV ( comparable to UK business outlay after tax relief ). The E.U. has made this illegal as the European hauliers are finding it hard to pay the sums.
> 
> 
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - in theory, you could not pass an elephant through the eye of a needle. But getting that 500,000 turn up here, was a definite possibility. You'e no way at all of showing me it was an impossibility. Have you ? If you have, why haven't you offered it yet ?
> 
> In an earlier post, I posted a copy of a comparison table, showing pros and cons of Brexit. Check it out. Show me how the pro-Brexit case is full of lies and exaggerations !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just need to puree the elephant and then squirt it through. Thats the easiest way.
> i dont have to prove that something that didnt happen wont happen. It hasnt happened and that is proof enough.
> Your anti immigrant rhetoric is confusing me. Are they here for the benefits or to "steal" our jobs ?
> How many would you like to be here ?
> Who would you send home ?
> How would you plan for the shortfall in the labour market ?
> When you kick out the Spanish and French and they reciprocate what is the plan to compensate ex pats ?
> How will you negotiate terms outside the EU that you cant negotiate inside the EU ?
> 
> Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen. There is no plan, just a series of half baked assertions that do not stand up to any scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Having never pureed an elephant, much less try to squeeze it through the eye of a needle, I wouldn't know.

As for the 500,000 - since they didn't arrive .. this is NOT proof that they never could have. Do you apply the same 'logic' elsewhere ? Do you say that because no meterorite has ever killed off the human race, none ever could ? Do you say that because nuclear war has never broken out, as YET, then it never will ? I wonder ... in 1968, would you have said that because no man had ever set foot on the Moon, none ever will ?? 

Your so-called 'logic' over the 500,000 arriving here (or not) is thoroughly faulty. You must surely see that.

Something else I see .. or rather, NOT see .. is* your estimate of how many immigrants is too many for us to have.* When will you be providing that estimate ? AND .... when you do, will you be able to assure me that the EU (if we're still members of it) will ever agree to anything like the limit you think should apply ??

I'm guessing ... *not.* I'm guessing ... that they'll never care about the UK's interests to anything like the level necessary to compromise. And that we'll be forever stuck with the fallout from it .. IF we can't get out of the EU ..... 

Tell me I'm wrong ....


----------



## Drummond

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are these 500,000 people then ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know him personally?
> 
> He  looks like  anonymous pixels on a screen to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am just judging him by his opinions.He is sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are being your usual neo Marxist welsh racist self, something that I have faced every time I went to wales
Click to expand...


For what it's worth, not all of us in Wales are like that (though admittedly quite a number seem to be ..). I'm in south Wales myself, and I think my posts speak for me ...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some sent back, some found it was not to their liking and went elsewhere but over 100,000 are left living rough, begging and thieving while claiming welfare. All you have to do is look and you will see them, get too close and you will smell them before you see them as they use anywhere there are bushes as toilets including people gardens.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know him personally?
> 
> He  looks like  anonymous pixels on a screen to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am just judging him by his opinions.He is sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are being your usual neo Marxist welsh racist self, something that I have faced every time I went to wales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, not all of us in Wales are like that (though admittedly quite a number seem to be ..). I'm in south Wales myself, and I think my posts speak for me ...
Click to expand...

If you are Welsh I would be amazed.Why do you pander to that xenophobic sais wanker ?


----------



## HenryBHough

Both sides are playing on fear.

Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.

Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.

Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - in theory, you could not pass an elephant through the eye of a needle. But getting that 500,000 turn up here, was a definite possibility. You'e no way at all of showing me it was an impossibility. Have you ? If you have, why haven't you offered it yet ?
> 
> In an earlier post, I posted a copy of a comparison table, showing pros and cons of Brexit. Check it out. Show me how the pro-Brexit case is full of lies and exaggerations !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just need to puree the elephant and then squirt it through. Thats the easiest way.
> i dont have to prove that something that didnt happen wont happen. It hasnt happened and that is proof enough.
> Your anti immigrant rhetoric is confusing me. Are they here for the benefits or to "steal" our jobs ?
> How many would you like to be here ?
> Who would you send home ?
> How would you plan for the shortfall in the labour market ?
> When you kick out the Spanish and French and they reciprocate what is the plan to compensate ex pats ?
> How will you negotiate terms outside the EU that you cant negotiate inside the EU ?
> 
> Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen. There is no plan, just a series of half baked assertions that do not stand up to any scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having never pureed an elephant, much less try to squeeze it through the eye of a needle, I wouldn't know.
> 
> As for the 500,000 - since they didn't arrive .. this is NOT proof that they never could have. Do you apply the same 'logic' elsewhere ? Do you say that because no meterorite has ever killed off the human race, none ever could ? Do you say that because nuclear war has never broken out, as YET, then it never will ? I wonder ... in 1968, would you have said that because no man had ever set foot on the Moon, none ever will ??
> 
> Your so-called 'logic' over the 500,000 arriving here (or not) is thoroughly faulty. You must surely see that.
> 
> Something else I see .. or rather, NOT see .. is* your estimate of how many immigrants is too many for us to have.* When will you be providing that estimate ? AND .... when you do, will you be able to assure me that the EU (if we're still members of it) will ever agree to anything like the limit you think should apply ??
> 
> I'm guessing ... *not.* I'm guessing ... that they'll never care about the UK's interests to anything like the level necessary to compromise. And that we'll be forever stuck with the fallout from it .. IF we can't get out of the EU .....
> 
> Tell me I'm wrong ....
Click to expand...

 But my pureed elephant is just as pertinent as your 500,000 immigrants. Neither are going to happen so why labour the point ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a foul individual. Absolutely disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know him personally?
> 
> He  looks like  anonymous pixels on a screen to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am just judging him by his opinions.He is sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are being your usual neo Marxist welsh racist self, something that I have faced every time I went to wales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, not all of us in Wales are like that (though admittedly quite a number seem to be ..). I'm in south Wales myself, and I think my posts speak for me ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are Welsh I would be amazed.Why do you pander to that xenophobic sais wanker ?
Click to expand...


You're telling me that there's no such thing as a 'Brexit' supporter in Wales ?? I'd love to see you try and argue such a thing ... especially as I'm located exactly where I say I am.

And I'm pandering to nobody. Conversely ... a pro-EU position DOES pander to a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels who'll tell you what you must regard as being in your best interests .. since, of course, they're doing it now, and have been, for years. The only question is whether you'll finally decide to stop them !!


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - in theory, you could not pass an elephant through the eye of a needle. But getting that 500,000 turn up here, was a definite possibility. You'e no way at all of showing me it was an impossibility. Have you ? If you have, why haven't you offered it yet ?
> 
> In an earlier post, I posted a copy of a comparison table, showing pros and cons of Brexit. Check it out. Show me how the pro-Brexit case is full of lies and exaggerations !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just need to puree the elephant and then squirt it through. Thats the easiest way.
> i dont have to prove that something that didnt happen wont happen. It hasnt happened and that is proof enough.
> Your anti immigrant rhetoric is confusing me. Are they here for the benefits or to "steal" our jobs ?
> How many would you like to be here ?
> Who would you send home ?
> How would you plan for the shortfall in the labour market ?
> When you kick out the Spanish and French and they reciprocate what is the plan to compensate ex pats ?
> How will you negotiate terms outside the EU that you cant negotiate inside the EU ?
> 
> Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen. There is no plan, just a series of half baked assertions that do not stand up to any scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having never pureed an elephant, much less try to squeeze it through the eye of a needle, I wouldn't know.
> 
> As for the 500,000 - since they didn't arrive .. this is NOT proof that they never could have. Do you apply the same 'logic' elsewhere ? Do you say that because no meterorite has ever killed off the human race, none ever could ? Do you say that because nuclear war has never broken out, as YET, then it never will ? I wonder ... in 1968, would you have said that because no man had ever set foot on the Moon, none ever will ??
> 
> Your so-called 'logic' over the 500,000 arriving here (or not) is thoroughly faulty. You must surely see that.
> 
> Something else I see .. or rather, NOT see .. is* your estimate of how many immigrants is too many for us to have.* When will you be providing that estimate ? AND .... when you do, will you be able to assure me that the EU (if we're still members of it) will ever agree to anything like the limit you think should apply ??
> 
> I'm guessing ... *not.* I'm guessing ... that they'll never care about the UK's interests to anything like the level necessary to compromise. And that we'll be forever stuck with the fallout from it .. IF we can't get out of the EU .....
> 
> Tell me I'm wrong ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But my pureed elephant is just as pertinent as your 500,000 immigrants. Neither are going to happen so why labour the point ?
Click to expand...


Because the 'logic' you say you're following, isn't at all logical. My 'nobody could ever walk on the moon because in 1968, they never had' ... is one example. How about, in the year 1898, someone saying that nobody would ever achieve manned, heavier-than-air flight .. because, in 1898, nobody had ? Or, nobody would ever split the atom .. because it hadn't been done by the year 1912 ?

Nope. Saying that because by a certain date, a certain event hasn't happened, it never could ... is actually nonsense. And by the way, how's that 'how many immigrants is ultimately too many for us' estimate coming along ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, where did the EU stop the UK from making its own welfare laws?
> 
> What you're talking about is equality of the law among EU citizens. I'm talking about keeping the law equal but making sure those people who haven't worked in the UK for enough time simply don't get benefits, regardless of whether they're British or not. But then I wrote this before, did you read it?
> 
> I didn't say the UK would be "forced" into the Schengen Zone. What I said was that the Brexit people used to speak about the "Norway Option", which would mean joining the Schengen Zone, and also that in order to get trading done easier, as happens now being in the EU, the UK might have to seriously consider joining Schengen.
> 
> The Brexit people will say things like "but, we'll just do a deal with the EU and everything will be the same" without realizing that such a deal might have to include joining Schengen. Without it the UK might lose trade and be worse off than staying in the EU.
> 
> I'm not denying that the EU causes problems to the UK. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to leave. What I'm saying is there is a balance. Leaving is not beneficial to the UK, staying is not beneficial to the UK, so which one do you choose?
> 
> Apparently the UK was "stronger together", remember that from the Scottish Referendum, which many of the Brexit people opposed Scotland leaving? Now we're not "stronger together". Well which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
Click to expand...


Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work. 

If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish. 

Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU. 

So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.

This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.


----------



## frigidweirdo

HenryBHough said:


> Both sides are playing on fear.
> 
> Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.
> 
> Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.
> 
> Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?



Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.


----------



## Drummond

This might be of interest (.. to those open to accepting this site's contents, anyway ..) --

Immigration Amount Set For Reveal Before Referendum | News



> It was announced on Sunday that the scale of the EU immigration into the UK will be revealed weeks before the referendum. This comes after persistent pressure has led government officials to agree to publish the statistics that have been withheld up until now.
> 
> The figures will show how many migrants are currently working and claiming benefits in Britain and they will be published on May 26th. The publication, which has previously been blocked for release by civil servants, *could display explosive numbers that may produce a dramatic alteration for the Brexit campaign.* The belief is that the exposure of this information will lead voters to support Britain leaving the EU as a current dominating concern within the country is immigration.
> 
> The information could reveal up to *1.3million extra EU citizens *are living in the UK which will provide a shocking twist in the referendum debate. MPs have been reported in saying that the Government is only releasing the information due to the huge pressure they have received. It is thought that these figures will highlight the extent of lack of control over the borders and the importance of Out campaign.
> 
> The news came as Prime Minister, David Cameron dismissed suggestions that the EU referendum is distracting ministers after a series of mistakes and it was more so the case that the media were negatively spinning news of Tory splits. Cameron, in reference to reporters said ‘they’re spending too much time looking at each other’s newspapers…setting each others’ hair on fire’, talking over battles between cabinet ministers.
> 
> The outburst comes as a poll of polls suggesting the EU referendum remains on a knife edge with British Citizens swaying to the ‘In’ campaign by 51%, in comparison to the 49% of the ‘Out’ campaign with less than three months to go.
> 
> Over the last decade, concerns have risen with the official statistics in relation to the discrepancies over the amount of migrants counted into British airports and those given National Insurance (NI) numbers. It is believed that the scale of migration is far higher than what is being actually being revealed.* In the last five years 904,000 EU nationals moved to Britain according to the Office of National Statistics yet 2.25 million NI numbers were issued, which is a gap of 1.3 million.*
> 
> Back in December of 2015, the civil servants operating at HMRC refused to reveal just how many of the NI numbers were active. They justified this controversial stance based on their belief that it could undermine Cameron’s EU membership renegotiation. However, now HMRC’s chief executive, Lin Homer, has agreed to pass on the statistics to ONS who will, as a result, publish an analysis of the new information to the public on the 26th of May.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a central tenet of the right wing that everybody is getting a better break than they are.One of the great urban myths.
> I remember one nut telling me that Tesco cashiers had a secret barcode that knocked money off a migrants shopping bill. He knew because a lad in the pub had told him. You cant argue with that.
Click to expand...





 Of topic deflection again because you know it is true. You try using one of the migrant drop in centres to try and get information in regards to what welfare package would be best for you, they would show you the door and tell you to find a good solicitor.
 One of my local supermarkets used to cut prices on perishables at the end of the day. When the migrants found out they would hover round the fixtures waiting for the cashiers to drop the prices even more. This stopped people from getting in the shop to buy food costing the shop money. The store manager then decided to stop pricing on the shelves and told his staff to price at the till, so the OAP's and those on little income could get at the food without having to battle with migrants. This nearly caused a riot as the cashiers did not apply the savings to migrants with full trolleys, only to those people with baskets. Now we don't see any migrants in the shops as they use their own illegal shops selling illegal food


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a central tenet of the right wing that everybody is getting a better break than they are.One of the great urban myths.
> I remember one nut telling me that Tesco cashiers had a secret barcode that knocked money off a migrants shopping bill. He knew because a lad in the pub had told him. You cant argue with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of topic deflection again because you know it is true. You try using one of the migrant drop in centres to try and get information in regards to what welfare package would be best for you, they would show you the door and tell you to find a good solicitor.
> One of my local supermarkets used to cut prices on perishables at the end of the day. When the migrants found out they would hover round the fixtures waiting for the cashiers to drop the prices even more. This stopped people from getting in the shop to buy food costing the shop money. The store manager then decided to stop pricing on the shelves and told his staff to price at the till, so the OAP's and those on little income could get at the food without having to battle with migrants. This nearly caused a riot as the cashiers did not apply the savings to migrants with full trolleys, only to those people with baskets. Now we don't see any migrants in the shops as they use their own illegal shops selling illegal food
Click to expand...


Which reminds me; I was handed a 'shopping list' by a migrant whilst walking around my neighbourhood last week. Everything from pampers onwards, itemised with  the price. He was accosting every available female in the street.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we had to do until recently.
> 
> The original plan was signed in June 1985 by 5 of the 10 UE nations. Then in 1990 the Schengen convention abolished visas forf travel between member states. Then in 1999 they became law under the Amsterdan treaty with UK and Ireland opting out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck going back to 1999.  The internet alone has globalized the world since that time so much, that separating yourself out of it is just asking to become a Mexico.
> 
> Like I said, little englanders want to give up all decision influence and play into the hands of britain's competitors.  Bravo.
Click to expand...





 Not that long ago is it, just 16 years, and we need a visa if we travel outside the EU so no hardship at all.


 Our neo Marxist politicians have already done that, which is why no British goods are available anymore. The British companies have been sold, asset stripped and names kept to fool American wannabee's and arab oil shieks. Names like Jaguar, Mini, Land Rover and Rolls Royce. All now in foreign ownership


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we had to do until recently.
> 
> The original plan was signed in June 1985 by 5 of the 10 UE nations. Then in 1990 the Schengen convention abolished visas forf travel between member states. Then in 1999 they became law under the Amsterdan treaty with UK and Ireland opting out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck going back to 1999.  The internet alone has globalized the world since that time so much, that separating yourself out of it is just asking to become a Mexico.
> 
> Like I said, little englanders want to give up all decision influence and play into the hands of britain's competitors.  Bravo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that long ago is it, just 16 years, and we need a visa if we travel outside the EU so no hardship at all.
> 
> 
> Our neo Marxist politicians have already done that, which is why no British goods are available anymore. The British companies have been sold, asset stripped and names kept to fool American wannabee's and arab oil shieks. Names like Jaguar, Mini, Land Rover and Rolls Royce. All now in foreign ownership
Click to expand...


It seems to me that at the root of all this argument, is the lousy deal Cameron came back with from Brussels.


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prospective UKIP councillor told me that we could expect 5 million Bulgarian beggars here on January 1rst. I nodded at the old fool before telling him to fuck off my land.Why do your type feel the need to lie so much ?
> Is it because you have no case ?
> 
> 500,000 Romanians living in a park ? Why not just say 5000 ? You undermine your racism by making such bizarre claims.
> 
> You really are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those 500,000 Romanians wasn't actually a 'true' figure ... in that it didn't happen. Nonetheless, I invite you to prove to me that there was no way at all it COULDN'T have happened. By what means would such an influx ever have been prevented ? Kindly prove that it was preventable !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is exactly the point of the brexit case. It is built on lies and exaggerated nonsense.Characters like this create a toxic forum where real issues can not be discussed.
> To address the further point you make - it didnt happen. It never was going to happen. In theory I could pass an elephant through the eye of a needle but thats not going to happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - in theory, you could not pass an elephant through the eye of a needle. But getting that 500,000 turn up here, was a definite possibility. You'e no way at all of showing me it was an impossibility. Have you ? If you have, why haven't you offered it yet ?
> 
> In an earlier post, I posted a copy of a comparison table, showing pros and cons of Brexit. Check it out. Show me how the pro-Brexit case is full of lies and exaggerations !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just need to puree the elephant and then squirt it through. Thats the easiest way.
> i dont have to prove that something that didnt happen wont happen. It hasnt happened and that is proof enough.
> Your anti immigrant rhetoric is confusing me. Are they here for the benefits or to "steal" our jobs ?
> How many would you like to be here ?
> Who would you send home ?
> How would you plan for the shortfall in the labour market ?
> When you kick out the Spanish and French and they reciprocate what is the plan to compensate ex pats ?
> How will you negotiate terms outside the EU that you cant negotiate inside the EU ?
> 
> Brexit is a disaster waiting to happen. There is no plan, just a series of half baked assertions that do not stand up to any scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having never pureed an elephant, much less try to squeeze it through the eye of a needle, I wouldn't know.
> 
> As for the 500,000 - since they didn't arrive .. this is NOT proof that they never could have. Do you apply the same 'logic' elsewhere ? Do you say that because no meterorite has ever killed off the human race, none ever could ? Do you say that because nuclear war has never broken out, as YET, then it never will ? I wonder ... in 1968, would you have said that because no man had ever set foot on the Moon, none ever will ??
> 
> Your so-called 'logic' over the 500,000 arriving here (or not) is thoroughly faulty. You must surely see that.
> 
> Something else I see .. or rather, NOT see .. is* your estimate of how many immigrants is too many for us to have.* When will you be providing that estimate ? AND .... when you do, will you be able to assure me that the EU (if we're still members of it) will ever agree to anything like the limit you think should apply ??
> 
> I'm guessing ... *not.* I'm guessing ... that they'll never care about the UK's interests to anything like the level necessary to compromise. And that we'll be forever stuck with the fallout from it .. IF we can't get out of the EU .....
> 
> Tell me I'm wrong ....
Click to expand...









 Here are the facts from the ONS

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Bulgarian and Romanian migration to the UK - ONS


 This shows that in the first year of being allowed into the UK over 140,000 arrived seeking work

" In the year ending December 2014, Romanian citizens were allocated the largest number of NINos; the total of 146,000 was a 715% increase on the 18,000 NINos allocated in the year to December 2013"


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides are playing on fear.
> 
> Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.
> 
> Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.
> 
> Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...






 And you can prove this can you, that it is made up


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it stopped the UK from bringing in the same legislation as Germany and France have stopping migrants from claiming welfare until they had paid into the system.
> 
> 
> David Cameron's climbdown on EU benefits.
> 
> The latest polls show that 46% believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU, while 43% think they will be better staying. What I would say is which ever side is proven wrong should pay the shortfall accrued. So if the stay camp wins and we end up paying more as a result ( including housing costs, welfare, health and education increases due to the migrants ) they should have the loss apportioned to their ability to pay taken from their salaries/welfare payments. If the out camp wins and it is proven that this has cost the people more the same rules will be applied.
> 
> But everything over and above the norm will be tallied, including clean up costs, policing and increased social services spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
Click to expand...







 If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
Click to expand...


Germany has already built a nuclear power station in either Poland or the Czech Republic (forget which). Whilst  busy dismantling its own.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides are playing on fear.
> 
> Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.
> 
> Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.
> 
> Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this can you, that it is made up
Click to expand...


Yes I can.

Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff. 

WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote

Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this: 

"UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."

As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.

""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."

Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies. 






International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics

Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is. 

Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia. 

To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else. 

:"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."

This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.

"
"The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.

"The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.

"How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"

Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more. 
No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue. 

This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either. 

""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."

They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy? 

""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."

This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.

""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."

Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife. 

Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power. 

That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more. 
What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU? 

Beats me. 

So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, it didn't happen because it was a duel system. Had he said that ALL PEOPLE regardless would have to wait four years, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
> 
> Latest polls say this and that, I could probably find a latest poll that says something different.
> 
> If the UK stays in, how will you know the difference from how much the UK would pay if it had left? That's just a silly idea.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is for UK politicians to figure things out. The problem is, and always has been, that in the EU or out of the EU, you're still run by politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
Click to expand...


Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks. 

Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.

About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
Click to expand...

Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany has already built a nuclear power station in either Poland or the Czech Republic (forget which). Whilst  busy dismantling its own.
Click to expand...





 If they wanted to play hardball they could wait until Germany had no power generation of their own and then cut the supply. This would leave the Germans in a very tricky situation, do they mobilise and head east or do they pay the price asked. Who would win in the long run, and could the EU exist after such a thing.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides are playing on fear.
> 
> Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.
> 
> Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.
> 
> Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this can you, that it is made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff.
> 
> WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote
> 
> Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this:
> 
> "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."
> 
> As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.
> 
> ""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."
> 
> Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is.
> 
> Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia.
> 
> To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else.
> 
> :"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."
> 
> This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.
> 
> "
> "The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.
> 
> "The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.
> 
> "How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"
> 
> Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more.
> No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue.
> 
> This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either.
> 
> ""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."
> 
> They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy?
> 
> ""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."
> 
> This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
> 
> ""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."
> 
> Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife.
> 
> Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power.
> 
> That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more.
> What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU?
> 
> Beats me.
> 
> So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.
Click to expand...







 And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
Click to expand...


Well, this debate requires a lot of facts, a lot of pointing out what is what, what COULD be what is also extremely important. But I don't see this happening. Just people playing politics for the sake of winning. And those on both sides perhaps don't understand the implications of what is happening.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it the rule applied to all non British migrants. Why should a migrant come here with the sole intention of claiming from our welfare budget and have no intention to pay anything back in
> 
> Very easy just look at the sums for the other nations and work it out. Say if Germany paid £10 trillion this year and the UK paid £8 trillion then we would have paid 80% of what Germany pays. A simple enough equation. Same for the fines imposed and the returns.
> 
> The UK public have figured it out already and have shown that we are being screwed by the EU because the left handed everything to them on a plate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
Click to expand...






 The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this debate requires a lot of facts, a lot of pointing out what is what, what COULD be what is also extremely important. But I don't see this happening. Just people playing politics for the sake of winning. And those on both sides perhaps don't understand the implications of what is happening.
Click to expand...


Yup, but its not going to happen. 
There are two leave campaigns funded by different interests and they loathe each other.On the remain side you have the two most hated men in Britain heading up the campaign and they have massive credibility issues.
The large majority of the parties support remain in general but all are compromised in some way.
Corbyn is at best ambivalent.Sturgeon would love a Brexit for obvious reasons whilst Leanne is tied up in a real battle with the assembly elections.

Nobody is standing up and making the case.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides are playing on fear.
> 
> Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.
> 
> Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.
> 
> Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this can you, that it is made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff.
> 
> WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote
> 
> Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this:
> 
> "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."
> 
> As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.
> 
> ""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."
> 
> Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is.
> 
> Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia.
> 
> To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else.
> 
> :"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."
> 
> This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.
> 
> "
> "The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.
> 
> "The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.
> 
> "How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"
> 
> Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more.
> No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue.
> 
> This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either.
> 
> ""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."
> 
> They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy?
> 
> ""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."
> 
> This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
> 
> ""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."
> 
> Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife.
> 
> Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power.
> 
> That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more.
> What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU?
> 
> Beats me.
> 
> So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure. Who can say trade won't carry on?

Basically the British people need to vote and it's playing poker. You have so much money riding on this one hand. Who's to say the EU doesn't have two aces and the last card on the flop won't be another ace, and you've got a 2 and 6 and there's a 3 in the first three cards up. 

You might win. You might lose.

Now, the people need to make this gamble. A good gambler knows his stuff. He knows the percentages, he knows the risks, he can eye up his opponent and see what's happening. 

The British people need to be told the percentages. They need to see what the opponent is doing. They need all this information. And what's happening? They're not getting it. They getting "come on, he doesn't have anything, I know it, I can feel it in my bones, he's got nothing, you'll win, just go all in". That's bull. 

If the British people make a decision, it should be made for the right reasons. Not because Obama moved Churchill's bust to a different room, and the Civil War didn't kill Neil Kinnock. 

You make claims that MEPs who support their parties will be the best off. Farage's who career is on the line. If the UK leave the EU then he's out of a job. So who's to say that Farage isn't trying to make the stay camp do well while trying to make himself look good? What's in it for Farage? He's a politician too. 

Where will UKIP go if the UK leave? Who'd vote for a party like that? Or are they gambling that they'd take over the Tories? The Express thinks so. 

So, in the past things have been better with the EU. So why doesn't Farage and his buddies go out and try and restore this? Why don't they go and try and make the EU what we want it to be instead of just moaning?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
Click to expand...


No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations. 

Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made. 

Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue. 

Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing. 

Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism. 

So what's your point?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why should a person go to the UK just to apply for welfare. Same for kids, why should kids leave school and just apply for welfare. Don't you think anyone who is applying for welfare and isn't willing to work should just not be given it, regardless of nationality?
> 
> You think it's easy huh? Well.... what you said doesn't work it out.
> 
> The UK public have figured what out? Most of them don't have a clue because the facts are not getting out and are being lost in bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
Click to expand...


Charming. You've injected race into this discussion, you seem intent on that, and totally needlessly. Unless, of course, you have to, because you're not confident of your stance ?

This is understandable ......


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charming. You've injected race into this discussion, you seem intent on that, and totally needlessly. Unless, of course, you have to, because you're not confident of your stance ?
> 
> This is understandable ......
Click to expand...

C'mon..................... Brexit is all about race. Try making a case without mentioning immigration.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charming. You've injected race into this discussion, you seem intent on that, and totally needlessly. Unless, of course, you have to, because you're not confident of your stance ?
> 
> This is understandable ......
Click to expand...


I don't think he injected race into this. Race has been there a loooooooong time.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we had to do until recently.
> 
> The original plan was signed in June 1985 by 5 of the 10 UE nations. Then in 1990 the Schengen convention abolished visas forf travel between member states. Then in 1999 they became law under the Amsterdan treaty with UK and Ireland opting out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck going back to 1999.  The internet alone has globalized the world since that time so much, that separating yourself out of it is just asking to become a Mexico.
> 
> Like I said, little englanders want to give up all decision influence and play into the hands of britain's competitors.  Bravo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that long ago is it, just 16 years, and we need a visa if we travel outside the EU so no hardship at all.
> 
> 
> Our neo Marxist politicians have already done that, which is why no British goods are available anymore. The British companies have been sold, asset stripped and names kept to fool American wannabee's and arab oil shieks. Names like Jaguar, Mini, Land Rover and Rolls Royce. All now in foreign ownership
Click to expand...

That visa doesn't allow you to work or stay over 3 month.  So much for your retirement condo.  Hehehe.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charming. You've injected race into this discussion, you seem intent on that, and totally needlessly. Unless, of course, you have to, because you're not confident of your stance ?
> 
> This is understandable ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon..................... Brexit is all about race. Try making a case without mentioning immigration.
Click to expand...


You're saying that anyone of another nationality isn't of the same race as many here in the UK ??

For example, there are no white, caucasian, people in Poland ? France ? Germany ? Italy ? Belgium ? Shall I go on ? 

*This isn't about race* (much though you wish you could legitimately claim it was). It's about people of other _nationalities_, from other cultures, who are allowed to feel that they have a 'free pass' to settle down here in the UK, regardless of numbers coming to these shores, and regardless of our capacity (and willingness !!) to take them all ... which, it seems, we will be learning a lot more of in the coming weeks !

Why haven't you yet tried to tell us how many immigrants here would be TOO MANY for us to take ? Is it because, in your world, the UK has an infinite capacity to take everyone ??


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides are playing on fear.
> 
> Those favouring subservience to Brussels thumping on fear of economic loss.
> 
> Those favouring independence thumping on loss of freedom....or, rather, gaining back some lost freedoms.
> 
> Hey, when Obama gets America into the EU (He seems to be jonesing to become president of that syphilitic afterbirth of a Mongolian Gang Fuck) you'll like measuring distances and speed in kilometers, meat by the kilogram and putting an end to all those antiquated figures on US dollars.....won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this can you, that it is made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff.
> 
> WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote
> 
> Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this:
> 
> "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."
> 
> As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.
> 
> ""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."
> 
> Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is.
> 
> Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia.
> 
> To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else.
> 
> :"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."
> 
> This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.
> 
> "
> "The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.
> 
> "The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.
> 
> "How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"
> 
> Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more.
> No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue.
> 
> This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either.
> 
> ""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."
> 
> They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy?
> 
> ""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."
> 
> This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
> 
> ""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."
> 
> Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife.
> 
> Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power.
> 
> That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more.
> What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU?
> 
> Beats me.
> 
> So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. Who can say trade won't carry on?
> 
> Basically the British people need to vote and it's playing poker. You have so much money riding on this one hand. Who's to say the EU doesn't have two aces and the last card on the flop won't be another ace, and you've got a 2 and 6 and there's a 3 in the first three cards up.
> 
> You might win. You might lose.
> 
> Now, the people need to make this gamble. A good gambler knows his stuff. He knows the percentages, he knows the risks, he can eye up his opponent and see what's happening.
> 
> The British people need to be told the percentages. They need to see what the opponent is doing. They need all this information. And what's happening? They're not getting it. They getting "come on, he doesn't have anything, I know it, I can feel it in my bones, he's got nothing, you'll win, just go all in". That's bull.
> 
> If the British people make a decision, it should be made for the right reasons. Not because Obama moved Churchill's bust to a different room, and the Civil War didn't kill Neil Kinnock.
> 
> You make claims that MEPs who support their parties will be the best off. Farage's who career is on the line. If the UK leave the EU then he's out of a job. So who's to say that Farage isn't trying to make the stay camp do well while trying to make himself look good? What's in it for Farage? He's a politician too.
> 
> Where will UKIP go if the UK leave? Who'd vote for a party like that? Or are they gambling that they'd take over the Tories? The Express thinks so.
> 
> So, in the past things have been better with the EU. So why doesn't Farage and his buddies go out and try and restore this? Why don't they go and try and make the EU what we want it to be instead of just moaning?
Click to expand...







 And we are prepared to make this gamble, tighten our belts and ride out the storm. The stay brigade are doing their ostrich impersonation and hiding from the reality, so don't want to know about what good may come out of an exit. If the worst comes to the worst we could always create a new grouping that would be ran along Common Market lines and give the member states full control as long as they followed the rules for trade within the group.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the stupid little englanders will learn is if they have to buy a visa to go to benidorm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we had to do until recently.
> 
> The original plan was signed in June 1985 by 5 of the 10 UE nations. Then in 1990 the Schengen convention abolished visas forf travel between member states. Then in 1999 they became law under the Amsterdan treaty with UK and Ireland opting out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck going back to 1999.  The internet alone has globalized the world since that time so much, that separating yourself out of it is just asking to become a Mexico.
> 
> Like I said, little englanders want to give up all decision influence and play into the hands of britain's competitors.  Bravo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that long ago is it, just 16 years, and we need a visa if we travel outside the EU so no hardship at all.
> 
> 
> Our neo Marxist politicians have already done that, which is why no British goods are available anymore. The British companies have been sold, asset stripped and names kept to fool American wannabee's and arab oil shieks. Names like Jaguar, Mini, Land Rover and Rolls Royce. All now in foreign ownership
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That visa doesn't allow you to work or stay over 3 month.  So much for your retirement condo.  Hehehe.
Click to expand...






 Not really as I could move to the Channel Islands or the English Riviera.  Nah I think I will stay in Gods own County and drink proper beer and eat proper Yorkshire puds and free range beef


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit facts are a cloak to bring in a Little Englander white anglo saxon agenda.Thousands of people could lose their jobs but that is just collateral damage and anyway they can take all those jobs the "darkies" did before we booted them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charming. You've injected race into this discussion, you seem intent on that, and totally needlessly. Unless, of course, you have to, because you're not confident of your stance ?
> 
> This is understandable ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon..................... Brexit is all about race. Try making a case without mentioning immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying that anyone of another nationality isn't of the same race as many here in the UK ??
> 
> For example, there are no white, caucasian, people in Poland ? France ? Germany ? Italy ? Belgium ? Shall I go on ?
> 
> *This isn't about race* (much though you wish you could legitimately claim it was). It's about people of other _nationalities_, from other cultures, who are allowed to feel that they have a 'free pass' to settle down here in the UK, regardless of numbers coming to these shores, and regardless of our capacity (and willingness !!) to take them all ... which, it seems, we will be learning a lot more of in the coming weeks !
> 
> Why haven't you yet tried to tell us how many immigrants here would be TOO MANY for us to take ? Is it because, in your world, the UK has an infinite capacity to take everyone ??
Click to expand...






 To tainted tommy and his fellow neo Marxist goons there can never be too many immigrants. That is until they take over and then he and his fellow neo Marxists will demand the opposition do something about it.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy unless you are one of the indigenous that has worked all their lives and find themselves unemployed because of EU meddling. The migrants have government funded quango's that will fill out the paperwork, get the details and submit the claim. Try using them as in indigenous and you will be expelled aggressively. The migrants are given first place in the queue when in comes to housing and health, and you caqn tell when the latest batch have been allocated to an area as brand new kitchen goods appear on gumtree and car boot sales. Then they will move to another area and claim the same again
> 
> I remember a local left wing politician being asked at a public meeting if it was true that the council ( local government ) was giving the recent Iraqi migrants fully furnished social housing complete with the latest kitchen appliances, T.V's, computer games and cell phones. He answered that the council was not funding any such thing. After the meeting he was sat in a club drinking whiskey as was his normal behaviour and he let slip that he was glad no one asked if central government was funding it as he would have to have answered YES.
> 
> The problems started in the late 1960's early 1970's when we took in Ugandan refugee's and muslim lawyers filled out the forms for them to get everything they could with a commission of 15% for as long as they received the monies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
Click to expand...






 That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the reality is that those who want to leave should be giving a message of hope. Those who want to stay should be giving a message of fear at what leaving would do. But the Brexit people aren't doing very well on the message of hope, mostly it's just made up stuff that has no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this can you, that it is made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff.
> 
> WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote
> 
> Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this:
> 
> "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."
> 
> As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.
> 
> ""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."
> 
> Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is.
> 
> Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia.
> 
> To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else.
> 
> :"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."
> 
> This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.
> 
> "
> "The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.
> 
> "The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.
> 
> "How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"
> 
> Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more.
> No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue.
> 
> This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either.
> 
> ""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."
> 
> They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy?
> 
> ""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."
> 
> This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
> 
> ""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."
> 
> Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife.
> 
> Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power.
> 
> That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more.
> What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU?
> 
> Beats me.
> 
> So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. Who can say trade won't carry on?
> 
> Basically the British people need to vote and it's playing poker. You have so much money riding on this one hand. Who's to say the EU doesn't have two aces and the last card on the flop won't be another ace, and you've got a 2 and 6 and there's a 3 in the first three cards up.
> 
> You might win. You might lose.
> 
> Now, the people need to make this gamble. A good gambler knows his stuff. He knows the percentages, he knows the risks, he can eye up his opponent and see what's happening.
> 
> The British people need to be told the percentages. They need to see what the opponent is doing. They need all this information. And what's happening? They're not getting it. They getting "come on, he doesn't have anything, I know it, I can feel it in my bones, he's got nothing, you'll win, just go all in". That's bull.
> 
> If the British people make a decision, it should be made for the right reasons. Not because Obama moved Churchill's bust to a different room, and the Civil War didn't kill Neil Kinnock.
> 
> You make claims that MEPs who support their parties will be the best off. Farage's who career is on the line. If the UK leave the EU then he's out of a job. So who's to say that Farage isn't trying to make the stay camp do well while trying to make himself look good? What's in it for Farage? He's a politician too.
> 
> Where will UKIP go if the UK leave? Who'd vote for a party like that? Or are they gambling that they'd take over the Tories? The Express thinks so.
> 
> So, in the past things have been better with the EU. So why doesn't Farage and his buddies go out and try and restore this? Why don't they go and try and make the EU what we want it to be instead of just moaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are prepared to make this gamble, tighten our belts and ride out the storm. The stay brigade are doing their ostrich impersonation and hiding from the reality, so don't want to know about what good may come out of an exit. If the worst comes to the worst we could always create a new grouping that would be ran along Common Market lines and give the member states full control as long as they followed the rules for trade within the group.
Click to expand...


Yeah, many people are prepared to take the gamble without understanding the risks. They get all caught up in the show, and ignore the reality. 

A gamble took place in Germany in the early 1990s. Helmut Kohl basically did the old Nationalistic nonsense and telling everyone it would be great. The left told the newly reunified country that it would be a long hard struggle. Kohl won. Then it was a long hard struggle that Germany wasn't prepared for. It took them more than 15 years to get out of that one. 

What people are willing to do because they're convinced with nonsense, and what is right, are often two very different things.

If the worst comes to the worst you could do a lot of things. But it would be the worst. 

What's the point of change for the worst?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I've stated, there are ways of dealing with such a thing and still being in the EU. This isn't about the EU, this is about the UK govt being unable to make laws that work.
> 
> If migrants are given first place in the queue now, why wouldn't they be given first place in the queue once the UK leaves the EU? It's not the EU that's putting them in first place you know. The EU actually has almost no power in the UK. The UK govt decides what to do and what not to do based on pressure from the EU. The UK govt could tell the EU to get stuffed, or it could make more intelligent laws that allow them to do as they wish.
> 
> Yes, the problem started ages ago. And it had NOTHING to do with the EU.
> 
> So while you bring very valid points for things that are severely wrong with the UK and how it is governed, it doesn't have much to do with the EU.
> 
> This is a problem. People are associating the immigration crisis with the EU. I don't. I associate it with poor governance, both from Labour and the Tories (though more Labour than Tories), on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
Click to expand...


The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then? 

However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. The last neo Marxist government of the UK gave away our rights to make our own laws. So we became just another money pot for the EU to dip into as and when needed. WE WERE GLAD THEY DID NOT JOIN THE EUROZONE AS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING PARTS OF THE UK TO FRANCE AND GERMANY TO  BUILD POWER STATIONS TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF MAINLAND EUROPE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
Click to expand...


You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !! 

Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case ! 

The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.

The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.

It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
Click to expand...


No, I'm not assuming anything.

What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic. 

However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with. 

But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing. 

You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
Click to expand...


Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ... 

The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ...
> 
> The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.
Click to expand...


The thing is, the UK could have a stronger voice if it chose to do so. The UK pays a lot of money to the EU. Simply refusing to pay unless certain changes are made, or getting a group together and actually coming up with a plan of action, and what they want to achieve and all of that, and you could get somewhere. Instead it's just these pathetic half hearted efforts and lots of moaning.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ...
> 
> The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the UK could have a stronger voice if it chose to do so. The UK pays a lot of money to the EU. Simply refusing to pay unless certain changes are made, or getting a group together and actually coming up with a plan of action, and what they want to achieve and all of that, and you could get somewhere. Instead it's just these pathetic half hearted efforts and lots of moaning.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you have a point .. but I doubt it. I think that such tactics would persuade other Member States that we're more trouble than we're worth. 

The EU exists to exert its influence on Member States .. not the other way around. See a consensus emerge amongst the other members that we're not good 'team players', that we're too much of a troublesome and disruptive influence, and many will be glad to see the back of us.

Indeed, that may already be true to some extent.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.



Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???

I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this can you, that it is made up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff.
> 
> WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote
> 
> Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this:
> 
> "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."
> 
> As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.
> 
> ""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."
> 
> Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is.
> 
> Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia.
> 
> To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else.
> 
> :"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."
> 
> This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.
> 
> "
> "The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.
> 
> "The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.
> 
> "How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"
> 
> Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more.
> No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue.
> 
> This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either.
> 
> ""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."
> 
> They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy?
> 
> ""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."
> 
> This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
> 
> ""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."
> 
> Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife.
> 
> Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power.
> 
> That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more.
> What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU?
> 
> Beats me.
> 
> So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. Who can say trade won't carry on?
> 
> Basically the British people need to vote and it's playing poker. You have so much money riding on this one hand. Who's to say the EU doesn't have two aces and the last card on the flop won't be another ace, and you've got a 2 and 6 and there's a 3 in the first three cards up.
> 
> You might win. You might lose.
> 
> Now, the people need to make this gamble. A good gambler knows his stuff. He knows the percentages, he knows the risks, he can eye up his opponent and see what's happening.
> 
> The British people need to be told the percentages. They need to see what the opponent is doing. They need all this information. And what's happening? They're not getting it. They getting "come on, he doesn't have anything, I know it, I can feel it in my bones, he's got nothing, you'll win, just go all in". That's bull.
> 
> If the British people make a decision, it should be made for the right reasons. Not because Obama moved Churchill's bust to a different room, and the Civil War didn't kill Neil Kinnock.
> 
> You make claims that MEPs who support their parties will be the best off. Farage's who career is on the line. If the UK leave the EU then he's out of a job. So who's to say that Farage isn't trying to make the stay camp do well while trying to make himself look good? What's in it for Farage? He's a politician too.
> 
> Where will UKIP go if the UK leave? Who'd vote for a party like that? Or are they gambling that they'd take over the Tories? The Express thinks so.
> 
> So, in the past things have been better with the EU. So why doesn't Farage and his buddies go out and try and restore this? Why don't they go and try and make the EU what we want it to be instead of just moaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are prepared to make this gamble, tighten our belts and ride out the storm. The stay brigade are doing their ostrich impersonation and hiding from the reality, so don't want to know about what good may come out of an exit. If the worst comes to the worst we could always create a new grouping that would be ran along Common Market lines and give the member states full control as long as they followed the rules for trade within the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, many people are prepared to take the gamble without understanding the risks. They get all caught up in the show, and ignore the reality.
> 
> A gamble took place in Germany in the early 1990s. Helmut Kohl basically did the old Nationalistic nonsense and telling everyone it would be great. The left told the newly reunified country that it would be a long hard struggle. Kohl won. Then it was a long hard struggle that Germany wasn't prepared for. It took them more than 15 years to get out of that one.
> 
> What people are willing to do because they're convinced with nonsense, and what is right, are often two very different things.
> 
> If the worst comes to the worst you could do a lot of things. But it would be the worst.
> 
> What's the point of change for the worst?
Click to expand...







 If you don't try then how can you say it was for the worst, that sounds like defeatist talk.  We need to weigh up if it is worth losing £1000 a person to save £5000 a person because that is the sum, Stay in the EU and be charged for it all ways, leave and be charged less for it up front


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah, now bring out the attacks.
> 
> Did I think you would be able to stay on the debate? Not really, but I gave it a go.
> 
> About power stations, what the fuck are you going on about? Have you given up trying to debate already? Jeez, you've inserted almost no facts, you've proven nothing and already onto attacking. Well..... I thought your case was so strong, if it were, then you wouldn't resort to such attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
Click to expand...







 Thatcher had the right idea where the EU was concerned, she just said NO to everything she say that was bad for the UK. Then if the EU tried to force her into accepting the changes she just threatened to turn her back on the EU and stop paying that very day. She had it set up in advance so the EU could not stop the transfer from taking place. That is why she was known as the Iron Lady.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The usual LIES when you cant keep track of reality, just look at Greece, Portugal and Ireland that have all faced swinging cuts to balance the books because of stupid governments in the past. The Greeks were on the verge of having to sell its land to pay the debts imposed by the EU. The only interest shown was for the lucrative holiday destinations and the uninhabited islands. Work it out ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've jumped to a different topic that doesn't have anything to do with power stations.
> 
> Look, Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the EU, it was a mistake of great proportions that the Greek govt made as much as the EU made.
> 
> Greece has been run badly by the Greek government. So that isn't an EU issue.
> 
> Ireland had cuts because of a recession which affected many of its new industries, like computing.
> 
> Portugal is just a poor country and relies a lot on tourism.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the EU took in all the lame ducks and expected the rest of the nations to bail them out. Then they could hold the lame ducks to ransom and force them to become slaves of the regime. The first step would be to relax EU laws regarding pollution controls and ecology fines for the lame ducks so they could build power stations and filthy industrial complexes. But the costs would be factored into the loan agreement that they could never pay of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
Click to expand...







 Isnt threatening to leave not exercising our voices, and taking control of our destiny. There is our voice and the power behind it will show the EU that people power is still alive and kicking. The neo Marxists don't want to stay in as it will erode their power in the UK to already existing neo Marxists in Brussels. Even trying to get the British MEP's to meet with anti semitic, Nazi, supremacist ultra right wing groups is a no brainer as it would result in the government losing the next elections, that is why they wont ever get together.


----------



## HenryBHough

anotherlife said:


> That visa doesn't allow you to work or stay over 3 month.  So much for your retirement condo.  Hehehe.



From personal experience.

The standard tourist visa, granted upon arrival in The UK, indeed is valid for 90 days.  However, once there, one can apply for an additional 90 days and so stay for six months. 

There seems to be no limit on the number of 90 day visits one can make in a year though surely there must be something along that line.  I've never bumped into it though I make frequent trips to The UK.  In more than one instance I've made two or more 2-3 week visits in rapid succession.  Once even arriving for the second time within the 90 day period encompassed by the earlier one.

But, yes, 90-days is simple; 180 days becomes a procedural quagmire and beyond that, unless a full-time student, very difficult.  Of course no fair working during the time.


And, in other news, Tony Blair has come out for "Remain".  That, accompanied by Our Kenyan President's meddling in foreign elections, make it plain that BREXIT is essential!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU probably thought it wouldn't work out like it did. You know, like going into the future ill prepared and based on wrong ideas. So, you're prepared to mimic the EU then?
> 
> However if the UK were to stay in the EU and take a prominent role in seeing how things went, then perhaps the EU would relax laws a little more, and make it about nation states coming together, rather than the federalist option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ...
> 
> The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the UK could have a stronger voice if it chose to do so. The UK pays a lot of money to the EU. Simply refusing to pay unless certain changes are made, or getting a group together and actually coming up with a plan of action, and what they want to achieve and all of that, and you could get somewhere. Instead it's just these pathetic half hearted efforts and lots of moaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have a point .. but I doubt it. I think that such tactics would persuade other Member States that we're more trouble than we're worth.
> 
> The EU exists to exert its influence on Member States .. not the other way around. See a consensus emerge amongst the other members that we're not good 'team players', that we're too much of a troublesome and disruptive influence, and many will be glad to see the back of us.
> 
> Indeed, that may already be true to some extent.
Click to expand...


What is the EU? It's just a bunch of people who have made an organization. Any organization is just a sum of its parts. The UK is a major part of this, and if it doesn't do anything, then it becomes what others want.

Look at the way in which Germany, especially, and France wield power within the EU. The UK COULD do this, but doesn't. 

At the last EU election in 2014 the ECR was the third place party in the EU parliament. It has the Tories, Law and Justice from Poland as the main two parties, then parties from 16 other countries. 

The EFDD, run by Farage, also has Euroskeptics, 8 countries represented with two having double figure seats, from the UK and Italy. 

The number of Euroskeptics within the EU is enough to try and bring them together and form a power bloc. At present they're even split between two different parties, and the EFDD is the European turn up to the EU parliament and do nothing Party, instead of the try and change things.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ...
> 
> The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the UK could have a stronger voice if it chose to do so. The UK pays a lot of money to the EU. Simply refusing to pay unless certain changes are made, or getting a group together and actually coming up with a plan of action, and what they want to achieve and all of that, and you could get somewhere. Instead it's just these pathetic half hearted efforts and lots of moaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have a point .. but I doubt it. I think that such tactics would persuade other Member States that we're more trouble than we're worth.
> 
> The EU exists to exert its influence on Member States .. not the other way around. See a consensus emerge amongst the other members that we're not good 'team players', that we're too much of a troublesome and disruptive influence, and many will be glad to see the back of us.
> 
> Indeed, that may already be true to some extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the EU? It's just a bunch of people who have made an organization. Any organization is just a sum of its parts. The UK is a major part of this, and if it doesn't do anything, then it becomes what others want.
> 
> Look at the way in which Germany, especially, and France wield power within the EU. The UK COULD do this, but doesn't.
> 
> At the last EU election in 2014 the ECR was the third place party in the EU parliament. It has the Tories, Law and Justice from Poland as the main two parties, then parties from 16 other countries.
> 
> The EFDD, run by Farage, also has Euroskeptics, 8 countries represented with two having double figure seats, from the UK and Italy.
> 
> The number of Euroskeptics within the EU is enough to try and bring them together and form a power bloc. At present they're even split between two different parties, and the EFDD is the European turn up to the EU parliament and do nothing Party, instead of the try and change things.
Click to expand...


The EU is indeed a bunch of people who made an organisation. The organisation they made was designed to wield power over its Member States .. a far cry from the EEC, which existed as a trading bloc.

Now, why does the EU exist, and not the EEC ? Answer ... because as 'nature abhors a vacuum', so there was a power vacuum that was filled by opportunistically converting a trading organisational structure into one that made laws and attempted its form of GOVERNMENT over all countries choosing to be its members. So it is that we have a European Parliament, and legislation passed which its Member States are expected to implement.

Perhaps - though I'm very far from convinced of it ! - if we really tried hard, we in the UK could wield a power-presence having a definite effect upon the whole EU entity. But, don't kid yourself.* We will NEVER control it outright, which in turn means that we will never be outright masters of our destiny *... not for as long as the EU has other members wielding their own counterbalancing influences !!!

The upcoming Referendum gives us, ultimately, a stark choice. Do we really want to be masters of our _own_ fate, OR, do we insist upon chancing to luck that the EU will determine, through _ITS_ choices AND *NOT SPECIFICALLY OURS,* a fate for the UK which allows us to be a happy, fully prosperous, nation ?

You might believe that a UK throwing its weight around within the EU is good enough for 'our fate' to be decided by 'us' !! But that's a nonsense. We will never be masters of ourselves for as long as we share power over us with others who are working for THEIR ends.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> Though proving it all would take a long time. But just about anything anyone on the Brexit side says, and you'll see there being a lot of bull. I've already shown stuff from the Express and how they manipulate stories and make up stuff.
> 
> WATCH: Politicians go head-to-head over Brexit - and Leave campaign WINS audience vote
> 
> Here was this debate. Reported by the Express like this:
> 
> "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour MP Kate Hoey gave rousing speeches in favour of leaving the EU while former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour MPs Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna campaigned to stay seemingly withering in comparison."
> 
> As if we should all vote to leave because someone can deliver a rousing speech and for no other reason.
> 
> ""Every continent on this planet has grown over the past decade except Antartica and the European Union."
> 
> Maybe so... but it's missing the truth that half of our trade goes to the EU (based on a long term assessment rather than simply what happens today). Just because the EU has gone through a recession since 2008, (notice how they hand pick their dates?) doesn't mean the EU won't come back and be strong at a time when the Far East is looking rather sketchy right now when it comes to their economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Trade in Services - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Trade with the EU is 52 billion pounds. Compare that with Asia at only 16 billion, Africa 4 and Australia 2 billion and you see how important that trade is.
> 
> Trade with Ireland alone is 6 billion, that's Africa AND Australia together. Ireland Switzerland and Germany are more than the whole of Asia.
> 
> To lose a small percentage of trade with the EU is far more damaging than losing it anywhere else.
> 
> :"And that means as long as we’re in the European Union, we cannot sign independent trade deals with non-EU countries."
> 
> This is false. At present this is the case. This doesn't mean it will always be case. If those who are Euro Skeptic were to come together and become a force within the EU, rather than just taking the money and then moaning about it, then maybe, just maybe, the Federalists in the EU would have a force to fight them, instead all there is is a force to moan at them.
> 
> "
> "The EU deal with Australia is being held up because some Italian tomato-growers are challenging it.
> 
> "The EU deal with Canada is being held up due to an unrelated dispute about Romanian visas.
> 
> "How have we put ourselves in a position where we can’t do those deals?"
> 
> Then again the deals with the EU will be significantly BETTER than deals with just the UK, because as an economic force the EU is stronger. So, deals get held up because of issues. That doesn't mean that if the UK were alone it would make a better deal that would benefit the UK more.
> No, all they've done is present the argument by taking a few issues they feel comfortable with and not assessing the whole issue.
> 
> This is a complex issue. Making statements based on only one factor of the whole thing is going to lead to a distorted picture. When the politicians are making distorted pictures then you know the people don't know what is right and what is not either.
> 
> ""It’s not just the financial price of EU membership – it’s the democratic price."
> 
> They talk about Democracy. Yet the people have elected those in the EU parliament, people like Farage, and they do NOTHING. They sit there and take the money and don't try and make things better, don't try and push an agenda that would help the UK, no, they do nothing and moan. That's democracy?
> 
> ""We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives."
> 
> This is flipping hilarious. When the Civil War was fought and then Cromwell was put in power and basically became a dictator, it had nothing to do with THE PEOPLE deciding what was going to happen. After Cromwell it was Charles II back in power, and still it was only the rich who voted and played their political game. To bring the Civil War into this is just nationalistic bullcrap and has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
> 
> ""And now supreme power is held by people who tend to owe their positions to having just lost elections: Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and what have you."
> 
> Okay, there's an issue with how the EU is run. Should it be Democratic? No, I don't think it should. It just should be about the elected governments of each country representing the people so it doesn't turn into the USA, I mean, who would want to end up with an election with Trump v. Hillary? Jeez. That's be like having a choice between Gove and Gove's wife.
> 
> Again, the problem here is people like Farage who get paid for going to Brussels and don't represent the UK at all. They sit there and do nothing and then wonder why the Federalists have so much power.
> 
> That they bring up Kinnock, well, what does Kinnock actually do? Nothing in the EU. He was in the EU, but not any more.
> What about Madelson? He left in 2008. So why are they bring up these people who don't work in the EU?
> 
> Beats me.
> 
> So here are a few things I can show you where they're manipulating people and distorting the truth, or just plain lying, either way it's unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. Who can say trade won't carry on?
> 
> Basically the British people need to vote and it's playing poker. You have so much money riding on this one hand. Who's to say the EU doesn't have two aces and the last card on the flop won't be another ace, and you've got a 2 and 6 and there's a 3 in the first three cards up.
> 
> You might win. You might lose.
> 
> Now, the people need to make this gamble. A good gambler knows his stuff. He knows the percentages, he knows the risks, he can eye up his opponent and see what's happening.
> 
> The British people need to be told the percentages. They need to see what the opponent is doing. They need all this information. And what's happening? They're not getting it. They getting "come on, he doesn't have anything, I know it, I can feel it in my bones, he's got nothing, you'll win, just go all in". That's bull.
> 
> If the British people make a decision, it should be made for the right reasons. Not because Obama moved Churchill's bust to a different room, and the Civil War didn't kill Neil Kinnock.
> 
> You make claims that MEPs who support their parties will be the best off. Farage's who career is on the line. If the UK leave the EU then he's out of a job. So who's to say that Farage isn't trying to make the stay camp do well while trying to make himself look good? What's in it for Farage? He's a politician too.
> 
> Where will UKIP go if the UK leave? Who'd vote for a party like that? Or are they gambling that they'd take over the Tories? The Express thinks so.
> 
> So, in the past things have been better with the EU. So why doesn't Farage and his buddies go out and try and restore this? Why don't they go and try and make the EU what we want it to be instead of just moaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are prepared to make this gamble, tighten our belts and ride out the storm. The stay brigade are doing their ostrich impersonation and hiding from the reality, so don't want to know about what good may come out of an exit. If the worst comes to the worst we could always create a new grouping that would be ran along Common Market lines and give the member states full control as long as they followed the rules for trade within the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, many people are prepared to take the gamble without understanding the risks. They get all caught up in the show, and ignore the reality.
> 
> A gamble took place in Germany in the early 1990s. Helmut Kohl basically did the old Nationalistic nonsense and telling everyone it would be great. The left told the newly reunified country that it would be a long hard struggle. Kohl won. Then it was a long hard struggle that Germany wasn't prepared for. It took them more than 15 years to get out of that one.
> 
> What people are willing to do because they're convinced with nonsense, and what is right, are often two very different things.
> 
> If the worst comes to the worst you could do a lot of things. But it would be the worst.
> 
> What's the point of change for the worst?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't try then how can you say it was for the worst, that sounds like defeatist talk.  We need to weigh up if it is worth losing £1000 a person to save £5000 a person because that is the sum, Stay in the EU and be charged for it all ways, leave and be charged less for it up front
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm sure the Germans thought it would be defeatist to accept that the road was hard after the reunification elections. 

Actually not, you just seem to be using the right talk, but nothing you have said actually contains substance. 

Leaving or staying could be interpreted as "defeatist talk", it's a meaningless statement. 

The UK might save "£5000 a person" (which wouldn't be £5000 a person, but might save some richer people a lot more, but the majority of people wouldn't save anywhere near that) 

The UK raises £606 billion and it paid about 11.4 billion to the EU in 2013 and got back directly about 5 billion and another 0.86 billion from science grants. 

There are things that perhaps the UK benefits from, but we'll go with this figure to illustrate. So that's 5.54 billion pounds. 

Now, take £5.54 billion and divide this by 65 million and you get £85. So, for every person, the EU costs them 85 quid.

Not 5,000 quid. 

Okay, there are £29.7 million tax payers in the UK. So you end up with 186 quid per tax payer. 

That's 0.91% of the amount of tax money that people pay in, goes to the EU and doesn't come directly back. 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/

using this calculator, if I earn £30,000 a year, I'll pay £3,800 in tax. So that's £34.58

If I earn £15,000 a year, I'll save £7.28

If I earn one million a year, well, I'll pay nearly £40,000 a year. 

So you can see who wants to leave the EU, the rich. 

Now imagine you earn £15,000 a year, and you go on holiday to Spain once a year, but by leaving the EU the cost of things increases by more than the £7.28. Is it really worth leaving the EU? For most people the cost of leaving the EU won't make much difference at all. No doubt the government will keep taking this money and keep spending this money. Normal people won't notice any difference.

Where you got £5,000 a year from I don't know, seeing as you'd need to be earning over £40,000 a year just to be paying £5,000 in tax, let alone what goes to the EU.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ...
> 
> The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the UK could have a stronger voice if it chose to do so. The UK pays a lot of money to the EU. Simply refusing to pay unless certain changes are made, or getting a group together and actually coming up with a plan of action, and what they want to achieve and all of that, and you could get somewhere. Instead it's just these pathetic half hearted efforts and lots of moaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have a point .. but I doubt it. I think that such tactics would persuade other Member States that we're more trouble than we're worth.
> 
> The EU exists to exert its influence on Member States .. not the other way around. See a consensus emerge amongst the other members that we're not good 'team players', that we're too much of a troublesome and disruptive influence, and many will be glad to see the back of us.
> 
> Indeed, that may already be true to some extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the EU? It's just a bunch of people who have made an organization. Any organization is just a sum of its parts. The UK is a major part of this, and if it doesn't do anything, then it becomes what others want.
> 
> Look at the way in which Germany, especially, and France wield power within the EU. The UK COULD do this, but doesn't.
> 
> At the last EU election in 2014 the ECR was the third place party in the EU parliament. It has the Tories, Law and Justice from Poland as the main two parties, then parties from 16 other countries.
> 
> The EFDD, run by Farage, also has Euroskeptics, 8 countries represented with two having double figure seats, from the UK and Italy.
> 
> The number of Euroskeptics within the EU is enough to try and bring them together and form a power bloc. At present they're even split between two different parties, and the EFDD is the European turn up to the EU parliament and do nothing Party, instead of the try and change things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU is indeed a bunch of people who made an organisation. The organisation they made was designed to wield power over its Member States .. a far cry from the EEC, which existed as a trading bloc.
> 
> Now, why does the EU exist, and not the EEC ? Answer ... because as 'nature abhors a vacuum', so there was a power vacuum that was filled by opportunistically converting a trading organisational structure into one that made laws and attempted its form of GOVERNMENT over all countries choosing to be its members. So it is that we have a European Parliament, and legislation passed which its Member States are expected to implement.
> 
> Perhaps - though I'm very far from convinced of it ! - if we really tried hard, we in the UK could wield a power-presence having a definite effect upon the whole EU entity. But, don't kid yourself.* We will NEVER control it outright, which in turn means that we will never be outright masters of our destiny *... not for as long as the EU has other members wielding their own counterbalancing influences !!!
> 
> The upcoming Referendum gives us, ultimately, a stark choice. Do we really want to be masters of our _own_ fate, OR, do we insist upon chancing to luck that the EU will determine, through _ITS_ choices AND *NOT SPECIFICALLY OURS,* a fate for the UK which allows us to be a happy, fully prosperous, nation ?
> 
> You might believe that a UK throwing its weight around within the EU is good enough for 'our fate' to be decided by 'us' !! But that's a nonsense. We will never be masters of ourselves for as long as we share power over us with others who are working for THEIR ends.
Click to expand...


The EU has changed. Some people are pushing it where they want, and others are watching it go where they don't want. Now, you have to wonder why people are sitting by and watching things happen that they don't want. 

The EU exists for perhaps the same reason the UK exists. That people are stronger together. Look at China, 1.3 billion people, and they're surging forwards because they can target areas that need growth and do it more effectively, and are less likely to be bullied. 

I think you're right, I don't think the UK will ever have a big impact in the EU. Why? Because the UK is full of moaners and whingers who will only put effort in to something like leaving. They'll never bother with having a positive impact.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming something here which I don't think you can back up. You talk of the UK having 'a prominent role'. WHAT 'prominent role' .. ?? We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN of them. Consider Cameron's recent efforts to reenegotiate some terms of our membership .. he ended up trying for, and begrudgingly getting, a very watered-down version of what he SAID he wanted !!
> 
> Be in no doubt as to the reality in play. Being in the EU does give us a voice within it, and so far as I know, the EU is mandated to at least listen. BUT, having listened, then the other Member States can vote us down at will .. assuming that treaty obligations don't overrule us in any case !
> 
> The EU exists to serve* itself* .. it does_ not _exist to serve the UK._ WE_ can serve _IT_ .. but don't kid yourself that it works the other way.
> 
> The EU is what the EEC has become, once all the power-mongers have moved in, and made it an entity that binds Member States to it not only in trade terms, but politically, and as a sovereignty-sapping colossus possessing its own will and, I must assume, its own agenda.
> 
> It's OWN will ... not *OUR* will. The upcoming Referendum is all about whether or not our future is to be shaped by a willingness to knuckle under to it, or whether we have the confidence, and the will, to govern* ourselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not assuming anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the UK SHOULD have a prominent role, not that it does. In fact it's the opposite, the Brits spend their whole time moaning about everything instead of actually going out and getting what they want from the EU. Cameron has done a bit, but not much. Labour were just pathetic.
> 
> However, the Germans have a similar number of votes to the UK, and the French too. They've come together and they lead the EU. However there are plenty of Euro-skeptics in the EU, and the Eu parliament. Bringing them all together and you've got a very powerful body to work with.
> 
> But they all sort of sit in parliament doing nothing.
> 
> You say the UK doesn't have a voice, and no, it doesn't, because it doesn't fight for it. If the leave campaign put as much effort into trying to bang heads together as they do trying to leave, they might get somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UK does have a voice within the EU. The point is that it can easily be sidelined. We only have the 'power' to influence that other Member States are pleased to confer upon us, by listening, by lending support .. IF they ever feel like it ...
> 
> The same goes for the so-called 'prominent role' within the EU. I still don't see how any such thing can be achieved, if others within the EU choose not to agree to such a thing. In EU terms, we are 'prominent' in ... nothing at all, that I'm aware of. However, we are massively outvoted in any and all issues and considerations that our 'fellow Member States' would require us to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the UK could have a stronger voice if it chose to do so. The UK pays a lot of money to the EU. Simply refusing to pay unless certain changes are made, or getting a group together and actually coming up with a plan of action, and what they want to achieve and all of that, and you could get somewhere. Instead it's just these pathetic half hearted efforts and lots of moaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have a point .. but I doubt it. I think that such tactics would persuade other Member States that we're more trouble than we're worth.
> 
> The EU exists to exert its influence on Member States .. not the other way around. See a consensus emerge amongst the other members that we're not good 'team players', that we're too much of a troublesome and disruptive influence, and many will be glad to see the back of us.
> 
> Indeed, that may already be true to some extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the EU? It's just a bunch of people who have made an organization. Any organization is just a sum of its parts. The UK is a major part of this, and if it doesn't do anything, then it becomes what others want.
> 
> Look at the way in which Germany, especially, and France wield power within the EU. The UK COULD do this, but doesn't.
> 
> At the last EU election in 2014 the ECR was the third place party in the EU parliament. It has the Tories, Law and Justice from Poland as the main two parties, then parties from 16 other countries.
> 
> The EFDD, run by Farage, also has Euroskeptics, 8 countries represented with two having double figure seats, from the UK and Italy.
> 
> The number of Euroskeptics within the EU is enough to try and bring them together and form a power bloc. At present they're even split between two different parties, and the EFDD is the European turn up to the EU parliament and do nothing Party, instead of the try and change things.
Click to expand...










 Try again and this time use the evidence available and not your fantasy. The Eurocrats have carved the EU up so much that it cant exist without them. They have had laws passed and rulings made in the EU courts that tie our hands so we cant do anything other than leave. With the crisis in Europe now is the best time to do so as it will stop the horde on the shores.

 Our best bet is to make the EU quake over the loss of our payments at a time it needs every penny it can get. We tried talking, we tried playing hard ball and we were voted down, so now we will try leaving the EU in the lurch and see how that goes


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who can say that the same trade wont carry on, just without the terms and conditions imposed by the EU. So the UK would not lose that as the stay lobby keeps saying it will. With it being a two way street the EU relies on the UK to take its goods, and if the UK leaves the EU will still need that market for its goods. The MEP's that support their parties will be the ones most vociferous as they will lose their wages and have to get a proper job instead. Some have screwed as much as £1 million out of the EU coffers.  That is what the money goes towards the greedy fraudsters that are supposed to represent their countries, and not on bettering the lives of the people. The common market was a better deal as it made everything a level playing field and set wholesale prices for the growers that were fair. It also set quota's and the excess was stored against times of hardship, so the elderly of the EU would receive a pound of butter every week because there was a surplus and it was close to its "sell by date"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. Who can say trade won't carry on?
> 
> Basically the British people need to vote and it's playing poker. You have so much money riding on this one hand. Who's to say the EU doesn't have two aces and the last card on the flop won't be another ace, and you've got a 2 and 6 and there's a 3 in the first three cards up.
> 
> You might win. You might lose.
> 
> Now, the people need to make this gamble. A good gambler knows his stuff. He knows the percentages, he knows the risks, he can eye up his opponent and see what's happening.
> 
> The British people need to be told the percentages. They need to see what the opponent is doing. They need all this information. And what's happening? They're not getting it. They getting "come on, he doesn't have anything, I know it, I can feel it in my bones, he's got nothing, you'll win, just go all in". That's bull.
> 
> If the British people make a decision, it should be made for the right reasons. Not because Obama moved Churchill's bust to a different room, and the Civil War didn't kill Neil Kinnock.
> 
> You make claims that MEPs who support their parties will be the best off. Farage's who career is on the line. If the UK leave the EU then he's out of a job. So who's to say that Farage isn't trying to make the stay camp do well while trying to make himself look good? What's in it for Farage? He's a politician too.
> 
> Where will UKIP go if the UK leave? Who'd vote for a party like that? Or are they gambling that they'd take over the Tories? The Express thinks so.
> 
> So, in the past things have been better with the EU. So why doesn't Farage and his buddies go out and try and restore this? Why don't they go and try and make the EU what we want it to be instead of just moaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are prepared to make this gamble, tighten our belts and ride out the storm. The stay brigade are doing their ostrich impersonation and hiding from the reality, so don't want to know about what good may come out of an exit. If the worst comes to the worst we could always create a new grouping that would be ran along Common Market lines and give the member states full control as long as they followed the rules for trade within the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, many people are prepared to take the gamble without understanding the risks. They get all caught up in the show, and ignore the reality.
> 
> A gamble took place in Germany in the early 1990s. Helmut Kohl basically did the old Nationalistic nonsense and telling everyone it would be great. The left told the newly reunified country that it would be a long hard struggle. Kohl won. Then it was a long hard struggle that Germany wasn't prepared for. It took them more than 15 years to get out of that one.
> 
> What people are willing to do because they're convinced with nonsense, and what is right, are often two very different things.
> 
> If the worst comes to the worst you could do a lot of things. But it would be the worst.
> 
> What's the point of change for the worst?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't try then how can you say it was for the worst, that sounds like defeatist talk.  We need to weigh up if it is worth losing £1000 a person to save £5000 a person because that is the sum, Stay in the EU and be charged for it all ways, leave and be charged less for it up front
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure the Germans thought it would be defeatist to accept that the road was hard after the reunification elections.
> 
> Actually not, you just seem to be using the right talk, but nothing you have said actually contains substance.
> 
> Leaving or staying could be interpreted as "defeatist talk", it's a meaningless statement.
> 
> The UK might save "£5000 a person" (which wouldn't be £5000 a person, but might save some richer people a lot more, but the majority of people wouldn't save anywhere near that)
> 
> The UK raises £606 billion and it paid about 11.4 billion to the EU in 2013 and got back directly about 5 billion and another 0.86 billion from science grants.
> 
> There are things that perhaps the UK benefits from, but we'll go with this figure to illustrate. So that's 5.54 billion pounds.
> 
> Now, take £5.54 billion and divide this by 65 million and you get £85. So, for every person, the EU costs them 85 quid.
> 
> Not 5,000 quid.
> 
> Okay, there are £29.7 million tax payers in the UK. So you end up with 186 quid per tax payer.
> 
> That's 0.91% of the amount of tax money that people pay in, goes to the EU and doesn't come directly back.
> 
> http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/
> 
> using this calculator, if I earn £30,000 a year, I'll pay £3,800 in tax. So that's £34.58
> 
> If I earn £15,000 a year, I'll save £7.28
> 
> If I earn one million a year, well, I'll pay nearly £40,000 a year.
> 
> So you can see who wants to leave the EU, the rich.
> 
> Now imagine you earn £15,000 a year, and you go on holiday to Spain once a year, but by leaving the EU the cost of things increases by more than the £7.28. Is it really worth leaving the EU? For most people the cost of leaving the EU won't make much difference at all. No doubt the government will keep taking this money and keep spending this money. Normal people won't notice any difference.
> 
> Where you got £5,000 a year from I don't know, seeing as you'd need to be earning over £40,000 a year just to be paying £5,000 in tax, let alone what goes to the EU.
Click to expand...








And you miss out the price fixing, stealth taxes and other money grabbing deals.

And that going to Spain today costs substantially more now than it did 10 years ago. With increasing Airport taxes due to the EU, increasing food and drink costs due to the EU and levee's on everything what was a cheap holiday is not expensive.

But you miss the costs forced on to the UK taxpayers in the UK by the EU due to increasing welfare, health care, education, housing etc. Even Germany is struggling to meet the demands and are about to pass new laws blocking migrants from getting welfare.


----------



## Drummond




----------



## ESay

As far as I can understand, migration is one of the main reasons for Brexiters to leave the EU. In this thread migrants from Eastern Europe have been mentioned. But except of the East-Europeans, there are a big number of immigrants from the Commonwealth, particularly from India and Pakistan. These immigrants have nothing to do with the EU’s requirements, do they? They also should face those restrictions which would be imposed on the East-Europeans?


----------



## HenryBHough

Immigration issues figure strongly in BREXIT but there's more.  Various labor regulations play a part. Tampering with agricultural issues plays another.  The EU's "Ever Closer Union" agenda rankles - seen in Britain as a call for ending sovereignty and submission to barking mad bureaucrats holed up in Brussels.

Sorry, folks, it's not a simple single issue.


----------



## anotherlife

HenryBHough said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> That visa doesn't allow you to work or stay over 3 month.  So much for your retirement condo.  Hehehe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From personal experience.
> 
> The standard tourist visa, granted upon arrival in The UK, indeed is valid for 90 days.  However, once there, one can apply for an additional 90 days and so stay for six months.
> 
> There seems to be no limit on the number of 90 day visits one can make in a year though surely there must be something along that line.  I've never bumped into it though I make frequent trips to The UK.  In more than one instance I've made two or more 2-3 week visits in rapid succession.  Once even arriving for the second time within the 90 day period encompassed by the earlier one.
> 
> But, yes, 90-days is simple; 180 days becomes a procedural quagmire and beyond that, unless a full-time student, very difficult.  Of course no fair working during the time.
> 
> 
> And, in other news, Tony Blair has come out for "Remain".  That, accompanied by Our Kenyan President's meddling in foreign elections, make it plain that BREXIT is essential!
Click to expand...

No, because you need to consider that most Brits have property, jobs, and a life outside Britain, except those inbred uneducated thugs who are now manipulated with this brexit idiotism.  It is only the national banks of the U.K. that can benefit from brexit, because they can isolate their debtors and immobilize them that way, but even that is a questionable strategy, in banking terms.  American logic doesn't work here because Britain is much smaller.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???
> 
> I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !
Click to expand...


Its isnt the central issue. But its worth taking a look at the brexit cheerleaders. They make my skin crawl and the only place I would follow them is the edge of a cliff where I could push them over.


*Chris Grayling*
Incompetence
How can Chris Grayling apologise to MPs while ignoring the prisons crisis? | Eric Allison

Sacked as Justice Minister
Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?

Expenses fraud
Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in'

Lying
The mystery of Chris Grayling's expenses

*IDS*

Expenses fraud
Iain Duncan Smith claimed £39 breakfast on expenses (that'd leave him £14 for the rest of the week)

Expenses
Duncan Smith's expenses card suspended after running up debt

petition
Over 56,000 people demand Iain Duncan Smith resigns over fake sanctions quotes

Faker
Use of fake quotes in benefits leaflet 'quite wrong', Iain Duncan Smith admits

CV Lies
BBC - Press Office - Iain Duncan Smith CV

Policies lead to suicides
At last, a report that skewers Iain Duncan Smith' welfare policies | Alex Andreou

*Michael Gove*

Expenses fraud
Michael Gove to pay back £7,000: MPs' expenses

More expenses fraud
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new.../Michael-Gove-flipped-homes-MPs-expenses.html

And again
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...-and-Michael-Gove-claim-rent-for-office-space

Sacked “toxic”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/15/cameron-sacks-toxic-gove-promotes-women-reshuffle

Anti science agenda
http://leftfootforward.org/2014/04/...hers-promoting-science-in-schools-yes-really/

*Liam Fox*

Anti gay
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/1...reated-with-respect-but-banned-from-marrying/

Sacked for taking boyfriend on official trips.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...igns-over-links-with-friend-Adam-Werrity.html

Expenses fraud
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...penses-to-pay-his-best-man-Adam-Werritty.html

Pathetic
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/06/tory-liam-fox-expenses-car-journey

More expense scandal
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Conser...claimed-room/story-29032632-detail/story.html


----------



## Drummond

anotherlife said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> That visa doesn't allow you to work or stay over 3 month.  So much for your retirement condo.  Hehehe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From personal experience.
> 
> The standard tourist visa, granted upon arrival in The UK, indeed is valid for 90 days.  However, once there, one can apply for an additional 90 days and so stay for six months.
> 
> There seems to be no limit on the number of 90 day visits one can make in a year though surely there must be something along that line.  I've never bumped into it though I make frequent trips to The UK.  In more than one instance I've made two or more 2-3 week visits in rapid succession.  Once even arriving for the second time within the 90 day period encompassed by the earlier one.
> 
> But, yes, 90-days is simple; 180 days becomes a procedural quagmire and beyond that, unless a full-time student, very difficult.  Of course no fair working during the time.
> 
> 
> And, in other news, Tony Blair has come out for "Remain".  That, accompanied by Our Kenyan President's meddling in foreign elections, make it plain that BREXIT is essential!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because you need to consider that most Brits have property, jobs, and a life outside Britain, except those inbred uneducated thugs who are now manipulated with this brexit idiotism.  It is only the national banks of the U.K. that can benefit from brexit, because they can isolate their debtors and immobilize them that way, but even that is a questionable strategy, in banking terms.  American logic doesn't work here because Britain is much smaller.
Click to expand...


Understood .. you've said that 'Brexiters' being 'manipulated' by 'Brexit idiotism' are, I quote, 'uneducated thugs'. Yes ?

I am no 'uneducated thug' ... and since those pro EU, versus those anti-EU, are so evenly matched in their views, numerically speaking ... aren't you seeking to insult a sizeable proportion of the British people ? 
*
Is this what the people of the UK can expect to be subject to, just for thinking it worthwhile to fight for their own sovereignty ??*

Perhaps the truth is that the pro-EU side really _can't_ have a good regard for the welfare of the British people ? It's not as though the EU is run to serve our interests ... just its OWN .....


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???
> 
> I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its isnt the central issue. But its worth taking a look at the brexit cheerleaders. They make my skin crawl and the only place I would follow them is the edge of a cliff where I could push them over.
> 
> 
> *Chris Grayling*
> Incompetence
> How can Chris Grayling apologise to MPs while ignoring the prisons crisis? | Eric Allison
> 
> Sacked as Justice Minister
> Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in'
> 
> Lying
> The mystery of Chris Grayling's expenses
> 
> *IDS*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Iain Duncan Smith claimed £39 breakfast on expenses (that'd leave him £14 for the rest of the week)
> 
> Expenses
> Duncan Smith's expenses card suspended after running up debt
> 
> petition
> Over 56,000 people demand Iain Duncan Smith resigns over fake sanctions quotes
> 
> Faker
> Use of fake quotes in benefits leaflet 'quite wrong', Iain Duncan Smith admits
> 
> CV Lies
> BBC - Press Office - Iain Duncan Smith CV
> 
> Policies lead to suicides
> At last, a report that skewers Iain Duncan Smith' welfare policies | Alex Andreou
> 
> *Michael Gove*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Michael Gove to pay back £7,000: MPs' expenses
> 
> More expenses fraud
> Michael Gove 'flipped' homes: MPs' expenses
> 
> And again
> Latest MPs expenses scandal - Nick Clegg and Michael Gove claim rent for office space
> 
> Sacked “toxic”
> David Cameron axes Michael Gove in reshuffle after toxic poll warning
> 
> Anti science agenda
> Michael Gove is concerned about teachers promoting science in schools. Yes, really
> 
> *Liam Fox*
> 
> Anti gay
> Liam Fox: Gays should be treated with respect – but banned from marrying
> 
> Sacked for taking boyfriend on official trips.
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox resigns over links with friend Adam Werrity
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox used expenses to pay his best man Adam Werritty
> 
> Pathetic
> Tory MP Liam Fox claims 3p on expenses for 100-metre car journey
> 
> More expense scandal
> Conservative MPs repay expenses claimed for room service, hotels and late-payment charges
Click to expand...


Good God. Is this what the pro-EU camp are reduced to ? A concentrated bout of smearing / mudslinging ? You've run out of ways, have you, to show us there's something 'good' about remaining in the EU ?

To what extent are the EU bureaucrats elected ? To what extent are they extremely happy recipients of one whopping 'gravy train' ... the likes of which Nigel Farage made us all privy to, years ago ??

Since you're into mudslinging, let me reciprocate ... just a little. Try and excuse the following .. !!! .......

Up to €2.2bn of public funds stolen in eight EU states



> *Up to €2.2 billion was stolen in public and EU funds in eight member states in 2010, according to a report commissioned by the EU anti-fraud agency Olaf.*
> 
> The figures, released on Tuesday (1 October) at a European Parliament conference on corruption, represent the estimated overall direct costs of corruption in public procurement in five major sectors like construction and water treatment.
> 
> The results of the study, conducted jointly by accountancy firm PwC EU Services and Ecorys with the support of the University of Utrecht, is based on a methodology that allows for the probability of corruption to be estimated for the product groups.
> France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain were selected at random for the study.
> 
> Speaking at the conference, EU anti-fraud commissioner Algirdas Semeta, said the study proposes a new approach that focuses on calculating the costs of corruption.
> 
> “The study puts concrete figures to what we have long recognised as a threat to public finances and it confirms that once a procurement project is affected by corruption, the public losses increase substantially,” he said.
> 
> The study said the cost of corruption *is equivalent to 3 to 4 percent of the total procurement budget.*



Happy, now, to want to argue for us remaining under the jackboot of such a corrupt institution (according to the link) .. ?? How come all of this wasn't nipped in the bud ... LONG AGO ? Are you busily working out what cliff to push the corrupt ones over ?

... NO .. ????

Remaining in the EU means we continue to pay our 'share' into it. Are we paying this into an entity which - at minimum - casts a blind eye towards corruption, for as long as it reasonably can ??


----------



## HenryBHough

If Tony Blair favours something you can bet it's something that'll get you royally screwed.


----------



## montelatici

While I understand and respect the Britons that want to remain in the EU, I think the EU will be far better without the UK.  The people in the U.K., particularly the English, watch too much U.S. television and think they are Americans, despite living on a small island with far different resources than the U.S.  We can afford to be insular, pardon the pun, because we have an E.U. of our own.  The U.S.  Scotland can leave the U.K. and join the E.U. and England and maybe Wales can form some kind of alliance with the U.S.  I think that the English would be happier surrendering far more sovereignty to the U.S. than to the E.U. for some strange reason.


----------



## HenryBHough

If Scotland goes independent before BREXIT then Scotland is OUT of The EU and would have to reapply, a lengthy process filled with traps.

If Britain leaves the EU and subsequently Scotland goes independent it's the same thing.

Scotland will have to kiss a lot of ass to even be considered....either way.

Of course that IS part or the reason they're so big on kilts.  See, it's not just because sheep can hear a zipper at 100 yards!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???
> 
> I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its isnt the central issue. But its worth taking a look at the brexit cheerleaders. They make my skin crawl and the only place I would follow them is the edge of a cliff where I could push them over.
> 
> 
> *Chris Grayling*
> Incompetence
> How can Chris Grayling apologise to MPs while ignoring the prisons crisis? | Eric Allison
> 
> Sacked as Justice Minister
> Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in'
> 
> Lying
> The mystery of Chris Grayling's expenses
> 
> *IDS*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Iain Duncan Smith claimed £39 breakfast on expenses (that'd leave him £14 for the rest of the week)
> 
> Expenses
> Duncan Smith's expenses card suspended after running up debt
> 
> petition
> Over 56,000 people demand Iain Duncan Smith resigns over fake sanctions quotes
> 
> Faker
> Use of fake quotes in benefits leaflet 'quite wrong', Iain Duncan Smith admits
> 
> CV Lies
> BBC - Press Office - Iain Duncan Smith CV
> 
> Policies lead to suicides
> At last, a report that skewers Iain Duncan Smith' welfare policies | Alex Andreou
> 
> *Michael Gove*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Michael Gove to pay back £7,000: MPs' expenses
> 
> More expenses fraud
> Michael Gove 'flipped' homes: MPs' expenses
> 
> And again
> Latest MPs expenses scandal - Nick Clegg and Michael Gove claim rent for office space
> 
> Sacked “toxic”
> David Cameron axes Michael Gove in reshuffle after toxic poll warning
> 
> Anti science agenda
> Michael Gove is concerned about teachers promoting science in schools. Yes, really
> 
> *Liam Fox*
> 
> Anti gay
> Liam Fox: Gays should be treated with respect – but banned from marrying
> 
> Sacked for taking boyfriend on official trips.
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox resigns over links with friend Adam Werrity
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox used expenses to pay his best man Adam Werritty
> 
> Pathetic
> Tory MP Liam Fox claims 3p on expenses for 100-metre car journey
> 
> More expense scandal
> Conservative MPs repay expenses claimed for room service, hotels and late-payment charges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good God. Is this what the pro-EU camp are reduced to ? A concentrated bout of smearing / mudslinging ? You've run out of ways, have you, to show us there's something 'good' about remaining in the EU ?
> 
> To what extent are the EU bureaucrats elected ? To what extent are they extremely happy recipients of one whopping 'gravy train' ... the likes of which Nigel Farage made us all privy to, years ago ??
> 
> Since you're into mudslinging, let me reciprocate ... just a little. Try and excuse the following .. !!! .......
> 
> Up to €2.2bn of public funds stolen in eight EU states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Up to €2.2 billion was stolen in public and EU funds in eight member states in 2010, according to a report commissioned by the EU anti-fraud agency Olaf.*
> 
> The figures, released on Tuesday (1 October) at a European Parliament conference on corruption, represent the estimated overall direct costs of corruption in public procurement in five major sectors like construction and water treatment.
> 
> The results of the study, conducted jointly by accountancy firm PwC EU Services and Ecorys with the support of the University of Utrecht, is based on a methodology that allows for the probability of corruption to be estimated for the product groups.
> France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain were selected at random for the study.
> 
> Speaking at the conference, EU anti-fraud commissioner Algirdas Semeta, said the study proposes a new approach that focuses on calculating the costs of corruption.
> 
> “The study puts concrete figures to what we have long recognised as a threat to public finances and it confirms that once a procurement project is affected by corruption, the public losses increase substantially,” he said.
> 
> The study said the cost of corruption *is equivalent to 3 to 4 percent of the total procurement budget.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy, now, to want to argue for us remaining under the jackboot of such a corrupt institution (according to the link) .. ?? How come all of this wasn't nipped in the bud ... LONG AGO ? Are you busily working out what cliff to push the corrupt ones over ?
> 
> ... NO .. ????
> 
> Remaining in the EU means we continue to pay our 'share' into it. Are we paying this into an entity which - at minimum - casts a blind eye towards corruption, for as long as it reasonably can ??
Click to expand...


You cant point to one brexiter with integrity.

Richard Dirty Desmond is a pornographer.He makes his money out of Jazz mags and the Adult Channel.

Lord Rothermere owns the Daily Mail and lives in France - The Daily Mail pays no UK tax.

Murdoch is a New York based American and again the Sun and Times pay no UK tax.

The Barclay brothers live in tax exile in the Channel Islands,again the Telegraph group pay no tax.

Dont you see a pattern emerging here.

A lot of rich people who dont pay our taxes,dont live here and dont vote here - and they are telling us what to do.

Shocking stuff.


----------



## ESay

HenryBHough said:


> Immigration issues figure strongly in BREXIT but there's more.  Various labor regulations play a part. Tampering with agricultural issues plays another.  The EU's "Ever Closer Union" agenda rankles - seen in Britain as a call for ending sovereignty and submission to barking mad bureaucrats holed up in Brussels.
> 
> Sorry, folks, it's not a simple single issue.



No one says that immigration is a simple single issue. But it is mentioned as one of the most important, isn’t it? Much was said about immigration from Eastern Europe, but saying that the EU is the main reason of migration troubles in Britain is half-truth.


----------



## HenryBHough

ESay said:


> No one says that immigration is a simple single issue. But it is mentioned as one of the most important, isn’t it? Much was said about immigration from Eastern Europe, but saying that the EU is the main reason of migration troubles in Britain is half-truth.



Facile to try to paint immigration as the single issue driving the move toward Brexit.  One of the tools of the "Remain" crowd who'd like to label all those against domination by a continental elite as somehow racist.

But that boat simply does not float and all the huffing and puffing into the sail isn't going to make a sale.

Immigration may be the straw that broke the camel's back.  But it was the other bales, tons of bales of straw that made the addition of a single, very small, very light straw destructive.  Wisely is it said that before one can hang a hat on a nail there must first have been a nail and a lot of work to pound it into the wall.


----------



## anotherlife

Drummond said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> That visa doesn't allow you to work or stay over 3 month.  So much for your retirement condo.  Hehehe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From personal experience.
> 
> The standard tourist visa, granted upon arrival in The UK, indeed is valid for 90 days.  However, once there, one can apply for an additional 90 days and so stay for six months.
> 
> There seems to be no limit on the number of 90 day visits one can make in a year though surely there must be something along that line.  I've never bumped into it though I make frequent trips to The UK.  In more than one instance I've made two or more 2-3 week visits in rapid succession.  Once even arriving for the second time within the 90 day period encompassed by the earlier one.
> 
> But, yes, 90-days is simple; 180 days becomes a procedural quagmire and beyond that, unless a full-time student, very difficult.  Of course no fair working during the time.
> 
> 
> And, in other news, Tony Blair has come out for "Remain".  That, accompanied by Our Kenyan President's meddling in foreign elections, make it plain that BREXIT is essential!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because you need to consider that most Brits have property, jobs, and a life outside Britain, except those inbred uneducated thugs who are now manipulated with this brexit idiotism.  It is only the national banks of the U.K. that can benefit from brexit, because they can isolate their debtors and immobilize them that way, but even that is a questionable strategy, in banking terms.  American logic doesn't work here because Britain is much smaller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understood .. you've said that 'Brexiters' being 'manipulated' by 'Brexit idiotism' are, I quote, 'uneducated thugs'. Yes ?
> 
> I am no 'uneducated thug' ... and since those pro EU, versus those anti-EU, are so evenly matched in their views, numerically speaking ... aren't you seeking to insult a sizeable proportion of the British people ?
> *
> Is this what the people of the UK can expect to be subject to, just for thinking it worthwhile to fight for their own sovereignty ??*
> 
> Perhaps the truth is that the pro-EU side really _can't_ have a good regard for the welfare of the British people ? It's not as though the EU is run to serve our interests ... just its OWN .....
Click to expand...

Yes, the EUhas been called a Franco-German empire many times.  But Britain will be less sovereign, not more, if it gives up its decision power and influence in the dealings of its neighbors.  Plus the EU can easily be a lifeboat for many British, as those countries has always served as each other's lifeboats, for a 1000 years.  It is suicideous for the British citizen to give up that fallback.  Or will the citizens suddenly have decision power over their government at home, over the banks and other special interest if they ditch Europe?  Ridiculous.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???
> 
> I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its isnt the central issue. But its worth taking a look at the brexit cheerleaders. They make my skin crawl and the only place I would follow them is the edge of a cliff where I could push them over.
> 
> 
> *Chris Grayling*
> Incompetence
> How can Chris Grayling apologise to MPs while ignoring the prisons crisis? | Eric Allison
> 
> Sacked as Justice Minister
> Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in'
> 
> Lying
> The mystery of Chris Grayling's expenses
> 
> *IDS*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Iain Duncan Smith claimed £39 breakfast on expenses (that'd leave him £14 for the rest of the week)
> 
> Expenses
> Duncan Smith's expenses card suspended after running up debt
> 
> petition
> Over 56,000 people demand Iain Duncan Smith resigns over fake sanctions quotes
> 
> Faker
> Use of fake quotes in benefits leaflet 'quite wrong', Iain Duncan Smith admits
> 
> CV Lies
> BBC - Press Office - Iain Duncan Smith CV
> 
> Policies lead to suicides
> At last, a report that skewers Iain Duncan Smith' welfare policies | Alex Andreou
> 
> *Michael Gove*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Michael Gove to pay back £7,000: MPs' expenses
> 
> More expenses fraud
> Michael Gove 'flipped' homes: MPs' expenses
> 
> And again
> Latest MPs expenses scandal - Nick Clegg and Michael Gove claim rent for office space
> 
> Sacked “toxic”
> David Cameron axes Michael Gove in reshuffle after toxic poll warning
> 
> Anti science agenda
> Michael Gove is concerned about teachers promoting science in schools. Yes, really
> 
> *Liam Fox*
> 
> Anti gay
> Liam Fox: Gays should be treated with respect – but banned from marrying
> 
> Sacked for taking boyfriend on official trips.
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox resigns over links with friend Adam Werrity
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox used expenses to pay his best man Adam Werritty
> 
> Pathetic
> Tory MP Liam Fox claims 3p on expenses for 100-metre car journey
> 
> More expense scandal
> Conservative MPs repay expenses claimed for room service, hotels and late-payment charges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good God. Is this what the pro-EU camp are reduced to ? A concentrated bout of smearing / mudslinging ? You've run out of ways, have you, to show us there's something 'good' about remaining in the EU ?
> 
> To what extent are the EU bureaucrats elected ? To what extent are they extremely happy recipients of one whopping 'gravy train' ... the likes of which Nigel Farage made us all privy to, years ago ??
> 
> Since you're into mudslinging, let me reciprocate ... just a little. Try and excuse the following .. !!! .......
> 
> Up to €2.2bn of public funds stolen in eight EU states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Up to €2.2 billion was stolen in public and EU funds in eight member states in 2010, according to a report commissioned by the EU anti-fraud agency Olaf.*
> 
> The figures, released on Tuesday (1 October) at a European Parliament conference on corruption, represent the estimated overall direct costs of corruption in public procurement in five major sectors like construction and water treatment.
> 
> The results of the study, conducted jointly by accountancy firm PwC EU Services and Ecorys with the support of the University of Utrecht, is based on a methodology that allows for the probability of corruption to be estimated for the product groups.
> France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain were selected at random for the study.
> 
> Speaking at the conference, EU anti-fraud commissioner Algirdas Semeta, said the study proposes a new approach that focuses on calculating the costs of corruption.
> 
> “The study puts concrete figures to what we have long recognised as a threat to public finances and it confirms that once a procurement project is affected by corruption, the public losses increase substantially,” he said.
> 
> The study said the cost of corruption *is equivalent to 3 to 4 percent of the total procurement budget.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy, now, to want to argue for us remaining under the jackboot of such a corrupt institution (according to the link) .. ?? How come all of this wasn't nipped in the bud ... LONG AGO ? Are you busily working out what cliff to push the corrupt ones over ?
> 
> ... NO .. ????
> 
> Remaining in the EU means we continue to pay our 'share' into it. Are we paying this into an entity which - at minimum - casts a blind eye towards corruption, for as long as it reasonably can ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant point to one brexiter with integrity.
> 
> Richard Dirty Desmond is a pornographer.He makes his money out of Jazz mags and the Adult Channel.
> 
> Lord Rothermere owns the Daily Mail and lives in France - The Daily Mail pays no UK tax.
> 
> Murdoch is a New York based American and again the Sun and Times pay no UK tax.
> 
> The Barclay brothers live in tax exile in the Channel Islands,again the Telegraph group pay no tax.
> 
> Dont you see a pattern emerging here.
> 
> A lot of rich people who dont pay our taxes,dont live here and dont vote here - and they are telling us what to do.
> 
> Shocking stuff.
Click to expand...


I do see a pattern ... of sorts. The 'pattern' here is that you're reduced to piling on any smears you can, just to make it appear that there's any absolute justice to your side of the EU fence. In fact, it's evidently true that this is all you have left.

Who pays what tax, where, is NOT relevant to what serves as ultimate justice to the peoples of the UK concerning an in v out EU vote !! It's what the people NEED to have happen,to realise their OWN chosen destiny !!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

But none of them contribute.
Why should they have a voice ?
Why should we believe anything they say ?
You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.



Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....

What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.

I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.


----------



## anotherlife

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
Click to expand...

Because Murdoch has always had the best interests of Britain close to where his heart should be.


----------



## Drummond

anotherlife said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
Click to expand...


Gee, thanks ... 

I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Murdoch has always had the best interests of Britain close to where his heart should be.
Click to expand...


Sounds reasonable.

Regardless of your weak attempt at sarcasm ... tell me why you think he's motivated to work against Britain's interests ? Preferably do more than just say 'oh, we all know he's against us, for x, y, z reasons' that are probably pure fiction .... show us some evidence backing up such suppositions ...


----------



## anotherlife

Drummond said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
Click to expand...

This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.


----------



## Drummond

anotherlife said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
Click to expand...


Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!

You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.


----------



## MaryL

Tommy Tainant said:


> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.


Is there a reputable study to show if Britain is better or worse for leaving the EU? Kate Hoey should have turned that question back. Well?


----------



## Phoenall

ESay said:


> As far as I can understand, migration is one of the main reasons for Brexiters to leave the EU. In this thread migrants from Eastern Europe have been mentioned. But except of the East-Europeans, there are a big number of immigrants from the Commonwealth, particularly from India and Pakistan. These immigrants have nothing to do with the EU’s requirements, do they? They also should face those restrictions which would be imposed on the East-Europeans?







N the Indians are no problem as they will integrate and follow our customs, it is the muslims  that are invading that are the problem. They want homes, food, money and to control the country as their god told them to. Then we have the east Europeans that seem to be mostly criminals that flood into the UK and demand the same things


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???
> 
> I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its isnt the central issue. But its worth taking a look at the brexit cheerleaders. They make my skin crawl and the only place I would follow them is the edge of a cliff where I could push them over.
> 
> 
> *Chris Grayling*
> Incompetence
> How can Chris Grayling apologise to MPs while ignoring the prisons crisis? | Eric Allison
> 
> Sacked as Justice Minister
> Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in'
> 
> Lying
> The mystery of Chris Grayling's expenses
> 
> *IDS*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Iain Duncan Smith claimed £39 breakfast on expenses (that'd leave him £14 for the rest of the week)
> 
> Expenses
> Duncan Smith's expenses card suspended after running up debt
> 
> petition
> Over 56,000 people demand Iain Duncan Smith resigns over fake sanctions quotes
> 
> Faker
> Use of fake quotes in benefits leaflet 'quite wrong', Iain Duncan Smith admits
> 
> CV Lies
> BBC - Press Office - Iain Duncan Smith CV
> 
> Policies lead to suicides
> At last, a report that skewers Iain Duncan Smith' welfare policies | Alex Andreou
> 
> *Michael Gove*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Michael Gove to pay back £7,000: MPs' expenses
> 
> More expenses fraud
> Michael Gove 'flipped' homes: MPs' expenses
> 
> And again
> Latest MPs expenses scandal - Nick Clegg and Michael Gove claim rent for office space
> 
> Sacked “toxic”
> David Cameron axes Michael Gove in reshuffle after toxic poll warning
> 
> Anti science agenda
> Michael Gove is concerned about teachers promoting science in schools. Yes, really
> 
> *Liam Fox*
> 
> Anti gay
> Liam Fox: Gays should be treated with respect – but banned from marrying
> 
> Sacked for taking boyfriend on official trips.
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox resigns over links with friend Adam Werrity
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox used expenses to pay his best man Adam Werritty
> 
> Pathetic
> Tory MP Liam Fox claims 3p on expenses for 100-metre car journey
> 
> More expense scandal
> Conservative MPs repay expenses claimed for room service, hotels and late-payment charges
Click to expand...







 I notice you did not mention one single Labour politician when they were the worst offenders for expense's fraud. LIKE THE ONE THAT FIDDLED THE MOST AND CONVENIENTLY DIED BEFORE HE COULD BE CHARGED


----------



## Drummond

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farage 'mistress' took overdose following row with Ukip leader's wife
> This must be the ultimate humiliation for a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er'm .... this has WHAT to do with any objective study of the pros and cons of 'Brexit' .. ???
> 
> I'd suggest that you debate without these examples of sheer bias (which are unconnected with the veracity of either argument) being offered !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its isnt the central issue. But its worth taking a look at the brexit cheerleaders. They make my skin crawl and the only place I would follow them is the edge of a cliff where I could push them over.
> 
> 
> *Chris Grayling*
> Incompetence
> How can Chris Grayling apologise to MPs while ignoring the prisons crisis? | Eric Allison
> 
> Sacked as Justice Minister
> Is Chris Grayling the most incompetent member of the government?
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in'
> 
> Lying
> The mystery of Chris Grayling's expenses
> 
> *IDS*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Iain Duncan Smith claimed £39 breakfast on expenses (that'd leave him £14 for the rest of the week)
> 
> Expenses
> Duncan Smith's expenses card suspended after running up debt
> 
> petition
> Over 56,000 people demand Iain Duncan Smith resigns over fake sanctions quotes
> 
> Faker
> Use of fake quotes in benefits leaflet 'quite wrong', Iain Duncan Smith admits
> 
> CV Lies
> BBC - Press Office - Iain Duncan Smith CV
> 
> Policies lead to suicides
> At last, a report that skewers Iain Duncan Smith' welfare policies | Alex Andreou
> 
> *Michael Gove*
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Michael Gove to pay back £7,000: MPs' expenses
> 
> More expenses fraud
> Michael Gove 'flipped' homes: MPs' expenses
> 
> And again
> Latest MPs expenses scandal - Nick Clegg and Michael Gove claim rent for office space
> 
> Sacked “toxic”
> David Cameron axes Michael Gove in reshuffle after toxic poll warning
> 
> Anti science agenda
> Michael Gove is concerned about teachers promoting science in schools. Yes, really
> 
> *Liam Fox*
> 
> Anti gay
> Liam Fox: Gays should be treated with respect – but banned from marrying
> 
> Sacked for taking boyfriend on official trips.
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox resigns over links with friend Adam Werrity
> 
> Expenses fraud
> Defence Secretary Liam Fox used expenses to pay his best man Adam Werritty
> 
> Pathetic
> Tory MP Liam Fox claims 3p on expenses for 100-metre car journey
> 
> More expense scandal
> Conservative MPs repay expenses claimed for room service, hotels and late-payment charges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you did not mention one single Labour politician when they were the worst offenders for expense's fraud. LIKE THE ONE THAT FIDDLED THE MOST AND CONVENIENTLY DIED BEFORE HE COULD BE CHARGED
Click to expand...


... yes, remarkable, that ... eh ?? Expenses-fiddling was across all Parties .. obviously a culture of it had long existed in Parliament. Ah, but perhaps all the pro-EU people can 'somehow' be 'excused', when none of the others 'can' ... ??


----------



## Drummond

See this....

EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk - BBC News



> Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, David Cameron has warned.
> 
> The UK has regretted "turning its back" on Europe in the past, the PM said, arguing the European Union has "helped reconcile" countries and maintain peace.
> 
> Mr Cameron asked if leaving the union is a "risk worth taking".
> 
> Leave campaigners said Nato, not the EU, kept the UK safe and accused Downing Street of "losing the plot".



Smear tactics (.. as we've seen on this very thread !!). Now, via the media, a ridiculous scare monologue courtesy of our PM...... my my, aren't the pro-EU people getting desperate ?!? If theirs was the right path to take, none of such desperation would be either felt, nor indulged. Speaks for itself, surely ...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> See this....
> 
> EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, David Cameron has warned.
> 
> The UK has regretted "turning its back" on Europe in the past, the PM said, arguing the European Union has "helped reconcile" countries and maintain peace.
> 
> Mr Cameron asked if leaving the union is a "risk worth taking".
> 
> Leave campaigners said Nato, not the EU, kept the UK safe and accused Downing Street of "losing the plot".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear tactics. Now, a ridiculous scare monologue ...... my my, aren't the pro-EU people getting desperate ?? If theirs was the right path to take, none of such desperation would be either felt, nor indulged. Speaks for itself, surely ...
Click to expand...

Here we can see that brexiters main claim is in fact bollox.

ONS To Knock Vote Leave’s £350m Fiction - InFacts


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> See this....
> 
> EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, David Cameron has warned.
> 
> The UK has regretted "turning its back" on Europe in the past, the PM said, arguing the European Union has "helped reconcile" countries and maintain peace.
> 
> Mr Cameron asked if leaving the union is a "risk worth taking".
> 
> Leave campaigners said Nato, not the EU, kept the UK safe and accused Downing Street of "losing the plot".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear tactics. Now, a ridiculous scare monologue ...... my my, aren't the pro-EU people getting desperate ?? If theirs was the right path to take, none of such desperation would be either felt, nor indulged. Speaks for itself, surely ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we can see that brexiters main claim is in fact bollox.
> 
> ONS To Knock Vote Leave’s £350m Fiction - InFacts
Click to expand...


Yet to be determined, surely ? There's a lack of precision in the comparisons that might be drawn. And since when did the ONS publish data any more frequently than quarterly ?

NONE of this addresses how much better we may do, once we are rid of the EU's shackles. Trade with others could eclipse what we now have. You don't know otherwise, and nobody on the pro-EU side can possibly prove otherwise.


----------



## anotherlife

Drummond said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of them contribute.
> Why should they have a voice ?
> Why should we believe anything they say ?
> You and your mates are just Murdochs puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
Click to expand...

Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> See this....
> 
> EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, David Cameron has warned.
> 
> The UK has regretted "turning its back" on Europe in the past, the PM said, arguing the European Union has "helped reconcile" countries and maintain peace.
> 
> Mr Cameron asked if leaving the union is a "risk worth taking".
> 
> Leave campaigners said Nato, not the EU, kept the UK safe and accused Downing Street of "losing the plot".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear tactics. Now, a ridiculous scare monologue ...... my my, aren't the pro-EU people getting desperate ?? If theirs was the right path to take, none of such desperation would be either felt, nor indulged. Speaks for itself, surely ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we can see that brexiters main claim is in fact bollox.
> 
> ONS To Knock Vote Leave’s £350m Fiction - InFacts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet to be determined, surely ? There's a lack of precision in the comparisons that might be drawn. And since when did the ONS publish data any more frequently than quarterly ?
> 
> NONE of this addresses how much better we may do, once we are rid of the EU's shackles. Trade with others could eclipse what we now have. You don't know otherwise, and nobody on the pro-EU side can possibly prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Shoulda, coulda,maybe,possibly. The fact is that you dont know and yet you are willing to risk what we have to keep a few Poles out. Its like a bunch of drunks get together on a rainy day at the Golf Club and start fantasising about the 50s. Absolute total bollocks.


----------



## HenryBHough

Tainted Tommy likes feeling subservient so it's only natural to jones to hand in with the EU and be ruled by Brusselscrats.


----------



## Drummond

anotherlife said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
Click to expand...


Eh ? You think Iceland's 'practically' a Russian colony ? Since when ? I remember the days when Keflavik airport, Iceland's international airport, was co-run by the American airforce ... I recall the AWACS planes parked nearby,when I visited once !!

Anyway .. to all those still wanting to push the pro-EU argument, this might be of interest ...


----------



## Drummond

I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !! 

Incredible ... 

Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !! 
*
Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News



> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
Click to expand...


I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.


----------



## Drummond

Mindful said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
Click to expand...


Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
Click to expand...


I'd call them client states.  France and Germany running the show.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> See this....
> 
> EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, David Cameron has warned.
> 
> The UK has regretted "turning its back" on Europe in the past, the PM said, arguing the European Union has "helped reconcile" countries and maintain peace.
> 
> Mr Cameron asked if leaving the union is a "risk worth taking".
> 
> Leave campaigners said Nato, not the EU, kept the UK safe and accused Downing Street of "losing the plot".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear tactics. Now, a ridiculous scare monologue ...... my my, aren't the pro-EU people getting desperate ?? If theirs was the right path to take, none of such desperation would be either felt, nor indulged. Speaks for itself, surely ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we can see that brexiters main claim is in fact bollox.
> 
> ONS To Knock Vote Leave’s £350m Fiction - InFacts
Click to expand...








 So instead of £350 million a week it is only £283 million a week, so still enough to build an NHS hospital.  Now if you look closely at the tables you see that in fact the UK is fined about the same as the rebate. Then the refusal of Brussels to allow the UK government to claw back fraudulent claims from EU citizens means that we are in fact losing even more. If we leave the EU we will be sending  EU criminals back to their country of origin and the EU will not be able to stop it from happening. The cost of all the court cases, legal aid and then the imprisonment for the term of their sentence. We have enough of our own criminals without importing thousands more from foreign nations.


 So no fiction until you fraudsters realise that your hand outs are going to stop and you will have to get a job to support yourself.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich !! Calling me a 'puppet' ....
> 
> What you apparently just don't get, is that continued membership of the EU makes us ALL 'puppets' of a power that is NOT our OWN. We will never know stand-alone autonomy in our affairs, until the strings which bind us to EU diktats are cut, once and for all.
> 
> I refuse to be a puppet ... of any power, or authority, which isn't 'my own' ... so very much the case for that bunch of foreigners comprising the rest of the EU .... and it's YOU who's so intent on continuing to be one.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
Click to expand...







Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.

 The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with a strong, united Europe? The UK could equally end up giving orders to Germany; just needs a bit of diplomacy and engagement...Oh, forgot, we've a tory government, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a strong, united Europe? The UK could equally end up giving orders to Germany; just needs a bit of diplomacy and engagement...Oh, forgot, we've a tory government, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Yeah but.....yeah but.................

The real fantasy is this. Cameron cant get a deal he wants when the rest of Europe want us in.

So some clown like Boris will get us an even better deal once we have left.

Somebody join the dots for me as I dont do fairy tales.


----------



## anotherlife

Drummond said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh ? You think Iceland's 'practically' a Russian colony ? Since when ? I remember the days when Keflavik airport, Iceland's international airport, was co-run by the American airforce ... I recall the AWACS planes parked nearby,when I visited once !!
> 
> Anyway .. to all those still wanting to push the pro-EU argument, this might be of interest ...
Click to expand...

Okay, then you may want to consider why the UK joined the European Union in the first place.  It was 1956, and the USA told the UK to get out of Suez.  So much for the independent UK wet dream.  The British Empire committed suicide when it entered ww1-2 against Germany.  But if you don't care for historic reasons, that's fine, because most recently too, tony Blair earned nothing for the UK when he sent UK soldiers to Iraq.  So, why would you want to put all your eggs in one basket, especially that that basket is not even yours but American?


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't want to be the EU's puppet, you can be America's puppet or Russia's puppet.  Is it better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.
> 
> The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.
Click to expand...

There is more than one way to skin a rabbit.  Considering that the EU is currently pumping unlimited amount of cash into Slovakia, for the past 15 years or so, and not about to slow down, theEU will have it just as easy to do the same in Scotland and Wales, for any kind of insignificant reason, amongst which is the division of peripheral countries.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.
> 
> The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a rabbit.  Considering that the EU is currently pumping unlimited amount of cash into Slovakia, for the past 15 years or so, and not about to slow down, theEU will have it just as easy to do the same in Scotland and Wales, for any kind of insignificant reason, amongst which is the division of peripheral countries.
Click to expand...

Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.


----------



## anotherlife

Tommy Tainant said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.
> 
> The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a rabbit.  Considering that the EU is currently pumping unlimited amount of cash into Slovakia, for the past 15 years or so, and not about to slow down, theEU will have it just as easy to do the same in Scotland and Wales, for any kind of insignificant reason, amongst which is the division of peripheral countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
Click to expand...

Oh okay.  Hehe.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

anotherlife said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.
> 
> The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a rabbit.  Considering that the EU is currently pumping unlimited amount of cash into Slovakia, for the past 15 years or so, and not about to slow down, theEU will have it just as easy to do the same in Scotland and Wales, for any kind of insignificant reason, amongst which is the division of peripheral countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh okay.  Hehe.
Click to expand...

You knows it......................


----------



## HenryBHough

Tommy Tainant said:


> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.



Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.


----------



## Drummond

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a strong, united Europe? The UK could equally end up giving orders to Germany; just needs a bit of diplomacy and engagement...Oh, forgot, we've a tory government, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...


So, governing YOURSELF isn't anything to hope or strive for ? So long as somebody dominates somebody else, all in the garden is rosy ?? 

There was nothing wrong with a healthy EEC. Now, the power-mongers have stepped in, and are doing all they can to subsume Member States into their own power base. There's an expectation, an actual treaty requirement, for member States to obey the wishes of the European Parliament !

You - seriously - see nothing wrong in that ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a strong, united Europe? The UK could equally end up giving orders to Germany; just needs a bit of diplomacy and engagement...Oh, forgot, we've a tory government, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah but.....yeah but.................
> 
> The real fantasy is this. Cameron cant get a deal he wants when the rest of Europe want us in.
> 
> So some clown like Boris will get us an even better deal once we have left.
> 
> Somebody join the dots for me as I dont do fairy tales.
Click to expand...


Europe being free of the tyranny of the Third Reich was once many peoples' fantasies. But, free they ultimately became. 

Because it WAS a fantasy ... does it mean that such freedom should never have been striven for ? 

What would your grandfather have said of your present-day attitude, one of knuckling under to a foreign power ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Yet more economists warn against Brexit - InFacts

*The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) also released a new study. Reasserting the view put forward by the International Monetary Fund, the Treasury, the OECD, and the London School of Economics, it found that a Brexit would be a “significant shock” to the UK economy.*

Why take the risk ?


----------



## Drummond

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a strong, united Europe? The UK could equally end up giving orders to Germany; just needs a bit of diplomacy and engagement...Oh, forgot, we've a tory government, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah but.....yeah but.................
> 
> The real fantasy is this. Cameron cant get a deal he wants when the rest of Europe want us in.
> 
> So some clown like Boris will get us an even better deal once we have left.
> 
> Somebody join the dots for me as I dont do fairy tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe being free of the tyranny of the Third Reich was once many peoples' fantasies. But, free they ultimately became.
> 
> Because it WAS a fantasy ... does it mean that such freedom should never have been striven for ?
> 
> What would your grandfather have said of your present-day attitude, one of knuckling under to a foreign power ?
Click to expand...


You have no answer to offer me, Tommy ?

I'm still waiting for your estimate that tells us what the cut-off point should be for letting immigrants come here and settle. If you somehow think we have an infinite capacity to forever take people into the UK - which is what the EU's open borders policy saddles us with, surely ?? - why not just clearly say so ??


----------



## ESay

HenryBHough said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
Click to expand...


This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.


----------



## Mindful

ESay said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
Click to expand...


What do you mean, the UK OR England?


----------



## ESay

Mindful said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
Click to expand...


As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cease to exist (at least in today’s shape).


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ESay said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
Click to expand...

It certainly will.
Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.

This will cause Wales to question its position.

The UK will disintegrate.


----------



## ESay

Tommy Tainant said:


> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.



What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?


----------



## HenryBHough

Should BREXIT *happen* before any internal vote on who's in/out of The UK then out means out.  England out.  Scotland out.  Wales out. Northern Ireland out. * All* out.

Should BREXIT fail  it is not impossible that the suicidal urges of Scotland and perhaps Wales might prevail and one or both will go it alone.  However what's left of the UK will, having so voted, remain in The EU.  The "new" country or countries do not automatically become EU members.  They have to apply.  Under those circumstances what's left of The United Kingdom....perhaps that might be just England...would still be in The EU and positioned to veto any former UK member wishing to get in.

I hope that' enough elaboration to overcome certain reading comprehension issues earlier displayed.

_But, not to worry, there will be no Brexit because America's Kenyan President has already told The Brits that he'll launch an economic war if they go against His Imperial will and jump ship._


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ESay said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?
Click to expand...

Probably not. The left footers would move in an instant but the proddys wear union jack underpants.


----------



## ESay

Tommy Tainant said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably not. The left footers would move in an instant but the proddys wear union jack underpants.
Click to expand...


So, if Scotland and Wales are out, England and Northern Ireland will form a new union or something like that?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ESay said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably not. The left footers would move in an instant but the proddys wear union jack underpants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if Scotland and Wales are out, England and Northern Ireland will form a new union or something like that?
Click to expand...

The likelihood is that the demographics will eventually see the catholics outnumber the protestants and they will push for reunification. That will be a messy prospect.
The province is interesting as it shares an actual border with the Republic. With the 20% devaluation in the pound mooted it will be interesting to see how it plays.


----------



## montelatici

Tommy Tainant said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably not. The left footers would move in an instant but the proddys wear union jack underpants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if Scotland and Wales are out, England and Northern Ireland will form a new union or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The likelihood is that the demographics will eventually see the catholics outnumber the protestants and they will push for reunification. That will be a messy prospect.
> The province is interesting as it shares an actual border with the Republic. With the 20% devaluation in the pound mooted it will be interesting to see how it plays.
Click to expand...



*Catholics now outnumber Protestants in Belfast*

*Catholics now outnumber Protestants in Belfast - BBC News*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Immigration argument slam dunked.

We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts



Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.

"Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".


----------



## frigidweirdo

ESay said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
Click to expand...


Why not? These are part of the UK, the govt in London controls the UK.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now, that Germany exercised a 'blocking' veto over us, preventing us from making any headway with the EU in getting border control concessions ? Germany STOPPED us from having our border control !!
> 
> Incredible ...
> 
> Tommy ... answer this, if you can. *What would your grandfather have thought of GERMANY dictating to us what control we can be allowed over our borders !!
> *
> Iain Duncan Smith: EU favours 'haves over the have-nots' - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Duncan Smith's speech came after he told the Sun Germany had a "de facto veto" over David Cameron's EU renegotiations, with Angela Merkel blocking the PM's plans for an "emergency brake" on EU migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if Cameron had come back with the deal he should have, none of this furore would be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course. However, that wasn't really on the cards ... the EU as a whole would've never allowed him, or us, that degree of latitude. You see ... the EU isn't abut TAKING orders ... it's about GIVING them. The EU wants to rule all of its Member States ... it's ultimately that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a strong, united Europe? The UK could equally end up giving orders to Germany; just needs a bit of diplomacy and engagement...Oh, forgot, we've a tory government, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah but.....yeah but.................
> 
> The real fantasy is this. Cameron cant get a deal he wants when the rest of Europe want us in.
> 
> So some clown like Boris will get us an even better deal once we have left.
> 
> Somebody join the dots for me as I dont do fairy tales.
Click to expand...








 Don't you understand that by leaving we gain control of our borders and the immigration numbers will drop. The cost associated to being a member to our NHS and Education will also drop, and the forecast is costs to the consumers will also drop by quite a large sum.     Can you see the picture yet, and when you colour it in you find the subsidy given to the other members of the Union will also be slashed and they will have to generate their own taxes


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks ...
> 
> I fail to see why there's any expectation that the UK must be, should be, is liable to be, *anyone's *'puppet'. The EU Referendum, if it's to serve any purpose, is to show the world that we will willingly throw off any shackles that makes us THEIR puppets. Why would we do that, if we didn't have pride in ourselves as a power wanting to govern - shock, horror !!! - OURSELVES ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh ? You think Iceland's 'practically' a Russian colony ? Since when ? I remember the days when Keflavik airport, Iceland's international airport, was co-run by the American airforce ... I recall the AWACS planes parked nearby,when I visited once !!
> 
> Anyway .. to all those still wanting to push the pro-EU argument, this might be of interest ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then you may want to consider why the UK joined the European Union in the first place.  It was 1956, and the USA told the UK to get out of Suez.  So much for the independent UK wet dream.  The British Empire committed suicide when it entered ww1-2 against Germany.  But if you don't care for historic reasons, that's fine, because most recently too, tony Blair earned nothing for the UK when he sent UK soldiers to Iraq.  So, why would you want to put all your eggs in one basket, especially that that basket is not even yours but American?
Click to expand...








 You really should read the proper history books for once, then you might get your facts right. As for Blair he was hamstrung by the FBI/CIA into going into Iraq, and then the US proceeded to murder British troops in "friendly fire" accidents.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very good answer, and I like the style.  Too bad it is incorrect.    The problem is that nobody is self governing.  The last one to try this was the Soviet Union, with all its resources, and failed.  So, newsflash, every country is a puppet.  What matters is how much say you have in the brokering of power over your head.  Separatism doesn't help this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.
> 
> The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a rabbit.  Considering that the EU is currently pumping unlimited amount of cash into Slovakia, for the past 15 years or so, and not about to slow down, theEU will have it just as easy to do the same in Scotland and Wales, for any kind of insignificant reason, amongst which is the division of peripheral countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
Click to expand...








 Didn't you read the report from the EU then regarding membership



It would be 'extremely difficult' for independent Scotland to join EU,

It would be 'extremely difficult' for independent Scotland to join EU, says European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso


 Keep on with your fantasy


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
Click to expand...








 Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? These are part of the UK, the govt in London controls the UK.
Click to expand...









Not if they vote to leave, and  put themselves in the deep doo-doo. But it is not a foregone conclusion that they will be accepted


----------



## Phoenall

ESay said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cease to exist (at least in today’s shape).
Click to expand...







 Not quite, what will happen is the various assemblies will vote on whether to hold a referendum to come out of the union. If the referendum votes yes then the nations will have to agree terms. The EU has already stated that it is not a foregone conclusion that they will be accepted, and because the results will be freely available the EU can see just what percentage from each nation voted to leave. Get the drift yet ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
Click to expand...







 And you can bet the farm that they will be crying to get back in when they are bankrupt. What does wales have to offer the EU that it does not already have in abundance, what goods will wales trade on the International markets. Can the EU afford to take on massive debts from unproven nations when they are already awash with other nations debts. Finally who will foot the bill for all the unemployed forced out of jobs by their own governments closing down UK armed services depots. Remember that with the Scots and Faslane that looked to putting 100,000 on the unemployment register, and the idiot in charge of Scotland said that they would take over as employers of a Nuclear Sub base that was to be destroyed.


----------



## Phoenall

ESay said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?
Click to expand...







 More Protestants who will vote against the move, So the Catholics will be able to move south before the EU exit is finalised. They will need a fair sum of money to do so as the economy in Eire is floundering


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will Northern Ireland do in this case? Will it join the Republic of Ireland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably not. The left footers would move in an instant but the proddys wear union jack underpants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if Scotland and Wales are out, England and Northern Ireland will form a new union or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The likelihood is that the demographics will eventually see the catholics outnumber the protestants and they will push for reunification. That will be a messy prospect.
> The province is interesting as it shares an actual border with the Republic. With the 20% devaluation in the pound mooted it will be interesting to see how it plays.
Click to expand...







 Very messy indeed as the UK/England will no longer subsidise the Irish and they will fid it hard to balance the books


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
Click to expand...


What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!

Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!

Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?


----------



## Drummond

HenryBHough said:


> Should BREXIT *happen* before any internal vote on who's in/out of The UK then out means out.  England out.  Scotland out.  Wales out. Northern Ireland out. * All* out.
> 
> Should BREXIT fail  it is not impossible that the suicidal urges of Scotland and perhaps Wales might prevail and one or both will go it alone.  However what's left of the UK will, having so voted, remain in The EU.  The "new" country or countries do not automatically become EU members.  They have to apply.  Under those circumstances what's left of The United Kingdom....perhaps that might be just England...would still be in The EU and positioned to veto any former UK member wishing to get in.
> 
> I hope that' enough elaboration to overcome certain reading comprehension issues earlier displayed.
> 
> _But, not to worry, there will be no Brexit because America's Kenyan President has already told The Brits that he'll launch an economic war if they go against His Imperial will and jump ship._



Good to know that Obama's running the show (our show !) ... FOR us ...


----------



## Drummond

ESay said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
Click to expand...


The UK is the UK. It currently includes Wales and Scotland. Each country would first have to arrange its independence from the UK before either could rejoin the EU on its own terms (.. always assuming the EU would take them). As I basically posted before .. to fight for independence, in order to fight to lose it again ... is downright insane. Hypocritical at minimum ...


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? *These are part of the UK, the govt in London controls the UK*.
Click to expand...


Basically true, though not entirely so. Both Wales and Scotland have their on Parliaments ... each with limited governing powers. But then, if Wales or Scotland become fully independent, why would London even seek to try and block them ?? It wouldn't be London's business to try ....


----------



## HenryBHough

Show of hands....

Who of you "remain" trolls will leave The UK in protest if/when it logs out?

If you won't then grin and bear it now as you would then.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
Click to expand...

You are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
Click to expand...

This is basically gibberish.Scotland voted no for several reasons but one of them was the possible difficulty with the rejoining the EU. That being removed they are more than entitled to ask te question again.
Your vision of independence is bizarre.Fundamentally I think it is just about keeping out foreigners but of course you cant do that without signing up to free movement.Just like everybody else.


----------



## HenryBHough

Liberloons in Scotland (SNP) realllllly want to have Britain's nuclear submarine base closed.  Whoppie.
The thrifty Scots, once they face having to tax themselves to support their own social programs, will need money.
So which will prevail?  The No-Nukes Scots of the Thrifty Scots when it comes down to renting the base for nuclear submarines to Russia....or maybe China?  What if Iran (with their more conventional, for now, subs) bids?


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subsuming your powers of Government DEFINITELY doesn't help !!
> 
> You're trying to make the point of political interdependence ? No doubt that's a Globalist's position, but I see nothing to stop the UK gaining independence from the EU, and so a new-found ability to pass its own laws unfettered by 'other masters'. True and total freedom may be illusory, BUT, we can gain a new and remarkably complete taste of it, if ONLY we snap the chain binding us to EU diktats.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can check out the country of Iceland, practically a Russian colony.  With a British "independence", the pound will be devalued enough to make purchase prices much higher, but not enough to make British exports cheap enough.  That is a banking equation that absolutely must hold.  The real problem is though, that you remove the roaming privileges of the ordinary working people of Britain.  That is like 1000 years ago, the small feudal lords removed the roaming privileges of serfs.  Or more recently the Soviet Union.  A terrible idea.  By the way, it will cause the fast break away of Scotland and Wales too, and you will see the EU border signs on the bridge to Cardiff, that you will need a visa for to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly likely as far too many nations rely on the UK exports to survive.
> 
> The EU has already said that there is no straight forward way of entry by Scotland  or any other union nation. They will have to come to the table with something positive, and having water and sheep is not positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a rabbit.  Considering that the EU is currently pumping unlimited amount of cash into Slovakia, for the past 15 years or so, and not about to slow down, theEU will have it just as easy to do the same in Scotland and Wales, for any kind of insignificant reason, amongst which is the division of peripheral countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Wales and Scotland will bring access to the EU through English speaking countries. Just like the Irish do.
> Stop trying to rain on his parade. He is dreaming of Rorkes Drift and Agincourt and Waterloo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you read the report from the EU then regarding membership
> 
> 
> 
> It would be 'extremely difficult' for independent Scotland to join EU,
> 
> It would be 'extremely difficult' for independent Scotland to join EU, says European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso
> 
> 
> Keep on with your fantasy
Click to expand...

Baroso is a fag.  Maybe this too is the reason why his name starts with bar.


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overlooking that Wales and Scotland are presently "in" The EU because they are part of The United Kingdom - a (for now) member.  Should either of them vote independence they're out and would have to apply to get in.  What's left of The UK (should only one of them depart) OR England (should both take a hike) surely will veto the membership of such proven enemies of peace and democracy....after all, they are Labour (type) enclaves and therefore more closely aligned to The Soviet Orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
Click to expand...







 Lets put it this way the EU have already seen how devious the Scots leaders are and have told them they wont get in .............


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...








 Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is basically gibberish.Scotland voted no for several reasons but one of them was the possible difficulty with the rejoining the EU. That being removed they are more than entitled to ask te question again.
> Your vision of independence is bizarre.Fundamentally I think it is just about keeping out foreigners but of course you cant do that without signing up to free movement.Just like everybody else.
Click to expand...






Who says we cant, as the USA has just passed even more laws controlling who enters their country, do you have the new passport that they will accept.

 So much for your claim of we will need to sign up to free movement ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
Click to expand...


Immigration shouldn't be an issue here.

MOST immigration is coming from OUTSIDE the EU, which means that the UK government is letting them in, not Brussels and the EU.
Those that come in from the EU, well, if sensible welfare was introduced, and things like this, then it also wouldn't be an issue. 
So many British people live abroad within the EU, that if they went back to the UK, you'd literally be swapping young workers for old people. Wonderful.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> This scenario has one significant flaw - if the UK or England leave the EU, then London won’t have a right to block Wales’ or Scotland’s joining to the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is basically gibberish.Scotland voted no for several reasons but one of them was the possible difficulty with the rejoining the EU. That being removed they are more than entitled to ask te question again.
> Your vision of independence is bizarre.Fundamentally I think it is just about keeping out foreigners but of course you cant do that without signing up to free movement.Just like everybody else.
Click to expand...


My vision of independence might seem bizarre to you, but that's because you view independence itself that way. Maybe difficulty in rejoining the EU was a factor in the last vote, BUT, you're well aware that the UK separating from the EU really WILL get the Scots to press for another Referendum vote. And then, what I've described ... complete with the total absurdity of a nation fighting for 'independence', then fighting tooth and nail to see to it that they lose it again, to the EU, at the earliest opportunity (!!)... will take place.

The SNP are their nationalistic form of Leftie. Of COURSE they want to ally themselves to the EU.

Here's evidence of the SNP's hatred of losing EU membership ... from their own website ....

A Better Scotland



> We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or *if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.*



If Scotland is taken out of the EU 'against its will', why would the SNP then seek another Referendum ? UNLESS they were reacting to_ losing_ EU membership ... and *WANTED IT BACK* ...

More generally ... Tommy, my son, *you still haven't told me what your estimate is of TOO MANY immigrants in the UK, given (of course) that our resources are far from infinite. Care to, now .. ?*

I ask, because ...

Immigration impact 'underestimated' on UK population, says report



> *The impact of immigration on Britain’s population has been underestimated by more than 1.3 million, according to a new report.*
> 
> MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher immigration laws, said official figures failed to take into account how babies being born to foreign-born mothers were contributing to overall population growth in Britain.
> 
> The think-tank also published research showing that without continuing immigration, Britain’s population would start to decline in 27 years’ time.
> 
> It means that immigration will account for the whole of Britain’s population rise after 2041 – a potentially fundamental change to society and the country’s general outlook.



At first sight, this makes it look like immigration is  good, even a needed, thing. I say ... maybe ... AT THE PROPER TIME. To suffer a burden of *uncontrolled* immigration for two entire decades, before it's truly needed, will be crippling for us. Even if immigration will have to be encouraged, we still need* control* over the process* now*, control which the EU's policies denies us.

So, Tommy, my question still stands. Why aren't you answering it .... ??


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration shouldn't be an issue here.
> 
> MOST immigration is coming from OUTSIDE the EU, which means that the UK government is letting them in, not Brussels and the EU.
> Those that come in from the EU,* well, if sensible welfare was introduced,* and things like this, then it also wouldn't be an issue.
> So many British people live abroad within the EU, that if they went back to the UK, you'd literally be swapping young workers for old people. Wonderful.
Click to expand...


So even you admit that there's an infrastructure issue, our ability to do what's necessary to cater for those coming in. Besides, welfare has to be paid for. Who does the paying ?

Immigration comes from all parts of the world. Non-EU immigrants can be dealt with according to our own legislation. EU immigrants are NOT, however. The EU denies us a proper say in that. 

We do not have full control of our borders, and we won't have, until we get shot of the EU ... *fact*.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration shouldn't be an issue here.
> 
> MOST immigration is coming from OUTSIDE the EU, which means that the UK government is letting them in, not Brussels and the EU.
> Those that come in from the EU, well, if sensible welfare was introduced, and things like this, then it also wouldn't be an issue.
> So many British people live abroad within the EU, that if they went back to the UK, you'd literally be swapping young workers for old people. Wonderful.
Click to expand...






The immigration from outside the EU is around 100,000 a year, not 800,0000 like that from the EU. And most of the EU immigrants are from outside the EU and used the EU as a back door into the UK.  The EU stopped the UK from changing existing welfare rules because it would mean fewer migrants wanting to come here.

No as the numbers don't match, and we have the young people to do the jobs. So reduce welfare to a  level that would see them living on the breadline and being forced to find employment. Unless they have independent means house them in segregated camps, feed and clothe them and allow them a small amount of money for luxuries like soft toilet paper, sweets, hobbies etc. Give them menial soul destroying work to do to earn their small stipend and watch them fight to get any job to get out of the rut.


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, the UK OR England?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is basically gibberish.Scotland voted no for several reasons but one of them was the possible difficulty with the rejoining the EU. That being removed they are more than entitled to ask te question again.
> Your vision of independence is bizarre.Fundamentally I think it is just about keeping out foreigners but of course you cant do that without signing up to free movement.Just like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My vision of independence might seem bizarre to you, but that's because you view independence itself that way. Maybe difficulty in rejoining the EU was a factor in the last vote, BUT, you're well aware that the UK separating from the EU really WILL get the Scots to press for another Referendum vote. And then, what I've described ... complete with the total absurdity of a nation fighting for 'independence',then fighting to lose it again, to the EU ... will take place.
> 
> The SNP are their nationalistic form of Leftie. Of COURSE they want to ally themselves to the EU.
> 
> Here's evidence of the SNP's hatred of losing EU membership ... from their own website ....
> 
> A Better Scotland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or *if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Scotland is taken out of the EU 'against its will', why would the SNP then seek another Referendum ? UNLESS they were reacting to_ losing_ EU membership ... and *WANTED IT BACK* ...
> 
> More generally ... Tommy, my son, *you still haven't told me what your estimate is of TOO MANY immigrants in the UK, given (of course) that our resources are far from infinite. Care to, now .. ?*
> 
> I ask, because ...
> 
> Immigration impact 'underestimated' on UK population, says report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The impact of immigration on Britain’s population has been underestimated by more than 1.3 million, according to a new report.*
> 
> MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher immigration laws, said official figures failed to take into account how babies being born to foreign-born mothers were contributing to overall population growth in Britain.
> 
> The think-tank also published research showing that without continuing immigration, Britain’s population would start to decline in 27 years’ time.
> 
> It means that immigration will account for the whole of Britain’s population rise after 2041 – a potentially fundamental change to society and the country’s general outlook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first sight, this makes it look like immigration is  good, even a needed, thing. I say ... maybe ... AT THE PROPER TIME. To suffer a burden of *uncontrolled* immigration for two entire decades, before it's truly needed, will be crippling for us. Even if immigration will have to be encouraged, we still need* control* over the process* now*, control which the EU's policies denies us.
> 
> So, Tommy, my question still stands. Why aren't you answering it .... ??
Click to expand...








 You can change the nation of Scotland for Palestine and see just how close the SNP is to the islamonazi's.


----------



## Drummond

Phoenall said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can understand, if Brexiters win, then the odds will be very high that a country called the United Kingdom will cede to exist (at least in today’s shape).
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is basically gibberish.Scotland voted no for several reasons but one of them was the possible difficulty with the rejoining the EU. That being removed they are more than entitled to ask te question again.
> Your vision of independence is bizarre.Fundamentally I think it is just about keeping out foreigners but of course you cant do that without signing up to free movement.Just like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My vision of independence might seem bizarre to you, but that's because you view independence itself that way. Maybe difficulty in rejoining the EU was a factor in the last vote, BUT, you're well aware that the UK separating from the EU really WILL get the Scots to press for another Referendum vote. And then, what I've described ... complete with the total absurdity of a nation fighting for 'independence',then fighting to lose it again, to the EU ... will take place.
> 
> The SNP are their nationalistic form of Leftie. Of COURSE they want to ally themselves to the EU.
> 
> Here's evidence of the SNP's hatred of losing EU membership ... from their own website ....
> 
> A Better Scotland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or *if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Scotland is taken out of the EU 'against its will', why would the SNP then seek another Referendum ? UNLESS they were reacting to_ losing_ EU membership ... and *WANTED IT BACK* ...
> 
> More generally ... Tommy, my son, *you still haven't told me what your estimate is of TOO MANY immigrants in the UK, given (of course) that our resources are far from infinite. Care to, now .. ?*
> 
> I ask, because ...
> 
> Immigration impact 'underestimated' on UK population, says report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The impact of immigration on Britain’s population has been underestimated by more than 1.3 million, according to a new report.*
> 
> MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher immigration laws, said official figures failed to take into account how babies being born to foreign-born mothers were contributing to overall population growth in Britain.
> 
> The think-tank also published research showing that without continuing immigration, Britain’s population would start to decline in 27 years’ time.
> 
> It means that immigration will account for the whole of Britain’s population rise after 2041 – a potentially fundamental change to society and the country’s general outlook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first sight, this makes it look like immigration is  good, even a needed, thing. I say ... maybe ... AT THE PROPER TIME. To suffer a burden of *uncontrolled* immigration for two entire decades, before it's truly needed, will be crippling for us. Even if immigration will have to be encouraged, we still need* control* over the process* now*, control which the EU's policies denies us.
> 
> So, Tommy, my question still stands. Why aren't you answering it .... ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can change the nation of Scotland for Palestine and see just how close the SNP is to the islamonazi's.
Click to expand...


... with the exception that there's no Hamas Charter equivalent for the SNP, which mandates the demise of the State of Israel ... people supporting Palestine tend to forget that they voted Hamas into power over them .. a terrorist group whose chief reason for being is to kill off a country they disapprove of ...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration shouldn't be an issue here.
> 
> MOST immigration is coming from OUTSIDE the EU, which means that the UK government is letting them in, not Brussels and the EU.
> Those that come in from the EU, well, if sensible welfare was introduced, and things like this, then it also wouldn't be an issue.
> So many British people live abroad within the EU, that if they went back to the UK, you'd literally be swapping young workers for old people. Wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The immigration from outside the EU is around 100,000 a year, not 800,0000 like that from the EU. And most of the EU immigrants are from outside the EU and used the EU as a back door into the UK.  The EU stopped the UK from changing existing welfare rules because it would mean fewer migrants wanting to come here.
> 
> No as the numbers don't match, and we have the young people to do the jobs. So reduce welfare to a  level that would see them living on the breadline and being forced to find employment. Unless they have independent means house them in segregated camps, feed and clothe them and allow them a small amount of money for luxuries like soft toilet paper, sweets, hobbies etc. Give them menial soul destroying work to do to earn their small stipend and watch them fight to get any job to get out of the rut.
Click to expand...


UK migration: What's really happening? - BBC News












Two charts from the BBC based on statistics. 

2013 there was a net migration to the UK of just over 100,000 people within the EU. I'm not saying this isn't a lot of people, it is. 

However in 2013 there was net migration to the UK of 200,000 from the whole world.

So the net migration from outside the EU was about half of all net migration. 

In the times of recession these figures were more in favor of non-EU net migration. 2009 was what +60,000 in the EU and +200,000 and more from the rest of the world. So in that year it was more than 3 times high from outside of the EU than inside of the EU.

Figures change. Yes, the numbers should not be so high. 

The biggest problem for EU statistics is those that would come back. Many people who live outside of the EU already need visas in order to be able to live or work. Stopping non-EU immigration isn't going to force people to come back.

Census Map: UK-born residents in other EU countries 2011 | The Migration Observatory

Here is a map (that I can't copy and paste) with the countries where UK citizens live within the EU. 300,000 people live in Spain, 169,000 in France, and so on. More than 1 million people. 

Imagine if leaving the EU forced many of them to go home. Replacing what would constitute a lot of workers with elderly people might not work.

Also, that net migration of over 100,000 people from outside of the EU, won't change if the UK leaves the EU.

What is needed are laws, from Westminster, to tackle the issue. Leaving the EU won't change this. The UK govt will probably just leave the EU and then set up a similar system to what exists already anyway. 

There's nothing to stop that. Cameron doesn't want things to change, Corbyn doesn't want things to change, so why would they change even if the UK leaves the EU?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
Click to expand...

Telegraph grossly distorts migrant figures - InFacts
Here you go dummy. Caught lying again.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

IMF chief warns of Brexit harm - InFacts
The IMF spells out the dangers of Brexit.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bank of England warns about recession.
Mark Carney makes momentous intervention on Brexit - FT.com
*
This is momentous. Mr Carney is not the first influential economist to say that Brexit is a costly move from an economic point of view — indeed almost every influential economist known to the public, and many more who are not, have already issued the same warning.

But the BoE uniquely combines the authority of a venerable government institution with a well-deserved reputation for independence and competence. To top it off, the governor said all the members of the Financial and Monetary Policy Committees agree that Brexit is the greatest risk to the bank’s remit.

The Leave campaign will not be able to swat Mr Carney away as politically biased, as it attempted to do, with some success, with the Treasury’s report on the long-term costs of Brexit to the UK economy last month. It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.
*
Still, we might be able to keep out a few "darkies" eh ?


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will.
> Scotand will hold another referendum and vote out of the UK.
> 
> This will cause Wales to question its position.
> 
> The UK will disintegrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's fascinating about this scenario is the utter absurdity it contains. So ... the UK leaves the EU, 'disenfranchising' Scotland from the EU at the same time. So, 'in the name of national independence', they'll push to have another Referendum on that subject (.. having said before that the previous such vote was, at minimum, a 'once in a generation' one !). If they vote for their own independence, and let's say having 'got it', they'll then, again 'in the name of independence', immediately try to sign up to the control-freaking EU, complete with its own Parliament, complete with its own diktats and demands on its Members !!!
> 
> Scotland will gain 'independence', in order to lose it again, just as soon as it can contrive to !!!
> 
> Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ???!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is basically gibberish.Scotland voted no for several reasons but one of them was the possible difficulty with the rejoining the EU. That being removed they are more than entitled to ask te question again.
> Your vision of independence is bizarre.Fundamentally I think it is just about keeping out foreigners but of course you cant do that without signing up to free movement.Just like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My vision of independence might seem bizarre to you, but that's because you view independence itself that way. Maybe difficulty in rejoining the EU was a factor in the last vote, BUT, you're well aware that the UK separating from the EU really WILL get the Scots to press for another Referendum vote. And then, what I've described ... complete with the total absurdity of a nation fighting for 'independence',then fighting to lose it again, to the EU ... will take place.
> 
> The SNP are their nationalistic form of Leftie. Of COURSE they want to ally themselves to the EU.
> 
> Here's evidence of the SNP's hatred of losing EU membership ... from their own website ....
> 
> A Better Scotland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or *if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Scotland is taken out of the EU 'against its will', why would the SNP then seek another Referendum ? UNLESS they were reacting to_ losing_ EU membership ... and *WANTED IT BACK* ...
> 
> More generally ... Tommy, my son, *you still haven't told me what your estimate is of TOO MANY immigrants in the UK, given (of course) that our resources are far from infinite. Care to, now .. ?*
> 
> I ask, because ...
> 
> Immigration impact 'underestimated' on UK population, says report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The impact of immigration on Britain’s population has been underestimated by more than 1.3 million, according to a new report.*
> 
> MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher immigration laws, said official figures failed to take into account how babies being born to foreign-born mothers were contributing to overall population growth in Britain.
> 
> The think-tank also published research showing that without continuing immigration, Britain’s population would start to decline in 27 years’ time.
> 
> It means that immigration will account for the whole of Britain’s population rise after 2041 – a potentially fundamental change to society and the country’s general outlook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first sight, this makes it look like immigration is  good, even a needed, thing. I say ... maybe ... AT THE PROPER TIME. To suffer a burden of *uncontrolled* immigration for two entire decades, before it's truly needed, will be crippling for us. Even if immigration will have to be encouraged, we still need* control* over the process* now*, control which the EU's policies denies us.
> 
> So, Tommy, my question still stands. Why aren't you answering it .... ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can change the nation of Scotland for Palestine and see just how close the SNP is to the islamonazi's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... with the exception that there's no Hamas Charter equivalent for the SNP, which mandates the demise of the State of Israel ... people supporting Palestine tend to forget that they voted Hamas into power over them .. a terrorist group whose chief reason for being is to kill off a country they disapprove of ...
Click to expand...






 If you read it that is the only difference, and shows that Nazi's cant be trusted.      And the SNP a Nazi group that wants to kill of England and the English so they can wallow in the glory


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telegraph grossly distorts migrant figures - InFacts
> Here you go dummy. Caught lying again.
Click to expand...







 Don't read the Telegraph, and infacts being a left wing communist outlet is not very trustworthy is it.  Unless you are a left wing dummy.......................



 From the site

 InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union.


 VERY BIASED I WOULD SAY


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> IMF chief warns of Brexit harm - InFacts
> The IMF spells out the dangers of Brexit.








 So just conjecture and might happens is the best your left wing outlet can do............


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Bank of England warns about recession.
> Mark Carney makes momentous intervention on Brexit - FT.com
> *
> This is momentous. Mr Carney is not the first influential economist to say that Brexit is a costly move from an economic point of view — indeed almost every influential economist known to the public, and many more who are not, have already issued the same warning.
> 
> But the BoE uniquely combines the authority of a venerable government institution with a well-deserved reputation for independence and competence. To top it off, the governor said all the members of the Financial and Monetary Policy Committees agree that Brexit is the greatest risk to the bank’s remit.
> 
> The Leave campaign will not be able to swat Mr Carney away as politically biased, as it attempted to do, with some success, with the Treasury’s report on the long-term costs of Brexit to the UK economy last month. It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.
> *
> Still, we might be able to keep out a few "darkies" eh ?









 Cant be bad seeing as we are already heading for another world recession, so not very prophetic is he. He already said that the UK will see a turndown in the economy which is why bank rates are being pegged yet again.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

*It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times


----------



## HenryBHough

Pissed off people don't always vote for what's best - they vote for something that's different.

"Remain" beware, your rhetoric is pissing people off.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration argument slam dunked.
> 
> We won’t be in single market without free movement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telegraph grossly distorts migrant figures - InFacts
> Here you go dummy. Caught lying again.
Click to expand...


Two points: 

1. If the data the Telegraph reported was indeed false, then surely they could be sued for it ? Do you seriously think they WILL be ?

Don't hold your breath on that one. 

2. Your 'InFacts' link ... it always helps to see what biases might be in play, whether an agenda is being played out. Well ... InFacts, the people who gave you your 'means' of replying to me, say this about THEMSELVES ...

Mission Statement - InFacts



> InFacts is *a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union. *We are founded by a group of editors who believe it is in our interest to stay in the EU despite its imperfections.



So .. 'no bias there, then' ... eh ?? They're hardly neutral arbiters ...


----------



## Drummond

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the funny thing about them there people in Brexit camp.
> 
> "Hey, we'll just do the Norway option" "You do realize the Norway option involves being in the Schengen Zone right" "Oh, no, we'll just do it without the Schengen Zone" "But that's not the Norway option".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telegraph grossly distorts migrant figures - InFacts
> Here you go dummy. Caught lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't read the Telegraph, and infacts being a left wing communist outlet is not very trustworthy is it.  Unless you are a left wing dummy.......................
> 
> 
> 
> From the site
> 
> InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union.
> 
> 
> VERY BIASED I WOULD SAY
Click to expand...


My apologies ! I posted my piece before seeing yours, which already makes the same point.


----------



## montelatici

Drummond said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not we will just make trade treaties that work in our favour and close the doors to anymore immigration. Stop all welfare to those who have not worked in the UK and deport any that show the slightest violence.
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I, is the latest report showing 800,000 E.U. migrants last year a fantasy then. That is 3 times the actual number admitted by the government, meaning 3 times the strain on our resources. Maybe we should only let them come if they want to go and live in wales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telegraph grossly distorts migrant figures - InFacts
> Here you go dummy. Caught lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't read the Telegraph, and infacts being a left wing communist outlet is not very trustworthy is it.  Unless you are a left wing dummy.......................
> 
> 
> 
> From the site
> 
> InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union.
> 
> 
> VERY BIASED I WOULD SAY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies ! I posted my piece before seeing yours, which already makes the same point.
Click to expand...



The drafters and signers of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 were intent on achieving political integration.  The big mistake that was made, was to accede to the UK's request to join.  France resisted UK entry until 1973 when the pressure from Germany and Italy, the other EU powers forced France's hand.  The French, correctly, feared that the UK would be a Trojan Horse for the U.S. and that the UK would resist the political integration that the founding members wanted.

If the UK leaves, the EU will be better off as the political integration the founders of the EEC contemplated can continue.  Europe cannot survive without political integration.  The U.S., China, and now India will have too much power over a individual European states negotiating on their own.  The UK will happily tie its future (and interests) to the U.S.  Both parties, the UK and the EU will come out of this better off with a British exit, even if it means that Scotland and maybe Wales decide to go their own way as EU states.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Bank of England warns about recession.
> Mark Carney makes momentous intervention on Brexit - FT.com
> *
> This is momentous. Mr Carney is not the first influential economist to say that Brexit is a costly move from an economic point of view — indeed almost every influential economist known to the public, and many more who are not, have already issued the same warning.
> 
> But the BoE uniquely combines the authority of a venerable government institution with a well-deserved reputation for independence and competence. To top it off, the governor said all the members of the Financial and Monetary Policy Committees agree that Brexit is the greatest risk to the bank’s remit.
> 
> The Leave campaign will not be able to swat Mr Carney away as politically biased, as it attempted to do, with some success, with the Treasury’s report on the long-term costs of Brexit to the UK economy last month. It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.
> *
> Still, we might be able to keep out a few "darkies" eh ?



Since when was Carney - in his position - permitted to ally it to a political cause, or position ???

That he has done so, and not been penalised for it, shows that in fact he is obeying someone else's political imperative. Someone showing some desperation by using Carney in the first place ... ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

*It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times

You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.

Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bank of England warns about recession.
> Mark Carney makes momentous intervention on Brexit - FT.com
> *
> This is momentous. Mr Carney is not the first influential economist to say that Brexit is a costly move from an economic point of view — indeed almost every influential economist known to the public, and many more who are not, have already issued the same warning.
> 
> But the BoE uniquely combines the authority of a venerable government institution with a well-deserved reputation for independence and competence. To top it off, the governor said all the members of the Financial and Monetary Policy Committees agree that Brexit is the greatest risk to the bank’s remit.
> 
> The Leave campaign will not be able to swat Mr Carney away as politically biased, as it attempted to do, with some success, with the Treasury’s report on the long-term costs of Brexit to the UK economy last month. It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.
> *
> Still, we might be able to keep out a few "darkies" eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when was Carney - in his position - permitted to ally it to a political cause, or position ???
> 
> That he has done so, and not been penalised for it, shows that in fact he is obeying someone else's political imperative. Someone showing some desperation by using Carney in the first place ... ?
Click to expand...


They even had Christine Lagarde weighing in on the matter.

Maybe the Eurovision Song  Contest will decide it.


----------



## Drummond

Mindful said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bank of England warns about recession.
> Mark Carney makes momentous intervention on Brexit - FT.com
> *
> This is momentous. Mr Carney is not the first influential economist to say that Brexit is a costly move from an economic point of view — indeed almost every influential economist known to the public, and many more who are not, have already issued the same warning.
> 
> But the BoE uniquely combines the authority of a venerable government institution with a well-deserved reputation for independence and competence. To top it off, the governor said all the members of the Financial and Monetary Policy Committees agree that Brexit is the greatest risk to the bank’s remit.
> 
> The Leave campaign will not be able to swat Mr Carney away as politically biased, as it attempted to do, with some success, with the Treasury’s report on the long-term costs of Brexit to the UK economy last month. It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.
> *
> Still, we might be able to keep out a few "darkies" eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when was Carney - in his position - permitted to ally it to a political cause, or position ???
> 
> That he has done so, and not been penalised for it, shows that in fact he is obeying someone else's political imperative. Someone showing some desperation by using Carney in the first place ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They even had Christine Lagarde weighing in on the matter.
> 
> Maybe the Eurovision Song  Contest will decide it.
Click to expand...


Hope not !!! Word has it that Russia's being tipped to win ........


----------



## Mindful

Drummond said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bank of England warns about recession.
> Mark Carney makes momentous intervention on Brexit - FT.com
> *
> This is momentous. Mr Carney is not the first influential economist to say that Brexit is a costly move from an economic point of view — indeed almost every influential economist known to the public, and many more who are not, have already issued the same warning.
> 
> But the BoE uniquely combines the authority of a venerable government institution with a well-deserved reputation for independence and competence. To top it off, the governor said all the members of the Financial and Monetary Policy Committees agree that Brexit is the greatest risk to the bank’s remit.
> 
> The Leave campaign will not be able to swat Mr Carney away as politically biased, as it attempted to do, with some success, with the Treasury’s report on the long-term costs of Brexit to the UK economy last month. It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.
> *
> Still, we might be able to keep out a few "darkies" eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when was Carney - in his position - permitted to ally it to a political cause, or position ???
> 
> That he has done so, and not been penalised for it, shows that in fact he is obeying someone else's political imperative. Someone showing some desperation by using Carney in the first place ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They even had Christine Lagarde weighing in on the matter.
> 
> Maybe the Eurovision Song  Contest will decide it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope not !!! Word has it that Russia's being tipped to win ........
Click to expand...


I heard that too.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.



You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.

Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.

You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
Click to expand...

What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?
Click to expand...








 Deport violent criminals and enforce laws cutting welfare to immigrants


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deport violent criminals and enforce laws cutting welfare to immigrants
Click to expand...

We are always doing the first and Cameron has just negotiated the second.
Next............................


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deport violent criminals and enforce laws cutting welfare to immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are always doing the first and Cameron has just negotiated the second.
> Next............................
Click to expand...







 WRONG AGAIN as we have been stopped from deporting violent criminals because it is against their human right to a family life and children.  Cameron negotiated nothing as the EU just flatly refused his requests, and we are paying through the nose once more.

 Latest EU cash cow    £3.2 billion destined for new schools and upgraded school books has been used to educate migrant children who cant read, write or speak a word of English. That is £3.2 billion every year, and rising.  That is the cost of the EU to the tax payers. We want this to stop and the only way to do so is to leave the EU, they need our money more than we need their criminals and unemployables


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deport violent criminals and enforce laws cutting welfare to immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are always doing the first and Cameron has just negotiated the second.
> Next............................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN as we have been stopped from deporting violent criminals because it is against their human right to a family life and children.  Cameron negotiated nothing as the EU just flatly refused his requests, and we are paying through the nose once more.
> 
> Latest EU cash cow    £3.2 billion destined for new schools and upgraded school books has been used to educate migrant children who cant read, write or speak a word of English. That is £3.2 billion every year, and rising.  That is the cost of the EU to the tax payers. We want this to stop and the only way to do so is to leave the EU, they need our money more than we need their criminals and unemployables
Click to expand...

Coming out of the EU doesnt mean we come out of the human rights part. That isnt part of the EU and everyone,pretty much, is signed up to it. It was written by erm British lawyers. We will still be bound to it thank God.

Any other claims you make need to be referenced because you lie as easily as you breathe.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deport violent criminals and enforce laws cutting welfare to immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are always doing the first and Cameron has just negotiated the second.
> Next............................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN as we have been stopped from deporting violent criminals because it is against their human right to a family life and children.  Cameron negotiated nothing as the EU just flatly refused his requests, and we are paying through the nose once more.
> 
> Latest EU cash cow    £3.2 billion destined for new schools and upgraded school books has been used to educate migrant children who cant read, write or speak a word of English. That is £3.2 billion every year, and rising.  That is the cost of the EU to the tax payers. We want this to stop and the only way to do so is to leave the EU, they need our money more than we need their criminals and unemployables
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming out of the EU doesnt mean we come out of the human rights part. That isnt part of the EU and everyone,pretty much, is signed up to it. It was written by erm British lawyers. We will still be bound to it thank God.
> 
> Any other claims you make need to be referenced because you lie as easily as you breathe.
Click to expand...







 BULLSHIT  that is the biggest cause of the problems, and if we leave we leave the EHRC and will no longer be stopped from deporting violent criminals. This is what started the whole sorry business in the first place violent child rapists from eastern Europe being allowed to walk free and rape as many children as they want. All we wanted was a fair application of the Human rights laws and the EHRC stopped this from happening. Now it is set to cost the EU £trillions when we leave. No other EU nation is as prosperous as the UK and they rely on the UK recovery to prop up the failing EU.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Nope, you are off on one of your fantasies again.
Read this and improve your kowledge.

Six things you should know about the ECHR


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is now fair to say that the debate on the economics has been won by the Remain side.*
> From that well known Marxist rag - The Financial Times
> 
> You guys keep chundering on about foreigners on benefits. It doesnt mean a thing.
> 
> Jobs are what people will vote for and the evidence only points one way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind to whatever you'd rather not see.
> 
> Even without getting into specific pros and cons ... a pro-EU membership vote signs away our capacity to control our fate. EVERY issue which European membership has an effect on, does and will be decided BY THE FOREIGN POWERS MAKING UP THE EU AS A WHOLE. We have ONE vote amongst a couple of DOZEN.
> 
> You name the issue - we lose control of it. UNLESS we get OUT of the EU ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like to do that you cant do because of the EU ?
Click to expand...


To be governed by a power that doesn't consist of a whole collection of foreigners, who make laws and insist they're implemented HERE, whether or not I happen to like it ? How about that ?

To live in a territory that exercises the control over* its* borders,* its *own Parliamentary setup, just as* it *sees fit ? How about that ?

To have AUTONOMY, not to be subsumed within a bigger power bloc ? How about that ? 

Do you consider that too much to ask for ? OR, do we instead have the right, which hopefully we're about to use, to unshackle ourselves from power-mad bureaucratic foreigners ??


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nope, you are off on one of your fantasies again.
> Read this and improve your kowledge.
> 
> Six things you should know about the ECHR








 I would rather read the truth

102 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants we can't deport



Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had ordered that the violent drug dealer, known only as AP because his identity was kept secret by the judges, should be sent back to Trinidad. Article Eight is the number one reason criminals or immigrants, who either entered Britain illegally or breached their visa conditions, managed to defeat deportation, the figures from HM Courts Service show.

There were 233 appeals against deportation in 2010, of which 149 were successful under human rights laws – 102 of them solely citing Article Eight.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU

Our human rights are better protected in the EU.

Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU

Why would you risk that ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?



... OK. Now, you're arguing to all of us that we need to remain in the EU because, according to you, the EU is 'gay friendly'.

Somehow I don't see that as being the deciding factor, amongst all of us who'd intend to vote, in opting to retain membership. However, you see a need to make the case nonetheless.

Because you've run out of other, more pertinent, material to advance your pro-EU agenda ?

Can we look forward to increasingly fringe defences as time goes on .. ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Now, you're arguing to all of us that we need to remain in the EU because, according to you, the EU is 'gay friendly'.
> 
> Somehow I don't see that as being the deciding factor, amongst all of us who'd intend to vote, in opting to retain membership. However, you see a need to make the case nonetheless.
> 
> Because you've run out of other, more pertinent, material to advance your pro-EU agenda ?
> 
> Can we look forward to increasingly fringe defences as time goes on .. ?
Click to expand...

Human rights are a big issue apparently. Not just in the UK. Look at prospective countries like Turkey. Think of the positive changes in that country when they have to raise their standards.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Now, you're arguing to all of us that we need to remain in the EU because, according to you, the EU is 'gay friendly'.
> 
> Somehow I don't see that as being the deciding factor, amongst all of us who'd intend to vote, in opting to retain membership. However, you see a need to make the case nonetheless.
> 
> Because you've run out of other, more pertinent, material to advance your pro-EU agenda ?
> 
> Can we look forward to increasingly fringe defences as time goes on .. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human rights are a big issue apparently. Not just in the UK. Look at prospective countries like Turkey. Think of the positive changes in that country when they *have to* raise their standards.
Click to expand...

*
'HAVE TO*' ... you say ... thank you, Tommy ... that one's a gift !

What have we, on the 'anti' side, been saying all along about the EU's control freakery, their overriding desire to dominate their Member States ??* Now, it turns out that you openly recognise, even celebrate the fact, that there's truth to what we have been saying.*

You can argue all you like about the 'correctness' involved. BUT, *the central principle remains .. one of a power-bloc determined to exert its influence, as it sees fit, upon the States within its orbit.*

_*It only remains for you, Tommy, to show us all how it is that we're unfit for autonomy in our part of the world, how we MUST accept domination of our affairs by a foreign power ! *_

So go to it. Show us our unfitness to run our own affairs, tend to our OWN business in our OWN way.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?









 How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country


----------



## Drummond

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
Click to expand...


Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...


----------



## Mindful

Comments from David Vance:

In Alice in Wonderland, we are invited to believe _six impossible things before breakfast._ These days, that is not enough.

Compare these two statements if you will;

Here's the Prime Minister:

**We care about our national security. Europe helps us make Britain safer.  Through the European Arrest Warrant, we have removed over 7,000 suspected criminals.  Every day, our countries monitor terror suspects across the continent.**

He insists that being in the EU makes us safer. Clear?

Then consider this:

**Terrorists are more likely to attack European countries as a result of a controversial deal to allow Turkish citizens to travel across the continent without visas, EU leaders have admitted. Foreign terrorists and organised criminals are “expected” to seek Turkish passports to reach continental Europe “as soon as” the visa waiver program comes into force, a European Commission report said.**

So, the EU tells us that being part of a political union that allows Turkey visa free travel to the EU i_ncreases the risk of terrorism._ More Charlie Hebdo. More Bataclan. More Brussels airport and underground? More carnage. More loss of life. More terror.

It seems to me that David Cameron has got to the point where he no longer cares to distinguish between truth and deceit, if he ever did.


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
Click to expand...







 With no thoughts or concerns regarding his victims rights to a family life. The simple answer is once a person commits a crime they lose the same human rights they have taken away from their victims. So all terrorists will be either executed or sent home to be executed


----------



## montelatici

Why all this agra?  Just leave the EU, the EU will be far better for it.


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> Comments from David Vance:
> 
> In Alice in Wonderland, we are invited to believe _six impossible things before breakfast._ These days, that is not enough.
> 
> Compare these two statements if you will;
> 
> Here's the Prime Minister:
> 
> **We care about our national security. Europe helps us make Britain safer.  Through the European Arrest Warrant, we have removed over 7,000 suspected criminals.  Every day, our countries monitor terror suspects across the continent.**
> 
> He insists that being in the EU makes us safer. Clear?
> 
> Then consider this:
> 
> **Terrorists are more likely to attack European countries as a result of a controversial deal to allow Turkish citizens to travel across the continent without visas, EU leaders have admitted. Foreign terrorists and organised criminals are “expected” to seek Turkish passports to reach continental Europe “as soon as” the visa waiver program comes into force, a European Commission report said.**
> 
> So, the EU tells us that being part of a political union that allows Turkey visa free travel to the EU i_ncreases the risk of terrorism._ More Charlie Hebdo. More Bataclan. More Brussels airport and underground? More carnage. More loss of life. More terror.
> 
> It seems to me that David Cameron has got to the point where he no longer cares to distinguish between truth and deceit, if he ever did.



I hope British people will show wisdom by voting to exit from EU.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
Click to expand...

The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
Thats pretty fundamental.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
Click to expand...







 BULLSHIT and you know it.

 The law only works for those who the looney left defend and support, as they are the ones they need to entice into their fold. So this means muslims, rapists, murderers, violent criminals etc., the people that claim they have ties to the UK because they have a cat.

I have claimed that allowing violent foreign criminals to live in the UK is a breach of my human rights and get told that their human rights come before mine as they face harsh punishments if they are deported.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT and you know it.
> 
> The law only works for those who the looney left defend and support, as they are the ones they need to entice into their fold. So this means muslims, rapists, murderers, violent criminals etc., the people that claim they have ties to the UK because they have a cat.
> 
> I have claimed that allowing violent foreign criminals to live in the UK is a breach of my human rights and get told that their human rights come before mine as they face harsh punishments if they are deported.
Click to expand...

So.................our legal system is only respectful of the rights of "looney left" followers ?

You have surpassed yourself today.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Why all this agra?  Just leave the EU, the EU will be far better for it.



What would you know about it?

All your statements being based on personal animosity and bile.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Press’ hateful 8 stories from Brexit debate - InFacts
Brexit lies exposed.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why all this agra?  Just leave the EU, the EU will be far better for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you know about it?
> 
> All your statements being based on personal animosity and bile.
Click to expand...


I don't think you quite understand.  I just think it is better for the EU, that the UK leave. I posted this on another thread.

"I do not hope that the UK will be fucked when they leave the EU. I wish the best for them. I just think the EU will be far better off without the UK. The other big countries want more integration as was the plan when the Treaty of Rome was signed. The UK was allowed to join the EEC with misgivings on the part of France, and they were right. Germany and Italy the other two big countries of the EEC were wrong to force France to accept UK membership. They thought that France's feeling that the UK would become a U.S. Trojan Horse that would weaken the EU and its eventual integration was unfounded. They were wrong. I think that the UK should be grateful that the EU allowed them to progress economically, they were a basket case when they joined with both France and Italy as well as Germany being far wealthier countries. The EEC/EU allowed them to leapfrog France and Italy, good for them. Let them go it alone and let the EU integrate."


----------



## Vikrant

EU is not a sustainable idea and I have said this long time ago. I hope Brits will vote to exit from EU. After Brits, I think French will bail out next. Then, it will be hard for Germans to stay in. After Germans bail out, EU will be useless.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
Click to expand...


How's this for a self-defeating argument ?? 

Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.

The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?

See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.

The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
Click to expand...

Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".

I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.

As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.

Why ?

Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.

I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.

Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.

I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT and you know it.
> 
> The law only works for those who the looney left defend and support, as they are the ones they need to entice into their fold. So this means muslims, rapists, murderers, violent criminals etc., the people that claim they have ties to the UK because they have a cat.
> 
> I have claimed that allowing violent foreign criminals to live in the UK is a breach of my human rights and get told that their human rights come before mine as they face harsh punishments if they are deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.................our legal system is only respectful of the rights of "looney left" followers ?
> 
> You have surpassed yourself today.
Click to expand...







 They ran it for 14 years and had a way of making the police do what they wanted. Tar them as racists and watch them bend over backwards. The word was overused and abused so much that now it has no impact and the police are starting to arrest ethnic minorities.
 You really need to learn to read as I did not say looney left followers did I, I said those the looney left support and defend. As in the muslims who happen to be the largest ethnic minority and will vote Labour


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Our human rights are better protected in the EU.
> 
> Gay politicians urge LGBT community to remain in EU
> 
> Why would you risk that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
Click to expand...






 Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing

What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you work that out when violent criminals are being given their freedom under the EU human rights laws. Unless you are a coloured gay mass murderer you have no human rights in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
These laws protect you from the state. Even you.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Press’ hateful 8 stories from Brexit debate - InFacts
> Brexit lies exposed.



Ho hum .... 

Mission Statement - InFacts



> InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union. We are founded by a group of editors who believe it is in our interest to stay in the EU despite its imperfections.



'Yes', well, naturally I'm going to be 'guided' by the wholly unbiased judgements and pronouncements of a wholly BIASED entity ... !!!!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Press’ hateful 8 stories from Brexit debate - InFacts
> Brexit lies exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ho hum ....
> 
> Mission Statement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union. We are founded by a group of editors who believe it is in our interest to stay in the EU despite its imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Yes', well, naturally I'm going to be 'guided' by the wholly unbiased judgements and pronouncements of a wholly BIASED entity ... !!!!
Click to expand...

Its important to have a counter to the Brexit lies. They seem to be stepping up the propaganda as their cause sinks.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
Click to expand...


Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??

The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Press’ hateful 8 stories from Brexit debate - InFacts
> Brexit lies exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ho hum ....
> 
> Mission Statement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union. We are founded by a group of editors who believe it is in our interest to stay in the EU despite its imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Yes', well, naturally I'm going to be 'guided' by the wholly unbiased judgements and pronouncements of a wholly BIASED entity ... !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its important to have a counter to the Brexit lies. They seem to be stepping up the propaganda as their cause sinks.
Click to expand...


.... um, but you yourself keep quoting from a propaganda source !! That source is at least open about its agenda ...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
Click to expand...

We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
Click to expand...


Under EU law, terrorists can be equal to decent citizens. 

It's a bit like a man standing on a balcony of one of the Twin Towers, on 11th September 2001, building burning behind him, he knowing that he will have to dive to his death soon if he's not to be roasted alive, being primarily concerned with the 'civil rights' of the terrorist scum who hijacked the jet responsible for his plight !!

EU law is infected with Leftie lunacy, determined to go out of its way to confer human rights to demonstrably subhuman creatures. And to do so in such a way that the rights of the ordinary citizen can be compromised as a consequence.

We need to rid ourselves of this madness.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under EU law, terrorists can be equal to decent citizens.
> 
> It's a bit like a man standing on a balcony of one of the Twin Towers, on 11th September 2001, building burning behind him, he knowing that he will have to dive to his death soon if he's not to be roasted alive, being primarily concerned with the 'civil rights' of the terrorist scum who hijacked the jet responsible for his plight !!
> 
> EU law is infected with Leftie lunacy, determined to go out of its way to confer human rights to demonstrably subhuman creatures. And to do so in such a way that the rights of the ordinary citizen can be compromised as a consequence.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of this madness.
Click to expand...

So you really dont understand. Or you do and you dont give a toss.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... I believe I'm right in saying that 'a right to a family life' is considered a human right the EU courts have considerable respect for. And ... they even apply that to terrorists, fighting extradition proceedings, from which they can expect justice. Have a terrorist argue that his right to family life will be ruined thanks to successful extradition, and EVEN the TERRORIST will receive a judgement in his favour ...
> 
> 
> 
> The laws that protect the guilty also protect us. You cant pick and choose who will be protected under the law.
> Thats pretty fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
Click to expand...






 Not when you have senior politicians threatening on cameras to have the laws altered so that those who oppose the Labour parties views can be arrested without charge and kept in jail for as long as they are in power. Remember that, or how about the parents of the girls raped by muslim men being threatened with arrest, their other children taken into care, losing their jobs, losing their homes and the family being split apart.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Press’ hateful 8 stories from Brexit debate - InFacts
> Brexit lies exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ho hum ....
> 
> Mission Statement - InFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union. We are founded by a group of editors who believe it is in our interest to stay in the EU despite its imperfections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Yes', well, naturally I'm going to be 'guided' by the wholly unbiased judgements and pronouncements of a wholly BIASED entity ... !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its important to have a counter to the Brexit lies. They seem to be stepping up the propaganda as their cause sinks.
Click to expand...






 How is it that the looney left always call the truth propaganda, and then deny any knowledge of it at a later date


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's this for a self-defeating argument ??
> 
> Laws protecting 'the guilty', are surely bad laws, and those who implement them are complicit in the consequences.
> 
> The solution is one of reform, to make that phenomenon as unlikely to happen as possible. I'm fully behind that .. aren't you ?
> 
> See a terrorist given the chance to settle in the UK because of one such bad law. That individual is a permanent threat to the innocent. Very possibly a deadly one. This, Tommy, CANNOT be acceptable.
> 
> The point of laws is to protect people, to serve their interests ... not to facilitate an enhanced chance of harm !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Laws protect all of us not just "the guilty".
> 
> I can see that sometimes this is frustrating but it is a necessary state of affairs.
> 
> As an example the government got worked up because they couldnt deport a suspected terrorist.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because we dont deport people to countries that practice torture.
> 
> I dont believe that anybody could argue against that law.It is a good law that protects all of us and discourages states from using torture.
> 
> Of course some bad people will also be protected by this law but thats just the way it has to be.
> 
> I wouldnt like to be tortured would you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
Click to expand...








 Until the neo Marxists get back into power and then it will change to " But some are more equal than others ".   

 And after hearing neo Marxists say that for 14 years what dont you understand about it


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which should not matter if that person has committed a crime in this country. Far too many know they will get away with their criminal activities under the ECHR rulings, this is why France and Germany have a policy of deportation at point of crime, and then the criminals have to pay for their own appeals. Very few appeals in mainland European nations, but the Labour champagne socialists gave away our rights to do the same thing
> 
> What you ignore is that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are being tortured by the very people you are defending and supporting every day. But that is alright in your eyes as they are not being tortured in return, instead they are mollycoddled and lauded as princes and saints.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under EU law, terrorists can be equal to decent citizens.
> 
> It's a bit like a man standing on a balcony of one of the Twin Towers, on 11th September 2001, building burning behind him, he knowing that he will have to dive to his death soon if he's not to be roasted alive, being primarily concerned with the 'civil rights' of the terrorist scum who hijacked the jet responsible for his plight !!
> 
> EU law is infected with Leftie lunacy, determined to go out of its way to confer human rights to demonstrably subhuman creatures. And to do so in such a way that the rights of the ordinary citizen can be compromised as a consequence.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of this madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you really dont understand. Or you do and you dont give a toss.
Click to expand...





 You are the one that refuses to understand the reality as spelt out above. You support the mass murder of innocents and don't realise it yet, when you do it will be far too late


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear. More doodling from the house idiot.
> These laws protect you from the state. Even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under EU law, terrorists can be equal to decent citizens.
> 
> It's a bit like a man standing on a balcony of one of the Twin Towers, on 11th September 2001, building burning behind him, he knowing that he will have to dive to his death soon if he's not to be roasted alive, being primarily concerned with the 'civil rights' of the terrorist scum who hijacked the jet responsible for his plight !!
> 
> EU law is infected with Leftie lunacy, determined to go out of its way to confer human rights to demonstrably subhuman creatures. And to do so in such a way that the rights of the ordinary citizen can be compromised as a consequence.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of this madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you really dont understand. Or you do and you dont give a toss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that refuses to understand the reality as spelt out above. You support the mass murder of innocents and don't realise it yet, when you do it will be far too late
Click to expand...

Go and have a lie down. You are working yourself up over nothing.


----------



## montelatici

Vikrant said:


> EU is not a sustainable idea and I have said this long time ago. I hope Brits will vote to exit from EU. After Brits, I think French will bail out next. Then, it will be hard for Germans to stay in. After Germans bail out, EU will be useless.



The E.U. will do just fine after the UK leaves, so will the U.K. although Scotland and possibly Wales will leave the U.K. and join the E.U. But that will not be a terrible problem for England. Northern Ireland will unify with the Republic of Ireland sooner or later, based on demographics, and then the transformation will be complete.


----------



## HenryBHough

Tommy Tainant said:


> So you really dont understand. Or you do and you dont give a toss.



One might easily imagine how another, seemingly indoctrinated as a child into terrorist beliefs might find understanding difficult.


----------



## Mindful

The Immigration Gambit


----------



## montelatici

Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.

*EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*

*EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

montelatici said:


> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*


Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.

Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any law working in the favour of any terrorist enemy, is one working against the people it's SUPPOSED to be serving !! Unless, of course, lawmakers are in the business of judicial activities specifically designed to aid terrorists .. ??
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU and its Leftie craziness, the better .....
> 
> 
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under EU law, terrorists can be equal to decent citizens.
> 
> It's a bit like a man standing on a balcony of one of the Twin Towers, on 11th September 2001, building burning behind him, he knowing that he will have to dive to his death soon if he's not to be roasted alive, being primarily concerned with the 'civil rights' of the terrorist scum who hijacked the jet responsible for his plight !!
> 
> EU law is infected with Leftie lunacy, determined to go out of its way to confer human rights to demonstrably subhuman creatures. And to do so in such a way that the rights of the ordinary citizen can be compromised as a consequence.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of this madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you really dont understand. Or you do and you dont give a toss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that refuses to understand the reality as spelt out above. You support the mass murder of innocents and don't realise it yet, when you do it will be far too late
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go and have a lie down. You are working yourself up over nothing.
Click to expand...






The old rule 19 from the neo Marxist book of disinformation, if all else fails be condescending and pompous
. But be aware if it backfires you will be left looking the fool and the one in need of help


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are all equal under the law. What bit dont you understand ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under EU law, terrorists can be equal to decent citizens.
> 
> It's a bit like a man standing on a balcony of one of the Twin Towers, on 11th September 2001, building burning behind him, he knowing that he will have to dive to his death soon if he's not to be roasted alive, being primarily concerned with the 'civil rights' of the terrorist scum who hijacked the jet responsible for his plight !!
> 
> EU law is infected with Leftie lunacy, determined to go out of its way to confer human rights to demonstrably subhuman creatures. And to do so in such a way that the rights of the ordinary citizen can be compromised as a consequence.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of this madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you really dont understand. Or you do and you dont give a toss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that refuses to understand the reality as spelt out above. You support the mass murder of innocents and don't realise it yet, when you do it will be far too late
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go and have a lie down. You are working yourself up over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old rule 19 from the neo Marxist book of disinformation, if all else fails be condescending and pompous
> . But be aware if it backfires you will be left looking the fool and the one in need of help
Click to expand...

Get back under your rock you poisonous old fucker.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> EU is not a sustainable idea and I have said this long time ago. I hope Brits will vote to exit from EU. After Brits, I think French will bail out next. Then, it will be hard for Germans to stay in. After Germans bail out, EU will be useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The E.U. will do just fine after the UK leaves, so will the U.K. although Scotland and possibly Wales will leave the U.K. and join the E.U. But that will not be a terrible problem for England. Northern Ireland will unify with the Republic of Ireland sooner or later, based on demographics, and then the transformation will be complete.
Click to expand...







 And Pigs will fly  resulting in the price of bacon going up.    You show once again that you don't have a clue as to the reality


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
Click to expand...







 And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
Click to expand...


No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
Click to expand...






 Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
Click to expand...

The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.


----------



## montelatici

Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL


----------



## Tommy Tainant

montelatici said:


> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL


He acts as a virtual stress ball.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
Click to expand...


Quick reminder: I've asked you repeatedly for your estimate of the upper limit of immigrants we can accept into the UK. You've dodged this every single time.

We don't have infinite resources, so on those grounds alone, we surely MUST close our doors to any further influx of them at some stage. Yet .. you, and Lefties like you, keep on bleating on about how we should be prepared to accept yet more of them.

It's a prime reason why we must rid ourselves of EU membership. For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted. 

Ah, but Tommy .. why not disregard the commonsense of my argument, and just offer up an emotive response ? Care to accuse me of 'racism' because I dare to face facts ??


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.



We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL







 Like the coward you are, and you don't like being shown to be a two faced hypocrite


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there will be no Brexit.  I thought Brexit would be the best thing for the EU and the UK, but it isn't to be.
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> *EU referendum poll: Pensioners, Tory voters and men are deserting the Brexit campaign*
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
Click to expand...







You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
Click to expand...






 The best you have is the usual left wing name calling and childish foot stamping


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
Click to expand...







 And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its too early to call. Brexit havent made any sort of economic case for coming out. Their campaign has been shockingly poor and based on fear of immigration.
> The EU needs reform but so does every other major institution.
> 
> Jobs and prosperity are the thing. Hatred of foreigners aint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
Click to expand...


The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond. 

Row over Express chief's tax avoidance

"*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"

"New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
Click to expand...


But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave. 

So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.

Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
Click to expand...


EU immigration isn't the problem, tax dodgers are.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EU immigration isn't the problem, tax dodgers are.
Click to expand...


Well, there are lots of problems/


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Arguably it will bring the current government down as the Tories are so split on the matter. We may have a new election that creates a government that wants us back in the EU, now that would be embarrassing for us...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguably it will bring the current government down as the Tories are so split on the matter. We may have a new election that creates a government that wants us back in the EU, now that would be embarrassing for us...
Click to expand...


I can't really see that happening. Cameron is in too strong a position right now. It might kick off in 2020 when Cameron claims he will stand down as PM and then the infighting over the next leader. See if the Tories can elect someone incompetent enough to lose to the dross Labour keep putting up.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the real world the influx of foreign criminals into the UK is of greater concern than jobs. As shown by the polls highlighting migrants as one of the greatest fears. It is not fear of foreigners but fear of losing the UK that matters. You want the EU then start the ball rolling to get out of the union, but don't come crawling back when you are bankrupt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
Click to expand...


Even if any of that is true ... what does it have to do with the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit ??

If you have to divert away from direct issues to do with Brexit to try a smear tactic, instead .. what does that say about the lack of actual case you can offer on the pro-EU side ?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguably it will bring the current government down as the Tories are so split on the matter. We may have a new election that creates a government that wants us back in the EU, now that would be embarrassing for us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't really see that happening. Cameron is in too strong a position right now. It might kick off in 2020 when Cameron claims he will stand down as PM and then the infighting over the next leader. See if the Tories can elect someone incompetent enough to lose to the dross Labour keep putting up.
Click to expand...


Just last week, Cameron made absurdly alarmist claims about the dangers of leaving the EU. Really extreme stuff. Which begs the question ... if leaving the EU is such a 'dire' thing to do, why didn't Cameron just follow the Labour Party's lead, and refuse to even offer a Referendum ??

After all, aren't Governments meant to serve the best interests of their countries ? If Cameron's to be believed, he chose to allow a possibility of severe harm befalling us ! 

What I think is that Cameron offering a Referendum is what swung the last election for him into an outright Conservative win. Which says one thing .... there are a very great number of people out there, desperate for the chance of getting shot of the EU !!!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if any of that is true ... what does it have to do with the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit ??
> 
> If you have to divert away from direct issues to do with Brexit to try a smear tactic, instead .. what does that say about the lack of actual case you can offer on the pro-EU side ?
Click to expand...


Here's what it has to do with it.

A person who earns 15,000 pounds a year, will save 7 pounds a year from leaving the EU. A person who earns like 30,000 will save maybe 30 pounds a year. 

For most British people, leaving the EU won't save them much.

Take into account the drop in the pound as soon as a victory for Brexit would be confirmed, and your savings have gone out of the window, unless of course you don't buy anything from abroad, and don't go abroad. 

Then take into account the drop in trade, and the costs for more people unemployed, and less people paying taxes, and your average Joe is going to lose out.

Who stands to gain? People who run businesses which are only UK focused. Weatherspoons, for example. Rich people stand to save a lot more money than poor people.

That's what it has to do with it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguably it will bring the current government down as the Tories are so split on the matter. We may have a new election that creates a government that wants us back in the EU, now that would be embarrassing for us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't really see that happening. Cameron is in too strong a position right now. It might kick off in 2020 when Cameron claims he will stand down as PM and then the infighting over the next leader. See if the Tories can elect someone incompetent enough to lose to the dross Labour keep putting up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just last week, Cameron made absurdly alarmist claims about the dangers of leaving the EU. Really extreme stuff. Which begs the question ... if leaving the EU is such a 'dire' thing to do, why didn't Cameron just follow the Labour Party's lead, and refuse to even offer a Referendum ??
> 
> After all, aren't Governments meant to serve the best interests of their countries ? If Cameron's to be believed, he chose to allow a possibility of severe harm befalling us !
> 
> What I think is that Cameron offering a Referendum is what swung the last election for him into an outright Conservative win. Which says one thing .... there are a very great number of people out there, desperate for the chance of getting shot of the EU !!!
Click to expand...



Cameron is just playing the game.

The Brexit side isn't coming up with anything realistic, just things like "Churchill's bust have moved in the White House, don't listen to Obama, he's anti-British" and "Churchill would have voted to leave" and other such nonsense that is only emotional. So, Cameron is playing the same game as Brexit, and now you don't like it, huh?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> 
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if any of that is true ... what does it have to do with the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit ??
> 
> If you have to divert away from direct issues to do with Brexit to try a smear tactic, instead .. what does that say about the lack of actual case you can offer on the pro-EU side ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what it has to do with it.
> 
> A person who earns 15,000 pounds a year, will save 7 pounds a year from leaving the EU. A person who earns like 30,000 will save maybe 30 pounds a year.
> 
> For most British people, leaving the EU won't save them much.
> 
> Take into account the drop in the pound as soon as a victory for Brexit would be confirmed, and your savings have gone out of the window, unless of course you don't buy anything from abroad, and don't go abroad.
> 
> Then take into account the drop in trade, and the costs for more people unemployed, and less people paying taxes, and your average Joe is going to lose out.
> 
> Who stands to gain? People who run businesses which are only UK focused. Weatherspoons, for example. Rich people stand to save a lot more money than poor people.
> 
> That's what it has to do with it.
Click to expand...


I see. OK, thanks for that reply. 

But I'm still struck by the weakness of your argument otherwise. Those things you cite as concerns for what will happen if Brexit occurs ... well, some if not all is mere assumption on your part - you could be wrong. Even if you're not, I see nothing to suggest that the longer-term future for the UK won't be brighter for having left. We'll be free of trade restrictions defined for us by being a part of the EU ... and there's a wider trading and business environment out there than the totality of the EU. Businesses may be (I'm sure they WILL be !) delighted to be free of EU bureaucracy when trading with us in future. Businesses may relocate here, or open up job opportunities here. You can't rule it out. I say that trading opportunities are BIGGER outside of the EU than within it, and we'd be fools to deny ourselves of the opportunities that flow from that.

And ... immigration. Never forget that issue. Having control of our borders just has to be a very big 'plus' ... it's a total outrage that we don't have this right now.


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> Having control of our borders just has to be a very big 'plus' ... it's a total outrage that we don't have this right now.



We do! 

Entering the UK - GOV.UK

Border Force - GOV.UK

What more control do you want?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if any of that is true ... what does it have to do with the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit ??
> 
> If you have to divert away from direct issues to do with Brexit to try a smear tactic, instead .. what does that say about the lack of actual case you can offer on the pro-EU side ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what it has to do with it.
> 
> A person who earns 15,000 pounds a year, will save 7 pounds a year from leaving the EU. A person who earns like 30,000 will save maybe 30 pounds a year.
> 
> For most British people, leaving the EU won't save them much.
> 
> Take into account the drop in the pound as soon as a victory for Brexit would be confirmed, and your savings have gone out of the window, unless of course you don't buy anything from abroad, and don't go abroad.
> 
> Then take into account the drop in trade, and the costs for more people unemployed, and less people paying taxes, and your average Joe is going to lose out.
> 
> Who stands to gain? People who run businesses which are only UK focused. Weatherspoons, for example. Rich people stand to save a lot more money than poor people.
> 
> That's what it has to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. OK, thanks for that reply.
> 
> But I'm still struck by the weakness of your argument otherwise. Those things you cite as concerns for what will happen if Brexit occurs ... well, some if not all is mere assumption on your part - you could be wrong. Even if you're not, I see nothing to suggest that the longer-term future for the UK won't be brighter for having left. We'll be free of trade restrictions defined for us by being a part of the EU ... and there's a wider trading and business environment out there than the totality of the EU. Businesses may be (I'm sure they WILL be !) delighted to be free of EU bureaucracy when trading with us in future. Businesses may relocate here, or open up job opportunities here. You can't rule it out. I say that trading opportunities are BIGGER outside of the EU than within it, and we'd be fools to deny ourselves of the opportunities that flow from that.
> 
> And ... immigration. Never forget that issue. Having control of our borders just has to be a very big 'plus' ... it's a total outrage that we don't have this right now.
Click to expand...



How will the UK be better off? 

I can't really see anything.

Yes, the EU is a pain in the ass. However the UK govt is a pain in the ass too. You'd still have the UK govt. 

That'd be the UK govt that let in all those people that people hate, not the Poles who seem to work hard and get on with life, but the Pakistanis, the Africans, the Jamaicans among others who people rail against.


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> We'll be free of trade restrictions defined for us by being a part of the EU



But that will be balanced out as there will be new restrictions trading with the E.U., currently our biggest market. Commonwealth countries we used to trade with have found other markets so I can't see any particularly preferential deals being made there. At the moment we're a nett importer of goods; we don't produce anything anyone else can't produce better or cheaper. Are you saying leaving the E.U. will suddenly create a manufacturing renaissance?


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
Click to expand...








 Not if the politicians value their careers and gold edged pensions, then they will be negotiating to stop the immigration. The very least that would happen would be the European migrants would no longer get any money, education and health care. This would stop them in their tracks and make them start to think about were they can go next. It will also stop the so called refugees from hopping on a train and getting of in London as their passports wont be enough anymore.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isnt. Fear of not being able to pay the rent outweighs fear of some notional bogeyman every time. Apart from in your head obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you obviously don't read the news, as this is always the top worry in peoples minds, the problems of immigrats taking over and forcing the nation to be just like the place they fled from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The papers are owned by brexit loving tax dodgers. Of course they will play the race card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EU immigration isn't the problem, tax dodgers are.
Click to expand...






Then we will go for them next after we plug the hole allowing child allowance to be paid for children in Poland that have never seen Britain. After them we will be looking at the politicians that have tried to fiddle expences, and take their pensions from them if found guilty


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguably it will bring the current government down as the Tories are so split on the matter. We may have a new election that creates a government that wants us back in the EU, now that would be embarrassing for us...
Click to expand...






 And disastrous for the country as a whole, leaving the neo Marxists out on a limb with no safety net.

 All it is at first is a vote by the people, it is not a demand for the government to pull the plug or else. It is a message to the EU that we are not happy with the way they are treating the UK and we will no longer be pushed around. We want out country and laws back in our control, and a level playing field from now on.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like an islamionazi propagandist.   So how about a link to prove your fantasy claim then ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if any of that is true ... what does it have to do with the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit ??
> 
> If you have to divert away from direct issues to do with Brexit to try a smear tactic, instead .. what does that say about the lack of actual case you can offer on the pro-EU side ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what it has to do with it.
> 
> A person who earns 15,000 pounds a year, will save 7 pounds a year from leaving the EU. A person who earns like 30,000 will save maybe 30 pounds a year.
> 
> For most British people, leaving the EU won't save them much.
> 
> Take into account the drop in the pound as soon as a victory for Brexit would be confirmed, and your savings have gone out of the window, unless of course you don't buy anything from abroad, and don't go abroad.
> 
> Then take into account the drop in trade, and the costs for more people unemployed, and less people paying taxes, and your average Joe is going to lose out.
> 
> Who stands to gain? People who run businesses which are only UK focused. Weatherspoons, for example. Rich people stand to save a lot more money than poor people.
> 
> That's what it has to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. OK, thanks for that reply.
> 
> But I'm still struck by the weakness of your argument otherwise. Those things you cite as concerns for what will happen if Brexit occurs ... well, some if not all is mere assumption on your part - you could be wrong. Even if you're not, I see nothing to suggest that the longer-term future for the UK won't be brighter for having left. We'll be free of trade restrictions defined for us by being a part of the EU ... and there's a wider trading and business environment out there than the totality of the EU. Businesses may be (I'm sure they WILL be !) delighted to be free of EU bureaucracy when trading with us in future. Businesses may relocate here, or open up job opportunities here. You can't rule it out. I say that trading opportunities are BIGGER outside of the EU than within it, and we'd be fools to deny ourselves of the opportunities that flow from that.
> 
> And ... immigration. Never forget that issue. Having control of our borders just has to be a very big 'plus' ... it's a total outrage that we don't have this right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How will the UK be better off?
> 
> I can't really see anything.
> 
> Yes, the EU is a pain in the ass. However the UK govt is a pain in the ass too. You'd still have the UK govt.
> 
> That'd be the UK govt that let in all those people that people hate, not the Poles who seem to work hard and get on with life, but the Pakistanis, the Africans, the Jamaicans among others who people rail against.
Click to expand...






 And they did not hate any of them until the Pakistanis started to demand more and more while giving less and less. Those are the only people that are hated in the UK, because of their attitude towards the British people.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be free of trade restrictions defined for us by being a part of the EU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that will be balanced out as there will be new restrictions trading with the E.U., currently our biggest market. Commonwealth countries we used to trade with have found other markets so I can't see any particularly preferential deals being made there. At the moment we're a nett importer of goods; we don't produce anything anyone else can't produce better or cheaper. Are you saying leaving the E.U. will suddenly create a manufacturing renaissance?
Click to expand...






 It is a possibility as we wont be constrained from subsidising companies in the UK, which led to the demise of the steel industry. While Europe threw £billions at their steel industry we were stopped from doing the same. The rules in the EU stopped UK companies from setting lower prices for goods than what the EU companies were charging


----------



## montelatici

Airbus will have to transfer wing production, currently in the UK, to an EU state to avoid customs duties when they transport them to Toulon.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

montelatici said:


> Airbus will have to transfer wing production, currently in the UK, to an EU state to avoid customs duties when they transport them to Toulon.


I have family and friends who work for Airbus. Their managers have written to all of them and pointed this out.
The longer this process goes on the more stressful it is for those who will be directly affected.


----------



## Vikrant

Tommy Tainant said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about Phoenail?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Vikrant said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
Click to expand...

Yup.
He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.


----------



## Vikrant

Tommy Tainant said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.
Click to expand...


He definitely necessitates an apology for English education system 

(Just a joke)


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Vikrant said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He definitely necessitates an apology for English education system
> 
> (Just a joke)
Click to expand...

The thing is....................before the internet there were idiots like him in every village in the country. In the corner of the pub,purple faced and mumbling into their half of warm bitter. Everyone gave him a swerve and life went on. Now he has a platform to spread his nonsense. It cant be good for him or society as a whole.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He definitely necessitates an apology for English education system
> 
> (Just a joke)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is....................before the internet there were idiots like him in every village in the country. In the corner of the pub,purple faced and mumbling into their half of warm bitter. Everyone gave him a swerve and life went on. Now he has a platform to spread his nonsense. It cant be good for him or society as a whole.
Click to expand...


What ... you mean, like peddling Leftieism .. ??


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For as long as we continue to be members, proper control of our borders will never be permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We *have* got control of our borders. Entering the UK - GOV.UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with an EU passport anyone can just walk into the UK. As we have seen recently there are millions of fake passports out there being sold so that terrorists can enter any EU country. The only way to take back control is to leave all the stupid treaties we signed up to and be free of the EU restraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But leaving the EU doesn't mean this will happen. You still have the government in charge, and this is a government which wants to stay in the EU, and will be the government that will negotiate the leave.
> 
> So, they could essentially sign up to the Schengen Agreement in order to get trade much easier. And then it will be WORSE than it is now.
> 
> Why people think leaving the EU will somehow magically transform UK immigration policy, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if the politicians value their careers and gold edged pensions, then they will be negotiating to stop the immigration. The very least that would happen would be the European migrants would no longer get any money, education and health care. This would stop them in their tracks and make them start to think about were they can go next. It will also stop the so called refugees from hopping on a train and getting of in London as their passports wont be enough anymore.
Click to expand...


Again, I think you're wrong.

Welfare could be dealt with internally. The fact that people can come to the UK and get on welfare quickly is a sign that the welfare system isn't working properly. Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily change this. For two reason, the first being that the UK government COULD join the Schengen Zone, and then what? Then the second reason would be that anyone coming in could end up on welfare anyway. 

As for education, well any child will get a free education at the point of delivery in the UK, this is UK policy and isn't about to change any time soon. It's been policy for like a century. 

Healthcare, again healthcare is free at the point of delivery, this isn't going to change any time soon.

So, you leave the EU, then you're in the hands of the UK government, and you're expecting the UK to do what exactly? Every UK government for the last four decades has supported being in the EU. They've supported closer ties, and this is what the UK has. 
If the UK leaves and Cameron is the PM, what says to you that he's not going to try and get a deal which allows for freedom of movement of EU citizens, like the Swiss and Norwegians have?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Express is the most vocal of the anti-EU papers. Owned by Richard Desmond.
> 
> Row over Express chief's tax avoidance
> 
> "*Row over Express chief's tax avoidance*"
> 
> "New Express owner Richard Desmond's huge publishing and TV sex empire has paid just £200,000 in corporation tax since it was established eight years ago, The Observer can reveal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if any of that is true ... what does it have to do with the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit ??
> 
> If you have to divert away from direct issues to do with Brexit to try a smear tactic, instead .. what does that say about the lack of actual case you can offer on the pro-EU side ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what it has to do with it.
> 
> A person who earns 15,000 pounds a year, will save 7 pounds a year from leaving the EU. A person who earns like 30,000 will save maybe 30 pounds a year.
> 
> For most British people, leaving the EU won't save them much.
> 
> Take into account the drop in the pound as soon as a victory for Brexit would be confirmed, and your savings have gone out of the window, unless of course you don't buy anything from abroad, and don't go abroad.
> 
> Then take into account the drop in trade, and the costs for more people unemployed, and less people paying taxes, and your average Joe is going to lose out.
> 
> Who stands to gain? People who run businesses which are only UK focused. Weatherspoons, for example. Rich people stand to save a lot more money than poor people.
> 
> That's what it has to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. OK, thanks for that reply.
> 
> But I'm still struck by the weakness of your argument otherwise. Those things you cite as concerns for what will happen if Brexit occurs ... well, some if not all is mere assumption on your part - you could be wrong. Even if you're not, I see nothing to suggest that the longer-term future for the UK won't be brighter for having left. We'll be free of trade restrictions defined for us by being a part of the EU ... and there's a wider trading and business environment out there than the totality of the EU. Businesses may be (I'm sure they WILL be !) delighted to be free of EU bureaucracy when trading with us in future. Businesses may relocate here, or open up job opportunities here. You can't rule it out. I say that trading opportunities are BIGGER outside of the EU than within it, and we'd be fools to deny ourselves of the opportunities that flow from that.
> 
> And ... immigration. Never forget that issue. Having control of our borders just has to be a very big 'plus' ... it's a total outrage that we don't have this right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How will the UK be better off?
> 
> I can't really see anything.
> 
> Yes, the EU is a pain in the ass. However the UK govt is a pain in the ass too. You'd still have the UK govt.
> 
> That'd be the UK govt that let in all those people that people hate, not the Poles who seem to work hard and get on with life, but the Pakistanis, the Africans, the Jamaicans among others who people rail against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did not hate any of them until the Pakistanis started to demand more and more while giving less and less. Those are the only people that are hated in the UK, because of their attitude towards the British people.
Click to expand...


And did they come in because the UK is in the EU? Not they did not. They came in because Pakistan was part of the Empire, and the British government (without any help from the EU) let them in.

So, again, how does leaving the EU change anything?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Earn £15,000 a year and save £7.28 from leaving the EU
Earn £20,000 a year and save £16.38 from leaving the EU
Earn £30,000 a year and save £34.58 from leaving the EU
Earn £50,000 a year and save £83.72 from leaving the EU
Earn £100,000 a year and save £265.72 from leaving the EU
Earn £1,000,000 a year and save £3967.60 from leaving the EU

So you can see who stands to save money. (assuming they don't get nice tax breaks)

Not the poorer people. 

There are 30 million tax payers in the UK. 236,000 are on lower or starting rate. 616,000 on savers rate. 24 million are on basic rate. 4.4 million on a higher rate and 329,000 on additional rate.

So, the vast majority of people in the UK won't save much from leaving the EU.

Now, what happens when the pound drops? 

Pound Rises After Evidence Shows EU "Stay" Campaign is Gaining Support

"The U.K. pound rose for the first time in three days after evidence emerged that the campaign to keep Britain in the European Union is gaining support."

It rose 0.4% against the Dollar and 0.8% against the Euro. 

So if you go to Spain on holiday and you fly with Ryanair for £300 return, and you stay in an apartment for £600 for two weeks, and you spend another £300 in your two weeks, you're spending £1,200 on your holiday. If there were a 0.8% drop in the pound against the Euro you'd be losing £9.60 on your holiday. 

So, for those who earn £15,000 a year, just a two week holiday on the cheap is going to lose the saving you made on leaving the EU. 

So, for whom is this whole thing worth it?


----------



## Drummond

Not all immigrants come from the EU. Just a very sizeable proportion of them. Data just published ...

EU net migration equals record high of 184,000 - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk



> Net long-term migration to the UK from the EU has reached the joint highest level on record, the final batch of official figures before the referendum have revealed.
> 
> The measure - the difference between the number of people arriving and leaving- was estimated at 184,000 in 2015. This is equal to the previous peak - recorded in the 12 months to March last year.
> 
> Meanwhile, overall net international migration increased to 333,000 - the second highest recorded.
> 
> It is 3,000 short of the all-time high posted last year and three times the Government's target level.
> 
> EU net migration was up compared to the previous year, when it stood at 174,000, but this was not a "statistically significant" change.
> 
> The apparent rise was largely due to an increase in net migration of citizens from Bulgaria and Romania, from 44,000 to 58,000, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
> 
> Estimated EU immigration - just the number of people coming to the UK from the bloc - was 270,000, compared to 264,000 in the previous year.
> 
> They are the final official figures on the issue to be published before next month's referendum, and prompted a fresh clash between the two camps.



*There's only one cure for dealing with sky-high EU-based immigration, which comes about thanks to the EU's open border policy ... GET SHOT OF THE EU. This is the ONE and ONLY answer.*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Not all immigrants come from the EU. Just a very sizeable proportion of them. Data just published ...
> 
> EU net migration equals record high of 184,000 - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net long-term migration to the UK from the EU has reached the joint highest level on record, the final batch of official figures before the referendum have revealed.
> 
> The measure - the difference between the number of people arriving and leaving- was estimated at 184,000 in 2015. This is equal to the previous peak - recorded in the 12 months to March last year.
> 
> Meanwhile, overall net international migration increased to 333,000 - the second highest recorded.
> 
> It is 3,000 short of the all-time high posted last year and three times the Government's target level.
> 
> EU net migration was up compared to the previous year, when it stood at 174,000, but this was not a "statistically significant" change.
> 
> The apparent rise was largely due to an increase in net migration of citizens from Bulgaria and Romania, from 44,000 to 58,000, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
> 
> Estimated EU immigration - just the number of people coming to the UK from the bloc - was 270,000, compared to 264,000 in the previous year.
> 
> They are the final official figures on the issue to be published before next month's referendum, and prompted a fresh clash between the two camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There's only one cure for dealing with sky-high EU-based immigration, which comes about thanks to the EU's open border policy ... GET SHOT OF THE EU. This is the ONE and ONLY answer.*
Click to expand...

And get 3m pensioners back from Spain. Mental !!


----------



## ESay

frigidweirdo said:


> And did they come in because the UK is in the EU? Not they did not. They came in because Pakistan was part of the Empire, and the British government (without any help from the EU) let them in.
> 
> So, again, how does leaving the EU change anything?



Exactly. Actually, the issue of immigration is absolutely illogical pretext for Brexiters to leave the EU. I have no doubts that the UK and the EU as a whole should do something with this issue. But… It is Muslims who make problems, but what do you propose? You propose to ban free access for the Poles to the UK who work hard (the vast majority of them at least) and benefit the UK’s economy. Yeah, it is very wise decision.

 BTW, I have read here that the European rules thwart the UK to deport extreme islamists. But what would you do if these islamists had the UK’s citizenship?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Not all immigrants come from the EU. Just a very sizeable proportion of them. Data just published ...
> 
> EU net migration equals record high of 184,000 - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net long-term migration to the UK from the EU has reached the joint highest level on record, the final batch of official figures before the referendum have revealed.
> 
> The measure - the difference between the number of people arriving and leaving- was estimated at 184,000 in 2015. This is equal to the previous peak - recorded in the 12 months to March last year.
> 
> Meanwhile, overall net international migration increased to 333,000 - the second highest recorded.
> 
> It is 3,000 short of the all-time high posted last year and three times the Government's target level.
> 
> EU net migration was up compared to the previous year, when it stood at 174,000, but this was not a "statistically significant" change.
> 
> The apparent rise was largely due to an increase in net migration of citizens from Bulgaria and Romania, from 44,000 to 58,000, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
> 
> Estimated EU immigration - just the number of people coming to the UK from the bloc - was 270,000, compared to 264,000 in the previous year.
> 
> They are the final official figures on the issue to be published before next month's referendum, and prompted a fresh clash between the two camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There's only one cure for dealing with sky-high EU-based immigration, which comes about thanks to the EU's open border policy ... GET SHOT OF THE EU. This is the ONE and ONLY answer.*
Click to expand...


Yes, it changes year on year depending, but it's about 50%!


----------



## Drummond

Just think. To regain 50% (or thereabouts) of, yes, actual CONTROL over our OWN borders !!! The day we manage that would surely be a day of celebration ... yes ?

Well, it could be less than a month away ! Prepare the champagne .....


----------



## Drummond

ESay said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did they come in because the UK is in the EU? Not they did not. They came in because Pakistan was part of the Empire, and the British government (without any help from the EU) let them in.
> 
> So, again, how does leaving the EU change anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Actually, the issue of immigration is absolutely illogical pretext for Brexiters to leave the EU. I have no doubts that the UK and the EU as a whole should do something with this issue. But… It is Muslims who make problems, but what do you propose? You propose to ban free access for the Poles to the UK who work hard (the vast majority of them at least) and benefit the UK’s economy. Yeah, it is very wise decision.
> 
> BTW, I have read here that the European rules thwart the UK to deport extreme islamists. But what would you do if these islamists had the UK’s citizenship?
Click to expand...


Strange though it may seem, the UK did, in its history, have a period of prosperity and stand-alone viability, BEFORE the Poles came along ! Ditto other EU migrants to our shores.

Try a Trump-like ban on Muslims specifically ... and whatever power trying it would be committing 'PC' suicide. Pressure groups, rampaging Lefties, and yes, Muslims already here, would never stand for it. We could even see riots in the streets, or worse. Ah, but ... make it a generalised issue about immigration, and the complaints about bias and bigotry don't have traction. Besides, what's wrong with enhancing our border controls to the maximum extent ??? Does it offend some PC-brainwashed Leftie out there to even think of that ??

One thing we do know ... it DOES offend the EU, that we should have, and take, such a level of control. *How dare we !!* After all, THEY want that power ... don't they ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did they come in because the UK is in the EU? Not they did not. They came in because Pakistan was part of the Empire, and the British government (without any help from the EU) let them in.
> 
> So, again, how does leaving the EU change anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Actually, the issue of immigration is absolutely illogical pretext for Brexiters to leave the EU. I have no doubts that the UK and the EU as a whole should do something with this issue. But… It is Muslims who make problems, but what do you propose? You propose to ban free access for the Poles to the UK who work hard (the vast majority of them at least) and benefit the UK’s economy. Yeah, it is very wise decision.
> 
> BTW, I have read here that the European rules thwart the UK to deport extreme islamists. But what would you do if these islamists had the UK’s citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange though it may seem, the UK did, in its history, have a period of prosperity and stand-alone viability, BEFORE the Poles came along ! Ditto other EU migrants to our shores.
> 
> Try a Trump-like ban on Muslims specifically ... and whatever power trying it would be committing 'PC' suicide. Pressure groups, rampaging Lefties, and yes, Muslims already here, would never stand for it. We could even see riots in the streets, or worse. Ah, but ... make it a generalised issue about immigration, and the complaints about bias and bigotry don't have traction. Besides, what's wrong with enhancing our border controls to the maximum extent ??? Does it offend some PC-brainwashed Leftie out there to even think of that ??
> 
> One thing we do know ... it DOES offend the EU, that we should have, and take, such a level of control. *How dare we !!* After all, THEY want that power ... don't they ?
Click to expand...


It also had a period of prosperity with the Romans, but hey...


----------



## ESay

Drummond said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did they come in because the UK is in the EU? Not they did not. They came in because Pakistan was part of the Empire, and the British government (without any help from the EU) let them in.
> 
> So, again, how does leaving the EU change anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Actually, the issue of immigration is absolutely illogical pretext for Brexiters to leave the EU. I have no doubts that the UK and the EU as a whole should do something with this issue. But… It is Muslims who make problems, but what do you propose? You propose to ban free access for the Poles to the UK who work hard (the vast majority of them at least) and benefit the UK’s economy. Yeah, it is very wise decision.
> 
> BTW, I have read here that the European rules thwart the UK to deport extreme islamists. But what would you do if these islamists had the UK’s citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange though it may seem, the UK did, in its history, have a period of prosperity and stand-alone viability, BEFORE the Poles came along ! Ditto other EU migrants to our shores.
> 
> Try a Trump-like ban on Muslims specifically ... and whatever power trying it would be committing 'PC' suicide. Pressure groups, rampaging Lefties, and yes, Muslims already here, would never stand for it. We could even see riots in the streets, or worse. Ah, but ... make it a generalised issue about immigration, and the complaints about bias and bigotry don't have traction. Besides, what's wrong with enhancing our border controls to the maximum extent ??? Does it offend some PC-brainwashed Leftie out there to even think of that ??
> 
> One thing we do know ... it DOES offend the EU, that we should have, and take, such a level of control. *How dare we !!* After all, THEY want that power ... don't they ?
Click to expand...



I want to remind you that it is not the EU’s bureaucrats but your own government let the Pakistanis move in decades ago.

What will you do with those Muslims who already have the British citizenship?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Just think. To regain 50% (or thereabouts) of, yes, actual CONTROL over our OWN borders !!! The day we manage that would surely be a day of celebration ... yes ?
> 
> Well, it could be less than a month away ! Prepare the champagne .....



Does the UK not have control over its own borders?

Come off it? The UK is not in the Schengen Agreement. 

Norway and Switzerland are. The UK could join if it left the EU.


----------



## Mindful

So THAT'S why they don't want us to leave: Brexit set to send German exporters bust


----------



## Mindful

Do the French want out?

Now French voters call for FREXIT after Germany face demands for EU referendum


----------



## Tilly

Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.

*EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
*EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*

*EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> Do the French want out?
> 
> Now French voters call for FREXIT after Germany face demands for EU referendum



Exit will be in this order:

1. UK
2. France
3. Germany


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think. To regain 50% (or thereabouts) of, yes, actual CONTROL over our OWN borders !!! The day we manage that would surely be a day of celebration ... yes ?
> 
> Well, it could be less than a month away ! Prepare the champagne .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the UK not have control over its own borders?
> 
> Come off it? The UK is not in the Schengen Agreement.
> 
> Norway and Switzerland are. The UK could join if it left the EU.
Click to expand...


Limited control, yes. Leaving the EU would substantially enhance that control, however.

Here's an example of why it matters - why the current situation is not only 'far from ideal', but actually has wide-ranging security implications ...

Britain part of group of EU countries pushing for firmer border controls over Isil threat



> *Britain and seven EU countries will push for European Union to restrict free movement rights at Europe's borders over jihadist threat, confidential document reveals.*





> Officials estimate that there are up to 3,000 "foreign fighters" who are Europeans in Syria and Iraq *who benefit from EU free movement rights *that allow them to return from conflict zones* without border checks*.



The EU's open border regime is nothing short of absolute madness. Quite apart from the 'immigration numbers' argument (highly valid in its own right), the EU's immovability over what it's pleased to call a 'foundling principle' - in defiance of sheer commonsense ! - is something that'll give us all an immense security headache for years, possibly decades, ahead.

Again -- the sooner we can get shot of these EU nutters, the better ....


----------



## Drummond

Tilly said:


> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*



This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.

It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think. To regain 50% (or thereabouts) of, yes, actual CONTROL over our OWN borders !!! The day we manage that would surely be a day of celebration ... yes ?
> 
> Well, it could be less than a month away ! Prepare the champagne .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the UK not have control over its own borders?
> 
> Come off it? The UK is not in the Schengen Agreement.
> 
> Norway and Switzerland are. The UK could join if it left the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limited control, yes. Leaving the EU would substantially enhance that control, however.
> 
> Here's an example of why it matters - why the current situation is not only 'far from ideal', but actually has wide-ranging security implications ...
> 
> Britain part of group of EU countries pushing for firmer border controls over Isil threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Britain and seven EU countries will push for European Union to restrict free movement rights at Europe's borders over jihadist threat, confidential document reveals.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials estimate that there are up to 3,000 "foreign fighters" who are Europeans in Syria and Iraq *who benefit from EU free movement rights *that allow them to return from conflict zones* without border checks*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU's open border regime is nothing short of absolute madness. Quite apart from the 'immigration numbers' argument (highly valid in its own right), the EU's immovability over what it's pleased to call a 'foundling principle' - in defiance of sheer commonsense ! - is something that'll give us all an immense security headache for years, possibly decades, ahead.
> 
> Again -- the sooner we can get shot of these EU nutters, the better ....
Click to expand...


Well it could, but doesn't mean it will increase that control. Seeing as a lot of people are still entering the UK from OUTSIDE of the EU.

Also, it causes a problem. The UK exports old people abroad, and imports workers to the UK, if that were to change, then what? A lot of people living in the UK who aren't working any more. Doesn't exactly help, does it? 

What happens if the UK government decides it has to join the Schengen Agreement? Then what?

So, the UK is pushing for tighter border controls WITHIN the EU. So why does it need to leave? Just push for tighter border controls. 

No, the EU's open border situation isn't madness. What is madness is when different countries can let in whoever they like and then move them on straight away. If the EU is going to have open borders, those borders need to be much tighter with non-EU countries.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
Click to expand...


But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this. 

So, what's this got to do with the EU?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think. To regain 50% (or thereabouts) of, yes, actual CONTROL over our OWN borders !!! The day we manage that would surely be a day of celebration ... yes ?
> 
> Well, it could be less than a month away ! Prepare the champagne .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the UK not have control over its own borders?
> 
> Come off it? The UK is not in the Schengen Agreement.
> 
> Norway and Switzerland are. The UK could join if it left the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limited control, yes. Leaving the EU would substantially enhance that control, however.
> 
> Here's an example of why it matters - why the current situation is not only 'far from ideal', but actually has wide-ranging security implications ...
> 
> Britain part of group of EU countries pushing for firmer border controls over Isil threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Britain and seven EU countries will push for European Union to restrict free movement rights at Europe's borders over jihadist threat, confidential document reveals.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials estimate that there are up to 3,000 "foreign fighters" who are Europeans in Syria and Iraq *who benefit from EU free movement rights *that allow them to return from conflict zones* without border checks*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU's open border regime is nothing short of absolute madness. Quite apart from the 'immigration numbers' argument (highly valid in its own right), the EU's immovability over what it's pleased to call a 'foundling principle' - in defiance of sheer commonsense ! - is something that'll give us all an immense security headache for years, possibly decades, ahead.
> 
> Again -- the sooner we can get shot of these EU nutters, the better ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it could, but doesn't mean it will increase that control. Seeing as a lot of people are still entering the UK from OUTSIDE of the EU.
> 
> Also, it causes a problem. The UK exports old people abroad, and imports workers to the UK, if that were to change, then what? A lot of people living in the UK who aren't working any more. Doesn't exactly help, does it?
> 
> What happens if the UK government decides it has to join the Schengen Agreement? Then what?
> 
> So, the UK is pushing for tighter border controls WITHIN the EU. So why does it need to leave? Just push for tighter border controls.
> 
> No, the EU's open border situation isn't madness. What is madness is when different countries can let in whoever they like and then move them on straight away. If the EU is going to have open borders, those borders need to be much tighter with non-EU countries.
Click to expand...


Your first point is surely disingenuous ? Yes, a lot of people are entering the UK from outside the EU, but that particular issue is as much a part of our control as we choose it to be,_ whereas_ .. in the case of EU citizens coming over here, they have a right to do so, sanctioned NOT exclusively by us, but instead by the EU - acting on its own authority, NOT ours.

Your second point is simplistic. We don't 'export' old people ... such people choose to move. We import 'workers' to the UK, but this is far from controllable by our own authorities, which is, after all, the point !! And these 'workers' ... do they take jobs that our own, UK-based people, could otherwise take on ?

How many of our own citizens are denied employment opportunities that these others take instead ?

You say 'What happens if the UK government decides it has to join the Schengen Agreement?'. *Kindly clarify.* By 'has to', are you saying we will have this dictated to us, or, be otherwise FORCED to take it on ? Surely, the central reason for getting shot of the EU is for us to gain the freedom to govern our own affairs, as WE see fit ? Are you saying that European influences will be brought to bear to *still *deny us our freedoms ?

You say 'So, the UK is pushing for tighter border controls WITHIN the EU. So why does it need to leave? Just push for tighter border controls.'

Such a 'push' would of itself guarantee ... NOTHING. Such controls would be conferred to us .. we'd have no direct means of ensuring they were brought in. The UK vote is very much a minority compared with all those other EU Member States.

Self-determination is what the Brexit side is fighting for, and stands for. Denying us this is what its opposition is all about.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
Click to expand...

You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.

This is the Brexit case.

1. We leave the EU.
2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.

What could go wrong ?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
Click to expand...


In fact, it's been our own Government's position that they'll take refuges known to originate from Syrian camps. Needless to say, this has brought them much disapproval, regardless of the fact that it's an eminently sensible approach.

But we see already how the EU reacts to powers which try to limit their 'quota' 'obligations'. Their reaction should be highly instructive .. one of a power seeking to dictate to its Member States ......


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
Click to expand...


What could go wrong, you say ? Well ... 

1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ... 

2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.

However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What could go wrong, you say ? Well ...
> 
> 1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ...
> 
> 2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.
> 
> However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.
Click to expand...

Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?

Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

This is a great example of how the Kippers do nothing apart from pick up their expenses.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think. To regain 50% (or thereabouts) of, yes, actual CONTROL over our OWN borders !!! The day we manage that would surely be a day of celebration ... yes ?
> 
> Well, it could be less than a month away ! Prepare the champagne .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the UK not have control over its own borders?
> 
> Come off it? The UK is not in the Schengen Agreement.
> 
> Norway and Switzerland are. The UK could join if it left the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limited control, yes. Leaving the EU would substantially enhance that control, however.
> 
> Here's an example of why it matters - why the current situation is not only 'far from ideal', but actually has wide-ranging security implications ...
> 
> Britain part of group of EU countries pushing for firmer border controls over Isil threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Britain and seven EU countries will push for European Union to restrict free movement rights at Europe's borders over jihadist threat, confidential document reveals.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials estimate that there are up to 3,000 "foreign fighters" who are Europeans in Syria and Iraq *who benefit from EU free movement rights *that allow them to return from conflict zones* without border checks*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU's open border regime is nothing short of absolute madness. Quite apart from the 'immigration numbers' argument (highly valid in its own right), the EU's immovability over what it's pleased to call a 'foundling principle' - in defiance of sheer commonsense ! - is something that'll give us all an immense security headache for years, possibly decades, ahead.
> 
> Again -- the sooner we can get shot of these EU nutters, the better ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it could, but doesn't mean it will increase that control. Seeing as a lot of people are still entering the UK from OUTSIDE of the EU.
> 
> Also, it causes a problem. The UK exports old people abroad, and imports workers to the UK, if that were to change, then what? A lot of people living in the UK who aren't working any more. Doesn't exactly help, does it?
> 
> What happens if the UK government decides it has to join the Schengen Agreement? Then what?
> 
> So, the UK is pushing for tighter border controls WITHIN the EU. So why does it need to leave? Just push for tighter border controls.
> 
> No, the EU's open border situation isn't madness. What is madness is when different countries can let in whoever they like and then move them on straight away. If the EU is going to have open borders, those borders need to be much tighter with non-EU countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first point is surely disingenuous ? Yes, a lot of people are entering the UK from outside the EU, but that particular issue is as much a part of our control as we choose it to be,_ whereas_ .. in the case of EU citizens coming over here, they have a right to do so, sanctioned NOT exclusively by us, but instead by the EU - acting on its own authority, NOT ours.
> 
> Your second point is simplistic. We don't 'export' old people ... such people choose to move. We import 'workers' to the UK, but this is far from controllable by our own authorities, which is, after all, the point !! And these 'workers' ... do they take jobs that our own, UK-based people, could otherwise take on ?
> 
> How many of our own citizens are denied employment opportunities that these others take instead ?
> 
> You say 'What happens if the UK government decides it has to join the Schengen Agreement?'. *Kindly clarify.* By 'has to', are you saying we will have this dictated to us, or, be otherwise FORCED to take it on ? Surely, the central reason for getting shot of the EU is for us to gain the freedom to govern our own affairs, as WE see fit ? Are you saying that European influences will be brought to bear to *still *deny us our freedoms ?
> 
> You say 'So, the UK is pushing for tighter border controls WITHIN the EU. So why does it need to leave? Just push for tighter border controls.'
> 
> Such a 'push' would of itself guarantee ... NOTHING. Such controls would be conferred to us .. we'd have no direct means of ensuring they were brought in. The UK vote is very much a minority compared with all those other EU Member States.
> 
> Self-determination is what the Brexit side is fighting for, and stands for. Denying us this is what its opposition is all about.
Click to expand...


You think I'm not being honest? 

Yes, the immigration from outside the EU is in our control, and it seems the people aren't happy with how we wield that control. And yet somehow think that by leaving the EU our problems with immigration will be solved. How? The UK govt isn't, apparently according to the Brexit people, dealing with this outside EU immigration problem, but leaving the EU will mean they will suddenly be dealing with the EU citizens better than they're dealing with the non-EU citizens.

I don't get it. 

Maybe simplistic, but I don't think I need to explain the whole thing in immense detail to you, do I?

People who are "denied employment opportunities" are generally people who haven't been trained well enough, or are too inefficient or something.

This whole issue isn't one about immigration, it's one about EDUCATION.

Now, it's funny, Sol Campbell came out and said we should leave the EU to have British kids playing more. His answer wasn't "let's train British kids properly like the Germans and Spanish do", no, it was "let's leave the EU and somehow these kids will play better because.... because.... the competition they're up against will be weakened and they won't be better trained." Do you see the logic in that argument? Same with the employment situation in general. If a Pole can go to the UK and get a job, earn less money and do a better job, then you have to ask what the hell the problem is with British workers.

The clarification for joining the Schengen Agreement is this.

Firstly, the Brexit people used to say "we could have the Norway option", that was their massively amazing way of saying "we have no fucking clue", but Norway is in the Schengen Agreement. 

Secondly, the Brexit people have suggested that trade won't be diminished because we'll just pull some amazing special deal out of our arse. The reality is, if you listen to businessmen like Alan Sugar who has spent a lot of time dealing with EU trade, if you want better trade (which means more money for British businesses) is to have easy access. This easy access, as the Swiss and the Norwegians will tell you, can come from the Schengen Agreement.

Thirdly, the govt in charge of the UK is the Tory Party, Cameron would be open to joining the Schengen Agreement, the Labour Party would be absolutely in favor of joining. This whole argument of "get the country back" is ridiculous, seeing as the UK people have voted for a pro-EU government for the last, I don't know, four decades or more.

Fourthly, would it be forced on the UK? Forced no, but it might be a choice between poor trade possibilities and joining the Schengen Zone. How much are the UK people willing to lose from leaving the EU? 

What freedoms are the British people being denied by being in the EU? This sounds like a silly argument that no one will ever back up, but people will support it because they want to believe they have lost freedoms. I've lived in countries with less freedoms, I know what it's like. I've been to countries with even less freedoms than that. 

What freedoms will the British people suddenly get from leaving the EU?

No, pushing for something would guarantee nothing. Leaving the EU would also guarantee NOTHING. Why? Because you still have the govt in charge of the country, and they might just decide to do deals with the EU (which surrounds the UK) in order to have better trade. 

Self-determination is NOT what Brexit is all about.

Brexit is all about "hope". Too many people without hope thinking leaving the EU will somehow take their miserable lives and make them better. It won't .


----------



## Tommy Tainant

9 out of 10 economists say - 

Economists overwhelmingly reject Brexit in boost for Cameron

No shock there.


----------



## alpine

Tommy Tainant said:


> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.




I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

alpine said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
Click to expand...

Its been bubbling along for years in the Tory party. They hate foreigners and dream of days of Empire.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What could go wrong, you say ? Well ...
> 
> 1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ...
> 
> 2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.
> 
> However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.
Click to expand...


Ah, the race card again ... Lefties keep trotting that one out, don't they ?

Show me any example of where I've so much as hinted that I want 'foreigners kicked out'. That, Tommy, is your invention.

I suppose I do talk as though the EU is 'some superstate', as you put it. A mite premature of me, to be sure ... but it's only a matter of timing, of progress made towards that end. The EU has* its own Parliament. *Its* own currency.* Its *own lawmaking machinery*, which Member States are expected to incorporate within their own systems. If the EU doesn't yet qualify as a 'superstate', it's definitely created the infrastructure to permit it to become one.

They've even talked of creating an EU army ... !!

Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army



> The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.



As for the intended path, the fate, of the EU ... the same individual .. the President of the European Commission, no less !! .. has this to declare !! ...

Falling into a European superstate



> In a scarcely-veiled reference to David Cameron, Juncker said,* “Prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as full-time Europeans. Elected leaders are making life difficult because they spend too much time kowtowing to public opinion rather than working on historic projects like the Euro.”*



.. yes. How DARE our Prime Minister listen to the will of his own people. The EU's* own* interests, according to Juncker, MUST override them !!

Another quote ...



> The declared aim of the European project was from the start, back in the 1940s, the dissolving of national identities and the creation of a superstate. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April, 1952: *“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. *This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, *but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”*


----------



## Drummond

alpine said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
Click to expand...


I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
Click to expand...

They act as a retirement home for bigots. And folk too extreme for the tories. They can pack their bags and fuck  off in a couple of weeks.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What could go wrong, you say ? Well ...
> 
> 1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ...
> 
> 2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.
> 
> However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the race card again ... Lefties keep trotting that one out, don't they ?
> 
> Show me any example of where I've so much as hinted that I want 'foreigners kicked out'. That, Tommy, is your invention.
> 
> I suppose I do talk as though the EU is 'some superstate', as you put it. A mite premature of me, to be sure ... but it's only a matter of timing, of progress made towards that end. The EU has* its own Parliament. *Its* own currency.* Its *own lawmaking machinery*, which Member States are expected to incorporate within their own systems. If the EU doesn't yet qualify as a 'superstate', it's definitely created the infrastructure to permit it to become one.
> 
> They've even talked of creating an EU army ... !!
> 
> Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the intended path, the fate, of the EU ... the same individual .. the President of the European Commission, no less !! .. has this to declare !! ...
> 
> Falling into a European superstate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a scarcely-veiled reference to David Cameron, Juncker said,* “Prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as full-time Europeans. Elected leaders are making life difficult because they spend too much time kowtowing to public opinion rather than working on historic projects like the Euro.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. yes. How DARE our Prime Minister listen to the will of his own people. The EU's* own* interests, according to Juncker, MUST override them !!
> 
> Another quote ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The declared aim of the European project was from the start, back in the 1940s, the dissolving of national identities and the creation of a superstate. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April, 1952: *“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. *This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, *but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The thing is, the EU will become a super state much quicker without the UK, the UK is probably the only one capable of joining forces together to stop it happening. The UK out of the EU as a superstate is probably WORSE than what exists right now.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
Click to expand...


Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
Click to expand...


This has been the problem. The Brexit people have come out with their emotional nonsense, and the stay side have caved in to the emotional side, instead of hammering the facts.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> This is a great example of how the Kippers do nothing apart from pick up their expenses.



This is exactly right. UKIP moan and complain. They never actually do anything to solve any problems. I mean, they went into the last GE with 2 seats and lost one of them. People can see what UKIP are about in the main.


----------



## alpine

Tommy Tainant said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its been bubbling along for years in the Tory party. They hate foreigners and dream of days of Empire.
Click to expand...



Nobody told em the "emprire" now belongs to the Americans?


----------



## HenryBHough

alpine said:


> Nobody told em the "emprire" now belongs to the Americans?



Oh, it doesn't.

Many assume so because the "leader" thinks of Himself as Emperor but that's all between Him and His mirror.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They act as a retirement home for bigots. And folk too extreme for the tories. They can pack their bags and fuck  off in a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...


 ... because you say so ?

Not exactly tolerant of others' views, are you ? Perhaps you stipulate 'a couple of weeks' in the forlorn hope that, somehow, their case wouldn't be expressed, in that crucial run-up time to the Referendum ?? 

Oh dear ... I feel your pain ....


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been the problem. The Brexit people have come out with their emotional nonsense, and the stay side have caved in to the emotional side, instead of hammering the facts.
Click to expand...


Wanting autonomy, wanting the freedom to self-govern, isn't 'emotional nonsense'. Any more than it was 'emotional nonsense' for conquered countries to want to be free of Hitler's Reich ...


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> 
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What could go wrong, you say ? Well ...
> 
> 1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ...
> 
> 2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.
> 
> However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the race card again ... Lefties keep trotting that one out, don't they ?
> 
> Show me any example of where I've so much as hinted that I want 'foreigners kicked out'. That, Tommy, is your invention.
> 
> I suppose I do talk as though the EU is 'some superstate', as you put it. A mite premature of me, to be sure ... but it's only a matter of timing, of progress made towards that end. The EU has* its own Parliament. *Its* own currency.* Its *own lawmaking machinery*, which Member States are expected to incorporate within their own systems. If the EU doesn't yet qualify as a 'superstate', it's definitely created the infrastructure to permit it to become one.
> 
> They've even talked of creating an EU army ... !!
> 
> Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the intended path, the fate, of the EU ... the same individual .. the President of the European Commission, no less !! .. has this to declare !! ...
> 
> Falling into a European superstate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a scarcely-veiled reference to David Cameron, Juncker said,* “Prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as full-time Europeans. Elected leaders are making life difficult because they spend too much time kowtowing to public opinion rather than working on historic projects like the Euro.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. yes. How DARE our Prime Minister listen to the will of his own people. The EU's* own* interests, according to Juncker, MUST override them !!
> 
> Another quote ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The declared aim of the European project was from the start, back in the 1940s, the dissolving of national identities and the creation of a superstate. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April, 1952: *“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. *This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, *but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the EU will become a super state much quicker without the UK, the UK is probably the only one capable of joining forces together to stop it happening. The UK out of the EU as a superstate is probably WORSE than what exists right now.
Click to expand...


The logic of your case seems to be that we should stay in the EU in order to see to it that the EU becoming a Superstate happens to take longer to reach fruition. Regardless of the exact timetable, that direction IS the one intended, IS the one the EU is determined to see implemented. The one and only big question is ... *do we, or do we NOT, want to be overtaken, ruled, by such a Superstate AT ALL.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooerrrrrrr. Not really a sensible threat to issue right now.
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> *EASTERN European countries who refuse to take in refugees face losing billions of pounds in European Union (EU) funding, a top Eurocrat has warned.*
> 
> *EU's latest THREAT: Do as we say over migrant quotas or you’ll lose your funding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been the problem. The Brexit people have come out with their emotional nonsense, and the stay side have caved in to the emotional side, instead of hammering the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanting autonomy, wanting the freedom to self-govern, isn't 'emotional nonsense'. Any more than it was 'emotional nonsense' for conquered countries to want to be free of Hitler's Reich ...
Click to expand...


Well it is. 

Here's why. 

The government is still going to be run by either the Tories or Labour. Many laws are going to be enacted that people don't like. 

The EU is actually Democratic. 

The European Commission, for example, the executive, is appointed by the member countries. Each country gets to put one person into the European commission. Johnathan Hill is the commissioner from the UK, he's a Tory, Catherine Ashton was the commissioner before, and she was Labour. (Doesn't always work like that, Chris Patton, a Tory was commissioner during a Labour govt). 

Cameron nominated Hill for the position of commissioner. 

The funny thing here is that in 2014 when he was nominated, Cameron, as PM, wasn't there with a majority of votes or a majority of seats. With 36.1% of the votes, he was basically controlling the UK. Democratic? Well, it depends on how you look at it. But then again whatever you have there, you have the Tories putting a guy into the European Commission. 

How democratic is it for the commission to be made up of people appointed by the democratically elected leaders of their country? 

The EU parliament is direct democracy. 

So, it's all based around the people voting.

The difference is the UK parliament is elected by the people of the UK, the EU parliament by the people of the EU. 

You see a difference. I don't. Someone votes and they don't get their choice, does it matter if their choice doesn't get in in the UK or the EU? Not much. 

Then you have, for example, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. 

Scotland overwhelmingly voted SNP at the 2015 General Election, they got 1.4 million votes, that was 50% of the votes in Scotland, and they got what? A Tory majority government. 

Wales got 25 Labour MPs, 11 Tory MPs out of 40 MPs, overwhelmingly Labour, and they got a Tory majority government.

Northern Ireland. Zero Labour, zero Tory, zero UKIP, zero Liberal Democrats, and they ended up with a Tory majority government. 

Do you think any of these parts of the UK have any reason to feel that they will get "freedom to self govern" as you out it, from the UK general elections? No. 

So again, is it emotional? Yes. 

The English want to control the UK, but they see the EU in control of others so they don't want to be a part of it. They see Scotland and don't want independence, they see England and they want "independence".


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could go wrong, you say ? Well ...
> 
> 1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ...
> 
> 2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.
> 
> However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the race card again ... Lefties keep trotting that one out, don't they ?
> 
> Show me any example of where I've so much as hinted that I want 'foreigners kicked out'. That, Tommy, is your invention.
> 
> I suppose I do talk as though the EU is 'some superstate', as you put it. A mite premature of me, to be sure ... but it's only a matter of timing, of progress made towards that end. The EU has* its own Parliament. *Its* own currency.* Its *own lawmaking machinery*, which Member States are expected to incorporate within their own systems. If the EU doesn't yet qualify as a 'superstate', it's definitely created the infrastructure to permit it to become one.
> 
> They've even talked of creating an EU army ... !!
> 
> Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the intended path, the fate, of the EU ... the same individual .. the President of the European Commission, no less !! .. has this to declare !! ...
> 
> Falling into a European superstate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a scarcely-veiled reference to David Cameron, Juncker said,* “Prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as full-time Europeans. Elected leaders are making life difficult because they spend too much time kowtowing to public opinion rather than working on historic projects like the Euro.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. yes. How DARE our Prime Minister listen to the will of his own people. The EU's* own* interests, according to Juncker, MUST override them !!
> 
> Another quote ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The declared aim of the European project was from the start, back in the 1940s, the dissolving of national identities and the creation of a superstate. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April, 1952: *“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. *This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, *but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the EU will become a super state much quicker without the UK, the UK is probably the only one capable of joining forces together to stop it happening. The UK out of the EU as a superstate is probably WORSE than what exists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logic of your case seems to be that we should stay in the EU in order to see to it that the EU becoming a Superstate happens to take longer to reach fruition. Regardless of the exact timetable, that direction IS the one intended, IS the one the EU is determined to see implemented. The one and only big question is ... *do we, or do we NOT, want to be overtaken, ruled, by such a Superstate AT ALL.*
Click to expand...


No, that's not really my logic at all.

My logic is far more complex than that.

Firstly. If the EU becomes a Superstate, which I hope it does not, then the UK is better off in it, and being able to dictate things within it than outside of it and having to do what the superstate says anyway. 

Secondly, if the UK is in the EU, it can help to prevent a superstate. If the UK is outside, there's nothing to stop an EU superstate. 

Thirdly, if the UK put as much effort into making the EU what it wants, as it does trying to leave the EU, then it might get somewhere. 

What does UKIP do, exactly? It moans, complains, nothing else. It doesn't try and solve the problems, shape the EU into it's view of what the EU should be. Why? Because UKIP is a simplistic nationalistic party. It gets votes by talking about Churchill and the Battle of Britain, not by actually talking about things that are relevant.

It's using immigration as the biggest reason to pull out of the EU, even though the immigration that is annoying people isn't the immigration that would be changed from leaving the EU. I call that, at best, dishonest. All of their arguments are simplistic. When people ask what will happen after, they do what Helmut Kohl did in 1990. 

You know history repeats itself, and this is a case that this could happen. Helmut Kohl told the unified German people that everything would be great and amazing. The SPD (Liberals) said it would be a hard road to prosperity as a unified country. The people wanted the nice view. So they voted for Kohl and his nice view. What they got was the hard road, and they weren't prepared for it.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
Click to expand...


And what is your 'reality' ?

Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.

Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.

Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What could go wrong, you say ? Well ...
> 
> 1. The Brexit case could fail, and we remain within the EU, resigned to perpetual dictatorship from a foreign power ...
> 
> 2. If we do leave, the true nature of the Brexit opposition becomes apparent. Tariffs are insisted upon, regardless - and we see just how dictatorial and actually spiteful, the Brexit opposition has _always_ been.
> 
> However, at least if we do leave, our own people will have sufficient freedom to choose to accept those tariffs, or to not do so. We will be free, as we are NOT right now, to seek other trade agreements with other nations .. and to get them.
> 
> 
> 
> Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the race card again ... Lefties keep trotting that one out, don't they ?
> 
> Show me any example of where I've so much as hinted that I want 'foreigners kicked out'. That, Tommy, is your invention.
> 
> I suppose I do talk as though the EU is 'some superstate', as you put it. A mite premature of me, to be sure ... but it's only a matter of timing, of progress made towards that end. The EU has* its own Parliament. *Its* own currency.* Its *own lawmaking machinery*, which Member States are expected to incorporate within their own systems. If the EU doesn't yet qualify as a 'superstate', it's definitely created the infrastructure to permit it to become one.
> 
> They've even talked of creating an EU army ... !!
> 
> Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the intended path, the fate, of the EU ... the same individual .. the President of the European Commission, no less !! .. has this to declare !! ...
> 
> Falling into a European superstate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a scarcely-veiled reference to David Cameron, Juncker said,* “Prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as full-time Europeans. Elected leaders are making life difficult because they spend too much time kowtowing to public opinion rather than working on historic projects like the Euro.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. yes. How DARE our Prime Minister listen to the will of his own people. The EU's* own* interests, according to Juncker, MUST override them !!
> 
> Another quote ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The declared aim of the European project was from the start, back in the 1940s, the dissolving of national identities and the creation of a superstate. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April, 1952: *“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. *This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, *but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the EU will become a super state much quicker without the UK, the UK is probably the only one capable of joining forces together to stop it happening. The UK out of the EU as a superstate is probably WORSE than what exists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logic of your case seems to be that we should stay in the EU in order to see to it that the EU becoming a Superstate happens to take longer to reach fruition. Regardless of the exact timetable, that direction IS the one intended, IS the one the EU is determined to see implemented. The one and only big question is ... *do we, or do we NOT, want to be overtaken, ruled, by such a Superstate AT ALL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not really my logic at all.
> 
> My logic is far more complex than that.
> 
> Firstly. If the EU becomes a Superstate, which I hope it does not, then the UK is better off in it, and being able to dictate things within it than outside of it and having to do what the superstate says anyway.
> 
> Secondly, if the UK is in the EU, it can help to prevent a superstate. If the UK is outside, there's nothing to stop an EU superstate.
> 
> Thirdly, if the UK put as much effort into making the EU what it wants, as it does trying to leave the EU, then it might get somewhere.
> 
> What does UKIP do, exactly? It moans, complains, nothing else. It doesn't try and solve the problems, shape the EU into it's view of what the EU should be. Why? Because UKIP is a simplistic nationalistic party. It gets votes by talking about Churchill and the Battle of Britain, not by actually talking about things that are relevant.
> 
> It's using immigration as the biggest reason to pull out of the EU, even though the immigration that is annoying people isn't the immigration that would be changed from leaving the EU. I call that, at best, dishonest. All of their arguments are simplistic. When people ask what will happen after, they do what Helmut Kohl did in 1990.
> 
> You know history repeats itself, and this is a case that this could happen. Helmut Kohl told the unified German people that everything would be great and amazing. The SPD (Liberals) said it would be a hard road to prosperity as a unified country. The people wanted the nice view. So they voted for Kohl and his nice view. What they got was the hard road, and they weren't prepared for it.
Click to expand...


The EU's purpose from the outset was, and is, to become a Superstate. We have no power to prevent that ambition of theirs. 

The question is, do we want to have our autonomy as a Nation State preserved, our freedoms ditto ... or to have them crushed, over time ? I've posted all the evidence you need as to the real aims and purpose of the EU. On 23rd June, we can choose freedom, or the EU's long-term political conquest of us.

For myself ... *I choose our freedom. *As do many other Brits. As does UKIP.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, concerns 'refugees' who can't possibly have been adequately checked out beforehand. The sheer numbers involved argues for that ... as does the war-torn conditions of the region they've come from.
> 
> It seems that the EU has far less concern for its members' security concerns, and far more for dictating 'PC' imperatives of its own invention. An example of sheer power-dictatorship overriding the fundamental interests of individual nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been the problem. The Brexit people have come out with their emotional nonsense, and the stay side have caved in to the emotional side, instead of hammering the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanting autonomy, wanting the freedom to self-govern, isn't 'emotional nonsense'. Any more than it was 'emotional nonsense' for conquered countries to want to be free of Hitler's Reich ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is.
> 
> Here's why.
> 
> The government is still going to be run by either the Tories or Labour. Many laws are going to be enacted that people don't like.
> 
> The EU is actually Democratic.
> 
> The European Commission, for example, the executive, is appointed by the member countries. Each country gets to put one person into the European commission. Johnathan Hill is the commissioner from the UK, he's a Tory, Catherine Ashton was the commissioner before, and she was Labour. (Doesn't always work like that, Chris Patton, a Tory was commissioner during a Labour govt).
> 
> Cameron nominated Hill for the position of commissioner.
> 
> The funny thing here is that in 2014 when he was nominated, Cameron, as PM, wasn't there with a majority of votes or a majority of seats. With 36.1% of the votes, he was basically controlling the UK. Democratic? Well, it depends on how you look at it. But then again whatever you have there, you have the Tories putting a guy into the European Commission.
> 
> How democratic is it for the commission to be made up of people appointed by the democratically elected leaders of their country?
> 
> The EU parliament is direct democracy.
> 
> So, it's all based around the people voting.
> 
> The difference is the UK parliament is elected by the people of the UK, the EU parliament by the people of the EU.
> 
> You see a difference. I don't. Someone votes and they don't get their choice, does it matter if their choice doesn't get in in the UK or the EU? Not much.
> 
> Then you have, for example, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
> 
> Scotland overwhelmingly voted SNP at the 2015 General Election, they got 1.4 million votes, that was 50% of the votes in Scotland, and they got what? A Tory majority government.
> 
> Wales got 25 Labour MPs, 11 Tory MPs out of 40 MPs, overwhelmingly Labour, and they got a Tory majority government.
> 
> Northern Ireland. Zero Labour, zero Tory, zero UKIP, zero Liberal Democrats, and they ended up with a Tory majority government.
> 
> Do you think any of these parts of the UK have any reason to feel that they will get "freedom to self govern" as you out it, from the UK general elections? No.
> 
> So again, is it emotional? Yes.
> 
> The English want to control the UK, but they see the EU in control of others so they don't want to be a part of it. They see Scotland and don't want independence, they see England and they want "independence".
Click to expand...


The flaw in your argument is this: you argue that England exercises political power over the rest of the UK, and this you evidently believe is open to much criticism. YET ... you also argue for us to be committed to the EU, which will do to the UK 'the same' as you say England is doing to other countries within the UK. 

You're fine with EU dominance (a foreign power, after all ..) ... over us all. You're apparently not fine with what you see as English dominance over others in the UK. What's wrong with this picture ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
Click to expand...


My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations. 

The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.

HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.

What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests. 

The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.

Britain is a can't do country, or what?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emotional twaddle. You talk as if the EU is some superstate. It isnt. Every country in the EU has different laws and taxation systems. Every country in the UK has different laws. What more do you want ?
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot. You just want to kick out the foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the race card again ... Lefties keep trotting that one out, don't they ?
> 
> Show me any example of where I've so much as hinted that I want 'foreigners kicked out'. That, Tommy, is your invention.
> 
> I suppose I do talk as though the EU is 'some superstate', as you put it. A mite premature of me, to be sure ... but it's only a matter of timing, of progress made towards that end. The EU has* its own Parliament. *Its* own currency.* Its *own lawmaking machinery*, which Member States are expected to incorporate within their own systems. If the EU doesn't yet qualify as a 'superstate', it's definitely created the infrastructure to permit it to become one.
> 
> They've even talked of creating an EU army ... !!
> 
> Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the intended path, the fate, of the EU ... the same individual .. the President of the European Commission, no less !! .. has this to declare !! ...
> 
> Falling into a European superstate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a scarcely-veiled reference to David Cameron, Juncker said,* “Prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as full-time Europeans. Elected leaders are making life difficult because they spend too much time kowtowing to public opinion rather than working on historic projects like the Euro.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. yes. How DARE our Prime Minister listen to the will of his own people. The EU's* own* interests, according to Juncker, MUST override them !!
> 
> Another quote ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The declared aim of the European project was from the start, back in the 1940s, the dissolving of national identities and the creation of a superstate. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April, 1952: *“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. *This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, *but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the EU will become a super state much quicker without the UK, the UK is probably the only one capable of joining forces together to stop it happening. The UK out of the EU as a superstate is probably WORSE than what exists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logic of your case seems to be that we should stay in the EU in order to see to it that the EU becoming a Superstate happens to take longer to reach fruition. Regardless of the exact timetable, that direction IS the one intended, IS the one the EU is determined to see implemented. The one and only big question is ... *do we, or do we NOT, want to be overtaken, ruled, by such a Superstate AT ALL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not really my logic at all.
> 
> My logic is far more complex than that.
> 
> Firstly. If the EU becomes a Superstate, which I hope it does not, then the UK is better off in it, and being able to dictate things within it than outside of it and having to do what the superstate says anyway.
> 
> Secondly, if the UK is in the EU, it can help to prevent a superstate. If the UK is outside, there's nothing to stop an EU superstate.
> 
> Thirdly, if the UK put as much effort into making the EU what it wants, as it does trying to leave the EU, then it might get somewhere.
> 
> What does UKIP do, exactly? It moans, complains, nothing else. It doesn't try and solve the problems, shape the EU into it's view of what the EU should be. Why? Because UKIP is a simplistic nationalistic party. It gets votes by talking about Churchill and the Battle of Britain, not by actually talking about things that are relevant.
> 
> It's using immigration as the biggest reason to pull out of the EU, even though the immigration that is annoying people isn't the immigration that would be changed from leaving the EU. I call that, at best, dishonest. All of their arguments are simplistic. When people ask what will happen after, they do what Helmut Kohl did in 1990.
> 
> You know history repeats itself, and this is a case that this could happen. Helmut Kohl told the unified German people that everything would be great and amazing. The SPD (Liberals) said it would be a hard road to prosperity as a unified country. The people wanted the nice view. So they voted for Kohl and his nice view. What they got was the hard road, and they weren't prepared for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU's purpose from the outset was, and is, to become a Superstate. We have no power to prevent that ambition of theirs.
> 
> The question is, do we want to have our autonomy as a Nation State preserved, our freedoms ditto ... or to have them crushed, over time ? I've posted all the evidence you need as to the real aims and purpose of the EU. On 23rd June, we can choose freedom, or the EU's long-term political conquest of us.
> 
> For myself ... *I choose our freedom. *As do many other Brits. As does UKIP.
Click to expand...


No, it's purpose from the start wasn't to be a superstate. However yes, there are groups within the EU who would like a European superstate. That doesn't mean everyone's happy with that, and doesn't mean the UK couldn't group together with others to prevent that happening. 

You keep using words like "autonomy" like it somehow makes a difference to your life. Canada is autonomous, and yet is forced to do so many things by the US, why? Because it's its only neighbor, and doesn't have much choice. 

If the UK wants FREEDOM and AUTONOMY, and by this I mean real freedom and autonomy, then the British people are going to have to stand up and be counted, rather than moaning, whinging, crying, and playing the victim. 

Because if the EU is a superstate, then the UK is going to be forced to play by the EU's rules, and they aren't going to have a say in those rules. That's a simple fact. 

50% of trade goes to the EU, that's a lot of trade, a lot of money, a lot of ability to stifle the UK and UK business. I've been in countries surrounded by its neighbor, and had problems with this.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the UK didn't have to let in refugees. It did, and it was the UK GOVERNMENT that decided this.
> 
> So, what's this got to do with the EU?
> 
> 
> 
> You are applying common sense to an emotional argument. The two arent going to mix.
> 
> This is the Brexit case.
> 
> 1. We leave the EU.
> 2. We kick out everybody we dont want here and close our borders.
> 3. Nobody takes reciprocal action because.......we are British.
> 4. We set up new trade agreements with the EU on as good terms as we had when we were in it - with no downside.
> We wont have to pay tarrifs,we wont have to agree to join Schengen and we definately wont have to let in any bloody foreigners...........becasue we are British.
> 5. Meanwhile our wily British businessmen are exploiting new markets that have never existed before to make up a supposed shortfall in exports that wont exist anyway because we are................British.
> 
> What could go wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been the problem. The Brexit people have come out with their emotional nonsense, and the stay side have caved in to the emotional side, instead of hammering the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanting autonomy, wanting the freedom to self-govern, isn't 'emotional nonsense'. Any more than it was 'emotional nonsense' for conquered countries to want to be free of Hitler's Reich ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is.
> 
> Here's why.
> 
> The government is still going to be run by either the Tories or Labour. Many laws are going to be enacted that people don't like.
> 
> The EU is actually Democratic.
> 
> The European Commission, for example, the executive, is appointed by the member countries. Each country gets to put one person into the European commission. Johnathan Hill is the commissioner from the UK, he's a Tory, Catherine Ashton was the commissioner before, and she was Labour. (Doesn't always work like that, Chris Patton, a Tory was commissioner during a Labour govt).
> 
> Cameron nominated Hill for the position of commissioner.
> 
> The funny thing here is that in 2014 when he was nominated, Cameron, as PM, wasn't there with a majority of votes or a majority of seats. With 36.1% of the votes, he was basically controlling the UK. Democratic? Well, it depends on how you look at it. But then again whatever you have there, you have the Tories putting a guy into the European Commission.
> 
> How democratic is it for the commission to be made up of people appointed by the democratically elected leaders of their country?
> 
> The EU parliament is direct democracy.
> 
> So, it's all based around the people voting.
> 
> The difference is the UK parliament is elected by the people of the UK, the EU parliament by the people of the EU.
> 
> You see a difference. I don't. Someone votes and they don't get their choice, does it matter if their choice doesn't get in in the UK or the EU? Not much.
> 
> Then you have, for example, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
> 
> Scotland overwhelmingly voted SNP at the 2015 General Election, they got 1.4 million votes, that was 50% of the votes in Scotland, and they got what? A Tory majority government.
> 
> Wales got 25 Labour MPs, 11 Tory MPs out of 40 MPs, overwhelmingly Labour, and they got a Tory majority government.
> 
> Northern Ireland. Zero Labour, zero Tory, zero UKIP, zero Liberal Democrats, and they ended up with a Tory majority government.
> 
> Do you think any of these parts of the UK have any reason to feel that they will get "freedom to self govern" as you out it, from the UK general elections? No.
> 
> So again, is it emotional? Yes.
> 
> The English want to control the UK, but they see the EU in control of others so they don't want to be a part of it. They see Scotland and don't want independence, they see England and they want "independence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flaw in your argument is this: you argue that England exercises political power over the rest of the UK, and this you evidently believe is open to much criticism. YET ... you also argue for us to be committed to the EU, which will do to the UK 'the same' as you say England is doing to other countries within the UK.
> 
> You're fine with EU dominance (a foreign power, after all ..) ... over us all. You're apparently not fine with what you see as English dominance over others in the UK. What's wrong with this picture ?
Click to expand...


What's wrong with this is that I didn't say what you're tried to sum up. 

What I've done is pointed this out. That the Brexit people are mainly pro-stay together because we're stronger together when it comes to the Scottish referendum. 

I'm not saying staying in the EU is great. I'm saying it's 49% to 51% kind of thing. I understand what people would want to leave. However I also believe that many people don't understand the implications of leaving. The Brexit side is coming up with lots of nationalistic stuff, they used the opposite arguments in the Scottish referendum, and now turn about face and say the contrary. 

Says a lot about those people who are looking to leave. How many of them know the facts? Probably they don't care.


----------



## 8236

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm voting to stay in, but I've always been an "internationalist/federalist" and having travelled throughout most of Europe, I like the idea of a single currency and no border controls within the E.U. I don't mind surrendering national sovereignty so long as I can vote for whoever represents my views and aspirations in an effective Europe-wide government. I agree however the E.U. as it stands needs a major reform of it's institutions and some of it's policies.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is where most sensible people are. Staying in will also protect jobs and should lead to greater investment as the uncertainty clears. It will also protect our human rights from politicians who cannot be trusted. Sick pay,holiday pay, minimum wages ,all under threat.
> Why take the risk ?
Click to expand...

I know one thing. I we held a referendum tomorrow to terminate all discussion on the subject of Brexit it would win with >90% positive. I seriously pity Americans having to put up with a year's worth of TV BS political propaganda come every election. Oh, actually, it's worse. Mid-term elections, police chief elections, mayoral elections. It would be enough to make you go out and shoot someone... Oh, Lol that's already a pastime in America.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
Click to expand...


But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !! 

And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours. 

Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.

How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !! 

We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.

You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.

Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!


----------



## 8236

Why the hell are a bunch of Brits holding a rantfest about the EU/Brexit on a website dedicated to discussing America's issues?


----------



## Tilly

8236 said:


> Why the hell are a bunch of Brits holding a rantfest about the EU/Brexit on a website dedicated to discussing America's issues?


This forum is entitled 'Europe'.


----------



## 8236

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
Click to expand...

Have you got nothing better to do? Nobody cares!


----------



## 8236

Tilly said:


> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are a bunch of Brits holding a rantfest about the EU/Brexit on a website dedicated to discussing America's issues?
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is entitled 'Europe'.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would, under the guise of 'USmessageboard', mean issues in Europe pertaining to the US? (i.e. There are similar UK message boards where UK topics could be discussed)


----------



## Tilly

8236 said:


> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are a bunch of Brits holding a rantfest about the EU/Brexit on a website dedicated to discussing America's issues?
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is entitled 'Europe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that would, under the guise of 'USmessageboard', mean issues in Europe pertaining to the US? (i.e. There are similar UK message boards where UK topics could be discussed)
Click to expand...

Well I haven't found any. But anyway, there are quite a few American posters who are interested in Europe. You don't have to read/post here if you're not one of them.


----------



## HenryBHough

There are enough submissive people living in Britain these days that voting to wear the Franco/German yoke has great appeal.  For them it's a fashion statement and that's all that's important.

Right, tainted Tommy?


----------



## 8236

Tilly said:


> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are a bunch of Brits holding a rantfest about the EU/Brexit on a website dedicated to discussing America's issues?
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is entitled 'Europe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that would, under the guise of 'USmessageboard', mean issues in Europe pertaining to the US? (i.e. There are similar UK message boards where UK topics could be discussed)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I haven't found any. But anyway, there are quite a few American posters who are interested in Europe. You don't have to read/post here if you're not one of them.
Click to expand...

Lol, well there used to be a uk message board like this one. Maybe it was taken down because of lack of interest.


----------



## 8236

HenryBHough said:


> There are enough submissive people living in Britain these days that voting to wear the Franco/German yoke has great appeal.  For them it's a fashion statement and that's all that's important.
> 
> Right, tainted Tommy?


I think I can invert your statement and say exactly the opposite.


----------



## Tilly

8236 said:


> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are a bunch of Brits holding a rantfest about the EU/Brexit on a website dedicated to discussing America's issues?
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is entitled 'Europe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that would, under the guise of 'USmessageboard', mean issues in Europe pertaining to the US? (i.e. There are similar UK message boards where UK topics could be discussed)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I haven't found any. But anyway, there are quite a few American posters who are interested in Europe. You don't have to read/post here if you're not one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, well there used to be a uk message board like this one. Maybe it was taken down because of lack of interest.
Click to expand...

There are some around but they are dead in comparison to this.


----------



## montelatici

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
Click to expand...


The Treaty of Rome was more than a mere trading pact.  The first principle stated:

*"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

*It was the mistake of giving in to British requests and pleading to join that put the founding principle off track.  With the British out (possibly just the English and maybe the Northern Irish until Catholics become the majority) the EU can resume its road to an ever closer union.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am doubtful if Brexit was ever real, or was a stunt to grab more capitulations from the Germans...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
Click to expand...


The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something. 

The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body. 

Again, the UK is a can't do country. 

So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen. 

Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.

Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead

"The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."

"The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."

Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
Click to expand...


The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that. 

With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity. 

As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.

'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???

Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Airbus will have to transfer wing production, currently in the UK, to an EU state to avoid customs duties when they transport them to Toulon.








 WHO SAID SO ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.
Click to expand...






 That would be you tainted, as you are the last of the neo Marxists clinging to the fantasy world


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I think I know who you are responding to.  I put him on ignore long ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He definitely necessitates an apology for English education system
> 
> (Just a joke)
Click to expand...







 How would you know having wasted yours ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He acts as a virtual stress ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Phoenail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> He is a strange one. I dont think he is a bog standard racist. I really believe that he lives in a world of his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He definitely necessitates an apology for English education system
> 
> (Just a joke)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is....................before the internet there were idiots like him in every village in the country. In the corner of the pub,purple faced and mumbling into their half of warm bitter. Everyone gave him a swerve and life went on. Now he has a platform to spread his nonsense. It cant be good for him or society as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ... you mean, like peddling Leftieism .. ??
Click to expand...






 He portrayed himself perfectly, and for his next trick he will claim he has lots of friends. When the reality is that most people tolerate him just, and would rather he did not exist


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
Click to expand...







 The European nations have banded together to create a voting bloc that can make or break other nations, they all have the same interests and aims. Being socialists they tend to freeze out the right wing nations, and don't inform them of impending changes of policy. So the nations in the loop or club can bring about changes in their laws before the laws are passed and have them not apply to their nations. Look at the recent history of laws altered in France and Germany that make the E.U. changes not workable there.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Rome was more than a mere trading pact.  The first principle stated:
> 
> *"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"
> *
> It was the mistake of giving in to British requests and pleading to join that put the founding principle off track.  With the British out (possibly just the English and maybe the Northern Irish until Catholics become the majority) the EU can resume its road to an ever closer union.
Click to expand...







 And mass murder another 12 million innocents like you did in the 1930's


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you that UKIP does exist. And that they carry support for their aims and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
Click to expand...







 And before the thought of an exit campaign was ever mentioned the Pound fluctuated just as much. PROVING NOTHING


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
Click to expand...


What "new trading ties"????

The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?

Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU? 

I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear. 

Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen. 

No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News

Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry." 

So, both sides will say their piece. 

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

"If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."

Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?" 

HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data

"Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."

"EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."

So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money. 

For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports. 

UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year. 

Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them. 

The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages. 

Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And before the thought of an exit campaign was ever mentioned the Pound fluctuated just as much. PROVING NOTHING
Click to expand...


I didn't say the pound doesn't fluctuate. I'm not sure where you're going with this argument. 

My argument is that the pound ROSE when they said stay was ahead, and rose 0.8% and dropped by just as much when they said leave was ahead.

This makes me believe that the pound, it's worth, is partly due to being in the EU, and leaving could cost (see previous post) a lot more than the amount the UK pays into the EU.

That's not including all the other costs that I didn't include in my previous post.

There's almost NO CHANCE of the UK coming out of leaving the EU making more money, or even the same amount of money. Jobs will be lost, trade will be lost, people will suffer because of this. This is why the Brexit people don't talk about the economy. Because they know they don't have anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their aims... what are their aims? And their beliefs, yeah, they have lots of beliefs, but not much reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European nations have banded together to create a voting bloc that can make or break other nations, they all have the same interests and aims. Being socialists they tend to freeze out the right wing nations, and don't inform them of impending changes of policy. So the nations in the loop or club can bring about changes in their laws before the laws are passed and have them not apply to their nations. Look at the recent history of laws altered in France and Germany that make the E.U. changes not workable there.
Click to expand...


You're going to have to back up your claims here.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
Click to expand...


You ask 'What new trading ties ?'. I answer ... any and all that are available to us from any part of the world we, and they, want to see trade with us. Since we're not yet in the reality that sees us have the range of freedom for that, naturally, being specific is difficult at absolute best !! Nonetheless ... there IS a world outside of the EU (.. yes, really !) .. and we're fools to continue to stunt our ability and willingness to trade with it.

For all of your statistics, one central point seems to be completely escaping you. This is that the EU is essentially a house of cards, one fragile enough to be threatened by a very weak economy, one fragile enough to collapse entirely, should more such economies create a 'domino effect' of needed bailout funding.

If you think that this fragility, this 'house of cards' effect, is fiction .... consider .....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0



> At the height of the debt crisis a few years ago,* many experts worried that Greece’s problems would spill over to the rest of the world.* If Greece defaulted on its debt and exited the eurozone, they argued, *it might create global financial shocks bigger than the collapse of Lehman Brothers did.*
> 
> Now, however, some people believe that if Greece were to leave the currency union, in what is known as a “Grexit,” it would not be such a catastrophe. Europe has put up safeguards to limit the so-called financial contagion, in an effort to keep the problems from spreading to other countries. Greece, just a tiny part of the eurozone economy, could regain financial autonomy by leaving, these people contend — and the eurozone would actually be better off without a country that seems to constantly need its neighbors’ support.
> 
> Greece does hold some leverage, however. *European leaders are keen to avoid a new Greek crisis before a British referendum on membership to the European Union in June* ....





> Greece does hold some leverage, however. *European leaders are keen to avoid a new Greek crisis before a British referendum on membership to the European Union in June* ....



_Quite._ It simply 'wouldn't do' to have the EU experiencing a stability crisis, just when the UK was due to vote on continuing membership, now, would it ??

As this link said ... Greece is 'just a tiny part of the eurozone economy' ... and just look at the consternation its difficulties have been responsible for !! Now .. I think that the Eurozone (with difficulty) could've absorbed the consequences of a 'Grexit' and survived. How about Spain, though, or Portugal ... also weaker economies, but larger ones, ALSO a part of the Eurozone ?

As I've already posted ... a chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link. Which is true. Apply that to the 'Eurozone', and ask .... how fragile is it, REALLY ... and what massive harm to the EU as a whole would be suffered from its collapse ??

People such as yourself would very happily see us signed up to the chaos and ruination that a suffering EU would inflict !!

However ... there's a solution. We chuck the EU entirely, and separate ourselves from contagion coming from an EU meltdown ... something that would hit us massively harder if we're tied into the EU, than if we're not.

Will the UK be a lifeboat able to sail away from a sinking ship ... or ... will it be irremediably *tied* to that sinking ship ?? We can decide our fate on 23rd June !!

What happened to Greece, and the shockwaves it created throughout the EU, was no fiction. The difficulties Greece poses, just Greece itself (!) .. have NOT gone away. Future bailouts ... *can *they be afforded ? What would that do to the stock markets ? How big a burden, directly OR indirectly, would future bailouts foist upon the UK, a political entity THAT NOW HAS ITS CHANCE OF ESCAPING IT ALL ??

Oh, by the way ... 

£500 for EVERY British household: UK faces added £1billion bill to bail out Greece and save crisis-hit euro



> British households each face a £500 bill to bail out Greece and save the crisis-hit euro.
> Britain will be expected to hand over an extra £1billion for the International Monetary Fund's £110billion rescue package.





> Britain will hand the sum over despite warnings the latest bailout will fail to save Greece's shattered economy. Eurozone finance ministers agreed a second £110billion rescue in the small hours yesterday, following 13 hours of talks in Brussels.



Who believes that Greece is in a salvageable position .. and how many MORE such bailouts will the EU agree to (but only after 23rd June, eh ??), complete with future burdens on us ?? The EU is a 'house of cards' entity ... *FACT* ...


----------



## Divine Wind

there4eyeM said:


> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).


Agreed staying in the EU outweighs the advantages/disadvantages of leaving, but the EU does need to change their rules a bit to give them more stability.  The spendthrift bullshit with Greece and other countries who spend more than they can afford is hurting them all.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask 'What new trading ties ?'. I answer ... any and all that are available to us from any part of the world we, and they, want to see trade with us. Since we're not yet in the reality that sees us have the range of freedom for that, naturally, being specific is difficult at absolute best !! Nonetheless ... there IS a world outside of the EU (.. yes, really !) .. and we're fools to continue to stunt our ability and willingness to trade with it.
> 
> For all of your statistics, one central point seems to be completely escaping you. This is that the EU is essentially a house of cards, one fragile enough to be threatened by a very weak economy, one fragile enough to collapse entirely, should more such economies create a 'domino effect' of needed bailout funding.
> 
> If you think that this fragility, this 'house of cards' effect, is fiction .... consider .....
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the height of the debt crisis a few years ago,* many experts worried that Greece’s problems would spill over to the rest of the world.* If Greece defaulted on its debt and exited the eurozone, they argued, *it might create global financial shocks bigger than the collapse of Lehman Brothers did.*
> 
> Now, however, some people believe that if Greece were to leave the currency union, in what is known as a “Grexit,” it would not be such a catastrophe. Europe has put up safeguards to limit the so-called financial contagion, in an effort to keep the problems from spreading to other countries. Greece, just a tiny part of the eurozone economy, could regain financial autonomy by leaving, these people contend — and the eurozone would actually be better off without a country that seems to constantly need its neighbors’ support.
> 
> Greece does hold some leverage, however. *European leaders are keen to avoid a new Greek crisis before a British referendum on membership to the European Union in June* ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Quite._ It simply 'wouldn't do' to have the EU experiencing a stability crisis, just when the UK was due to vote on continuing membership, now, would it ??
> 
> As this link said ... Greece is 'just a tiny part of the eurozone economy' ... and just look at the consternation its difficulties have been responsible for !! Now .. I think that the Eurozone (with difficulty) could've absorbed the consequences of a 'Grexit' and survived. How about Spain, though, or Portugal ... also weaker economies, but larger ones, ALSO a part of the Eurozone ?
> 
> As I've already posted ... a chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link. Which is true. Apply that to the 'Eurozone', and ask .... how fragile is it, REALLY ... and what massive harm to the EU as a whole would be suffered from its collapse ??
> 
> People such as yourself would very happily see us signed up to the chaos and ruination that a suffering EU would inflict !!
> 
> However ... there's a solution. We chuck the EU entirely, and separate ourselves from contagion coming from an EU meltdown ... something that would hit us massively harder if we're tied into the EU, than if we're not.
> 
> Will the UK be a lifeboat able to sail away from a sinking ship ... or ... will it be irremediably *tied* to that sinking ship ?? We can decide our fate on 23rd June !!
> 
> What happened to Greece, and the shockwaves it created throughout the EU, was no fiction. The difficulties Greece poses, just Greece itself (!) .. have NOT gone away. Future bailouts ... *can *they be afforded ? What would that do to the stock markets ? How big a burden, directly OR indirectly, would future bailouts foist upon the UK, a political entity THAT NOW HAS ITS CHANCE OF ESCAPING IT ALL ??
Click to expand...


How many trading ties does the UK not have that are potential trading ties? 

How much will these potential trading ties the UK isn't making use bring in compared to how much the UK might lose?

The UK trades 50%, more or less (it fluctuates and the EU trade is increasing as the recession weakens) outside of the EU. That's quite a bit. But also shows that we are already making the most of these trading ties. New ones? 

How weak is the EU? Weaker than these trading partners you want from outside of the EU? Zimbabwe? Er... I went 2 years ago, got dropped off outside some small town, went to the town, took money out. Now the banks have massive queues. 

Which countries are more stable than those in the EU? The US? They CAUSED the major recession. China? Recession coming on. Japan? They've been through recessions in the past and their economy is weakening. 
ALL ECONOMIES are weak inherently. The UK has to trade with countries who could end up in a recession in 6 months, just as the UK is also weak. It's the nature of the world.

The EU has Greece (shouldn't have been allowed into the Euro), Spain and Portugal who have a fragile state of things. BUT the Euroskeptics who everyone is listening to, have been saying the Euro would collapse in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and it's still not collapsed in 2016, has it? 

People such as myself understand the reality of the EU, both the good and the bad, and there's a lot of bad. Trust me. I lived in Spain and one Spanish guy was advocating for a EU superstate. I told he why he was wrong. This was a long time ago. But things probably haven't changed.


----------



## there4eyeM

The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure, but it always seemed the advantages to staying outweighed any disadvantages. One can never be sure with the Brits, though. They have irrational tendencies (especially their virulence concerning France and the French).
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed staying in the EU outweighs the advantages/disadvantages of leaving, but the EU does need to change their rules a bit to give them more stability.  The spendthrift bullshit with Greece and other countries who spend more than they can afford is hurting them all.
Click to expand...


Yes, I totally agree. The EU needs reform. The problem is those who don't agree with the Euro superstate just shout "out" and don't try to change things. So how will there ever be change.


----------



## frigidweirdo

there4eyeM said:


> The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.



It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask 'What new trading ties ?'. I answer ... any and all that are available to us from any part of the world we, and they, want to see trade with us. Since we're not yet in the reality that sees us have the range of freedom for that, naturally, being specific is difficult at absolute best !! Nonetheless ... there IS a world outside of the EU (.. yes, really !) .. and we're fools to continue to stunt our ability and willingness to trade with it.
> 
> For all of your statistics, one central point seems to be completely escaping you. This is that the EU is essentially a house of cards, one fragile enough to be threatened by a very weak economy, one fragile enough to collapse entirely, should more such economies create a 'domino effect' of needed bailout funding.
> 
> If you think that this fragility, this 'house of cards' effect, is fiction .... consider .....
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the height of the debt crisis a few years ago,* many experts worried that Greece’s problems would spill over to the rest of the world.* If Greece defaulted on its debt and exited the eurozone, they argued, *it might create global financial shocks bigger than the collapse of Lehman Brothers did.*
> 
> Now, however, some people believe that if Greece were to leave the currency union, in what is known as a “Grexit,” it would not be such a catastrophe. Europe has put up safeguards to limit the so-called financial contagion, in an effort to keep the problems from spreading to other countries. Greece, just a tiny part of the eurozone economy, could regain financial autonomy by leaving, these people contend — and the eurozone would actually be better off without a country that seems to constantly need its neighbors’ support.
> 
> Greece does hold some leverage, however. *European leaders are keen to avoid a new Greek crisis before a British referendum on membership to the European Union in June* ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Quite._ It simply 'wouldn't do' to have the EU experiencing a stability crisis, just when the UK was due to vote on continuing membership, now, would it ??
> 
> As this link said ... Greece is 'just a tiny part of the eurozone economy' ... and just look at the consternation its difficulties have been responsible for !! Now .. I think that the Eurozone (with difficulty) could've absorbed the consequences of a 'Grexit' and survived. How about Spain, though, or Portugal ... also weaker economies, but larger ones, ALSO a part of the Eurozone ?
> 
> As I've already posted ... a chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link. Which is true. Apply that to the 'Eurozone', and ask .... how fragile is it, REALLY ... and what massive harm to the EU as a whole would be suffered from its collapse ??
> 
> People such as yourself would very happily see us signed up to the chaos and ruination that a suffering EU would inflict !!
> 
> However ... there's a solution. We chuck the EU entirely, and separate ourselves from contagion coming from an EU meltdown ... something that would hit us massively harder if we're tied into the EU, than if we're not.
> 
> Will the UK be a lifeboat able to sail away from a sinking ship ... or ... will it be irremediably *tied* to that sinking ship ?? We can decide our fate on 23rd June !!
> 
> What happened to Greece, and the shockwaves it created throughout the EU, was no fiction. The difficulties Greece poses, just Greece itself (!) .. have NOT gone away. Future bailouts ... *can *they be afforded ? What would that do to the stock markets ? How big a burden, directly OR indirectly, would future bailouts foist upon the UK, a political entity THAT NOW HAS ITS CHANCE OF ESCAPING IT ALL ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many trading ties does the UK not have that are potential trading ties?
> 
> How much will these potential trading ties the UK isn't making use bring in compared to how much the UK might lose?
> 
> The UK trades 50%, more or less (it fluctuates and the EU trade is increasing as the recession weakens) outside of the EU. That's quite a bit. But also shows that we are already making the most of these trading ties. New ones?
> 
> How weak is the EU? Weaker than these trading partners you want from outside of the EU? Zimbabwe? Er... I went 2 years ago, got dropped off outside some small town, went to the town, took money out. Now the banks have massive queues.
> 
> Which countries are more stable than those in the EU? The US? They CAUSED the major recession. China? Recession coming on. Japan? They've been through recessions in the past and their economy is weakening.
> ALL ECONOMIES are weak inherently. The UK has to trade with countries who could end up in a recession in 6 months, just as the UK is also weak. It's the nature of the world.
> 
> The EU has Greece (shouldn't have been allowed into the Euro), Spain and Portugal who have a fragile state of things. BUT the Euroskeptics who everyone is listening to, have been saying the Euro would collapse in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and it's still not collapsed in 2016, has it?
> 
> People such as myself understand the reality of the EU, both the good and the bad, and there's a lot of bad. Trust me. I lived in Spain and one Spanish guy was advocating for a EU superstate. I told he why he was wrong. This was a long time ago. But things probably haven't changed.
Click to expand...


Noting that the Euro hasn't collapsed, says nothing about its immunity (.. supposed ..) from future collapse. I repeat .. a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Any future financial crisis, emanating from the EU or not, WILL hit weak economies hard. The EU certainly 'has its share' of those, and, each and every one of them will drag the EU, and the Eurozone, into spiralling weakness or outright collapse -- if any such crisis is bad enough.

The events of 2008 show us that this is no cloud-cuckooland fiction. The possibility is all too real. The EU, and its Eurozone, *is* a 'house of cards' structure, NOT immune to outright failure.

If the UK trades outside of the EU, having got shot of it ... it does so on a standalone basis with foreign economy after foreign economy, and can adjust its trading preferences on a case-by-case basis. Do we have these same freedoms, courtesy of EU bureaucracy and outright dictatorship  OR, are we tied into this 'house of cards' structure, as my example of a tethered lifeboat illustrated ?

Consider: the EU is a combined structure of many Member States. These economies have varying capacities for strength, and varying capacities to weather financial storms. A weak economy forming a part of the EU, cannot help but exert a 'dragging' effect on ALL of the EU members ... can it ? And, can the EU as a whole cope at all well with any of it ?

There's one way to find out. Remain a member of the EU, see a crisis develop, and hope against hope that survival is on the cards ('house of', or otherwise).

Perhaps prayers would help ... ?


----------



## Divine Wind

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, I totally agree. The EU needs reform. The problem is those who don't agree with the Euro superstate just shout "out" and don't try to change things. So how will there ever be change.


For the US, it was the American Civil War at a cost of 2% of the population.   Before the war, we were a group of fairly strong and semi-autonomous states linked by a Constitution and a weak Federal government.  After the war, the Feds were stronger than individual states. 

The problem with the EU is like the UN, it has no teeth.  It recommends, but can't demand.  Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain can run a deficit and expect other EU nations to bail them out to protect the Euro yet those other nations have little power to demand more responsible spending.


----------



## there4eyeM

frigidweirdo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.
Click to expand...


'Made over for England' is not the formula.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I totally agree. The EU needs reform. The problem is those who don't agree with the Euro superstate just shout "out" and don't try to change things. So how will there ever be change.
> 
> 
> 
> For the US, it was the American Civil War at a cost of 2% of the population.   Before the war, we were a group of fairly strong and semi-autonomous states linked by a Constitution and a weak Federal government.  After the war, the Feds were stronger than individual states.
> 
> The problem with the EU is like the UN, it has no teeth.  It recommends, but can't demand.  Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain can run a deficit and expect other EU nations to bail them out to protect the Euro yet those other nations have little power to demand more responsible spending.
Click to expand...


When has Italy ever been bailed out?


----------



## Tilly

Excellent.

*Brexit immigration revolution! Boris and Gove pledge to bring in tough Australian- style points system to slash arrivals from EU and bar entry to migrants who do not speak English if UK votes Out*

*Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have promised a points-style system*
*They say a Brexit vote would pave the way for their immigration revolution*
*If it passed, migrants could only settle in the UK if they had valued skills*
*The pair, along with Priti Patel, have attacked David Cameron's record*
*It would ensure all those who come had the ability to speak good English*
*See more of the latest Brexit news at www.dailymail.co.uk/brexit*
By JASON GROVES FOR THE DAILY MAIL


----------



## Drummond

Tilly said:


> Excellent.
> 
> *Brexit immigration revolution! Boris and Gove pledge to bring in tough Australian- style points system to slash arrivals from EU and bar entry to migrants who do not speak English if UK votes Out*
> 
> *Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have promised a points-style system*
> *They say a Brexit vote would pave the way for their immigration revolution*
> *If it passed, migrants could only settle in the UK if they had valued skills*
> *The pair, along with Priti Patel, have attacked David Cameron's record*
> *It would ensure all those who come had the ability to speak good English*
> *See more of the latest Brexit news at www.dailymail.co.uk/brexit*
> By JASON GROVES FOR THE DAILY MAIL



We definitely need this. WAY better than the 'porous borders' policy of the EU !!!


----------



## montelatici

I guess all the Brits working in the EU will have to make arrangements to keep their jobs in continental Europe.    The current Dutch head of the Commission says the EU would have to impose similar laws/regulations vis-a-vis British workers in the EU.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Its primitive politics. What they dont address is the number of UK ex-pats living in Europe. There are around 3m of them with the majority being pensioners.
So we get rid of healthy young people and will have to absorb 3m pensioners with their attendant health issues.
Where they will live is another matter as well ?
Its madness.


----------



## Tilly

*Guardian Poll: Brexit Campaigners Take Lead After Hardline Immigration Messaging*
285




Reuters

by SARKIS ZERONIAN1 Jun 201626


conducted for _The Guardian_ by ICM shows voters favouring Brexit by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. Notably the result was the same regardless of whether respondents were surveyed online or by telephone.

Up to now telephone polling has tended to favour the Remain campaign, with only two such polls giving Leave the lead. That makes the result of the ICM phone poll all the more concerning for Britain Stronger In Europe because that method shows Leave gaining seven points to 52 per cent, and Remain down seven to 48 per cent.

_The Guardian_ reports that the result using the online method is almost unchanged, but the change in result for phone polled respondents appears to identify a shift towards Brexit, despite what the paper describes as “a slew of warnings from the most senior members of the government about the economic risks of doing so.”

Commenting on the development, ICM Research director Martin Boon said:

“Our poll rather unhinges a few accepted orthodoxies. It is only one poll but, in a rather unexpected reverse of polling assumptions so far, both our phone poll and our online poll are consistent on both vote intentions and on the EU referendum

Guardian Poll: Brexit Campaigners Take Lead After Hardline Immigration Messaging


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> When has Italy ever been bailed out?


Who is claiming that?  Please don't let nationalistic pride get in the way of financial common sense.  

Italy could trigger Europe’s next financial crisis
_....In the current period of uncertainty, Italy — particularly its banks — appears to be the victim of the moment. The Italian banking index is down 18% this year, and Italy’s third-largest and most historically troubled bank, Monte dei Paschi, has lost 50% of its value during the same period. The most dramatic drops have taken place this week. The Italian stock market regulator has deemed it necessary to ban short selling on Monte dei Paschi stock in an attempt to prevent speculators from benefiting by driving it lower, yet it continues to fall.

As is so often the case with the markets, these actions are rooted in fact but with a layer of sentiment on top. Italy’s banks are indeed troubled; their non-performing loans amount to more than 200 billion euros (about $218 billion), and Monte dei Paschi had an extremely weak balance sheet long before a 2013 derivatives scandal dealt it another blow. But those non-performing loans have been growing ever since 2008, and that growth has slowed of late_.

IMF warns of fresh financial crisis
....“_The hardest hit banking systems within the euro area in February have been those of Greece, Italy and, to a lesser extent, Portugal, along with some large German banks, reflecting some or all of the following factors: structural problems of excess bank capacity, high levels of NPLs and poorly adapted business models._”


IMF homes on the eurozone's weakest link: Italy
..._.But the IMF is not talking so much about the UK as Italy and other countries in the eurozone periphery. Italy has propped up a forlorn bunch of regional banks that have done little to tackle loans that will never be repaid. Zombie businesses that spend all their spare cash on interest payments, denying them the funds for investment, litter the Italian manufacturing sector, which remains vast.

A clearout of bad loans would precipitate mass insolvencies among business customers that depend on cheap funding. Panic would ensue.

Italian banks might have the funds to manage the transition if the ECB could boost interest rates and help their profitability. As it is, the ECB has introduced negative deposit rates, which Italian banks must pay to keep funds with the ECB. This increases their costs and should be passed to customers for holding their money. Milan, Turin and Siena’s finest institutions have so far refused, squeezing their profit margins and putting their solvency in doubt

It is estimated that bad loans in Italy account for more than a third of the €900bn total, which means that a €6bn rescue fund put forward by Rome is desperately inadequate._


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has Italy ever been bailed out?
> 
> 
> 
> Who is claiming that?  Please don't let nationalistic pride get in the way of financial common sense.
> 
> Italy could trigger Europe’s next financial crisis
> _....In the current period of uncertainty, Italy — particularly its banks — appears to be the victim of the moment. The Italian banking index is down 18% this year, and Italy’s third-largest and most historically troubled bank, Monte dei Paschi, has lost 50% of its value during the same period. The most dramatic drops have taken place this week. The Italian stock market regulator has deemed it necessary to ban short selling on Monte dei Paschi stock in an attempt to prevent speculators from benefiting by driving it lower, yet it continues to fall.
> 
> As is so often the case with the markets, these actions are rooted in fact but with a layer of sentiment on top. Italy’s banks are indeed troubled; their non-performing loans amount to more than 200 billion euros (about $218 billion), and Monte dei Paschi had an extremely weak balance sheet long before a 2013 derivatives scandal dealt it another blow. But those non-performing loans have been growing ever since 2008, and that growth has slowed of late_.
> 
> IMF warns of fresh financial crisis
> ....“_The hardest hit banking systems within the euro area in February have been those of Greece, Italy and, to a lesser extent, Portugal, along with some large German banks, reflecting some or all of the following factors: structural problems of excess bank capacity, high levels of NPLs and poorly adapted business models._”
> 
> 
> IMF homes on the eurozone's weakest link: Italy
> ..._.But the IMF is not talking so much about the UK as Italy and other countries in the eurozone periphery. Italy has propped up a forlorn bunch of regional banks that have done little to tackle loans that will never be repaid. Zombie businesses that spend all their spare cash on interest payments, denying them the funds for investment, litter the Italian manufacturing sector, which remains vast.
> 
> A clearout of bad loans would precipitate mass insolvencies among business customers that depend on cheap funding. Panic would ensue.
> 
> Italian banks might have the funds to manage the transition if the ECB could boost interest rates and help their profitability. As it is, the ECB has introduced negative deposit rates, which Italian banks must pay to keep funds with the ECB. This increases their costs and should be passed to customers for holding their money. Milan, Turin and Siena’s finest institutions have so far refused, squeezing their profit margins and putting their solvency in doubt
> 
> It is estimated that bad loans in Italy account for more than a third of the €900bn total, which means that a €6bn rescue fund put forward by Rome is desperately inadequate._
Click to expand...


Again, when was Italy ever bailed out?

By the way.

"Italy has a budget deficit of only 4.1% of GDP and actually runs a primary budget surplus of 0.6% of GDP, on IMF data (the only European country to do so apart from Switzerland and Norway!). 

• Total leverage in Italy (government and private) is below the Euro norm. This is 
because very high levels of government debt (121% of GDP) are offset by low 
private sector leverage (total private sector leverage is 125% of GDP — about half 
the level of Spain and Portugal — because unlike most of the periphery there was no 
housing or private sector credit boom in the last decade). Total non-financial 
leverage in the economy is 246% of GDP (compared to 260% in the Euro-area 
overall and 280% in the U.K.). "


The Truth About Italian Debt Levels


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> Again, when was Italy ever bailed out?


Ahhh, I see you want to play word games.  Okay.  How about September 3rd, 1943?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask 'What new trading ties ?'. I answer ... any and all that are available to us from any part of the world we, and they, want to see trade with us. Since we're not yet in the reality that sees us have the range of freedom for that, naturally, being specific is difficult at absolute best !! Nonetheless ... there IS a world outside of the EU (.. yes, really !) .. and we're fools to continue to stunt our ability and willingness to trade with it.
> 
> For all of your statistics, one central point seems to be completely escaping you. This is that the EU is essentially a house of cards, one fragile enough to be threatened by a very weak economy, one fragile enough to collapse entirely, should more such economies create a 'domino effect' of needed bailout funding.
> 
> If you think that this fragility, this 'house of cards' effect, is fiction .... consider .....
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the height of the debt crisis a few years ago,* many experts worried that Greece’s problems would spill over to the rest of the world.* If Greece defaulted on its debt and exited the eurozone, they argued, *it might create global financial shocks bigger than the collapse of Lehman Brothers did.*
> 
> Now, however, some people believe that if Greece were to leave the currency union, in what is known as a “Grexit,” it would not be such a catastrophe. Europe has put up safeguards to limit the so-called financial contagion, in an effort to keep the problems from spreading to other countries. Greece, just a tiny part of the eurozone economy, could regain financial autonomy by leaving, these people contend — and the eurozone would actually be better off without a country that seems to constantly need its neighbors’ support.
> 
> Greece does hold some leverage, however. *European leaders are keen to avoid a new Greek crisis before a British referendum on membership to the European Union in June* ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Quite._ It simply 'wouldn't do' to have the EU experiencing a stability crisis, just when the UK was due to vote on continuing membership, now, would it ??
> 
> As this link said ... Greece is 'just a tiny part of the eurozone economy' ... and just look at the consternation its difficulties have been responsible for !! Now .. I think that the Eurozone (with difficulty) could've absorbed the consequences of a 'Grexit' and survived. How about Spain, though, or Portugal ... also weaker economies, but larger ones, ALSO a part of the Eurozone ?
> 
> As I've already posted ... a chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link. Which is true. Apply that to the 'Eurozone', and ask .... how fragile is it, REALLY ... and what massive harm to the EU as a whole would be suffered from its collapse ??
> 
> People such as yourself would very happily see us signed up to the chaos and ruination that a suffering EU would inflict !!
> 
> However ... there's a solution. We chuck the EU entirely, and separate ourselves from contagion coming from an EU meltdown ... something that would hit us massively harder if we're tied into the EU, than if we're not.
> 
> Will the UK be a lifeboat able to sail away from a sinking ship ... or ... will it be irremediably *tied* to that sinking ship ?? We can decide our fate on 23rd June !!
> 
> What happened to Greece, and the shockwaves it created throughout the EU, was no fiction. The difficulties Greece poses, just Greece itself (!) .. have NOT gone away. Future bailouts ... *can *they be afforded ? What would that do to the stock markets ? How big a burden, directly OR indirectly, would future bailouts foist upon the UK, a political entity THAT NOW HAS ITS CHANCE OF ESCAPING IT ALL ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many trading ties does the UK not have that are potential trading ties?
> 
> How much will these potential trading ties the UK isn't making use bring in compared to how much the UK might lose?
> 
> The UK trades 50%, more or less (it fluctuates and the EU trade is increasing as the recession weakens) outside of the EU. That's quite a bit. But also shows that we are already making the most of these trading ties. New ones?
> 
> How weak is the EU? Weaker than these trading partners you want from outside of the EU? Zimbabwe? Er... I went 2 years ago, got dropped off outside some small town, went to the town, took money out. Now the banks have massive queues.
> 
> Which countries are more stable than those in the EU? The US? They CAUSED the major recession. China? Recession coming on. Japan? They've been through recessions in the past and their economy is weakening.
> ALL ECONOMIES are weak inherently. The UK has to trade with countries who could end up in a recession in 6 months, just as the UK is also weak. It's the nature of the world.
> 
> The EU has Greece (shouldn't have been allowed into the Euro), Spain and Portugal who have a fragile state of things. BUT the Euroskeptics who everyone is listening to, have been saying the Euro would collapse in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and it's still not collapsed in 2016, has it?
> 
> People such as myself understand the reality of the EU, both the good and the bad, and there's a lot of bad. Trust me. I lived in Spain and one Spanish guy was advocating for a EU superstate. I told he why he was wrong. This was a long time ago. But things probably haven't changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noting that the Euro hasn't collapsed, says nothing about its immunity (.. supposed ..) from future collapse. I repeat .. a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Any future financial crisis, emanating from the EU or not, WILL hit weak economies hard. The EU certainly 'has its share' of those, and, each and every one of them will drag the EU, and the Eurozone, into spiralling weakness or outright collapse -- if any such crisis is bad enough.
> 
> The events of 2008 show us that this is no cloud-cuckooland fiction. The possibility is all too real. The EU, and its Eurozone, *is* a 'house of cards' structure, NOT immune to outright failure.
> 
> If the UK trades outside of the EU, having got shot of it ... it does so on a standalone basis with foreign economy after foreign economy, and can adjust its trading preferences on a case-by-case basis. Do we have these same freedoms, courtesy of EU bureaucracy and outright dictatorship  OR, are we tied into this 'house of cards' structure, as my example of a tethered lifeboat illustrated ?
> 
> Consider: the EU is a combined structure of many Member States. These economies have varying capacities for strength, and varying capacities to weather financial storms. A weak economy forming a part of the EU, cannot help but exert a 'dragging' effect on ALL of the EU members ... can it ? And, can the EU as a whole cope at all well with any of it ?
> 
> There's one way to find out. Remain a member of the EU, see a crisis develop, and hope against hope that survival is on the cards ('house of', or otherwise).
> 
> Perhaps prayers would help ... ?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say that noting that the Euro has collapsed says anything about its stability. It says more about those who predict it's doom. They wanted the Euro to fail, and they've been talking about it's failure every year since I don't know when. 

Yep, weak economies get hurt hard. That is why the EU has put a lot of effort into spending money in these countries to try and make it easier for them to survive. Their biggest problem was Greece, simply because the Greeks are really corrupt. In Spain the improvements were visible. The region I lived in first had no highway when I lived there. I went back at Easter last year to visit someone, and I didn't recognize the journey to or from there because it was all done much, much quicker on flat highways, rather than bumpy single roads stuck behind trucks. 

This can help. Spain's economy is still based massively on tourism and gets hit massively when people cut back on going abroad for holidays. However it's picking up this year because Egypt, Tunisia etc are places people don't want to go to. 

Yes, if the UK leaves it can deal with non-EU countries as it chooses to. This doesn't mean it will be better. It will just be different. 

Greece is a drag on the EU, and what is a drag on the UK? Should the UK get rid of parts it doesn't feel are convenient? But the UK isn't in the Euro, so what's the problem?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I totally agree. The EU needs reform. The problem is those who don't agree with the Euro superstate just shout "out" and don't try to change things. So how will there ever be change.
> 
> 
> 
> For the US, it was the American Civil War at a cost of 2% of the population.   Before the war, we were a group of fairly strong and semi-autonomous states linked by a Constitution and a weak Federal government.  After the war, the Feds were stronger than individual states.
> 
> The problem with the EU is like the UN, it has no teeth.  It recommends, but can't demand.  Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain can run a deficit and expect other EU nations to bail them out to protect the Euro yet those other nations have little power to demand more responsible spending.
Click to expand...


Then the UK could simply not do things it doesn't want to either.


----------



## Divine Wind

frigidweirdo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I totally agree. The EU needs reform. The problem is those who don't agree with the Euro superstate just shout "out" and don't try to change things. So how will there ever be change.
> 
> 
> 
> For the US, it was the American Civil War at a cost of 2% of the population.   Before the war, we were a group of fairly strong and semi-autonomous states linked by a Constitution and a weak Federal government.  After the war, the Feds were stronger than individual states.
> 
> The problem with the EU is like the UN, it has no teeth.  It recommends, but can't demand.  Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain can run a deficit and expect other EU nations to bail them out to protect the Euro yet those other nations have little power to demand more responsible spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the UK could simply not do things it doesn't want to either.
Click to expand...

Correct.  The problem, of course, is when responsible nations continually need to pick up the tab for irresponsible nations.


----------



## frigidweirdo

there4eyeM said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Made over for England' is not the formula.
Click to expand...


Made over for the people of the EU. Many of whom don't want an EU superstate.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I totally agree. The EU needs reform. The problem is those who don't agree with the Euro superstate just shout "out" and don't try to change things. So how will there ever be change.
> 
> 
> 
> For the US, it was the American Civil War at a cost of 2% of the population.   Before the war, we were a group of fairly strong and semi-autonomous states linked by a Constitution and a weak Federal government.  After the war, the Feds were stronger than individual states.
> 
> The problem with the EU is like the UN, it has no teeth.  It recommends, but can't demand.  Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain can run a deficit and expect other EU nations to bail them out to protect the Euro yet those other nations have little power to demand more responsible spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the UK could simply not do things it doesn't want to either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  The problem, of course, is when responsible nations continually need to pick up the tab for irresponsible nations.
Click to expand...


Of course. Greece should never have been allowed in the Euro. But still, the UK is not in the Euro.


----------



## Divine Wind

frigidweirdo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Made over for England' is not the formula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made over for the people of the EU. Many of whom don't want an EU superstate.
Click to expand...

I fully support collapsing the EU.  It eliminates a major competitor in the global market allowing us to better focus on China.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Made over for England' is not the formula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made over for the people of the EU. Many of whom don't want an EU superstate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fully support collapsing the EU.  It eliminates a major competitor in the global market allowing us to better focus on China.
Click to expand...


The EU is the US's biggest ally.

China, population 1.3 billion.

USA, population 300 million.
EU, population 500 million.

Together they don't have the population of China. For now, it's okay. Chinese military spending will be on par with The US's in about 20 years time. After that.... well.... you're going to need all the friends you can get.


----------



## Divine Wind

frigidweirdo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The E.U. has definitely gone about things bass ackwards on many counts. But, it is what it is and it's too late to start over from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Made over for England' is not the formula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made over for the people of the EU. Many of whom don't want an EU superstate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fully support collapsing the EU.  It eliminates a major competitor in the global market allowing us to better focus on China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU is the US's biggest ally.
> 
> China, population 1.3 billion.
> 
> USA, population 300 million.
> EU, population 500 million.
> 
> Together they don't have the population of China. For now, it's okay. Chinese military spending will be on par with The US's in about 20 years time. After that.... well.... you're going to need all the friends you can get.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, are you bitching because I agreed with you about collapsing the EU?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tilly said:


> Excellent.
> 
> *Brexit immigration revolution! Boris and Gove pledge to bring in tough Australian- style points system to slash arrivals from EU and bar entry to migrants who do not speak English if UK votes Out*
> 
> *Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have promised a points-style system*
> *They say a Brexit vote would pave the way for their immigration revolution*
> *If it passed, migrants could only settle in the UK if they had valued skills*
> *The pair, along with Priti Patel, have attacked David Cameron's record*
> *It would ensure all those who come had the ability to speak good English*
> *See more of the latest Brexit news at www.dailymail.co.uk/brexit*
> By JASON GROVES FOR THE DAILY MAIL



And neither of them is in control of a party. So they "propose" something, but can't implement it. They don't know the impact of it, they just say it because it sounds good. 

Before it was "the Norway option", then they realized that Norway was in the Schengen Zone, woopsie. Now they're after the "Australian option". 

Whatever sounds good goes.

When will they start talking about FACTS?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be started from scratch, just changed in various areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Made over for England' is not the formula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made over for the people of the EU. Many of whom don't want an EU superstate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fully support collapsing the EU.  It eliminates a major competitor in the global market allowing us to better focus on China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU is the US's biggest ally.
> 
> China, population 1.3 billion.
> 
> USA, population 300 million.
> EU, population 500 million.
> 
> Together they don't have the population of China. For now, it's okay. Chinese military spending will be on par with The US's in about 20 years time. After that.... well.... you're going to need all the friends you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, are you bitching because I agreed with you about collapsing the EU?
Click to expand...


I don't agree with collapsing the EU.

I'm also not bitching, but presenting an argument with facts.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when was Italy ever bailed out?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, I see you want to play word games.  Okay.  How about September 3rd, 1943?
Click to expand...


Was Italy bailed out?  They lost the war and lost colonies and Italian land that was given to the Yugoslavs and Greeks.  Not much of a bail out. 

So, Italy never received a bailout.  In fact, here are all the countries that have defaulted since 1800.  Do you see Italy on the list, no, but you do see Germany.  So shut the f_ck up.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when was Italy ever bailed out?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, I see you want to play word games.  Okay.  How about September 3rd, 1943?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Italy bailed out?  They lost the war and lost colonies and Italian land that was given to the Yugoslavs and Greeks.  Not much of a bail out.
> 
> So, Italy never received a bailout.  In fact, here are all the countries that have defaulted since 1800.  Do you see Italy on the list, no, but you do see Germany.  So shut the f_ck up.
Click to expand...

Yes.  We bailed them out of that fascist shithole they'd dug themselves into.

If they don't pull their heads out of their own asses and get their finances fixed, they'll be looking to be bailed out again.

Trivia Question: How many governments has Italy gone through since WWII?


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when was Italy ever bailed out?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, I see you want to play word games.  Okay.  How about September 3rd, 1943?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Italy bailed out?  They lost the war and lost colonies and Italian land that was given to the Yugoslavs and Greeks.  Not much of a bail out.
> 
> So, Italy never received a bailout.  In fact, here are all the countries that have defaulted since 1800.  Do you see Italy on the list, no, but you do see Germany.  So shut the f_ck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  We bailed them out of that fascist shithole they'd dug themselves into.
> 
> If they don't pull their heads out of their own asses and get their finances fixed, they'll be looking to be bailed out again.
> 
> Trivia Question: How many governments has Italy gone through since WWII?
Click to expand...


Italy has never been bailed out asshole.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when was Italy ever bailed out?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, I see you want to play word games.  Okay.  How about September 3rd, 1943?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Italy bailed out?  They lost the war and lost colonies and Italian land that was given to the Yugoslavs and Greeks.  Not much of a bail out.
> 
> So, Italy never received a bailout.  In fact, here are all the countries that have defaulted since 1800.  Do you see Italy on the list, no, but you do see Germany.  So shut the f_ck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  We bailed them out of that fascist shithole they'd dug themselves into.
> 
> If they don't pull their heads out of their own asses and get their finances fixed, they'll be looking to be bailed out again.
> 
> Trivia Question: How many governments has Italy gone through since WWII?
Click to expand...


How many governments has the U.S. gone through since WW2?  About one every 6 years.  Far more than Italy.  You just don't understand that the parliamentary system calls a change of ruling party a change of government.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> Italy has never been bailed out asshole.


I never said it did, which makes you a low-class, verbally abusive liar.  Do you smack women and children around like most low-lifes?


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Italy has never been bailed out asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did, which makes you a low-class, verbally abusive liar.  Do you smack women and children around like most low-lifes?
Click to expand...


I state fact. You have been found out.  Shut up while you're ahead instead of projecting, you ignorant piece of crap.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> I state fact. You have been found out.  Shut up while you're ahead instead of projecting, you ignorant piece of crap.


Disagreed.  You post false accusations and insults just like the post your post quoted above.

You obviously have personal issues and, given your abusive behavior, I fail to see how you have anything of substance to offer.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is your 'reality' ?
> 
> Your reality is that we remain tied into a power-freaking foreign colossus that is serving its interests, and not ours. A powerhouse that exists to rob individual Nation States of their autonomy and subsume them into a single political entity, which the EU rules. Juncker made the EU's mindset clear, as I've posted. I've also posted evidence that this was the aim as far back as the 1950's.
> 
> Your reality would see such power-mongers succeed, for the sake of short-term economic 'gain' (unproven) and longer-term lack of political autonomy.
> 
> Mine would be to argue, and push, for our long-term freedom. I think we have a right to it. Don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
Click to expand...







 And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Italy has never been bailed out asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did, which makes you a low-class, verbally abusive liar.  Do you smack women and children around like most low-lifes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I state fact. You have been found out.  Shut up while you're ahead instead of projecting, you ignorant piece of crap.
Click to expand...







 His usual mantra when he posts his made up reality and gets caught out LYING


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reality is that often you have a choice between two bad situations.
> 
> The EU isn't the best of anything, but being out of the EU isn't the best of anything either.
> 
> HOWEVER, the arguments for leaving the EU don't measure up with the realities of leaving. There are reasons to leave, and I could make quite a good case, but none of those reasons would be what the Brexit people are harping on about.
> 
> What you're saying is there is a "foreign colossus" that is serving its own interests. I'm sorry, but many people don't think the Tories or Labour are representing their own interests.
> 
> The power mongers will succeed if the UK leaves. If the UK stays there's a bloc which can act against those people. But, like I've said before, it would require EFFORT rather than just moaning.
> 
> Britain is a can't do country, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
Click to expand...


Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive. 

Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets. 

Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.


----------



## frigidweirdo




----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I state fact. You have been found out.  Shut up while you're ahead instead of projecting, you ignorant piece of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed.  You post false accusations and insults just like the post your post quoted above.
> 
> You obviously have personal issues and, given your abusive behavior, I fail to see how you have anything of substance to offer.
Click to expand...


You only offer propaganda, tinged with racism as spewed by "anglo-saxon" media.  You claimed that Italy's finances were somehow more precarious than the norm in developed economies.  I provided facts that demonstrate that Italy's annual deficit and total debt (personal and public) is lower than that of most developed economies. 

When you had nothing else to back up your racist denigration of Italy based on current economics, you brought up Fascism and WW II as a deflection technique.

You are so transparent.


----------



## Divine Wind

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive.
> 
> Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets.
> 
> Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.
Click to expand...

A Brexit would lead to an exit of Germany and other nations seeking to shed the anchors of Greece, Italy  and other less-responsible nations in the EU.

A collapse of the EU is good for America.


----------



## HenryBHough

One of them rich fellas from Italy came here for the fishing this week.  

Stopped by the shop to buy some bait and to borrow a drill for a few minutes.

He took out a bunch of those Euro coins and drilled a hole in each one.

Says he uses 'em instead of led weights.  Says they're lighter to carry that what he used to use but, even though not as heavy as lead sinkers they somehow always to go down faster.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


>



What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...

Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.

The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*


----------



## montelatici

HenryBHough said:


> One of them rich fellas from Italy came here for the fishing this week.
> 
> Stopped by the shop to buy some bait and to borrow a drill for a few minutes.
> 
> He took out a bunch of those Euro coins and drilled a hole in each one.
> 
> Says he uses 'em instead of led weights.  Says they're lighter to carry that what he used to use but, even though not as heavy as lead sinkers they somehow always to go down faster.



Hmm. 1 euro is worth 1.12 USD.  Wonder what that was all about?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive.
> 
> Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets.
> 
> Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Brexit would lead to an exit of Germany and other nations seeking to shed the anchors of Greece, Italy  and other less-responsible nations in the EU.
> 
> A collapse of the EU is good for America.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't, and it isn't.


----------



## Divine Wind

frigidweirdo said:


> It wouldn't, and it isn't.


Time will tell, won't it?


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive.
> 
> Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets.
> 
> Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Brexit would lead to an exit of Germany and other nations seeking to shed the anchors of Greece, Italy  and other less-responsible nations in the EU.
> 
> A collapse of the EU is good for America.
Click to expand...


With a British exit, the EU will gain Scotland and possibly Wales as members.  The union, without England and Northern Ireland  will seek to integrate further. 


Germany and France were the most irresponsible but were not sanctioned.


"Back in 2003, both France and Germany were able to flout the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact, after they ran budget deficits in excess of 3pc of their GDP. Both managed to avoid sanction after their fellow members decided to let them off the hook."


Why do France and Germany keep breaking EU rules?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
Click to expand...


It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot. 

However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities. 

The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.

IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.

Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.

And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't, and it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell, won't it?
Click to expand...


Time will tell, but also it's pretty obvious now, so why does time need to tell? Oh, it's you not having an argument at all, and just saying something to stop it look like you don't have an argument.


----------



## montelatici

frigidweirdo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't, and it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell, won't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell, but also it's pretty obvious now, so why does time need to tell? Oh, it's you not having an argument at all, and just saying something to stop it look like you don't have an argument.
Click to expand...


Some may forget that the merger of the LSE and Deutsche Boerse will likely fall apart as Deutsche Boerse will look forward to EU companies leaving the LSE for them and other EU exchanges.


----------



## frigidweirdo

montelatici said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't, and it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell, won't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell, but also it's pretty obvious now, so why does time need to tell? Oh, it's you not having an argument at all, and just saying something to stop it look like you don't have an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may forget that the merger of the LSE and Deutsche Boerse will likely fall apart as Deutsche Boerse will look forward to EU companies leaving the LSE for them and other EU exchanges.
Click to expand...


Here's a good article from the BBC about the potential pitfalls of leaving. 

Germany conflicted on how to handle Brexit - BBC News


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the power mongers will succeed if the UK remains, too. Maybe - MAYBE - we can stall their effort for a limited time, but not forever. We only have one vote amongst a couple of dozen others, after all !!
> 
> And at the end of it, we'll be at the tender mercy of a foreign colossus which, as I said, serves ITS interests, not ours.
> 
> Consider.The EEC began as mere trading bloc. Then the power-freaks moved in, created the EU, bound Member States into treaty obligations to the EU, these conferring power to the European Parliament - a Parliament that didn't exist under the old setup.
> 
> How 'successful' has the UK been in stopping any of this ? Answer ... Gordon Brown SIGNED US UP to the Lisbon Treaty !!
> 
> We have a chance to undo this wreckage on 23rd June, and reclaim what is ours by right ... the right to GOVERN OURSELVES.
> 
> You say that neither the Tories nor Labour are interested in the concerns of the ordinary citizen ? I can agree that this is true of Labour, who actually forbade us from having a Referendum. Though the Conservatives may - some of them - be pushing hard for continued membership, nonetheless, if it weren't for them, we'd have no Referendum ! I call that .... LISTENING ! Considering the ordinary citizen, not ignoring him.
> 
> Being out of the EU is very definitely the best of one specific thing. The chance to regain our political autonomy !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive.
> 
> Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets.
> 
> Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.
Click to expand...







 They cant as the EU rules will not allow them to do so, The price is set and that is what it has to sell for. If the UK leaves they are no longer constrained by the rules and can sell for what they want.

Yes when the Eastern European nations joined trade with them increased and some people became very rich in the process. Now they are struggling to attract buyers for their produce because it is of such poor quality, they are forced to put country of origin on the packaging so many people wont now buy these goods. The people being poor did not buy much from the EU and found most of the edible produce to be tasteless and poor.

Trade wont change as the nations will need to buy our goods before we buy theirs, if they refuse we walk away and go elsewhere.I am sure we can do without golden delicious apples and straight cucumbers for a few weeks until ours become ripe. Or we can go to Israel for their fresh fruits ?


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK "only has one vote amongst a couple of dozen others", yeah, and so do those who want the EU to be a superstate, don't they? But they've managed to actually do something.
> 
> The EU has plenty of Euroskeptics, and if the UK could bring them together, they'd find they have a powerful body.
> 
> Again, the UK is a can't do country.
> 
> So, consider the EU as it used to be, and the Brits say this is the sort of thing they want, and they don't try and make it happen.
> 
> Did you see the pound dropped again? It rose 0.4% against the dollar and 0.8% against the Euro with a poll being pro-stay, and it's swung the other way.
> 
> Pound Drops as New Brexit Poll Shows ‘Leave’ Camp Taking Lead
> 
> "The pound dropped after a new poll showed a jump in support for the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union, spooking some investors who had thought that the result was a foregone conclusion."
> 
> "The pound dropped 0.9 percent to $1.4511 as of 5:37 p.m. London time, the biggest drop since May 3. It weakened 0.9 percent to 76.79 pence per euro."
> 
> Come June 23rd, and people getting close to their holiday in Spain or Greece, how much more is it going to cost them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive.
> 
> Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets.
> 
> Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Brexit would lead to an exit of Germany and other nations seeking to shed the anchors of Greece, Italy  and other less-responsible nations in the EU.
> 
> A collapse of the EU is good for America.
Click to expand...





 Not really as it would be ripe for an Eastern invasion through trade. The US is too far away to make trade viable, and NATO is becoming fragmented due to socialist powers in Europe


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market likes certainty. With a pro-EU decision, the markets have that certainty. Because .. of the familiarity of the status quo ... simply that.
> 
> With a UK forging new trading ties, in a wider market containing a wider scope of trading opportunities, the markets would respond very positively indeed to that ... once there was a proven case for prosperity.
> 
> As for the effect of June 23rd on holidaymakers going to Greece and Spain .. it's interesting to note that you've chosen two weak currencies. Consider the small, but highly unstable, economy of Greece. Small or not, some months ago it created crisis conditions within the EU as a whole. Greece got its bailout, yet may well default again in the future. What price continuing economic stability throughout the Eurozone, if that happens ? Spain is in a stronger position, yet not so very much stronger that she, too, may flounder someday.
> 
> 'A chain is as strong as its weakest link'. Only as strong as Greece ? And .. you want to chain us to the entity that's having to carry such failing economies on its back ???
> 
> Better that we shake off such shackles, and man the lifeboats, in case the ship sinks, eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "new trading ties"????
> 
> The EU makes trade agreements that will have far more force than the UK could ever get. What is the UK going to get that will replace what the UK will lose from leaving the EU?
> 
> Do you know how much money the UK gets from EU trade agreements with those outside of the EU? Do you know how much money the UK gets from trading within the EU?
> 
> I looked at statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to find any more), and it showed that in the first two years of countries like Estonia, and all those who joined the EU in 2004, their trade with the UK increased up to 200%, and that withing 2 years. Why? Why would trade increase massively with the UK in this time? It's clear.
> 
> Stats are difficult, there are different interpretations of everything that could happen.
> 
> No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report - BBC News
> 
> Civitas says there's no benefit from being in the EU. I disagree with this. This "seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry."
> 
> So, both sides will say their piece.
> 
> http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf
> 
> "If Britain were to leave the EU, it would face a difficult dilemma: having to negotiate access to the EU’s single market in exchange for continued adherence to its rules – or losing access in return for regulatory sovereignty that would be largely illusory."
> 
> Basically, the EU is about 50% of the UK's trade. The UK cannot afford to risk losing 50% of this trade. There's no way in hell the UK can make up this 50% of trade from outside the EU. You don't just go to Zimbabwe and say "hey, we're open and willing to deal, can you substitute for Spain?"
> 
> HM Revenue & Customs uktradeinfo - EU & Non-EU_Data
> 
> "Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. This remained unchanged compared with last month. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> "EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."
> 
> So, 12 billion to 12.9 billion for EU to non-EU trade per month. 12 billion pounds is a lot of money.
> 
> For example, if the pound lost 1% against the Euro, then that's 120 million pounds gone. That's 120 million a month. Make the pound lose 5% and that 600 million a month. 7.20 billion a year. And that's only in exports.
> 
> UK imports from the EU were 20 billion. 1% and the UK is paying an extra 200 million pounds. That's 320 million pounds a month. Make it 5% and that's 1.6 billion pounds a month, added to exports and that's 19.2 billion a year, added to the exports and that's 26.4 billion a year.
> 
> Then take into account the amount of trade the UK would actually lose from not being as competitive as those around them.
> 
> The EU costs the UK, what? About 6 billion a year. You would be willing to save 6 billion a year and risk losing 19.2 billion a year from a drop which is very close to what we saw yesterday from a poll saying leave was in the lead, or risk losing 26.4 billion a year if it goes to 5%, or you can do the maths based on this for other percentages.
> 
> Add in the costs of potentially losing money from not being part of EU trade deals and having to make their own (yes, I know you probably think that UK politicians are the best in the world, but clearly they're not, as the Germans and French are leading the EU) so, the UK going out to make those trade deals, with less power behind them, less chance of such a good deal, and you're losing even more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the EU will still need those same goods when the UK leaves, that is if it leaves. Trade is a two way street and the EU will lose an outlet for its goods as well, meaning that they will have to negotiate a new policy. Already it is said to reduce the cost of white goods in the UK because we will no longer pay the EU levy on them. We will also be able to buy appliances that work and not underrated underpowered toys that meet EU approval on efficiency. ( how would you like a Ford Mustang powered by a single cylinder moped engine )    So in a nutshell we can set our own prices, so undercutting EU manufacturers. The EU will still need our products until they can get the East to produce the goods they are in need of. Just as the US need the UK to offload its goods on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it will. But then some EU companies might see that they can sell those same products for cheaper within the EU, and become successful while UK companies are struggling to be competitive.
> 
> Trade is a 2 way street. HOWEVER, like I've said, in 2004 when 8 countries joined the EU, the trade with those 8 countries increased, and with a few it was over 200% in two years. These products weren't being sold to these countries before this, then the open borders and ease of trade made these products viable in their markets.
> 
> Having a simplistic view on trade, which the Brexit people seem to think won't change anything, or at least this is what they're trying to portray is extremely naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Brexit would lead to an exit of Germany and other nations seeking to shed the anchors of Greece, Italy  and other less-responsible nations in the EU.
> 
> A collapse of the EU is good for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With a British exit, the EU will gain Scotland and possibly Wales as members.  The union, without England and Northern Ireland  will seek to integrate further.
> 
> 
> Germany and France were the most irresponsible but were not sanctioned.
> 
> 
> "Back in 2003, both France and Germany were able to flout the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact, after they ran budget deficits in excess of 3pc of their GDP. Both managed to avoid sanction after their fellow members decided to let them off the hook."
> 
> 
> Why do France and Germany keep breaking EU rules?
Click to expand...






 WRONG as the EU has already stated that they will have to offer something in return, and at the moment they are not on the list of priorities. They do not give a back door into England and will just end up paying for security they cant afford. Hadrians wall and Offa's dyke are still in existence and the English could make them fortified very quickly, and give employment to the workshy in the process.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
Click to expand...






 If you can forecast the future so well why aren't you a multi billionaire.

 We have trade now because Europe needs our products, that will not change if we leave they will still need our products. If the UK loses half of its trade so will the EU as it is a two way street, and Europe is running on a thin line after taking on far too many poor Eastern European nations. They hoped to put a buffer zone between Russia and the West using these former soviet satellite nations and failed. If they can find a way to offload them without seeming arrogant and nasty then they should do so. The Syrian crisis has shown that the EU failed on its border security because it never implemented the multi national armed force it promised.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> They cant as the EU rules will not allow them to do so, The price is set and that is what it has to sell for. If the UK leaves they are no longer constrained by the rules and can sell for what they want.
> 
> Yes when the Eastern European nations joined trade with them increased and some people became very rich in the process. Now they are struggling to attract buyers for their produce because it is of such poor quality, they are forced to put country of origin on the packaging so many people wont now buy these goods. The people being poor did not buy much from the EU and found most of the edible produce to be tasteless and poor.
> 
> Trade wont change as the nations will need to buy our goods before we buy theirs, if they refuse we walk away and go elsewhere.I am sure we can do without golden delicious apples and straight cucumbers for a few weeks until ours become ripe. Or we can go to Israel for their fresh fruits ?



Except if A) the UK govt decides to impose such limits and B) if the UK ends up in a deal with the EU that constrains UK businesses. 

I don't just mean products going from east to west, mainly I mean west to east, they were buying UK products. Now, if those products rise in price, will they continue to buy from the UK? 

You say trade won't change. You're not being realistic at all. Trade WILL change, of course it will. Even the Brexit people know it will change, and it will almost certainly change for the worst for the UK. It might also effect the EU. 

Like that BBC article I posted said, the chances of the EU trying to "punish" the UK for leaving is quite high, even if they would suffer a little. 

Scotland would suffer a LOT.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can forecast the future so well why aren't you a multi billionaire.
> 
> We have trade now because Europe needs our products, that will not change if we leave they will still need our products. If the UK loses half of its trade so will the EU as it is a two way street, and Europe is running on a thin line after taking on far too many poor Eastern European nations. They hoped to put a buffer zone between Russia and the West using these former soviet satellite nations and failed. If they can find a way to offload them without seeming arrogant and nasty then they should do so. The Syrian crisis has shown that the EU failed on its border security because it never implemented the multi national armed force it promised.
Click to expand...



What I'm forecasting is very vague. I'm suggesting a lot of possibilities, not saying exactly what will happen. 

Yes, the EU wants our products and we want their products. 

However you have lots of different possibilities out there.

1) The EU will try and hurt the UK by being tough when negotiating a new trade agreement so that UK business will have to pay tariffs on their goods going to the EU. 

2) The pound will drop in order to accommodate tariffs and the like, and this will lose the UK a lot of money. I posted that a 1% drop in the pound against the Euro will lose the UK more money than the net spending on the EU. a 5% will cause massive unemployment along with a devalued pound which makes everyone poorer anyway.

3) The UK (with a government that is pro-EU whichever gets elected) will choose to join the Schengen Zone in order to have good trade, which will lose the UK a lot less in trade, but which is a WORSE situation for immigration.

Here are some. In order for the UK not to lose out economically, the UK has to accept what the EU is offering and that the Brexit people won't like.

In just about every possibility, there is no win/win for the UK. Either they lose economically or they lose by being controlled more by the EU.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can forecast the future so well why aren't you a multi billionaire.
> 
> We have trade now because Europe needs our products, that will not change if we leave they will still need our products. If the UK loses half of its trade so will the EU as it is a two way street, and Europe is running on a thin line after taking on far too many poor Eastern European nations. They hoped to put a buffer zone between Russia and the West using these former soviet satellite nations and failed. If they can find a way to offload them without seeming arrogant and nasty then they should do so. The Syrian crisis has shown that the EU failed on its border security because it never implemented the multi national armed force it promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm forecasting is very vague. I'm suggesting a lot of possibilities, not saying exactly what will happen.
> 
> Yes, the EU wants our products and we want their products.
> 
> However you have lots of different possibilities out there.
> 
> 1) The EU will try and hurt the UK by being tough when negotiating a new trade agreement so that UK business will have to pay tariffs on their goods going to the EU.
> 
> 2) The pound will drop in order to accommodate tariffs and the like, and this will lose the UK a lot of money. I posted that a 1% drop in the pound against the Euro will lose the UK more money than the net spending on the EU. a 5% will cause massive unemployment along with a devalued pound which makes everyone poorer anyway.
> 
> 3) The UK (with a government that is pro-EU whichever gets elected) will choose to join the Schengen Zone in order to have good trade, which will lose the UK a lot less in trade, but which is a WORSE situation for immigration.
> 
> Here are some. In order for the UK not to lose out economically, the UK has to accept what the EU is offering and that the Brexit people won't like.
> 
> In just about every possibility, there is no win/win for the UK. Either they lose economically or they lose by being controlled more by the EU.
Click to expand...


Two points ... 

1. Let's say you're correct about the EU seeking to punish us for exiting it. Well ... doesn't this say all that needs to be said about the very CORRECTNESS of getting out ? Isn't it akin to some 'Mafia'-like organisation seeking punishment against anyone daring to defy it ?

Are we prepared to fight for our own future, or not ? MUST the 'we choose to cower like wimps in the face of EU bullying' be the way of things ???

2. Brexit, if voted for, would not produce a cataclysmic, immediate disenfranchisement from the EU. It'd have to be legislated for (on our side, and theirs). I recall reading that at least two years would be needed to conclude the process.

Now, what might we achieve in that time. Would we be sitting on our hands, immobile, incapable of seeking out alternative markets and making agreements with them ? Why ... in the interim period, the combination of continuing (if only temporarily) trading agreement being honoured, AND the new trade we'd gain, might lead to a limited period of net GAIN for us ... a booming economy, for as long as the interim persisted !!!

Perhaps we'd gain enough to see that gain offset any dips from EU 'punishments' .. ?


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> Not really as it would be ripe for an Eastern invasion through trade. The US is too far away to make trade viable, and NATO is becoming fragmented due to socialist powers in Europe


That's already happening, especially with oil and gas being held hostage by Putin.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Two points ...
> 
> 1. Let's say you're correct about the EU seeking to punish us for exiting it. Well ... doesn't this say all that needs to be said about the very CORRECTNESS of getting out ? Isn't it akin to some 'Mafia'-like organisation seeking punishment against anyone daring to defy it ?
> 
> Are we prepared to fight for our own future, or not ? MUST the 'we choose to cower like wimps in the face of EU bullying' be the way of things ???
> 
> 2. Brexit, if voted for, would not produce a cataclysmic, immediate disenfranchisement from the EU. It'd have to be legislated for (on our side, and theirs). I recall reading that at least two years would be needed to conclude the process.
> 
> Now, what might we achieve in that time. Would we be sitting on our hands, immobile, incapable of seeking out alternative markets and making agreements with them ? Why ... in the interim period, the combination of continuing (if only temporarily) trading agreement being honoured, AND the new trade we'd gain, might lead to a limited period of net GAIN for us ... a booming economy, for as long as the interim persisted !!!
> 
> Perhaps we'd gain enough to see that gain offset any dips from EU 'punishments' .. ?



1) Does it say all that's correct? Not necessarily. Would England have done the same to Scotland? Probably. The UK is the one leaving and opening itself up to a bag of worms. 
The EU can make a treaty with the UK, the EU is in a position of power, the UK is in a position of weakness. Why shouldn't the EU take advantage of this?

2) No, I didn't say it would produce a cataclysmic leaving of the EU. It gives the UK some time. But it also leaves the EU with the ability to sit back and wait. 

However, if the UK decides to leave the EU, and it takes 2 years, that's 2 years of unstable markets, that's 2 years of people wondering what will happen. 2 years for companies to reconsider being in the UK, 2 years for a lot of problems for the UK.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
Click to expand...


I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.

'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???

*Incredible.*

Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?

*National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me. 

Thank you for making my case for me.


----------



## montelatici

The EU will simply do what it is the interest of the member states.  The remaining parts of the UK, if Scotland leaves and joins the EU,  will have to negotiate an access arrangement with the EU.  The EU has two different types of agreements with European countries one with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein (EEA) and one with Switzerland.  The Swiss one allows less access to the EU than the EEA agreement but Switzerland is allowed to not accept certain EU regulations as national law in Switzerland.  The EEA countries have to accept all regulations/laws in practice.

The EU will negotiate  a similar arrangement to the UK once it leaves, but the EU will certainly not agree to a better agreement as the EEA countries and Switzerland would ask to renegotiate if the EU did that.


----------



## HenryBHough

montelatici said:


> Hmm. 1 euro is worth 1.12 USD.  Wonder what that was all about?





Last I had to buy cost $1.37.  The fall from $1.37 to $1.12, on your planet, is considered a rising Euro?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it. 

However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit. 

Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time. 

You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it. 

This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
Click to expand...


Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?

Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....

... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......

What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!

I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???

If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??

You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!

Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They cant as the EU rules will not allow them to do so, The price is set and that is what it has to sell for. If the UK leaves they are no longer constrained by the rules and can sell for what they want.
> 
> Yes when the Eastern European nations joined trade with them increased and some people became very rich in the process. Now they are struggling to attract buyers for their produce because it is of such poor quality, they are forced to put country of origin on the packaging so many people wont now buy these goods. The people being poor did not buy much from the EU and found most of the edible produce to be tasteless and poor.
> 
> Trade wont change as the nations will need to buy our goods before we buy theirs, if they refuse we walk away and go elsewhere.I am sure we can do without golden delicious apples and straight cucumbers for a few weeks until ours become ripe. Or we can go to Israel for their fresh fruits ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except if A) the UK govt decides to impose such limits and B) if the UK ends up in a deal with the EU that constrains UK businesses.
> 
> I don't just mean products going from east to west, mainly I mean west to east, they were buying UK products. Now, if those products rise in price, will they continue to buy from the UK?
> 
> You say trade won't change. You're not being realistic at all. Trade WILL change, of course it will. Even the Brexit people know it will change, and it will almost certainly change for the worst for the UK. It might also effect the EU.
> 
> Like that BBC article I posted said, the chances of the EU trying to "punish" the UK for leaving is quite high, even if they would suffer a little.
> 
> Scotland would suffer a LOT.
Click to expand...







 They wont rise they will drop, and this is what the problem is. The prices are kept artificially high so that farmers in richer nations can still make a profit. This was a constraint on normal business practices so that French and German farmers could compete unfairly with farmers on poorer nations. Things like washing machines, dishwashers, fridges etc. all had a minimum price set to accommodate the "richer" nations. So why would a consumer buy a washing machine made in the EU costing $250 when the British one identical down to name would cost $175. So yes trade will change over time, but initially the biggest change will be in pricing of EU goods down to compete in a free market, and the items from non EU sources available in the shops.
The EU will suffer much more than the UK will when it has to increase the "donations" from member states to cover the costs lost from the UK exit.    Why would Scotland suffer more when they will be cushioned by the UK rising economy and not the EU falling economy.   Look it up and see how the general EU economy is dropping and holding back the UK economy


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can forecast the future so well why aren't you a multi billionaire.
> 
> We have trade now because Europe needs our products, that will not change if we leave they will still need our products. If the UK loses half of its trade so will the EU as it is a two way street, and Europe is running on a thin line after taking on far too many poor Eastern European nations. They hoped to put a buffer zone between Russia and the West using these former soviet satellite nations and failed. If they can find a way to offload them without seeming arrogant and nasty then they should do so. The Syrian crisis has shown that the EU failed on its border security because it never implemented the multi national armed force it promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm forecasting is very vague. I'm suggesting a lot of possibilities, not saying exactly what will happen.
> 
> Yes, the EU wants our products and we want their products.
> 
> However you have lots of different possibilities out there.
> 
> 1) The EU will try and hurt the UK by being tough when negotiating a new trade agreement so that UK business will have to pay tariffs on their goods going to the EU.
> 
> 2) The pound will drop in order to accommodate tariffs and the like, and this will lose the UK a lot of money. I posted that a 1% drop in the pound against the Euro will lose the UK more money than the net spending on the EU. a 5% will cause massive unemployment along with a devalued pound which makes everyone poorer anyway.
> 
> 3) The UK (with a government that is pro-EU whichever gets elected) will choose to join the Schengen Zone in order to have good trade, which will lose the UK a lot less in trade, but which is a WORSE situation for immigration.
> 
> Here are some. In order for the UK not to lose out economically, the UK has to accept what the EU is offering and that the Brexit people won't like.
> 
> In just about every possibility, there is no win/win for the UK. Either they lose economically or they lose by being controlled more by the EU.
Click to expand...







 So we impose our own tariffs on the EU goods coming to the UK. The same goods that they are pricing out of the market made in the UK, so that trade stops and the EU is the loser.

Currency fluctuates all the time and the Euro more so than any other. If the £ drops then the costs of overseas travel will rise and less people will go. Foreign goods will increase in price meaning less will be sold and imports will stop. The UK economy will drop slightly but the EU even more when the other currencies rise against the Euro .

Why will we accept the very thing that has forced us to look at leaving, control of our borders. Without the Schengen zone we will be controlling our borders once again and we will be stopping 90% of migrants after a free ride. If the EU had allowed the UK to impose the same laws that France and Germany have in place then there would be no problems, but they did not want to lose their dumping ground and so forced the issue. Now they are seeing the folly of their ways and will have to pay the price.

We don't have to accept what they are offering as we can go elsewhere to new markets that have tried to trade with the UK in the last ten years. The EU has to face facts that they could lose 30% of its income and so go bust. The east of Europe is turning because of the muslim crisis and they want action from Brussels to turn the tide, they want control of their borders back. If it is not forthcoming watch them start to leave the EU, putting even more strain on the EU rules and laws.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
Click to expand...







 No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
Click to expand...


Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.

Look at what the Tories DID DO.

Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond

"First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"

"“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-powers-English-MPs-bid-head-Tory-revolt.html

"
*Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*

Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians. 

I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money. 

So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this. 

I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.

Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU. 

So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge. 

As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before. 

I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems. 

When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.

Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected. 

It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example. 

Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.



But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They cant as the EU rules will not allow them to do so, The price is set and that is what it has to sell for. If the UK leaves they are no longer constrained by the rules and can sell for what they want.
> 
> Yes when the Eastern European nations joined trade with them increased and some people became very rich in the process. Now they are struggling to attract buyers for their produce because it is of such poor quality, they are forced to put country of origin on the packaging so many people wont now buy these goods. The people being poor did not buy much from the EU and found most of the edible produce to be tasteless and poor.
> 
> Trade wont change as the nations will need to buy our goods before we buy theirs, if they refuse we walk away and go elsewhere.I am sure we can do without golden delicious apples and straight cucumbers for a few weeks until ours become ripe. Or we can go to Israel for their fresh fruits ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except if A) the UK govt decides to impose such limits and B) if the UK ends up in a deal with the EU that constrains UK businesses.
> 
> I don't just mean products going from east to west, mainly I mean west to east, they were buying UK products. Now, if those products rise in price, will they continue to buy from the UK?
> 
> You say trade won't change. You're not being realistic at all. Trade WILL change, of course it will. Even the Brexit people know it will change, and it will almost certainly change for the worst for the UK. It might also effect the EU.
> 
> Like that BBC article I posted said, the chances of the EU trying to "punish" the UK for leaving is quite high, even if they would suffer a little.
> 
> Scotland would suffer a LOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wont rise they will drop, and this is what the problem is. The prices are kept artificially high so that farmers in richer nations can still make a profit. This was a constraint on normal business practices so that French and German farmers could compete unfairly with farmers on poorer nations. Things like washing machines, dishwashers, fridges etc. all had a minimum price set to accommodate the "richer" nations. So why would a consumer buy a washing machine made in the EU costing $250 when the British one identical down to name would cost $175. So yes trade will change over time, but initially the biggest change will be in pricing of EU goods down to compete in a free market, and the items from non EU sources available in the shops.
> The EU will suffer much more than the UK will when it has to increase the "donations" from member states to cover the costs lost from the UK exit.    Why would Scotland suffer more when they will be cushioned by the UK rising economy and not the EU falling economy.   Look it up and see how the general EU economy is dropping and holding back the UK economy
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by set prices. Is this set prices exporting, importing, internal within the EU? Where is the set price? 

As far as I know there's something about price discrimination within different countries. So if you sell for 200 euros in France then you sell for 200 euros in Germany, for example. 

But leaving the EU doesn't mean this would necessarily change. That depends on the deal the UK gets, and any deal is going to include a lot of what the EU does.

Potentially the EU washing machine would become more expensive, so people would more likely to buy British products if tariffs are imposed, this can be beneficial. However the problem is the UK market is smaller than the EU market, and over all the UK will miss out. 

I don't see how the EU economy is holding back the UK economy. But you're welcome to make your case.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can forecast the future so well why aren't you a multi billionaire.
> 
> We have trade now because Europe needs our products, that will not change if we leave they will still need our products. If the UK loses half of its trade so will the EU as it is a two way street, and Europe is running on a thin line after taking on far too many poor Eastern European nations. They hoped to put a buffer zone between Russia and the West using these former soviet satellite nations and failed. If they can find a way to offload them without seeming arrogant and nasty then they should do so. The Syrian crisis has shown that the EU failed on its border security because it never implemented the multi national armed force it promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm forecasting is very vague. I'm suggesting a lot of possibilities, not saying exactly what will happen.
> 
> Yes, the EU wants our products and we want their products.
> 
> However you have lots of different possibilities out there.
> 
> 1) The EU will try and hurt the UK by being tough when negotiating a new trade agreement so that UK business will have to pay tariffs on their goods going to the EU.
> 
> 2) The pound will drop in order to accommodate tariffs and the like, and this will lose the UK a lot of money. I posted that a 1% drop in the pound against the Euro will lose the UK more money than the net spending on the EU. a 5% will cause massive unemployment along with a devalued pound which makes everyone poorer anyway.
> 
> 3) The UK (with a government that is pro-EU whichever gets elected) will choose to join the Schengen Zone in order to have good trade, which will lose the UK a lot less in trade, but which is a WORSE situation for immigration.
> 
> Here are some. In order for the UK not to lose out economically, the UK has to accept what the EU is offering and that the Brexit people won't like.
> 
> In just about every possibility, there is no win/win for the UK. Either they lose economically or they lose by being controlled more by the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we impose our own tariffs on the EU goods coming to the UK. The same goods that they are pricing out of the market made in the UK, so that trade stops and the EU is the loser.
> 
> Currency fluctuates all the time and the Euro more so than any other. If the £ drops then the costs of overseas travel will rise and less people will go. Foreign goods will increase in price meaning less will be sold and imports will stop. The UK economy will drop slightly but the EU even more when the other currencies rise against the Euro .
> 
> Why will we accept the very thing that has forced us to look at leaving, control of our borders. Without the Schengen zone we will be controlling our borders once again and we will be stopping 90% of migrants after a free ride. If the EU had allowed the UK to impose the same laws that France and Germany have in place then there would be no problems, but they did not want to lose their dumping ground and so forced the issue. Now they are seeing the folly of their ways and will have to pay the price.
> 
> We don't have to accept what they are offering as we can go elsewhere to new markets that have tried to trade with the UK in the last ten years. The EU has to face facts that they could lose 30% of its income and so go bust. The east of Europe is turning because of the muslim crisis and they want action from Brussels to turn the tide, they want control of their borders back. If it is not forthcoming watch them start to leave the EU, putting even more strain on the EU rules and laws.
Click to expand...


No, the EU won't be the loser. It's a matter of figures. The EU will still be a much, MUCH larger market than the UK market. 

For the EU to cope with losing say 10% of UK trade will impact the EU, but it will be a far lower percentage of trade than for the UK. 

Why would the UK accept the Schengen Zone? Well, because the people who vote leave, aren't necessarily the politicians who will be doing the deals with the EU. Think about it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
Click to expand...


Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly? 

I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?

What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-powers-English-MPs-bid-head-Tory-revolt.html
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
Click to expand...


What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.

You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !! 

What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?

You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.

I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
Click to expand...


You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?

'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.

June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-powers-English-MPs-bid-head-Tory-revolt.html
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
Click to expand...


Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen. 

You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? 

Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it? 

You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway? 

So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway. 

Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......

Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
Click to expand...


I think immigration has a big impact. 

However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.

Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?

Why the UK?

Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...


You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*

Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!

We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.

Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What possible freedom do we have for trying to implement any 'plan', for as long as the EU dictates to us ?? We DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to actively plan, as yet. No doubt if we tried, the EU would try to punish us for it ...
> 
> Besides, in general terms, it's obvious.* One*, IF the conditions are favourable enough, we can continue to trade with EU countries. However, we have yet to see how nasty Member States would want to be, how they'd try to punish us, if we successfully obtained our freedom.
> 
> The extent of such spiteful activity would determine the extent of our trade with others. It's not as though the rest of the world doesn't exist .. it does. We can, *two*, trade with it, determining *OUR terms for doing so. *BUT, *only if we're shot of the EU !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a leaving plan. What freedom do you have to make a leaving plan? Quite a lot.
> 
> However, if you're suggesting that the Brexit people can't make a leaving plan because they have no idea what the EU is going to do afterwards, you might be right, and it's also a reason why people should seriously be looking at the possibilities.
> 
> The Brexit people act like the UK is just going to make trade agreements that are equal to or better than what exists now. Chances are this isn't going to happen. People need to know this.
> 
> IF conditions are favorable enough, the UK won't lose half its trade. Wow, that's.... that's...... like jumping off a really high waterfall and hoping to do a perfect 10 dive, chances of survival? 1%.
> 
> Yes, spiteful activity. What reason does the EU have to want the UK to do well out of leaving the EU? None. There's no positive for them. They want to see the UK rot, and show all the other countries what happens if you leave the UK. The UK will be the example.
> 
> And you want to leave knowing you could lose a lot of trade, causing massive unemployment and problems? You want this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-powers-English-MPs-bid-head-Tory-revolt.html
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
Click to expand...








 No broken promises at all, just the SNP not reading the documents properly. They said more devolved power with a corresponding cut in monies, not the same monies and also the right to set their own taxes. Just sour grapes on the Scots side that amount to immature foot stomping.


Staying in the EU will cost a lot more than our national pride if we stay as Europes dumping ground for the bad apples.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked your last post, and for good reason. You've done a lot to acknowledge the true, pernicious, nature of the EU.
> 
> 'THEY WANT TO SEE THE UK ROT'. H'm. Ever heard of the saying 'With friends like that, who needs enemies' .. ? You concede yourself the malevolent side of EU thinking ... and you insist that we must STILL want to be a part of it ???
> 
> *Incredible.*
> 
> Some of us don't want to live our lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who are perfectly happy to hate our guts, if they find we don't behave as THEY choose us to !!! And I get from your wording that they will happily seize on an opportunity to 'make an example of us', for stepping out of line ? Rather like the Mafia might ... ?
> 
> *National pride. *Seems to me that we have our opportunity to reclaim it, to re-acquaint ourselves with some understanding and experience of some self-respect !! Getting shot of the likes of the EU will serve that aim nicely, it seems to me.
> 
> Thank you for making my case for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
Click to expand...







 Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.


----------



## Mindful

Here's an alternative:

Brexit to Brentrance: Why Britain Should Switch Membership from the EU for the EEU


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
Click to expand...


Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do. 

Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the EU is, I know it is far from perfect and I don't particularly like it.
> 
> However, what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union? I didn't say it would happen, but it's a possibility, why? Because this is human nature. If you were against everything that succumbed to human nature you'd have to go be a hermit.
> 
> Some don't want their lives ruled, dominated, by foreigners who hate your guts?
> What about the Tories? They're just a bunch of Normans who have hated the English, the Scots, the Welsh etc for a long long time.
> 
> You want to get "national pride" back? Is this all it is? It's like having a vote to see if England will win the world cup. Get more than 50% and England get to decide they have won it.
> 
> This is all Brexit is. People whose lives are pretty miserable, who think that they'll somehow get better lives outside of the EU, but the reality doesn't suggest this is the case (ie, you won't have more money after leaving, the laws will still be made and people will still not like them), so you just stick to things like Churchill, the flag, pride, and all that nationalistic nonsense that doesn't improve people's lives, it just gives them a reason to get drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
Click to expand...


So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?

No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.


----------



## Mindful

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
> 
> No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
Click to expand...



Good question.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answering* 'what would you do if someone wanted to leave and you didn't want to see the break up of your union?'* .. I can tell you what I _wouldn't_ do. I'd not behave like some latter-day Hitler, determined to viciously punish a Nation State daring to have the sheer temerity to defy my rule !! And let's say you were talking about a 'union', i.e a TRADE Union. Do such Unions punish members who decide to be ex-members, or do they just accept it ?
> 
> Perhaps, instead of 'punishing', they attempt instead to make membership too attractive an option to defy ? Rather than just meting out a whole lot of nastiness ....
> 
> ... still. This IS the EU we're really talking about ... !!! ......
> 
> What about the Tories, you say. I echo the question. What ABOUT them ? Since when were they relevant, in the sense being examined in this thread .. apart from allowing us a Referendum in the first place ? The pros and cons of EU membership aren't characterised by your personal assessment of the British Conservative Party !!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with national pride.* WHY DO YOU ?* Why, in your universe, is this any form of lamentable thing ? Doesn't the UK have a right to pride ? To a feeling of self-worth ? As well as being subsumed under the dictatorship of the EU, must we bury our sense of identity, too, and consider it worthless ? Is THIS what you expect ???
> 
> If, by your reckoning, 'Brexiters' lead miserable lives .. they currently do so whilst under the dominion of the EU. What does that say for the worth of our existence as members ?? Perhaps ... the key to improving their lives (and everyone else's on this side of the Channel) would be to regain national pride. National identity. FREEDOM to rule OURSELVES, forge our OWN path ... ? Is that really so terrible, is it too lamentable a path to dare to tread ??
> 
> You call nationalism 'nonsense'. Indeed ? OK, expand it to a future where the EU has realised its dream and become a single, indivisible political entity. Should it feel 'guilty' about pride in its own identity ? Would you disapprove of it, if it did feel such 'pride' ? Fact is that your dismisiveness towards 'nonsense nationalism' is no more than a convenient device you're employing to shift emotionalism to a direction of your choosing. I say this: the UK has a right to exist, feel pride in itself, work towards self rule, work towards its political freedom from a political entity that, as you've said yourself, would be happy to see us rot if we did too much to defy it !!
> 
> Your remaining argumentation relies on scaremongering, and sapping our confidence in ourselves to succeed on our own merits (which is insulting, isn't it ?). You've no basis for supposing we are incapable of thriving outside of the EU. Other countries manage it ..._ so can we._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
Click to expand...


The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.

That's the theory.

In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in. 

We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.

I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't, but the politicians might. The leaving of Scotland would be far less dangerous for the UK than the UK leaving the EU. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Tories would try and pull some stunt like that.
> 
> Look at what the Tories DID DO.
> 
> Scotland could get ‘revenge’ for broken referendum promises, says Salmond
> 
> "First minister says a ‘huge gap’ has opened between what was promised by Westminster leaders and command paper"
> 
> "“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”"
> 
> Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland
> 
> "
> *Boris slams 'reckless' election promises to Scotland as Cameron calls for a 'fair settlement' for all UK nations"*
> 
> Now, you can complain about the EU, I understand the point you're making, but you're merely taking some power away from one group of untrustworthy politicians and giving to another group of untrustworthy politicians.
> 
> I'll make the assumption that you're English (though I could be wrong) and while Cameron is English, he doesn't necessarily stand up for every English person, in fact he's a bit elitist, trying to destroy the NHS, education going down the pan, public services simply not being what they should be, all because the rich want to save themselves a bit of money.
> 
> So, moving from the EU which is a bunch of foreigners, to Cameron and his buddies, I'm sort of failing to see how you benefit from this.
> 
> I totally agree with your point that they should make membership attractive to the members. The thing is, from someone who was in youth politics, and a short while in adult politics, you see the sort of people that politics attracts, and they're not the sort of people you want running your country.
> 
> Hence my argument. You go from politicians in Brussels to politicians in London, and to be honest I don't see the difference much. Fine, in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either. You elect people to the EU who don't do much for us within the EU, you elect people to Westminster who also don't do much for the UK within the EU.
> 
> So, leaving the EU won't get sovereignty back, won't make things better, as you'll still have politicians in charge.
> 
> As for your question about the relevance of the Tories, I believe I answered this before.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with national pride, unless national pride gets in the way of national reality. I see what people like Milosevic, those in Rwanada, in China, in the US, in Argentina (over the Falklands for example) where national pride gets in the way of sensible thinking and causes a lot of problems.
> 
> When it is pride that complements reality, then it's great, but it's not always the case, and the Brexit situation doesn't seem to be about pride AND reality, but pride OVER reality.
> 
> Identity is an important part, and in many ways I agree with those of the Tory/UKIP camp when it comes to dealing strongly with immigration. I've lived in countries with tough immigration laws, almost impossible permanent immigration laws, all foreigners are living on one or two years at a time. I have no problem with this. I think identity is something that should be promoted and protected.
> 
> It's not just Brexit people who lead miserable lives. Lots of people lead miserable lives and they look to politics, sometimes, to give them hope. Obama stood on a platform of hope and won. Trump is throwing hope out to the people without much in the way of policies, people go through stages of life where hope dwindles, they're not young, they work all the time, they're busy, not much to look forward to or hope for, and they cling to things. As Obama once said, people clinging to their guns, in the UK people are clinging to leaving the EU is one way people give hope. Football is another European example.
> 
> Farage is a politician with charisma, people like charisma and they'll look to that over substance. Farage gave people this hope, but he lost in the GE big time, and he's latched on to the referendum in order to make this about Farage, and he's pushing it for all it's worth and people WANT TO BELIEVE.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're arguing is nationalism over the economy, nationalism over people's lives, people's ability to spend money to go on holiday, or to upgrade things in their lives. Is Nationalism more important than your pocket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Click to expand...


Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour. 

However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly? 

What's the difference?

Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour? 

The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Click to expand...


The NHS only costs* half* of what the US system costs ? If the NHS really THAT expensive, by comparison ? Doesn't our NHS only have the burden of covering a total population *one FIFTH* that of the US .. ?

And isn't our own NHS one of the biggest employers on the planet ??

What CAN the UK do to effect notable change in the EU, that won't be voted down by others ?

You can argue until hell freezes over as to the relative merits of the Conservatives v Labour. Doesn't alter the fact that WE are responsible for electing their MP's into Parliament. We decide who we favour. Yes, we still have that freedom .. for now. You call it 'mindless' voting ... perhaps this helps explain your pro-EU biases ? The EU is known to be deficient on democracy .. and you're showing a contempt for British democracy, and those who vote within it. No wonder you're OK with continued EU dominion !!

Well, some of us aren't as disparaging about voter habits, nor will we turn our backs on the right to vote, and to have, and keep, democratic process and accountability alive. It's one good reason to turn our backs on the EU, come 23rd June ...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NHS only costs* half* of what the US system costs ? If the NHS really THAT expensive, by comparison ? Doesn't our NHS only have the burden of covering a total population *one FIFTH* that of the US .. ?
> 
> And isn't our own NHS one of the biggest employers on the planet ??
> 
> What CAN the UK do to effect notable change in the EU, that won't be voted down by others ?
> 
> You can argue until hell freezes over as to the relative merits of the Conservatives v Labour. Doesn't alter the fact that WE are responsible for electing their MP's into Parliament. We decide who we favour. Yes, we still have that freedom .. for now. You call it 'mindless' voting ... perhaps this helps explain your pro-EU biases ? The EU is known to be deficient on democracy .. and you're showing a contempt for British democracy, and those who vote within it. No wonder you're OK with continued EU dominion !!
> 
> Well, some of us aren't as disparaging about voter habits, nor will we turn our backs on the right to vote, and to have, and keep, democratic process and accountability alive. It's one good reason to turn our backs on the EU, come 23rd June ...
Click to expand...


That's as a percentage of GDP, so more or less per capita. 

So no, it's CHEAP. 

Is the NHS one of the biggest employers on the planet? I doubt it, but that's neither here nor there. A guy I work with, his father works in the US healthcare system, he runs his own business, the whole of what he does it completely unnecessary, he makes money out of the system that wouldn't exist in the UK. 

Yes, the people are responsible for electing the people to Parliament, also to the EU parliament, and the UK govt which you elect sends a person to be part of the EU executive. 

So, it's actually democratic.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NHS only costs* half* of what the US system costs ? If the NHS really THAT expensive, by comparison ? Doesn't our NHS only have the burden of covering a total population *one FIFTH* that of the US .. ?
> 
> And isn't our own NHS one of the biggest employers on the planet ??
> 
> What CAN the UK do to effect notable change in the EU, that won't be voted down by others ?
> 
> You can argue until hell freezes over as to the relative merits of the Conservatives v Labour. Doesn't alter the fact that WE are responsible for electing their MP's into Parliament. We decide who we favour. Yes, we still have that freedom .. for now. You call it 'mindless' voting ... perhaps this helps explain your pro-EU biases ? The EU is known to be deficient on democracy .. and you're showing a contempt for British democracy, and those who vote within it. No wonder you're OK with continued EU dominion !!
> 
> Well, some of us aren't as disparaging about voter habits, nor will we turn our backs on the right to vote, and to have, and keep, democratic process and accountability alive. It's one good reason to turn our backs on the EU, come 23rd June ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as a percentage of GDP, so more or less per capita.
> 
> So no, it's CHEAP.
> 
> Is the NHS one of the biggest employers on the planet? I doubt it, but that's neither here nor there. A guy I work with, his father works in the US healthcare system, he runs his own business, the whole of what he does it completely unnecessary, he makes money out of the system that wouldn't exist in the UK.
> 
> Yes, the people are responsible for electing the people to Parliament, also to the EU parliament, and the UK govt which you elect sends a person to be part of the EU executive.
> 
> So, it's actually democratic.
Click to expand...


On the EU's lack of democracy ... 

The Undemocratic EU Explained - It Will Never Change



> the Parliament is made up of 751 MEPs who are elected by the people in EU Member States every five years in elections. National parties arrange themselves into European groups of similar parties throughout Europe. It also has a President (currently Martin Schulz) who was voted in by the Parliament, but once again he was the only candidate.





> Theoretically, the Parliament has the ability to remove the Commission;* however the Parliament has never successfully been able to remove it - even when the Commission has been full of corrupt cronies. The Parliament didn’t even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. *This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia’s national bank.





> This is not a Parliament in any real sense, as they have no right to propose laws. *Instead it is a façade, created to make the EU look democratic, rather than give the public a choice over those who makes their laws*.



On the NHS ... which you doubt is one of the biggest employers around ...

NHS is fifth biggest employer in world



> The NHS is the fifth biggest employer in the world, according to new research, making it bigger than India's railways and China's state-owned energy network.





> The world's largest employers:
> 
> 1.US Department of Defense - 3.2 million
> 2.People's Liberation Army (China) - 2.3 million
> 3.Walmart - 2.1 million
> 4.McDonald's - 1.9 million
> *5.UK NHS - 1.7 million*
> 6.China National Petroleum Corporation - 1.6 million
> 7.State Grid Corporation of China - 1.5 million
> 8.Indian Railways - 1.4 million
> 9.Indian Armed Forces - 1.3 million
> 10.Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn) - 1.2 million ends


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
> 
> No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
Click to expand...






 Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
> 
> You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
> 
> What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
> 
> You talk of facing reality. I say, *WE MAKE OUR OWN*. We're _not_ incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
> 
> I say: *we do not. *Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Click to expand...






 Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
> 
> I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
> 
> What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
> 
> No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
Click to expand...


So, how is it the UK can't change the laws, but everyone else has better laws?

No, I think you're wrong. The EU doesn't ban the UK changing these laws at all. It's just the British politicians haven't managed to bother finding a decent way of making welfare WORK.

This is ONLY a problem of the UK government. This has NOTHING to do with the EU government. 

The UK govt could make it harder for migrants to live in the UK.

The problem is that welfare needs to be "fair". Well, make it fair and make it so migrants can't get the welfare. It's not hard. I have plenty of suggestions for how this could work.

Also, don't tell me I know nothing about the EU, you're the one telling me something that is clearly incorrect right now.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
> 
> You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
> 
> Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
> 
> You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
> 
> So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
> 
> Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
> 
> Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Click to expand...


Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.

HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems. 

Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.

However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.

UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
Click to expand...


The BNP truly WAS too extreme .. hoe can you claim otherwise ? Griffin, its leader, was - I understand - a Holocaust denier ... 

An obvious point to make,though ... while we're in the EU, though we're not actually 'blocked' from exerting an influence (and so, in theory have an input into the issue of the laws and diktats they want to bind us to) .. the TRUTH is that we're heavily outvoted. So, unless we have broad consensus from those foreign powers in the EU who see things our way, in truth, we can make no headway.

This isn't a matter of 'effort' on anyone's part over here in the UK. It's simply an issue of others outvoting us, overriding us, so much of the time.

Get shot of the EU ... and the UK Government will exert its decision-making one HUNDRED percent of the time !! Not just 'every now and again, if we're really lucky !!'.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
> 
> 'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
> 
> June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
> 
> No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how is it the UK can't change the laws, but everyone else has better laws?
> 
> No, I think you're wrong. The EU doesn't ban the UK changing these laws at all. It's just the British politicians haven't managed to bother finding a decent way of making welfare WORK.
> 
> This is ONLY a problem of the UK government. This has NOTHING to do with the EU government.
> 
> The UK govt could make it harder for migrants to live in the UK.
> 
> The problem is that welfare needs to be "fair". Well, make it fair and make it so migrants can't get the welfare. It's not hard. I have plenty of suggestions for how this could work.
> 
> Also, don't tell me I know nothing about the EU, you're the one telling me something that is clearly incorrect right now.
Click to expand...






 Here you go


Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits.


 As you have been told the EU stops the UK from making it's own laws, and this is what the Labour party legacy is.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say ... *'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'*
> 
> Is this a joke ??_ It makes all the difference in the world_, between the freedom to totally determine our _own_ laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
> 
> We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
> 
> Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
Click to expand...







 That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.


 Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.

The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BNP truly WAS too extreme .. hoe can you claim otherwise ? Griffin, its leader, was - I understand - a Holocaust denier ...
> 
> An obvious point to make,though ... while we're in the EU, though we're not actually 'blocked' from exerting an influence (and so, in theory have an input into the issue of the laws and diktats they want to bind us to) .. the TRUTH is that we're heavily outvoted. So, unless we have broad consensus from those foreign powers in the EU who see things our way, in truth, we can make no headway.
> 
> This isn't a matter of 'effort' on anyone's part over here in the UK. It's simply an issue of others outvoting us, overriding us, so much of the time.
> 
> Get shot of the EU ... and the UK Government will exert its decision-making one HUNDRED percent of the time !! Not just 'every now and again, if we're really lucky !!'.
Click to expand...


I didn't say the BNP wasn't too extreme. I was not supporter of the BNP or any other far right or far left group. 

What I said was that the rise of UKIP was not because the BNP were too extreme, but because the BNP imploded.If you read what I wrote correctly you'll see I didn't say the BNP weren't too extreme. I said UKIP rose because the BNP imploded and not because of the BNP's extremism.

You say the UK is heavily outvoted. Would that be because the people who are skeptics don't do anything? Don't exert influence? Don't get their point across well? Don't state viable alternatives? Don't act on realistic goals? Don't do what people vote them in for in the first place?

Vote leave because we're too incompetent to do good deals, but after we leave we'll give you the best deals ever..... how's that going to happen if they can hardly get their point across and aren't even in charge of government? 

Again, so the UK government exerts its decision making 100% of the time. Does that CHANGE ANYTHING? 

Immigration is an issue in the UK because of the UK government and NOT because of the EU government. So how will that change if the incompetence of the UK govt is there 100% of the time instead of 95% of the time?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think immigration has a big impact.
> 
> However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
> 
> Why the UK?
> 
> Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
> 
> No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how is it the UK can't change the laws, but everyone else has better laws?
> 
> No, I think you're wrong. The EU doesn't ban the UK changing these laws at all. It's just the British politicians haven't managed to bother finding a decent way of making welfare WORK.
> 
> This is ONLY a problem of the UK government. This has NOTHING to do with the EU government.
> 
> The UK govt could make it harder for migrants to live in the UK.
> 
> The problem is that welfare needs to be "fair". Well, make it fair and make it so migrants can't get the welfare. It's not hard. I have plenty of suggestions for how this could work.
> 
> Also, don't tell me I know nothing about the EU, you're the one telling me something that is clearly incorrect right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> 
> Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits.
> 
> 
> As you have been told the EU stops the UK from making it's own laws, and this is what the Labour party legacy is.
Click to expand...


Again, if you READ the article, you'll see what the case is.

"But this is not quite true. "Tougher rules" is often shorthand for welfare systems which are also less generous to all citizens (many EU member states have no equivalent to housing benefit or in-work tax credits). The actual rules governing access to these benefits are determined nationally, but once in place they have to apply to all EU citizens, just as they do in the UK."

Basically, laws have to be FAIR for EU citizens.

If you have housing benefits and your law reads "all citizens will get housing benefits if they're not working" then you have what I'd describe as a "shit law". 

If the govt actually used their brain, they could not only solve the problem of dossers who happen to also be British citizens, but also deal with the issues of immigrants.

I'm sorry, but if the UK govt cannot cope with making laws that have to be fair for EU citizens, and yet OTHER COUNTRIES CAN, then why the hell would you want the UK government in charge of the UK? (Ie, elect someone else who is competent for once). 

"Our country has now gone as far as it can to limit restrict EU migrants’ access under the current legal regime. This current situation fails to accommodate the unique nature of the British welfare system compared to the prevailing continental model."

Ah, the "unique nature of the British welfare system", ie, read , the British welfare system is shit. But let's call it "unique" instead so they don't look bad for being totally incapable of making decent laws.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
> 
> Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
> 
> 
> Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
> 
> The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners
Click to expand...


No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.

Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour. 

No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily. 

The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence. 

In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years. 

British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
> 
> That's the theory.
> 
> In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
> 
> We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
> 
> I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
> 
> 
> Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
> 
> The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
> 
> Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
> 
> No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
> 
> The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
> 
> In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
> 
> British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?

As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....

The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !

Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?

Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
> 
> However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
> 
> The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
> 
> 
> Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
> 
> The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
> 
> Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
> 
> No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
> 
> The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
> 
> In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
> 
> British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
> 
> As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
> 
> Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
> 
> Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?
Click to expand...


Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug. 

Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities. 

No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all. 

Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet. 

Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU.  The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
> 
> 
> Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
> 
> The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
> 
> Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
> 
> No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
> 
> The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
> 
> In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
> 
> British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
> 
> As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
> 
> Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
> 
> Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
> 
> Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
> 
> No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
> 
> Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
> 
> Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
Click to expand...


--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???

You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???

We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).

If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*

*Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.

I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
> 
> HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
> 
> Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
> 
> However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
> 
> UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
> 
> 
> Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
> 
> The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
> 
> Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
> 
> No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
> 
> The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
> 
> In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
> 
> British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
> 
> As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
> 
> Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
> 
> Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
> 
> Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
> 
> No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
> 
> Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
> 
> Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
> 
> You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
> 
> We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
> 
> If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*
> 
> *Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
> 
> I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*
Click to expand...


I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.

I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from. 

If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.

You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.

Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
> 
> 
> Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
> 
> The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything.  And letting in more and more pensioners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
> 
> Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
> 
> No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
> 
> The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
> 
> In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
> 
> British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
> 
> As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
> 
> Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
> 
> Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
> 
> Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
> 
> No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
> 
> Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
> 
> Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
> 
> You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
> 
> We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
> 
> If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*
> 
> *Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
> 
> I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
> 
> I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
> 
> If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
> 
> You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
> 
> Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
Click to expand...


Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.

Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.

You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations. 

What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ? 

The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.

*This we have every conceivable right to do.*

Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.

For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.

WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*

With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was. 

We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.

So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
> 
> Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
> 
> No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
> 
> The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
> 
> In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
> 
> British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
> 
> As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
> 
> Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
> 
> Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
> 
> Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
> 
> No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
> 
> Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
> 
> Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
> 
> You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
> 
> We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
> 
> If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*
> 
> *Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
> 
> I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
> 
> I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
> 
> If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
> 
> You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
> 
> Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
> 
> Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
> 
> What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
> 
> The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.
> 
> *This we have every conceivable right to do.*
> 
> Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
> 
> For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
> 
> WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*
> 
> With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
> 
> We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
> 
> So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*
Click to expand...


I seem rattled? Why's that?

Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?

Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this? 

So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
> 
> As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
> 
> The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
> 
> Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
> 
> Frigidweirdo,* I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. *Will you do that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
> 
> Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
> 
> No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
> 
> Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
> 
> Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
> 
> You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
> 
> We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
> 
> If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*
> 
> *Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
> 
> I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
> 
> I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
> 
> If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
> 
> You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
> 
> Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
> 
> Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
> 
> What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
> 
> The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.
> 
> *This we have every conceivable right to do.*
> 
> Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
> 
> For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
> 
> WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*
> 
> With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
> 
> We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
> 
> So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem rattled? Why's that?
> 
> Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
> 
> Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
> 
> So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
Click to expand...


You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?

But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ? 

For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?

You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you. 

For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
> 
> Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
> 
> No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
> 
> Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
> 
> Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
> 
> You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
> 
> We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
> 
> If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*
> 
> *Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
> 
> I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
> 
> I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
> 
> If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
> 
> You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
> 
> Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
> 
> Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
> 
> What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
> 
> The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.
> 
> *This we have every conceivable right to do.*
> 
> Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
> 
> For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
> 
> WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*
> 
> With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
> 
> We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
> 
> So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem rattled? Why's that?
> 
> Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
> 
> Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
> 
> So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
> 
> But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
> 
> For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
> 
> You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
> 
> For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*
Click to expand...


No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from. 

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit. 

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there. 

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then. 

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason. 

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious? 

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.


----------



## frigidweirdo

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views






Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric. 






This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.






Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas. 






Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it. 






The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.






Hmm, well....


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....


There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
Click to expand...


And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
> 
> You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a *foreign* preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
> 
> We British have a right to decide *OUR* decisions,* OUR* way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
> 
> If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, *we have a right to know that.*
> 
> *Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
> 
> I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
> 
> I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
> 
> If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
> 
> You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
> 
> Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
> 
> Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
> 
> What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
> 
> The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.
> 
> *This we have every conceivable right to do.*
> 
> Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
> 
> For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
> 
> WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*
> 
> With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
> 
> We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
> 
> So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem rattled? Why's that?
> 
> Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
> 
> Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
> 
> So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
> 
> But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
> 
> For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
> 
> You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
> 
> For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
> 
> What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
> 
> So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
> 
> I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
> 
> Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
> 
> Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
> 
> Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
> 
> I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
> 
> I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
> 
> Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
> 
> I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
Click to expand...


On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
Click to expand...


Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.

For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.

The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.

Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
> 
> I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
> 
> If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
> 
> You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
> 
> Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
> 
> Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
> 
> What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
> 
> The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.
> 
> *This we have every conceivable right to do.*
> 
> Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
> 
> For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
> 
> WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*
> 
> With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
> 
> We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
> 
> So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem rattled? Why's that?
> 
> Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
> 
> Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
> 
> So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
> 
> But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
> 
> For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
> 
> You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
> 
> For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
> 
> What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
> 
> So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
> 
> I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
> 
> Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
> 
> Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
> 
> Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
> 
> I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
> 
> I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
> 
> Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
> 
> I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!
> 
> The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!
> 
> As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !
> 
> So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?
> 
> Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*
> 
> Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?
> 
> But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.
> 
> You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....
Click to expand...


Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be? 

Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"? 

Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction

Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit

"The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."

Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue". 

Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?

Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.

No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?

Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?

I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.

Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not. 

So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide? 

As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.
> 
> For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.
> 
> The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.
> 
> Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....
Click to expand...


Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron. 

What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?

Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.
Click to expand...


See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting -* the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.*

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
> 
> Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
> 
> What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda *foreign to*, and *outside of*, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
> 
> The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide *our* future, for *us*, in terms of what best serves that future.
> 
> *This we have every conceivable right to do.*
> 
> Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
> 
> For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
> 
> WHY ? *Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?*
> 
> With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
> 
> We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
> 
> So - *are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem rattled? Why's that?
> 
> Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
> 
> Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
> 
> So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
> 
> But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
> 
> For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
> 
> You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
> 
> For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
> 
> What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
> 
> So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
> 
> I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
> 
> Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
> 
> Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
> 
> Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
> 
> I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
> 
> I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
> 
> Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
> 
> I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!
> 
> The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!
> 
> As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !
> 
> So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?
> 
> Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*
> 
> Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?
> 
> But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.
> 
> You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?
> 
> Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?
> 
> Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction
> 
> Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> "The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."
> 
> Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".
> 
> Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?
> 
> Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.
> 
> No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?
> 
> Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?
> 
> I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.
> 
> Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.
> 
> So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?
> 
> As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.
Click to expand...


In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???

Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???

The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...

I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??

Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.

Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag. 

And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.

... 'Sorry' ...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!
> 
> Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.
> 
> So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting -* the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.*
> 
> Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....
> 
> And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??
Click to expand...


I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.

I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.

Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while. 

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

"Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."

You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before. 

The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems. 







Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004. 






That's these countries.

There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU). 

So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.

Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.

There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???

So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.

How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.
> 
> For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.
> 
> The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.
> 
> Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.
> 
> What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?
> 
> Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?
Click to expand...


Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!). 

I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ... 

1. GET SHOT OF THE EU. 

2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!
> 
> Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.
> 
> So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting -* the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.*
> 
> Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....
> 
> And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.
> 
> I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.
> 
> Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.
> 
> Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics
> 
> "Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."
> 
> You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.
> 
> The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's these countries.
> 
> There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).
> 
> So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.
> 
> Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.
> 
> There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???
> 
> So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.
> 
> How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.
Click to expand...


Non-EU immigration is indeed higher. Not much higher .. but, yes, higher. 

There's a roughly 50-50 split in the numbers, isn't there ?

Gaining a 50 percent better control over borders than you have otherwise, just HAS to be a highly relevant debating point !! To deny that it is, is nonsense. It can't help but benefit the UK to gain that extra control.

The Uk's welfare system is indeed stretched. Part of the reason is that immigrants put a burden on it !! And yes, that doesn't just involve 'the legals'. Illegal immigrants do what they can to sponge off of us as well.

Since when did the EU place any sort of priority on considering the state of our welfare system ? Yet, they STILL insist on porous borders for us !! No .. the EU burdens us ... and we have to take up the slack, because we're forced into it.

On June 23rd, this can change. I say it needs to !! 

What - foreign, nationalistic ? - interest do you have for saying otherwise ?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!
> 
> Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.
> 
> So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting -* the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.*
> 
> Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....
> 
> And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.
> 
> I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.
> 
> Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.
> 
> Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics
> 
> "Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."
> 
> You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.
> 
> The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's these countries.
> 
> There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).
> 
> So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.
> 
> Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.
> 
> There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???
> 
> So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.
> 
> How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.
Click to expand...


On our 'benefits' system ... 

Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits



> David Cameron has vowed that securing changes to the terms on which EU migrants can access the UK’s benefits system – including in-work benefits - will be an “absolute requirement” in the forthcoming negotiation. While securing these changes will be crucial to restore public confidence in the principle of free movement,* there is no doubt it will put him on a collision course with several other EU leaders*.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem rattled? Why's that?
> 
> Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
> 
> Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
> 
> So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
> 
> But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
> 
> For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
> 
> You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
> 
> For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
> 
> What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
> 
> So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
> 
> I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
> 
> Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
> 
> Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
> 
> Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
> 
> I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
> 
> I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
> 
> Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
> 
> I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!
> 
> The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!
> 
> As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !
> 
> So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?
> 
> Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*
> 
> Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?
> 
> But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.
> 
> You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?
> 
> Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?
> 
> Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction
> 
> Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> "The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."
> 
> Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".
> 
> Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?
> 
> Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.
> 
> No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?
> 
> Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?
> 
> I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.
> 
> Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.
> 
> So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?
> 
> As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???
> 
> Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???
> 
> The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...
> 
> I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??
> 
> Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.
> 
> And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.
> 
> ... 'Sorry' ...
Click to expand...


How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?

No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter. 

Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body. 
Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?

Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama? 

I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance. 

In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious. 

'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service

"
*'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service*"

This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.

(I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)

NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists

"
*NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists*"

So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting. 

After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.



Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge. 

I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.
> 
> For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.
> 
> The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.
> 
> Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.
> 
> What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?
> 
> Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).
> 
> I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...
> 
> 1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.
> 
> 2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.
Click to expand...


What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like. 
They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements. 

But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i? 

Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway. 

As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?

Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!
> 
> Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.
> 
> So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting -* the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.*
> 
> Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....
> 
> And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.
> 
> I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.
> 
> Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.
> 
> Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics
> 
> "Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."
> 
> You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.
> 
> The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's these countries.
> 
> There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).
> 
> So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.
> 
> Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.
> 
> There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???
> 
> So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.
> 
> How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On our 'benefits' system ...
> 
> Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Cameron has vowed that securing changes to the terms on which EU migrants can access the UK’s benefits system – including in-work benefits - will be an “absolute requirement” in the forthcoming negotiation. While securing these changes will be crucial to restore public confidence in the principle of free movement,* there is no doubt it will put him on a collision course with several other EU leaders*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I've read that before, and I laughed. And I'm laughing again.

All the other EU countries have managed it, but the UK govt can't, and people are claiming it's all because of the EU. Again, other countries don't have this problem.

*""Tougher rules" is often shorthand for welfare systems which are also less generous to all citizens (many EU member states have no equivalent to housing benefit or in-work tax credits)."*

So.... get rid of housing benefits and in-work tax credits. Or make certain requirements for these that a person has to have worked for 5 years before they can get them, or that they have to have lived in an area for 5 years before they can get them.

*"The actual rules governing access to these benefits are determined nationally, but once in place they have to apply to all EU citizens, just as they do in the UK."*

So, you make rules that mean that someone who just turns up doesn't get them. Also make rules so that 18 year olds leaving school and wanted to doss around, can't do it on government money, they either go back into education or get themselves a job and work for at least 5 years before they're entitled to anything.

"The British system is mostly non-contributory, meaning that receipts are not linked to prior contributions."

Funny how this article points out the problem with the system, then says that the UK needs to leave the EU in order to not deal with the problem. 

Is it me, or is that just really stupid?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!
> 
> Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.
> 
> So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting -* the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.*
> 
> Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....
> 
> And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.
> 
> I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.
> 
> Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.
> 
> Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics
> 
> "Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."
> 
> You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.
> 
> The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's these countries.
> 
> There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).
> 
> So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.
> 
> Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.
> 
> There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???
> 
> So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.
> 
> How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-EU immigration is indeed higher. Not much higher .. but, yes, higher.
> 
> There's a roughly 50-50 split in the numbers, isn't there ?
> 
> Gaining a 50 percent better control over borders than you have otherwise, just HAS to be a highly relevant debating point !! To deny that it is, is nonsense. It can't help but benefit the UK to gain that extra control.
> 
> The Uk's welfare system is indeed stretched. Part of the reason is that immigrants put a burden on it !! And yes, that doesn't just involve 'the legals'. Illegal immigrants do what they can to sponge off of us as well.
> 
> Since when did the EU place any sort of priority on considering the state of our welfare system ? Yet, they STILL insist on porous borders for us !! No .. the EU burdens us ... and we have to take up the slack, because we're forced into it.
> 
> On June 23rd, this can change. I say it needs to !!
> 
> What - foreign, nationalistic ? - interest do you have for saying otherwise ?
Click to expand...


The funny thing with your argument is this.

You say the UK will be better able to deal with immigration if it's not in the EU, but then concede that the UK doesn't deal effectively with its borders in the area that has nothing to do with the EU. 

Why do you think things will improve after the UK leaves the EU? It's kind of like people who say "I'll go to the gym tomorrow, today I don't feel like it", but then tomorrow never arrives, they always use the same excuse. 

So, basically, immigration as an argument for leaving the EU just isn't there. Most people have less of a problem with the EU citizens in the UK than with the non-EU citizens, Pakistanis seem to be a bit of a problem for the British people, Africans seem to be a bit of a problem, the Yardies came from Jamaica. People complain about these people more than about the Poles who come and work hard for the most part. Bulgarians and especially Romanians I can understand. Romanians are involved in a lot of crime and so on. 

So, the welfare system is stretched and immigrants, a long with some freeloading teenagers (or people who have never grown up) is a burden on the country in general. Change the welfare system, keep it fair, but make it so they can't just walk in (or walk out of school) and get benefits. 

Do you agree with me that an 18 year old should not be able to leave school and walk straight into benefits that don't include things like continuing education?

On June 23rd, if the EU votes leave, you'll have a big party. You'll feel the hope that many people are searching for. Then in 5 years time you'll wonder what the hell happened and why nothing has changed. 

In 1990 Helmut Kohl told the people of Germany that reunification was going to be great, and they voted for him. The SPD (liberals) said it would be a tough hard road and the people didn't like this, there was no hope. 

They got Kohl and they got the tough road and they weren't prepared for it.

The UK is going to do the same thing if they decide to leave. You'll see, history repeats itself, but you want that hope, just as you might hope England or Wales win the Euros.


----------



## HenryBHough

Carry devolution far enough and Welshmen and Scots will need passports and, if there is genuine caution, strip-searches before being allowed to head across the border and into London.

I can see some good in that.......


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is shocking.
> 
> The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
> 
> Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well....
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.
> 
> For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.
> 
> The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.
> 
> Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.
> 
> What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?
> 
> Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).
> 
> I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...
> 
> 1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.
> 
> 2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
> They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.
> 
> But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?
> 
> Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.
> 
> As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?
> 
> Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?
Click to expand...

Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.

The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments. 

I havent seen any costings on this yet.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
> 
> But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... *but*, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
> 
> For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion -* the illusion* - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
> 
> You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
> 
> For myself ...* I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
> 
> What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
> 
> So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
> 
> I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
> 
> Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
> 
> Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
> 
> Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
> 
> I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
> 
> I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
> 
> Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
> 
> I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!
> 
> The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!
> 
> As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !
> 
> So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?
> 
> Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*
> 
> Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?
> 
> But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.
> 
> You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?
> 
> Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?
> 
> Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction
> 
> Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> "The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."
> 
> Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".
> 
> Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?
> 
> Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.
> 
> No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?
> 
> Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?
> 
> I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.
> 
> Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.
> 
> So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?
> 
> As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???
> 
> Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???
> 
> The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...
> 
> I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??
> 
> Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.
> 
> And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.
> 
> ... 'Sorry' ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?
> 
> No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.
> 
> Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
> Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?
> 
> Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?
> 
> I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.
> 
> In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.
> 
> 'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service
> 
> "
> *'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service*"
> 
> This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.
> 
> (I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)
> 
> NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists
> 
> "
> *NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists*"
> 
> So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.
> 
> After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.
> 
> I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).
Click to expand...


The first part of your reply is laughable. I'm to understand that we in the UK are supposed to be 'fine' about being pushed to the back of the queue to form trading agreements ??

Is this a comment, I wonder, from someone interested in the BEST for the UK, or the WORST ? I suggest your comment is informative .....

In any case, as I said before, it was an empty threat. A nasty one, an empty one, one borne of some measure of politically-motivated desperation, apparently, since it was issued despite being NOT at all authoritatively enforceable !! 

You say it might not be a threat, but an insight into how the US Government works. So ... the US Government routinely shoves us to the back of trading queues ?? Since when ? [And, if 'routine' .. then why did Obama even comment ?]

If Obama genuinely has the UK interests at heart, then, if he thinks staying in the EU serves them, he could set out his own case to 'persuade' us ... and not THREATEN us. Oh, and in so doing, he should explain what self-serving agenda on behalf of the US he's pursuing .. yes, he should be that transparent ... 

On 'transparency' ... I, ahem, 'like' this wording, from you ... 



> However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to *make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance.*



You're keeping everyone ignorant, here, about your nationality, and therefore what self-serving agenda you're pursuing ! You say you've a 'strong' reason for doing so (but you won't say what it is ..). You could easily be from a rival power, one that routinely has not shown itself to be our ally ... and it's that mindset which could well be driving you now. Unfortunately, none of us have any way, so far as I know, of getting to the truth (or otherwise) of that.

Knowledge, not ignorance. Yes - quite ... 

On to David Owen's view, then ... Owen, by the way, was a senior figure in British politics in past decades. He even part-founded a Party rivalling Labour, called the SDP. He's also been a Government Minister ... 

Look at the Express's report. Owen gives, as his reasoning ... 



> He is expected to say that a vote to leave the EU would allow the UK to take back control of the NHS and protect it from outside competition.
> 
> He will argue that the NHS would be freed from any competition-and-market-led involvement from the European Commission, including a proposed transatlantic free trade deal between the EU and the US.



So, there's your answer. We're freed from the EU's restrictive practices, and their bureaucracy, in this matter. We will be far more free to craft our own agreements elsewhere .. which can only aid the NHS. After all, even as things stand, the NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet !! It makes sense to expand the NHS's freedom to seek alternative resources !

Fact is that as matters stand, the EU insists we maintain porous borders.These are borders through which EU citizens (and that's just 'legal' people !!) can pour, seeking benefits they consider they can't get at home. The obvious answer is to put a plug in the plughole, and STOP this traffic of people forever trying to sponge off of us !!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
> 
> What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
> 
> So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
> 
> I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
> 
> Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
> 
> Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
> 
> Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
> 
> I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
> 
> I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
> 
> Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
> 
> I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!
> 
> The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!
> 
> As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !
> 
> So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?
> 
> Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*
> 
> Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?
> 
> But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.
> 
> You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?
> 
> Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?
> 
> Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction
> 
> Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> "The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."
> 
> Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".
> 
> Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?
> 
> Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.
> 
> No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?
> 
> Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?
> 
> I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.
> 
> Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.
> 
> So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?
> 
> As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???
> 
> Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???
> 
> The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...
> 
> I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??
> 
> Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.
> 
> And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.
> 
> ... 'Sorry' ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?
> 
> No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.
> 
> Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
> Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?
> 
> Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?
> 
> I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.
> 
> In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.
> 
> 'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service
> 
> "
> *'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service*"
> 
> This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.
> 
> (I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)
> 
> NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists
> 
> "
> *NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists*"
> 
> So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.
> 
> After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.
> 
> I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first part of your reply is laughable. I'm to understand that we in the UK are supposed to be 'fine' about being pushed to the back of the queue to form trading agreements ??
> 
> Is this a comment, I wonder, from someone interested in the BEST for the UK, or the WORST ? I suggest your comment is informative .....
> 
> In any case, as I said before, it was an empty threat. A nasty one, an empty one, one borne of some measure of politically-motivated desperation, apparently, since it was issued despite being NOT at all authoritatively enforceable !!
> 
> You say it might not be a threat, but an insight into how the US Government works. So ... the US Government routinely shoves us to the back of trading queues ?? Since when ? [And, if 'routine' .. then why did Obama even comment ?]
> 
> If Obama genuinely has the UK interests at heart, then, if he thinks staying in the EU serves them, he could set out his own case to 'persuade' us ... and not THREATEN us. Oh, and in so doing, he should explain what self-serving agenda on behalf of the US he's pursuing .. yes, he should be that transparent ...
> 
> On 'transparency' ... I, ahem, 'like' this wording, from you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to *make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're keeping everyone ignorant, here, about your nationality, and therefore what self-serving agenda you're pursuing ! You say you've a 'strong' reason for doing so (but you won't say what it is ..). You could easily be from a rival power, one that routinely has not shown itself to be our ally ... and it's that mindset which could well be driving you now. Unfortunately, none of us have any way, so far as I know, of getting to the truth (or otherwise) of that.
> 
> Knowledge, not ignorance. Yes - quite ...
> 
> On to David Owen's view, then ... Owen, by the way, was a senior figure in British politics in past decades. He even part-founded a Party rivalling Labour, called the SDP. He's also been a Government Minister ...
> 
> Look at the Express's report. Owen gives, as his reasoning ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is expected to say that a vote to leave the EU would allow the UK to take back control of the NHS and protect it from outside competition.
> 
> He will argue that the NHS would be freed from any competition-and-market-led involvement from the European Commission, including a proposed transatlantic free trade deal between the EU and the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there's your answer. We're freed from the EU's restrictive practices, and their bureaucracy, in this matter. We will be far more free to craft our own agreements elsewhere .. which can only aid the NHS. After all, even as things stand, the NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet !! It makes sense to expand the NHS's freedom to seek alternative resources !
> 
> Fact is that as matters stand, the EU insists we maintain porous borders.These are borders through which EU citizens (and that's just 'legal' people !!) can pour, seeking benefits they consider they can't get at home. The obvious answer is to put a plug in the plughole, and STOP this traffic of people forever trying to sponge off of us !!
Click to expand...



Well at least you're having fun, hey?

No, you aren't being pushed to the back, you're taking your position at the back of the queue. You seem to be demanding special treatment here. Why?

Is Obama interested in the best interests of the UK? No. He never said he was. He's said what is in the best interests of the USA. The UK out of the EU might not be in the best interests of the USA, and making a trade deal with Britain as priority might not be in the best interests of the USA, it might be in their interests to do things in chronological order. 

The point being, again, Obama has the power to say, and the British people should use their brains and listen. 

You keep making this into some kind of fight without actually looking at what is sensible for people to do.

Again, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, knowing how other countries might react is knowledge that can lead to the best decision.

All you seem interested in is vilifying Obama, America, anyone who has an opinion other than yours, then start shouting that you have the right to vote the way you like and blah blah, but so does everyone else, and they also have the right to know what is going on before they vote.

Why does Brexit not want people to know?

You started attacking me because you don't know where I'm from. You attack Obama because he's from America.... really? People should be informed, don't you think?


My nationality has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to think you want to fuck me, the amount you keep talking about me. Did you notice "frigidweirdo" in the title of this thread? No, well then, stick to the topic.

The People of the UK don't need to know where I'm from, I mean, I think I only talk to about 2 or three UK people about this anyway.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to _choose_ to bend to it !!!!
> 
> The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. *decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not* Barack Obama's interests.* Not* in Chancellor Merkel's interests.* Not* in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!!* OUR *INTERESTS !!!
> 
> As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !
> 
> So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?
> 
> Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... *and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!*
> 
> Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?
> 
> But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.
> 
> You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?
> 
> Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?
> 
> Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction
> 
> Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> "The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."
> 
> Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".
> 
> Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?
> 
> Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.
> 
> No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?
> 
> Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?
> 
> I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.
> 
> Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.
> 
> So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?
> 
> As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???
> 
> Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???
> 
> The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...
> 
> I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??
> 
> Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.
> 
> And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.
> 
> ... 'Sorry' ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?
> 
> No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.
> 
> Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
> Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?
> 
> Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?
> 
> I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.
> 
> In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.
> 
> 'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service
> 
> "
> *'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service*"
> 
> This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.
> 
> (I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)
> 
> NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists
> 
> "
> *NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists*"
> 
> So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.
> 
> After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.
> 
> I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first part of your reply is laughable. I'm to understand that we in the UK are supposed to be 'fine' about being pushed to the back of the queue to form trading agreements ??
> 
> Is this a comment, I wonder, from someone interested in the BEST for the UK, or the WORST ? I suggest your comment is informative .....
> 
> In any case, as I said before, it was an empty threat. A nasty one, an empty one, one borne of some measure of politically-motivated desperation, apparently, since it was issued despite being NOT at all authoritatively enforceable !!
> 
> You say it might not be a threat, but an insight into how the US Government works. So ... the US Government routinely shoves us to the back of trading queues ?? Since when ? [And, if 'routine' .. then why did Obama even comment ?]
> 
> If Obama genuinely has the UK interests at heart, then, if he thinks staying in the EU serves them, he could set out his own case to 'persuade' us ... and not THREATEN us. Oh, and in so doing, he should explain what self-serving agenda on behalf of the US he's pursuing .. yes, he should be that transparent ...
> 
> On 'transparency' ... I, ahem, 'like' this wording, from you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to *make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're keeping everyone ignorant, here, about your nationality, and therefore what self-serving agenda you're pursuing ! You say you've a 'strong' reason for doing so (but you won't say what it is ..). You could easily be from a rival power, one that routinely has not shown itself to be our ally ... and it's that mindset which could well be driving you now. Unfortunately, none of us have any way, so far as I know, of getting to the truth (or otherwise) of that.
> 
> Knowledge, not ignorance. Yes - quite ...
> 
> On to David Owen's view, then ... Owen, by the way, was a senior figure in British politics in past decades. He even part-founded a Party rivalling Labour, called the SDP. He's also been a Government Minister ...
> 
> Look at the Express's report. Owen gives, as his reasoning ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is expected to say that a vote to leave the EU would allow the UK to take back control of the NHS and protect it from outside competition.
> 
> He will argue that the NHS would be freed from any competition-and-market-led involvement from the European Commission, including a proposed transatlantic free trade deal between the EU and the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there's your answer. We're freed from the EU's restrictive practices, and their bureaucracy, in this matter. We will be far more free to craft our own agreements elsewhere .. which can only aid the NHS. After all, even as things stand, the NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet !! It makes sense to expand the NHS's freedom to seek alternative resources !
> 
> Fact is that as matters stand, the EU insists we maintain porous borders.These are borders through which EU citizens (and that's just 'legal' people !!) can pour, seeking benefits they consider they can't get at home. The obvious answer is to put a plug in the plughole, and STOP this traffic of people forever trying to sponge off of us !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you're having fun, hey?
> 
> No, you aren't being pushed to the back, you're taking your position at the back of the queue. You seem to be demanding special treatment here. Why?
> 
> Is Obama interested in the best interests of the UK? No. He never said he was. He's said what is in the best interests of the USA. The UK out of the EU might not be in the best interests of the USA, and making a trade deal with Britain as priority might not be in the best interests of the USA, it might be in their interests to do things in chronological order.
> 
> The point being, again, Obama has the power to say, and the British people should use their brains and listen.
> 
> You keep making this into some kind of fight without actually looking at what is sensible for people to do.
> 
> Again, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, knowing how other countries might react is knowledge that can lead to the best decision.
> 
> All you seem interested in is vilifying Obama, America, anyone who has an opinion other than yours, then start shouting that you have the right to vote the way you like and blah blah, but so does everyone else, and they also have the right to know what is going on before they vote.
> 
> Why does Brexit not want people to know?
> 
> You started attacking me because you don't know where I'm from. You attack Obama because he's from America.... really? People should be informed, don't you think?
> 
> 
> My nationality has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to think you want to fuck me, the amount you keep talking about me. Did you notice "frigidweirdo" in the title of this thread? No, well then, stick to the topic.
> 
> The People of the UK don't need to know where I'm from, I mean, I think I only talk to about 2 or three UK people about this anyway.
Click to expand...


Not special treatment at all .. just FAIR treatment.

Obama definitely threatened us. His point was to say we'd go to the back of the queue, if we left the EU. That was the very nature of the threat, to disadvantage us if we ceased to be part of the EU.

In other words, our position in that queue would change, if we dared choose not to be a part of a political entity HE favoured for us !!

See .. 

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit



> The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America *if it quit Brussels.*
> 
> But his threat provoked outrage and scorn from pro-Brexit campaigners, who dismissed it as yet another scaremongering ploy from the pro-EU lobby.
> 
> Mr Obama,* who will no longer be in office when decisions on a trade deal are made,* delivered a lecture to the British people on why he thinks it is in the UK’s, America’s and the world’s best interests for Britain to vote to stay in the EU on June 23.



An empty threat, but one made, nonetheless. One that was, in large measure, self-serving.

You say ... this is funny !! ... 



> You started attacking me because you don't know where I'm from. You attack Obama because he's from America.... really? People should be informed, don't you think?



That would be, informed about what ? That which you want them to NOT be informed about ??

Make up your mind !!

You say ... 



> My nationality has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to think you want to fuck me, the amount you keep talking about me. Did you notice "frigidweirdo" in the title of this thread?



Charming ! Do you post this stuff because you know you can't make a reasonable case for hiding your identity (.. therefore, any insight into any ongoing political agenda) .. so, you stoop to this kind of posting, instead ? Your national identity doesn't give anyone here your exact address, or anything like it !! If I tell you (.. I do ..) that I'm living in Wales, but I'm English, does this help you identify my precise location ?? NO, it doesn't. 

I suggest that your national identity has a bearing on what biases you have, what interests prompt them, therefore, what's driving you to make your case. Since UK citizens have a right to be fully informed about what's in THEIR best interests ... any alternative agendas being pursued can have quite a bearing on the final decision.

What if there was a majority in favour of Brexit, but it so happened that some of those voices arguing the opposite saw advantages to THEM, not US, and yet were hiding that truth, by 'virtue' of the fact that the very nationalities were hidden ? Like, if Chinese people intervened. Or, Russians. Or other nationalities not normally our allies, but who wanted to skew thinking THEIR way, for THEIR purposes .. ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?
> 
> Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?
> 
> Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction
> 
> Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> "The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."
> 
> Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".
> 
> Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?
> 
> Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.
> 
> No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?
> 
> Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?
> 
> I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.
> 
> Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.
> 
> So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?
> 
> As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???
> 
> Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???
> 
> The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...
> 
> I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??
> 
> Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.
> 
> And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.
> 
> ... 'Sorry' ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?
> 
> No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.
> 
> Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
> Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?
> 
> Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?
> 
> I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.
> 
> In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.
> 
> 'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service
> 
> "
> *'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service*"
> 
> This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.
> 
> (I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)
> 
> NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists
> 
> "
> *NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists*"
> 
> So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.
> 
> After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.
> 
> I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first part of your reply is laughable. I'm to understand that we in the UK are supposed to be 'fine' about being pushed to the back of the queue to form trading agreements ??
> 
> Is this a comment, I wonder, from someone interested in the BEST for the UK, or the WORST ? I suggest your comment is informative .....
> 
> In any case, as I said before, it was an empty threat. A nasty one, an empty one, one borne of some measure of politically-motivated desperation, apparently, since it was issued despite being NOT at all authoritatively enforceable !!
> 
> You say it might not be a threat, but an insight into how the US Government works. So ... the US Government routinely shoves us to the back of trading queues ?? Since when ? [And, if 'routine' .. then why did Obama even comment ?]
> 
> If Obama genuinely has the UK interests at heart, then, if he thinks staying in the EU serves them, he could set out his own case to 'persuade' us ... and not THREATEN us. Oh, and in so doing, he should explain what self-serving agenda on behalf of the US he's pursuing .. yes, he should be that transparent ...
> 
> On 'transparency' ... I, ahem, 'like' this wording, from you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to *make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're keeping everyone ignorant, here, about your nationality, and therefore what self-serving agenda you're pursuing ! You say you've a 'strong' reason for doing so (but you won't say what it is ..). You could easily be from a rival power, one that routinely has not shown itself to be our ally ... and it's that mindset which could well be driving you now. Unfortunately, none of us have any way, so far as I know, of getting to the truth (or otherwise) of that.
> 
> Knowledge, not ignorance. Yes - quite ...
> 
> On to David Owen's view, then ... Owen, by the way, was a senior figure in British politics in past decades. He even part-founded a Party rivalling Labour, called the SDP. He's also been a Government Minister ...
> 
> Look at the Express's report. Owen gives, as his reasoning ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is expected to say that a vote to leave the EU would allow the UK to take back control of the NHS and protect it from outside competition.
> 
> He will argue that the NHS would be freed from any competition-and-market-led involvement from the European Commission, including a proposed transatlantic free trade deal between the EU and the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there's your answer. We're freed from the EU's restrictive practices, and their bureaucracy, in this matter. We will be far more free to craft our own agreements elsewhere .. which can only aid the NHS. After all, even as things stand, the NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet !! It makes sense to expand the NHS's freedom to seek alternative resources !
> 
> Fact is that as matters stand, the EU insists we maintain porous borders.These are borders through which EU citizens (and that's just 'legal' people !!) can pour, seeking benefits they consider they can't get at home. The obvious answer is to put a plug in the plughole, and STOP this traffic of people forever trying to sponge off of us !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you're having fun, hey?
> 
> No, you aren't being pushed to the back, you're taking your position at the back of the queue. You seem to be demanding special treatment here. Why?
> 
> Is Obama interested in the best interests of the UK? No. He never said he was. He's said what is in the best interests of the USA. The UK out of the EU might not be in the best interests of the USA, and making a trade deal with Britain as priority might not be in the best interests of the USA, it might be in their interests to do things in chronological order.
> 
> The point being, again, Obama has the power to say, and the British people should use their brains and listen.
> 
> You keep making this into some kind of fight without actually looking at what is sensible for people to do.
> 
> Again, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, knowing how other countries might react is knowledge that can lead to the best decision.
> 
> All you seem interested in is vilifying Obama, America, anyone who has an opinion other than yours, then start shouting that you have the right to vote the way you like and blah blah, but so does everyone else, and they also have the right to know what is going on before they vote.
> 
> Why does Brexit not want people to know?
> 
> You started attacking me because you don't know where I'm from. You attack Obama because he's from America.... really? People should be informed, don't you think?
> 
> 
> My nationality has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to think you want to fuck me, the amount you keep talking about me. Did you notice "frigidweirdo" in the title of this thread? No, well then, stick to the topic.
> 
> The People of the UK don't need to know where I'm from, I mean, I think I only talk to about 2 or three UK people about this anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not special treatment at all .. just FAIR treatment.
> 
> Obama definitely threatened us. His point was to say we'd go to the back of the queue, if we left the EU. That was the very nature of the threat, to disadvantage us if we ceased to be part of the EU.
> 
> In other words, our position in that queue would change, if we dared choose not to be a part of a political entity HE favoured for us !!
> 
> See ..
> 
> Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America *if it quit Brussels.*
> 
> But his threat provoked outrage and scorn from pro-Brexit campaigners, who dismissed it as yet another scaremongering ploy from the pro-EU lobby.
> 
> Mr Obama,* who will no longer be in office when decisions on a trade deal are made,* delivered a lecture to the British people on why he thinks it is in the UK’s, America’s and the world’s best interests for Britain to vote to stay in the EU on June 23.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An empty threat, but one made, nonetheless. One that was, in large measure, self-serving.
> 
> You say ... this is funny !! ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started attacking me because you don't know where I'm from. You attack Obama because he's from America.... really? People should be informed, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be, informed about what ? That which you want them to NOT be informed about ??
> 
> Make up your mind !!
> 
> You say ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My nationality has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to think you want to fuck me, the amount you keep talking about me. Did you notice "frigidweirdo" in the title of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charming ! Do you post this stuff because you know you can't make a reasonable case for hiding your identity (.. therefore, any insight into any ongoing political agenda) .. so, you stoop to this kind of posting, instead ? Your national identity doesn't give anyone here your exact address, or anything like it !! If I tell you (.. I do ..) that I'm living in Wales, but I'm English, does this help you identify my precise location ?? NO, it doesn't.
> 
> I suggest that your national identity has a bearing on what biases you have, what interests prompt them, therefore, what's driving you to make your case. Since UK citizens have a right to be fully informed about what's in THEIR best interests ... any alternative agendas being pursued can have quite a bearing on the final decision.
> 
> What if there was a majority in favour of Brexit, but it so happened that some of those voices arguing the opposite saw advantages to THEM, not US, and yet were hiding that truth, by 'virtue' of the fact that the very nationalities were hidden ? Like, if Chinese people intervened. Or, Russians. Or other nationalities not normally our allies, but who wanted to skew thinking THEIR way, for THEIR purposes .. ?
Click to expand...



Would not being put at the end of the queue be "fair treatment"? 

Also, if the UK goes against the desires of the US, why should the US give fair treatment? 

The US doesn't owe the UK anything, and can act in the manner it chooses to do. The larger and more powerful a country, the more it can get away with. The EU has more power than the UK, for example. So in leaving the EU, the UK has less power, less fair treatment. It might not be fair, but the British people can choose. 

Informed about what other people think. I thought I made that clear.

Again, you're attacking me and talking about my nationality.

Would it be so hard to stick to the topic? I've asked many times.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Never mind Brexit. Any more of this and Europe will kick them out.

England fans assert their Englishness by rioting in Marseilles (again).

As if France didnt have enough problems.


----------



## ESay

Tommy Tainant said:


> Never mind Brexit. Any more of this and Europe will kick them out.
> 
> England fans assert their Englishness by rioting in Marseilles (again).
> 
> As if France didnt have enough problems.



That's OK. They are not Muslims.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ESay said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind Brexit. Any more of this and Europe will kick them out.
> 
> England fans assert their Englishness by rioting in Marseilles (again).
> 
> As if France didnt have enough problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK. They are not Muslims.
Click to expand...

They do it every time. My English friends are sick of apologising for them.


----------



## Tilly

Yay!

*EU Referendum: Massive swing to Brexit – with just 12 days to go*
Exclusive: polling carried out for ‘The Independent’ shows that 55 per cent of UK voters intend to vote for Britain to leave the EU in the 23 June referendum 


Andrew Grice 
@IndyPolitics 
1 hour  ago

The campaign to take Britain out of the EU has opened up a remarkable 10-point lead over the Remain camp, according to an exclusive poll for _The Independent_.

The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points). These figures are weighted to take account of people’s likelihood to vote. It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for _The Independent_ a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned.

Even when the findings are not weighted for turnout, Leave is on 53 per cent (up three points since April) and Remain on 47 per cent (down three). The online poll, taken on Wednesday and Thursday, suggests the Out camp has achieved momentum at the critical time ahead of the 23 June referendum.....

Leave opens up massive lead in exclusive Brexit poll for The Independent


----------



## Drummond

More strong-arm tactics from the 'Keep the UK in' side. From Germany, this time, who have issued their own trade threat, 'Obama' style ...

Schaeuble: No Single Market Access After Brexit



> Germany has warned the UK* it will not have access to the single market if it votes to leave the European Union on 23 June.*
> 
> German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said a relationship similar to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland "won't work" for the UK and that "In is in. Out is out".
> 
> Norway has access to the tariff-free single market through European Economic Area arrangements. This means it has to accept most of the laws made in Brussels, accept free movement of labour and pay into EU budgets. Switzerland has a similar arrangement.
> 
> Some Brexit supporters have used the two countries as a model for what a non-EU Britain could be.
> 
> But Mr Schaeuble told news magazine Der Spiegel: "It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw.



I see no actual practical difficulty in the UK following the Norwegian example. What 'difficulty' there 'would be', so far as I can see, is one of the EU choosing to be spiteful to the UK in particular.

I say this: _these threats SHOULD strengthen the Brexit case._ After all, what nationality worth its name wants to be told that it MUST knuckle under to strong-arm, 'Mafia' type bullying, and in the process sell out its sovereignty, if it wants to continue to be a viable entity !! No, we need our freedom from these types. We need it NOW.

Perhaps British troops, fighting WWII, fought for the UK to eventually know such further tyranny from Europe ? Did they fight so that we could have the 'privilege' to submit to it ??

Should we honour their memories ? Or, insult them ?


----------



## HenryBHough

The British are just a little slow to react negatively to threats.  Look how long it took to set out to whip Hitler's ass.  This time their resolve to school Obama for His threats took a little less time.

Gotta give Him credit, though, for cleaning up His language a bit.

It was simply "end of the queue" rather than the old-standby "back of the bus".


----------



## Vikrant

This is a golden opportunity for UK to exit EU and chart its own destiny. If they fail to capitalize on this opportunity then they will be left to scratching their ass for years to come.


----------



## ESay

Drummond said:


> see no actual practical difficulty in the UK following the Norwegian example. What 'difficulty' there 'would be', so far as I can see, is one of the EU choosing to be spiteful to the UK in particular.



There won’t be difficulty if you agree to accept the EU’s legislation, adhere to free movement of the citizens, and at the same time accept that you don’t have representation in the European Parliament and European Commission.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tilly said:


> Yay!
> 
> *EU Referendum: Massive swing to Brexit – with just 12 days to go*
> Exclusive: polling carried out for ‘The Independent’ shows that 55 per cent of UK voters intend to vote for Britain to leave the EU in the 23 June referendum
> 
> 
> Andrew Grice
> @IndyPolitics
> 1 hour  ago
> 
> The campaign to take Britain out of the EU has opened up a remarkable 10-point lead over the Remain camp, according to an exclusive poll for _The Independent_.
> 
> The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points). These figures are weighted to take account of people’s likelihood to vote. It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for _The Independent_ a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned.
> 
> Even when the findings are not weighted for turnout, Leave is on 53 per cent (up three points since April) and Remain on 47 per cent (down three). The online poll, taken on Wednesday and Thursday, suggests the Out camp has achieved momentum at the critical time ahead of the 23 June referendum.....
> 
> Leave opens up massive lead in exclusive Brexit poll for The Independent



I'm assuming this doesn't include expats, many of whom will vote to stay.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> More strong-arm tactics from the 'Keep the UK in' side. From Germany, this time, who have issued their own trade threat, 'Obama' style ...
> 
> Schaeuble: No Single Market Access After Brexit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany has warned the UK* it will not have access to the single market if it votes to leave the European Union on 23 June.*
> 
> German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said a relationship similar to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland "won't work" for the UK and that "In is in. Out is out".
> 
> Norway has access to the tariff-free single market through European Economic Area arrangements. This means it has to accept most of the laws made in Brussels, accept free movement of labour and pay into EU budgets. Switzerland has a similar arrangement.
> 
> Some Brexit supporters have used the two countries as a model for what a non-EU Britain could be.
> 
> But Mr Schaeuble told news magazine Der Spiegel: "It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no actual practical difficulty in the UK following the Norwegian example. What 'difficulty' there 'would be', so far as I can see, is one of the EU choosing to be spiteful to the UK in particular.
> 
> I say this: _these threats SHOULD strengthen the Brexit case._ After all, what nationality worth its name wants to be told that it MUST knuckle under to strong-arm, 'Mafia' type bullying, and in the process sell out its sovereignty, if it wants to continue to be a viable entity !! No, we need our freedom from these types. We need it NOW.
> 
> Perhaps British troops, fighting WWII, fought for the UK to eventually know such further tyranny from Europe ? Did they fight so that we could have the 'privilege' to submit to it ??
> 
> Should we honour their memories ? Or, insult them ?
Click to expand...


The Norwegian example? They're in the Schengen Zone, don't you know? That would be giving up control of British borders. The exact thing the Brexit people are arguing AGAINST. 

I'm not sure if Brexit people actually know what they want.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

They just hate foreigners.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> They just hate foreigners.



I'm not following your reasoning. 

You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?

Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just hate foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning.
> 
> You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?
> 
> Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?
Click to expand...

Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just hate foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning.
> 
> You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?
> 
> Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
> I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.
Click to expand...


Seems you dodged my question ? Understandable ...

I do indeed condemn their behaviour. I also condemn any remarks of theirs which were made which were insulting to Europe, or Europeans. I am not here to insult or disparage Europeans myself ... I simply argue to be free of a control-freaking colossus called the EU, so that the UK may know full political autonomy.

As for the 'fans' ... I'll no doubt applaud any and all actions taken against them. In fact ... if England is disqualified, though it might be unfair against the team .. it sends a message that only decent behaviour will serve. And that's just fine by me.


----------



## HenryBHough

And should Brexit fail then Britain would simply _get stuffed._....

More than 700,000 Turks ‘will flock to live and work in Britain after country joins EU’

*"MORE THAN 700,000 Turks could come to live and work in Britain by 2035 — a think tank claims today in a dramatic EU Referendum “wake up call”.*


*Migration Watch says 100,000 Turkish migrants will be coming to the UK every year once the country becomes a full EU member."*


----------



## frigidweirdo

The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just hate foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning.
> 
> You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?
> 
> Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
> I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you dodged my question ? Understandable ...
> 
> I do indeed condemn their behaviour. I also condemn any remarks of theirs which were made which were insulting to Europe, or Europeans. I am not here to insult or disparage Europeans myself ... I simply argue to be free of a control-freaking colossus called the EU, so that the UK may know full political autonomy.
> 
> As for the 'fans' ... I'll no doubt applaud any and all actions taken against them. In fact ... if England is disqualified, though it might be unfair against the team .. it sends a message that only decent behaviour will serve. And that's just fine by me.
Click to expand...




As I just posted, you want to be free? When has the UK govt ever been free? The House of Lords is unelected.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job



Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.

But see this ...

Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR



> Following the appointment of the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker at the head of the European Commission, a further 27 unelected commissioners must now be appointed, for the next five years, to their powerful posts in the European Commission.





> The European Commission – *from where all EU legislation emanates* – is an institution of around 23,000 civil servants managed by these appointed commissioners .... *They serve five-year terms and cannot be removed from their positions by the ballot box*.



You were saying .... ?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just hate foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning.
> 
> You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?
> 
> Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
> I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you dodged my question ? Understandable ...
> 
> I do indeed condemn their behaviour. I also condemn any remarks of theirs which were made which were insulting to Europe, or Europeans. I am not here to insult or disparage Europeans myself ... I simply argue to be free of a control-freaking colossus called the EU, so that the UK may know full political autonomy.
> 
> As for the 'fans' ... I'll no doubt applaud any and all actions taken against them. In fact ... if England is disqualified, though it might be unfair against the team .. it sends a message that only decent behaviour will serve. And that's just fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I just posted, you want to be free? When has the UK govt ever been free? The House of Lords is unelected.
Click to expand...


We'd be free of foreign interference. Simple !


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.
> 
> But see this ...
> 
> Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following the appointment of the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker at the head of the European Commission, a further 27 unelected commissioners must now be appointed, for the next five years, to their powerful posts in the European Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Commission – *from where all EU legislation emanates* – is an institution of around 23,000 civil servants managed by these appointed commissioners .... *They serve five-year terms and cannot be removed from their positions by the ballot box*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying .... ?
Click to expand...


Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?

You say they're British. 

Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)

That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?

Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just hate foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning.
> 
> You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?
> 
> Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
> I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you dodged my question ? Understandable ...
> 
> I do indeed condemn their behaviour. I also condemn any remarks of theirs which were made which were insulting to Europe, or Europeans. I am not here to insult or disparage Europeans myself ... I simply argue to be free of a control-freaking colossus called the EU, so that the UK may know full political autonomy.
> 
> As for the 'fans' ... I'll no doubt applaud any and all actions taken against them. In fact ... if England is disqualified, though it might be unfair against the team .. it sends a message that only decent behaviour will serve. And that's just fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I just posted, you want to be free? When has the UK govt ever been free? The House of Lords is unelected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd be free of foreign interference. Simple !
Click to expand...


No you won't. 

That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.

It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not.


----------



## HenryBHough

frigidweirdo said:


> No you won't.
> 
> That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.
> 
> It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not.



And that's why the Canada on your planet uses US currency, has interest rates set by the U.S. Federal Reserve and their prime minister is appointed by an American (well, putatively) president.

Must suck to be that far removed from humankind......


----------



## Decus

_frigidweirdo:

No you won't.

That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.

It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not.[/QUOTE]_

You are right.

The UK has talked about following the Norwegian model but Norwegians feel that this would be a mistake:

"If Britain votes to leave the E.U. on June 23 and follows Norway’s lead as an E.U. outsider, officials here say, the British should be prepared for less control over their own affairs, not more. That is because Norway still *must abide by E.U. rules and regulations, even though it has no say in shaping them*."[/I]

Brits look to Norway for post-Brexit model. Norwegians urge Brits to look again.

.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.
> 
> But see this ...
> 
> Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following the appointment of the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker at the head of the European Commission, a further 27 unelected commissioners must now be appointed, for the next five years, to their powerful posts in the European Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Commission – *from where all EU legislation emanates* – is an institution of around 23,000 civil servants managed by these appointed commissioners .... *They serve five-year terms and cannot be removed from their positions by the ballot box*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying .... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?
> 
> You say they're British.
> 
> Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)
> 
> That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?
> 
> Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.
Click to expand...


Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.

And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.

Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?

And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ? 

Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning.
> 
> You're saying that all 'Brexit' supporters are football hooligans ?
> 
> Or, that football hooligans don't chant things intended purely to be provocative ... and just for that reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
> I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you dodged my question ? Understandable ...
> 
> I do indeed condemn their behaviour. I also condemn any remarks of theirs which were made which were insulting to Europe, or Europeans. I am not here to insult or disparage Europeans myself ... I simply argue to be free of a control-freaking colossus called the EU, so that the UK may know full political autonomy.
> 
> As for the 'fans' ... I'll no doubt applaud any and all actions taken against them. In fact ... if England is disqualified, though it might be unfair against the team .. it sends a message that only decent behaviour will serve. And that's just fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I just posted, you want to be free? When has the UK govt ever been free? The House of Lords is unelected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd be free of foreign interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't.
> 
> That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.
> 
> It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not.
Click to expand...


'Influence' .. that's indirect at best. Not an outright EDICT, or a LAW. No, we'll make our own laws, thanks ...


----------



## Drummond

The latest threat ... doom and gloom, Armageddon awaits !! This is bloody hilarious ... !!!!! ...

Brexit will spell END of EU and bring ‘DESTRUCTION of Western civilisation’, says eurocrat



> A TOP EU boss has ramped up ‘Project Fear’ by warning a Brexit vote will bring about the end of “Western political civilisation”.
> 
> European Council president Donald Tusk made the astonishing claim while also telling Britons he can not guarantee a positive relationship between Brussels and the UK following a Leave result on June 23.
> 
> With just ten days to go until Britain’s historic in/out referendum on EU membership, the former Polish prime minister delivered yet another doom-laden prediction if the UK were to cut ties with the 28-country bloc.



Folks: we still have time for a prediction that the Moon will collide with Earth, or that a solar flare will erupt from the Sun, killing all life on Earth .... *IF ... the UK leaves the EU !!* Egad !!!


----------



## HenryBHough

I believe Britain has nothing to worry about concerning possible EU retaliation for their leaving.  Simply because ordinary French and German citizens are watching crefully and, if Britain succeeds, they're gone too.  There will be no bureaucracy left to fuck thing up.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Decus said:


> _frigidweirdo:
> 
> No you won't.
> 
> That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.
> 
> It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not._



You are right.

The UK has talked about following the Norwegian model but Norwegians feel that this would be a mistake:

"If Britain votes to leave the E.U. on June 23 and follows Norway’s lead as an E.U. outsider, officials here say, the British should be prepared for less control over their own affairs, not more. That is because Norway still *must abide by E.U. rules and regulations, even though it has no say in shaping them*."[/I]

Brits look to Norway for post-Brexit model. Norwegians urge Brits to look again.

.[/QUOTE]
They just dont get it. It is lucky that they only have to put a x in a box to do their democratic duty. Most of them are too thick to do anything more taxing.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

EU group slammed for 'shameful' claim Brexit would stop an Orlando-style attack

Brexit trash using slaughtered club - goers to push political agenda.

Classy !


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.
> 
> But see this ...
> 
> Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following the appointment of the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker at the head of the European Commission, a further 27 unelected commissioners must now be appointed, for the next five years, to their powerful posts in the European Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Commission – *from where all EU legislation emanates* – is an institution of around 23,000 civil servants managed by these appointed commissioners .... *They serve five-year terms and cannot be removed from their positions by the ballot box*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying .... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?
> 
> You say they're British.
> 
> Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)
> 
> That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?
> 
> Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.
> 
> And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.
> 
> Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?
> 
> And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?
> 
> Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....
Click to expand...


Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite". 

They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer? 

Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British. 

The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".


----------



## frigidweirdo

Decus said:


> _frigidweirdo:
> 
> No you won't.
> 
> That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.
> 
> It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not._



You are right.

The UK has talked about following the Norwegian model but Norwegians feel that this would be a mistake:

"If Britain votes to leave the E.U. on June 23 and follows Norway’s lead as an E.U. outsider, officials here say, the British should be prepared for less control over their own affairs, not more. That is because Norway still *must abide by E.U. rules and regulations, even though it has no say in shaping them*."[/I]

Brits look to Norway for post-Brexit model. Norwegians urge Brits to look again.

.[/QUOTE]

For the most part the Brexit people have realized this, and not spoken about it since way back when. Literally they jump on anything, say how great it is, and then figure out it's wrong and then go find something else to jump on, until the only thing left is immigration, where they're comfortable.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its no secret that the bulk of Brexit supporters come from the low educated and illiterate. This was a party picnic for them.
> I look forward to seeing you condemn their behaviour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you dodged my question ? Understandable ...
> 
> I do indeed condemn their behaviour. I also condemn any remarks of theirs which were made which were insulting to Europe, or Europeans. I am not here to insult or disparage Europeans myself ... I simply argue to be free of a control-freaking colossus called the EU, so that the UK may know full political autonomy.
> 
> As for the 'fans' ... I'll no doubt applaud any and all actions taken against them. In fact ... if England is disqualified, though it might be unfair against the team .. it sends a message that only decent behaviour will serve. And that's just fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I just posted, you want to be free? When has the UK govt ever been free? The House of Lords is unelected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd be free of foreign interference. Simple !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't.
> 
> That's such nonsense. If the EU decides to do something, they'll have influence over the UK, and the UK won't have any ability to influence the political process that decides these things.
> 
> It's like saying Canada is free from US interference. It's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Influence' .. that's indirect at best. Not an outright EDICT, or a LAW. No, we'll make our own laws, thanks ...
Click to expand...


No, it's indirect.

The EU says "If you want to trade said product with us, you will need it to meet our requirements". So, those people who want to trade in the EU will then just make all their products meet those requirements because it'll be cheaper to do that than have to ways of meeting requirements. 

The UK govt might even follow EU regulations because it'd just be easier.


----------



## frigidweirdo

HenryBHough said:


> I believe Britain has nothing to worry about concerning possible EU retaliation for their leaving.  Simply because ordinary French and German citizens are watching crefully and, if Britain succeeds, they're gone too.  There will be no bureaucracy left to fuck thing up.



I doubt it. 

The EU leaders like Tusk saying a UK exit could lead to the break up of the EU just makes people more likely to vote for an exit, simply because they like the thought of being important.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Well the pound has been dropping like a stone, and again the pound has dropped. 

Pound Falls Again As Markets Eye Brexit Polls

"
*Pound Falls Again As Markets Eye Brexit Polls*"

What do you think will happen on Friday? Chaos. 

It's lost 7 euro cents to the pound in 2 weeks.

The last poll that had stay ahead was Jun 2nd, the currency went up over that period, before that, around the time of that little dip, there was one saying leave was ahead. Seems to go hand in hand.

However telephone polling had 45% to 50%/ stay to leave, and then before that 48% to 47%. Internet polls seem to be more in favor of leave. The most recent one had 15% undecided compared to 5% a few days earlier.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.
> 
> But see this ...
> 
> Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following the appointment of the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker at the head of the European Commission, a further 27 unelected commissioners must now be appointed, for the next five years, to their powerful posts in the European Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Commission – *from where all EU legislation emanates* – is an institution of around 23,000 civil servants managed by these appointed commissioners .... *They serve five-year terms and cannot be removed from their positions by the ballot box*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying .... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?
> 
> You say they're British.
> 
> Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)
> 
> That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?
> 
> Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.
> 
> And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.
> 
> Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?
> 
> And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?
> 
> Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".
> 
> They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?
> 
> Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.
> 
> The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".
Click to expand...


I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ... 

But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ... 

... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.

You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.

Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Britain has nothing to worry about concerning possible EU retaliation for their leaving.  Simply because ordinary French and German citizens are watching crefully and, if Britain succeeds, they're gone too.  There will be no bureaucracy left to fuck thing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> The EU leaders like Tusk saying a UK exit could lead to the break up of the EU just makes people more likely to vote for an exit, simply because they like the thought of being important.
Click to expand...


Perhaps we're just completely fed up with all the ridiculous 'doom and gloom' stuff, interwoven with threats and other scaremongering ploys ? Perhaps we see how shabby the scaremongering tactics truly are, and we wonder at the mentality that would stoop to it all ? 

And perhaps we dare to think we have a right to run our own affairs, free of the shabby disreputability (clearly illustrated) of the political figures that oppose us in this ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EU has no unelected law makers – the UK has 825 in the House of Lords, including 92 born into the job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.
> 
> But see this ...
> 
> Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following the appointment of the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker at the head of the European Commission, a further 27 unelected commissioners must now be appointed, for the next five years, to their powerful posts in the European Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Commission – *from where all EU legislation emanates* – is an institution of around 23,000 civil servants managed by these appointed commissioners .... *They serve five-year terms and cannot be removed from their positions by the ballot box*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying .... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?
> 
> You say they're British.
> 
> Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)
> 
> That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?
> 
> Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.
> 
> And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.
> 
> Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?
> 
> And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?
> 
> Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".
> 
> They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?
> 
> Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.
> 
> The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...
> 
> But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...
> 
> ... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.
> 
> You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.
> 
> Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
Click to expand...


The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)

The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels. 

Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.

However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM. 

The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.

What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.

This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Britain has nothing to worry about concerning possible EU retaliation for their leaving.  Simply because ordinary French and German citizens are watching crefully and, if Britain succeeds, they're gone too.  There will be no bureaucracy left to fuck thing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> The EU leaders like Tusk saying a UK exit could lead to the break up of the EU just makes people more likely to vote for an exit, simply because they like the thought of being important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps we're just completely fed up with all the ridiculous 'doom and gloom' stuff, interwoven with threats and other scaremongering ploys ? Perhaps we see how shabby the scaremongering tactics truly are, and we wonder at the mentality that would stoop to it all ?
> 
> And perhaps we dare to think we have a right to run our own affairs, free of the shabby disreputability (clearly illustrated) of the political figures that oppose us in this ?
Click to expand...


No, I doubt it's being fed up with doom and gloom, it's more just another reason to moan and groan. What will people do if the UK leaves the EU? What will they then moan about? And what will they find to get hope from, if the only hope they had went out of the window and disintegrated into a major problem, a dwindling pound, a dwindling employment rate, more expensive holidays and foreign products, etc etc. Oh, right, yeah, they'll be able to moan and groan about all of that.

Yeah, you go run your own affairs, with an undemocratic upper house, a government that's destroying things and doesn't care about the normal people, and then realize that NOTHING will change, other than you'll be poorer.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????



Ah, and we come back to this attack again. 

I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be. 

I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US. 
I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries. 
In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten. 
In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people. 
In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.

I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government. 

But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.
> 
> But see this ...
> 
> Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR
> 
> You were saying .... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?
> 
> You say they're British.
> 
> Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)
> 
> That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?
> 
> Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.
> 
> And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.
> 
> Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?
> 
> And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?
> 
> Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".
> 
> They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?
> 
> Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.
> 
> The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...
> 
> But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...
> 
> ... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.
> 
> You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.
> 
> Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)
> 
> The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.
> 
> Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.
> 
> However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.
> 
> The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.
> 
> What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.
> 
> This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.
Click to expand...


A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...

Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.

Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.

You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?

If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are *truly* being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!

As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?

If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
> He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.
> 
> For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.
> 
> The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.
> 
> Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.
> 
> What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?
> 
> Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).
> 
> I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...
> 
> 1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.
> 
> 2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
> They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.
> 
> But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?
> 
> Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.
> 
> As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?
> 
> Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
Click to expand...







 So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.

 And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?
> 
> You say they're British.
> 
> Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)
> 
> That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?
> 
> Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.
> 
> And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.
> 
> Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?
> 
> And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?
> 
> Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".
> 
> They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?
> 
> Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.
> 
> The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...
> 
> But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...
> 
> ... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.
> 
> You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.
> 
> Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)
> 
> The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.
> 
> Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.
> 
> However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.
> 
> The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.
> 
> What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.
> 
> This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...
> 
> Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.
> 
> Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.
> 
> You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?
> 
> If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !
Click to expand...


Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997? 
And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour. 

My true agenda? You want my true agenda?

I like using my brain, that's my true agenda. 

But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go. 

You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are *truly* being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!
> 
> As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?
> 
> If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?
Click to expand...


Why are you trying to find this out? So you can attack me? 

Why not stick to the arguments? It can't be that hard, even if the arguments are as weak as American piss beer.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.
> 
> For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.
> 
> The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.
> 
> Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.
> 
> What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?
> 
> Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).
> 
> I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...
> 
> 1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.
> 
> 2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
> They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.
> 
> But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?
> 
> Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.
> 
> As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?
> 
> Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
Click to expand...


Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.


----------



## Esmeralda

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
Click to expand...

Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
Click to expand...







 Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.

 Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists


----------



## Mindful

Esmeralda said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.
Click to expand...


He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.

And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.
> 
> Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists
Click to expand...


Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true. 

Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong. 

However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.


----------



## Esmeralda

Mindful said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.
> 
> And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.
Click to expand...

He said what he believed to be the truth. He didn't order you to do anything. He didn't 'warn' you not to do what you wanted. He said simply and straightforwardly what it meant. You characterized it very differently than what it was.

You think he doesn't consider America's interests?   He considers America's interests in everything he does and says.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Esmeralda said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.
> 
> And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said what he believed to be the truth. He didn't order you to do anything. He didn't 'warn' you not to do what you wanted. He said simply and straightforwardly what it meant. You characterized it very differently than what it was.
Click to expand...


Problem is, the only thing the Brexit people have is to try and shut anyone up who doesn't say what they don't like.

I've got a guy coming on here and attacking me, demanding to know things about me, simply so he doesn't have to deal with the issue.


----------



## Mindful

Esmeralda said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Brexit message.
> 
> 
> We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
> I think we know the answer to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.
> 
> And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said what he believed to be the truth. He didn't order you to do anything. He didn't 'warn' you not to do what you wanted. He said simply and straightforwardly what it meant. You characterized it very differently than what it was.
Click to expand...


We took exception to his arrogance.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.
> 
> What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?
> 
> Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).
> 
> I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...
> 
> 1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.
> 
> 2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
> They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.
> 
> But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?
> 
> Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.
> 
> As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?
> 
> Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
Click to expand...





 How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).
> 
> I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...
> 
> 1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.
> 
> 2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
> They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.
> 
> But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?
> 
> Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.
> 
> As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?
> 
> Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
Click to expand...


There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.

It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving. 

I don't get it.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.
> 
> And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.
> 
> Tell me - *have* the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?
> 
> And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?
> 
> Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".
> 
> They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?
> 
> Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.
> 
> The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...
> 
> But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...
> 
> ... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.
> 
> You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.
> 
> Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)
> 
> The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.
> 
> Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.
> 
> However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.
> 
> The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.
> 
> What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.
> 
> This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...
> 
> Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.
> 
> Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.
> 
> You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?
> 
> If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
> And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.
> 
> My true agenda? You want my true agenda?
> 
> I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.
> 
> But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.
> 
> You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.
Click to expand...


Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ? 

Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.

As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.

... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".
> 
> They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?
> 
> Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.
> 
> The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...
> 
> But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...
> 
> ... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.
> 
> You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.
> 
> Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)
> 
> The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.
> 
> Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.
> 
> However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.
> 
> The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.
> 
> What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.
> 
> This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...
> 
> Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.
> 
> Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.
> 
> You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?
> 
> If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
> And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.
> 
> My true agenda? You want my true agenda?
> 
> I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.
> 
> But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.
> 
> You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?
> 
> Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.
> 
> As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.
> 
> ... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.
Click to expand...


Yes, with a massive gap where Labour massively increased funding for education and health, and repaired the health service in 13 years, only to see it go downhill again.

As for my agenda, blah, blah, blah, shut the fuck up this got old already.


----------



## frigidweirdo

EU referendum: Which type of person wants to leave, and which type wants to remain?

Unfortunately can't bring up the graph.

Most pro-EU, Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, Wales and North East of England. 

It's only England that wants out. Yet England is all it's about, apparently. 

The young want in, it's their future, the old want out, they don't give a shit any more, they just want to moan and groan and wouldn't mind a quicky with Farage or Johnson.

The more educated want to stay in, the less educated want to leave.

They just like to be told what to think, rather than use their own brain.


----------



## Mindful

I've just been watching a woman on Fox Business applauding  the idea of Brexit, welcoming the idea of Britain and the US as trading partners.

In direct contrast to what Obama was telling  us when he was in the UK.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.
> 
> Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.
> 
> Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.
> 
> However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.
Click to expand...






 It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.

 We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
> They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.
> 
> But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?
> 
> Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.
> 
> As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?
> 
> Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?
> 
> 
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
Click to expand...







 No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.

 The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie

 What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...
> 
> But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...
> 
> ... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.
> 
> You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.
> 
> Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)
> 
> The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.
> 
> Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.
> 
> However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.
> 
> The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.
> 
> What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.
> 
> This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...
> 
> Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.
> 
> Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.
> 
> You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?
> 
> If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
> And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.
> 
> My true agenda? You want my true agenda?
> 
> I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.
> 
> But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.
> 
> You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?
> 
> Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.
> 
> As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.
> 
> ... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with a massive gap where Labour massively increased funding for education and health, and repaired the health service in 13 years, only to see it go downhill again.
> 
> As for my agenda, blah, blah, blah, shut the fuck up this got old already.
Click to expand...







 When did this happen then as we saw nothing but ward closures, doctor shortages and cronyism in the NHS during Labours 14 years in charge. As for education the levels were so poor in the 1990's that exams were tuned down to keep the pass rates up, and the migrants were given the cream of the schools only to destroy them.

Typical leftist when being shown up as incompetent, resort to personal attacks and anti social behaviour.


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
Click to expand...


I should hope the new Mayor's plan to ban adverts of sexy ladies throughout the London Tube is not an edict from Brussels.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should hope the new Mayor's plan to ban adverts of sexy ladies throughout the London Tube is not an edict from Brussels.
Click to expand...







 Lets see him try it, and watch as he is kicked out of office for his actions


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are *truly* being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!
> 
> As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?
> 
> If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to find this out? So you can attack me?
> 
> Why not stick to the arguments? It can't be that hard, even if the arguments are as weak as American piss beer.
Click to expand...


The effort made in knowing your nationality, must necessarily translate as a basis for an attack against you ? REALLY ?

That only surely makes sense if your nation is actually a hostile one !! And .. if hostile, that lends itself to the observation that your agenda in pushing the anti-Brexit line may well, indeed, be an intentional effort to work against the UK's interests.

I can easily stick to arguments, as I've also proved. HOWEVER ... the certain knowledge of your representing a hostile nation, if or when this ever becomes definite, established fact, is highly pertinent to why you advance your own.

*And how are my arguments weak ??* What's wrong with wanting national autonomy, freedom from being dominated by foreign powers ? What's wrong with wanting to greatly enhance the opportunity of exercising proper border controls ? What's wrong with resisting scaremongering, ITSELF borne of weakness ... the weakness because, as it obviously exists, has anti-Brexit proponents disreputably predicting WWIII and the end of Western political civilisation, obviously out of sheer desperation ???


----------



## Drummond




----------



## Drummond




----------



## Drummond




----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.
> 
> Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.
> 
> Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.
> 
> However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.
> 
> We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used
Click to expand...


And what is to stop future governments doing what the EU wants? 

There's all this "we'll get the right to decide", but you've just shown that they had the right to decide and chose to decide the way the EU wanted.

Now you're claiming that not being in the EU it'll all be different.

How? 

Why doesn't the UK either try and make a deal with the EU, or charge foreign trucks to use the roads? It's possible, you know.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.
> 
> The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and  Doctors to deal with their many ailments.
> 
> I havent seen any costings on this yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
Click to expand...


And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.

Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?

Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)
> 
> The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.
> 
> Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.
> 
> However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.
> 
> The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.
> 
> What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.
> 
> This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...
> 
> Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.
> 
> Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.
> 
> You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?
> 
> If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
> And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.
> 
> My true agenda? You want my true agenda?
> 
> I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.
> 
> But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.
> 
> You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?
> 
> Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.
> 
> As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.
> 
> ... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with a massive gap where Labour massively increased funding for education and health, and repaired the health service in 13 years, only to see it go downhill again.
> 
> As for my agenda, blah, blah, blah, shut the fuck up this got old already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did this happen then as we saw nothing but ward closures, doctor shortages and cronyism in the NHS during Labours 14 years in charge. As for education the levels were so poor in the 1990's that exams were tuned down to keep the pass rates up, and the migrants were given the cream of the schools only to destroy them.
> 
> Typical leftist when being shown up as incompetent, resort to personal attacks and anti social behaviour.
Click to expand...


Satisfaction with the NHS overall

Please, go to this link.

Satisfaction with the NHS. 

In 1997 it was at 34% for satisfaction. The lowest it's been since this chart starts. 
In 2 years it rose to 46%, then dropped, probably due to MRSA which was as a result of Tory slashing. 
This then went down to 38% but then rose every year until 2010, at which point it dropped massively. 

I'm not saying Labour was perfect in any way. However they took the ashes of the NHS and they've turned it into a decent healthcare system. 

And your argument about the 1990s, well... you do remember the Tories were in for most of the 1990s.

2010 was the FIRST YEAR under Labour where they had enough teachers. Before that they'd been offering trainee teachers 1,000 a month (for certain subjects) to train to become teachers. The 2010/2011 year they reduced this money massively because they had enough. 

School workforce in England: November 2014 - Publications - GOV.UK

Click on main tables

Table 1 (excel spreadsheet)

In nursery and primary

In 2010 there were 200,900 totally regular FTE teachers. In 2014 this has gone down to 182,000. Even in 2000 there were more teachers than there were in 2014.

Full time regular teachers, gone down below the 2000 level.

Part time teachers has increased from 2000 but dropped against 2010.

Unqualified teachers has increased against 2000 and 2010 from 1,500 to 3,900 to 4,500

Head teachers have dropped from 10,500 to 8,200 to 7,300


In Maintained Secondary

total teachers has dropped from 198,500 in 2000, 213,900 in 2010 to 82,400 in 2010. Yes, there has been a rise in academies which changes all of this.

However academies are employing a lot more part time teachers, and massive amounts of unqualified teachers

In 2000 there were 2,100 unqualified teachers. In 2010 there were 9,000, in 2014 there were 3,600 in maintained schools and 8,000 in academies. 

All in all teachers are leaving the profession, or turning to part time because they're not happy working full time.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are *truly* being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!
> 
> As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?
> 
> If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to find this out? So you can attack me?
> 
> Why not stick to the arguments? It can't be that hard, even if the arguments are as weak as American piss beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The effort made in knowing your nationality, must necessarily translate as a basis for an attack against you ? REALLY ?
> 
> That only surely makes sense if your nation is actually a hostile one !! And .. if hostile, that lends itself to the observation that your agenda in pushing the anti-Brexit line may well, indeed, be an intentional effort to work against the UK's interests.
> 
> I can easily stick to arguments, as I've also proved. HOWEVER ... the certain knowledge of your representing a hostile nation, if or when this ever becomes definite, established fact, is highly pertinent to why you advance your own.
> 
> *And how are my arguments weak ??* What's wrong with wanting national autonomy, freedom from being dominated by foreign powers ? What's wrong with wanting to greatly enhance the opportunity of exercising proper border controls ? What's wrong with resisting scaremongering, ITSELF borne of weakness ... the weakness because, as it obviously exists, has anti-Brexit proponents disreputably predicting WWIII and the end of Western political civilisation, obviously out of sheer desperation ???
Click to expand...


Again, you say you can stick to topic, but half your posts to me are off topic.

What's wrong with national autonomy? Nothing. However you have to understand what national autonomy means and put it in its correct context. As I've shown, the Westminster government for many is the same as the Brussels government for you. Being dominated by foreign powers isn't going to go away by leaving the EU. In fact in the EU the UK has a say, outside of the EU, the UK doesn't have a say in this domination.

What's wrong with wanting proper border controls? Nothing, however the UK isn't in the Schengen Agreement. As I've already stated, the number of non-EU citizens coming in is large, this isn't to do with the EU government. You want proper border controls, but leaving the EU doesn't solve the problems that exist in the UK, namely that many people are lining up to get on boats to get into the UK due to the UK's welfare system not working properly, this won't change. Half of those EU citizens who come in are from EU-15 countries, countries many Brits live in. So what will change?

What's wrong with resisting scaremongering? What, apart from the fact that the brexit people are lying out of their asses, offering hope however they feel like? Oh, you'll save this much money. No you won't. Ah, sure you will, I made up the statistics myself.

The biggest problem I have with your arguments is that you haven't shown that things will be better after. You THINK things will be better, you want them to be better, but I just don't see it.

The UK welfare system is broken, the border controls are broken, and these COULD HAVE been fixed at any point in the last 20 or 30 years by the UK government and they haven't been. But all of a sudden leaving the EU will suddenly fix the problems of the UK government, like as if they'll be given a magic wand or something.

They won't.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> View attachment 78165



You pay 8.5 billion a year to a club which gives you back most of this money anyway, and you risk losing 100 billion a year from loss of trade, from a falling pound etc (note, this isn't an actual figure, I did do a post on how much the UK would lose if the pound dropped 5% against the Euro but I've forgotten the figures, but it was more than 8/5 billion).


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> View attachment 78166



If the UK doesn't have the freedom to decide it's future now, it never will.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
Click to expand...

It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
On another point.
I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
Click to expand...


Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
Click to expand...

He should have said it weeks ago.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
Click to expand...


Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
Click to expand...

They have never busted the brexit cash redistribution either. They would give it away in billionaire tax cuts before spending a penny on public services.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
Click to expand...


Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!

Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??

Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
Click to expand...

It should scare you. You are prepared to screw our economy to get a bendy banana. Its madness.


----------



## HenryBHough

Polls say it's OUT.

Bookies say it's IN.

I say so long as Cameron is IN and Johnson is OUT Britain is screwed.  Submissively, it is true, but well and truly screwed.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.
> 
> Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.
> 
> Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.
> 
> However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.
> 
> We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is to stop future governments doing what the EU wants?
> 
> There's all this "we'll get the right to decide", but you've just shown that they had the right to decide and chose to decide the way the EU wanted.
> 
> Now you're claiming that not being in the EU it'll all be different.
> 
> How?
> 
> Why doesn't the UK either try and make a deal with the EU, or charge foreign trucks to use the roads? It's possible, you know.
Click to expand...





Only the fact the people will vote them out and turn around any treaties made.


 We tried and the answer was here are some crumbs, but we might decide to give them to Turkey instead.. The EU has blocked it as being unfair to the foreign hauliers, so we have to penalise our own hauliers.  Yes it's possible when we leave the EU and watch it sink when it no longer has our money to waste.

 Or is this what you are scared of, having to start working harder to make the grade in the EU and not rely on handouts and fraud


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.
> 
> And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
Click to expand...







 Yes because the deals will be on our terms, or they don't get the goods they need.

 Incompetance due to unelected officials in Brussels making rules for their cronies and screwing the English for being better than the rest and turning round their economy

Yes as we will make our own laws and rules, and leave the dregs for the Europeans to fight over.

YES as it will no longer be tied to the EU


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...
> 
> Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.
> 
> Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, *also* doesn't.
> 
> You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?
> 
> If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
> And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.
> 
> My true agenda? You want my true agenda?
> 
> I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.
> 
> But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.
> 
> You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?
> 
> Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.
> 
> As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.
> 
> ... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with a massive gap where Labour massively increased funding for education and health, and repaired the health service in 13 years, only to see it go downhill again.
> 
> As for my agenda, blah, blah, blah, shut the fuck up this got old already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did this happen then as we saw nothing but ward closures, doctor shortages and cronyism in the NHS during Labours 14 years in charge. As for education the levels were so poor in the 1990's that exams were tuned down to keep the pass rates up, and the migrants were given the cream of the schools only to destroy them.
> 
> Typical leftist when being shown up as incompetent, resort to personal attacks and anti social behaviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Satisfaction with the NHS overall
> 
> Please, go to this link.
> 
> Satisfaction with the NHS.
> 
> In 1997 it was at 34% for satisfaction. The lowest it's been since this chart starts.
> In 2 years it rose to 46%, then dropped, probably due to MRSA which was as a result of Tory slashing.
> This then went down to 38% but then rose every year until 2010, at which point it dropped massively.
> 
> I'm not saying Labour was perfect in any way. However they took the ashes of the NHS and they've turned it into a decent healthcare system.
> 
> And your argument about the 1990s, well... you do remember the Tories were in for most of the 1990s.
> 
> 2010 was the FIRST YEAR under Labour where they had enough teachers. Before that they'd been offering trainee teachers 1,000 a month (for certain subjects) to train to become teachers. The 2010/2011 year they reduced this money massively because they had enough.
> 
> School workforce in England: November 2014 - Publications - GOV.UK
> 
> Click on main tables
> 
> Table 1 (excel spreadsheet)
> 
> In nursery and primary
> 
> In 2010 there were 200,900 totally regular FTE teachers. In 2014 this has gone down to 182,000. Even in 2000 there were more teachers than there were in 2014.
> 
> Full time regular teachers, gone down below the 2000 level.
> 
> Part time teachers has increased from 2000 but dropped against 2010.
> 
> Unqualified teachers has increased against 2000 and 2010 from 1,500 to 3,900 to 4,500
> 
> Head teachers have dropped from 10,500 to 8,200 to 7,300
> 
> 
> In Maintained Secondary
> 
> total teachers has dropped from 198,500 in 2000, 213,900 in 2010 to 82,400 in 2010. Yes, there has been a rise in academies which changes all of this.
> 
> However academies are employing a lot more part time teachers, and massive amounts of unqualified teachers
> 
> In 2000 there were 2,100 unqualified teachers. In 2010 there were 9,000, in 2014 there were 3,600 in maintained schools and 8,000 in academies.
> 
> All in all teachers are leaving the profession, or turning to part time because they're not happy working full time.
Click to expand...







 All those years it was under Labours control, and not the tories.

 No it was Labour in from the mid 1990's and they were so poor at running the country they lost our utility companies.

 You need to check your sources again as the dates don't tally.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are *truly* being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!
> 
> As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?
> 
> If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to find this out? So you can attack me?
> 
> Why not stick to the arguments? It can't be that hard, even if the arguments are as weak as American piss beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The effort made in knowing your nationality, must necessarily translate as a basis for an attack against you ? REALLY ?
> 
> That only surely makes sense if your nation is actually a hostile one !! And .. if hostile, that lends itself to the observation that your agenda in pushing the anti-Brexit line may well, indeed, be an intentional effort to work against the UK's interests.
> 
> I can easily stick to arguments, as I've also proved. HOWEVER ... the certain knowledge of your representing a hostile nation, if or when this ever becomes definite, established fact, is highly pertinent to why you advance your own.
> 
> *And how are my arguments weak ??* What's wrong with wanting national autonomy, freedom from being dominated by foreign powers ? What's wrong with wanting to greatly enhance the opportunity of exercising proper border controls ? What's wrong with resisting scaremongering, ITSELF borne of weakness ... the weakness because, as it obviously exists, has anti-Brexit proponents disreputably predicting WWIII and the end of Western political civilisation, obviously out of sheer desperation ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you say you can stick to topic, but half your posts to me are off topic.
> 
> What's wrong with national autonomy? Nothing. However you have to understand what national autonomy means and put it in its correct context. As I've shown, the Westminster government for many is the same as the Brussels government for you. Being dominated by foreign powers isn't going to go away by leaving the EU. In fact in the EU the UK has a say, outside of the EU, the UK doesn't have a say in this domination.
> 
> What's wrong with wanting proper border controls? Nothing, however the UK isn't in the Schengen Agreement. As I've already stated, the number of non-EU citizens coming in is large, this isn't to do with the EU government. You want proper border controls, but leaving the EU doesn't solve the problems that exist in the UK, namely that many people are lining up to get on boats to get into the UK due to the UK's welfare system not working properly, this won't change. Half of those EU citizens who come in are from EU-15 countries, countries many Brits live in. So what will change?
> 
> What's wrong with resisting scaremongering? What, apart from the fact that the brexit people are lying out of their asses, offering hope however they feel like? Oh, you'll save this much money. No you won't. Ah, sure you will, I made up the statistics myself.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with your arguments is that you haven't shown that things will be better after. You THINK things will be better, you want them to be better, but I just don't see it.
> 
> The UK welfare system is broken, the border controls are broken, and these COULD HAVE been fixed at any point in the last 20 or 30 years by the UK government and they haven't been. But all of a sudden leaving the EU will suddenly fix the problems of the UK government, like as if they'll be given a magic wand or something.
> 
> They won't.
Click to expand...







 I give you one reason to leave the EU as soon as possible     TURKEY        Who have threatened if they don't get their own way they will flood Europe with refugees. If they get in we can expect millions of muslims with Turkish passports coming to Europe and taking over. Some of us have seen the writing on the wall and don't want to be in the club when either of these happen. Under EU human rights laws we are not allowed to stop and detain an illegal immigrant before sending them back to were they came from. Once out we will be chartering every boat to sail to Europe with all the criminal elements in chains. Getting rid of the EU migrants will rid us of 10 million spongers and fraudsters, so the 3 million ex pats would be a drop in the ocean and much cheaper to accommodate.


 It is the remain camp that is scaremongering without offering any evidence to support their claims. All they have is to claim the Leave camp is  " are lying out of their asses ".      We will see more money as ridding the country of 10 million spongers and fraudsters has to be cheaper that 3 million ex pats.

Yes they could have been fixed if the UK had been kept in the loop, but when the EU leaders made corridor deals and back room agreements to freeze out the UK we had no chance to "fix" the welfare system. Then we had the incompetent neo Marxist Labour party that gave away all our hard earned gains to look good on the EU stage, only to be laughed at because they did too much infighting.
 So yes leaving will give us back the power to rule our nation, to close the doors to any more immigrants, stop the asylum seekers coming across the channel and refuse to pay migrants welfare they are not entitled to.



 As the latest report shows the Stock markets are rising on the back of an impending Brexit, and the leave camp is losing all hope. Expect a new P.M to be sworn in by July


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 78165
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pay 8.5 billion a year to a club which gives you back most of this money anyway, and you risk losing 100 billion a year from loss of trade, from a falling pound etc (note, this isn't an actual figure, I did do a post on how much the UK would lose if the pound dropped 5% against the Euro but I've forgotten the figures, but it was more than 8/5 billion).
Click to expand...








 Get it right we pay a lot more than that and get a pittance back. Then the EU fines the UK 4 times as much to balance the books.
 Strange that as Germany and France do the same things and don't get fined ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
Click to expand...








 I would rather have the old UK standards than the new EU ones that limit the power usage to nothing so they take twice as long to do half the job.    And it is bendy cucumbers with taste we will have back, and Cox's apples as opposed to golden delicious.  My Sardinian neighbour loves my cox's and asks for them every year because they are so much more tasty than the ones he grew up with.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
Click to expand...








 See scaremongering by the leave camp, as he will have a lot more money to play with after a year of sorting out the wrinkles.


 I am sat here watching my private pension rise as the stock market rises, something to do with Brexit being a formality now the leave camp have taken the lead


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather have the old UK standards than the new EU ones that limit the power usage to nothing so they take twice as long to do half the job.    And it is bendy cucumbers with taste we will have back, and Cox's apples as opposed to golden delicious.  My Sardinian neighbour loves my cox's and asks for them every year because they are so much more tasty than the ones he grew up with.
Click to expand...


So you live in Italy ? Priceless.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

This is how our brave new world will look like.


----------



## anotherlife

Soon the uk will be a country of goons.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 78166
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the UK doesn't have the freedom to decide it's future now, it never will.*
Click to expand...


CONGRATULATIONS .... we agree on something ! I agree totally with you. *If the UK doesn't have the freedom to decide its future NOW, it never will. EXACTLY. *You admit, then, that June 23rd is a make-or-break time for the UK to decide its future !!

BECAUSE, AFTERWARDS, IT'LL HAVE *NO* SUCH FREEDOM ..._ IF IT DOESN'T TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEIZE IT, RIGHT *NOW* !!!_


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
Click to expand...


Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.

Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !


----------



## anotherlife

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
Click to expand...

This is true and unfortunate.  Cameron should have been smarter.  The brexit is an excellent study in how people on average play into the hands of manipulators and goons.  Cameroon didn't even ask between his scare mongering, whether uk small business has found the new markets to sell for now that they are giving up Europe.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
Click to expand...



This made me laugh. 

Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary. 

However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?

Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals

"
*Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"

"according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "

MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"

He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians. 

Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time

"he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"

This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?


The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.

You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.

Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals

I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for. 

"
*Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"

So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?

Nope

"But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."

Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries. 

Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?

67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.

I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.


----------



## frigidweirdo

HenryBHough said:


> Polls say it's OUT.
> 
> Bookies say it's IN.
> 
> I say so long as Cameron is IN and Johnson is OUT Britain is screwed.  Submissively, it is true, but well and truly screwed.



I'd say Johnson is probably worse than Cameron. He's a funny dude, he's likable, but is he going to think about things properly?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.
> 
> Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.
> 
> Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.
> 
> However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.
> 
> We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is to stop future governments doing what the EU wants?
> 
> There's all this "we'll get the right to decide", but you've just shown that they had the right to decide and chose to decide the way the EU wanted.
> 
> Now you're claiming that not being in the EU it'll all be different.
> 
> How?
> 
> Why doesn't the UK either try and make a deal with the EU, or charge foreign trucks to use the roads? It's possible, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the fact the people will vote them out and turn around any treaties made.
> 
> 
> We tried and the answer was here are some crumbs, but we might decide to give them to Turkey instead.. The EU has blocked it as being unfair to the foreign hauliers, so we have to penalise our own hauliers.  Yes it's possible when we leave the EU and watch it sink when it no longer has our money to waste.
> 
> Or is this what you are scared of, having to start working harder to make the grade in the EU and not rely on handouts and fraud
Click to expand...


The problem is, with welfare, with road taxes, with all this sort of thing, the British governments have shown they're not that smart at dealing with it. 

Will they start charging foreign hauliers if the UK leaves the EU? There's no indication this would happen. Seeing as it could happen with a variety of creative ways of charging foreign hauliers at Dover, but they didn't do it.


----------



## HenryBHough

Cameron would be more effective if he could just restrain himself and his goon squad from jumping from behind hedges and shouting "BOO" at passers-by.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because the deals will be on our terms, or they don't get the goods they need.
> 
> Incompetance due to unelected officials in Brussels making rules for their cronies and screwing the English for being better than the rest and turning round their economy
> 
> Yes as we will make our own laws and rules, and leave the dregs for the Europeans to fight over.
> 
> YES as it will no longer be tied to the EU
Click to expand...


Will they? 

Usually what happens when you have a bloc that is 10 times bigger (think the US and Canada), that the larger bloc tends to get things on their terms. The UK is going to be more desperate to get a deal done than the EU.

Do you know how much money the UK will lose from leaving the EU?


----------



## skye

UK Is Out Globalist control!

They voted OUT!


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


my prediction hehe!!!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
> And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.
> 
> My true agenda? You want my true agenda?
> 
> I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.
> 
> But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.
> 
> You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?
> 
> Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.
> 
> As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.
> 
> ... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with a massive gap where Labour massively increased funding for education and health, and repaired the health service in 13 years, only to see it go downhill again.
> 
> As for my agenda, blah, blah, blah, shut the fuck up this got old already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did this happen then as we saw nothing but ward closures, doctor shortages and cronyism in the NHS during Labours 14 years in charge. As for education the levels were so poor in the 1990's that exams were tuned down to keep the pass rates up, and the migrants were given the cream of the schools only to destroy them.
> 
> Typical leftist when being shown up as incompetent, resort to personal attacks and anti social behaviour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Satisfaction with the NHS overall
> 
> Please, go to this link.
> 
> Satisfaction with the NHS.
> 
> In 1997 it was at 34% for satisfaction. The lowest it's been since this chart starts.
> In 2 years it rose to 46%, then dropped, probably due to MRSA which was as a result of Tory slashing.
> This then went down to 38% but then rose every year until 2010, at which point it dropped massively.
> 
> I'm not saying Labour was perfect in any way. However they took the ashes of the NHS and they've turned it into a decent healthcare system.
> 
> And your argument about the 1990s, well... you do remember the Tories were in for most of the 1990s.
> 
> 2010 was the FIRST YEAR under Labour where they had enough teachers. Before that they'd been offering trainee teachers 1,000 a month (for certain subjects) to train to become teachers. The 2010/2011 year they reduced this money massively because they had enough.
> 
> School workforce in England: November 2014 - Publications - GOV.UK
> 
> Click on main tables
> 
> Table 1 (excel spreadsheet)
> 
> In nursery and primary
> 
> In 2010 there were 200,900 totally regular FTE teachers. In 2014 this has gone down to 182,000. Even in 2000 there were more teachers than there were in 2014.
> 
> Full time regular teachers, gone down below the 2000 level.
> 
> Part time teachers has increased from 2000 but dropped against 2010.
> 
> Unqualified teachers has increased against 2000 and 2010 from 1,500 to 3,900 to 4,500
> 
> Head teachers have dropped from 10,500 to 8,200 to 7,300
> 
> 
> In Maintained Secondary
> 
> total teachers has dropped from 198,500 in 2000, 213,900 in 2010 to 82,400 in 2010. Yes, there has been a rise in academies which changes all of this.
> 
> However academies are employing a lot more part time teachers, and massive amounts of unqualified teachers
> 
> In 2000 there were 2,100 unqualified teachers. In 2010 there were 9,000, in 2014 there were 3,600 in maintained schools and 8,000 in academies.
> 
> All in all teachers are leaving the profession, or turning to part time because they're not happy working full time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those years it was under Labours control, and not the tories.
> 
> No it was Labour in from the mid 1990's and they were so poor at running the country they lost our utility companies.
> 
> You need to check your sources again as the dates don't tally.
Click to expand...


Labour were from the middle of 1997, that's 2 1/2 years of the 1990s. Labour were increasing health spending, increasing education spending. Are you not British?







Education spending, see how it goes up massively from 1998 onwards? And then drops from 2010 onwards?






See how healthcare spending goes up massively. Still going up, but this says MORE about the education statistics than the health statistics. Those increases of the Tories are in line with inflation, and the real increase is negative slightly, not positive, so the education spending's drop is actually much worse than it appears.

Now you're talking about utilities companies.... where did that come from?

If you check your dates, you'll see I'm right.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and we come back to this attack again.
> 
> I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.
> 
> I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
> I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
> In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
> In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
> In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
> In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.
> 
> I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.
> 
> But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are *truly* being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!
> 
> As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?
> 
> If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to find this out? So you can attack me?
> 
> Why not stick to the arguments? It can't be that hard, even if the arguments are as weak as American piss beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The effort made in knowing your nationality, must necessarily translate as a basis for an attack against you ? REALLY ?
> 
> That only surely makes sense if your nation is actually a hostile one !! And .. if hostile, that lends itself to the observation that your agenda in pushing the anti-Brexit line may well, indeed, be an intentional effort to work against the UK's interests.
> 
> I can easily stick to arguments, as I've also proved. HOWEVER ... the certain knowledge of your representing a hostile nation, if or when this ever becomes definite, established fact, is highly pertinent to why you advance your own.
> 
> *And how are my arguments weak ??* What's wrong with wanting national autonomy, freedom from being dominated by foreign powers ? What's wrong with wanting to greatly enhance the opportunity of exercising proper border controls ? What's wrong with resisting scaremongering, ITSELF borne of weakness ... the weakness because, as it obviously exists, has anti-Brexit proponents disreputably predicting WWIII and the end of Western political civilisation, obviously out of sheer desperation ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you say you can stick to topic, but half your posts to me are off topic.
> 
> What's wrong with national autonomy? Nothing. However you have to understand what national autonomy means and put it in its correct context. As I've shown, the Westminster government for many is the same as the Brussels government for you. Being dominated by foreign powers isn't going to go away by leaving the EU. In fact in the EU the UK has a say, outside of the EU, the UK doesn't have a say in this domination.
> 
> What's wrong with wanting proper border controls? Nothing, however the UK isn't in the Schengen Agreement. As I've already stated, the number of non-EU citizens coming in is large, this isn't to do with the EU government. You want proper border controls, but leaving the EU doesn't solve the problems that exist in the UK, namely that many people are lining up to get on boats to get into the UK due to the UK's welfare system not working properly, this won't change. Half of those EU citizens who come in are from EU-15 countries, countries many Brits live in. So what will change?
> 
> What's wrong with resisting scaremongering? What, apart from the fact that the brexit people are lying out of their asses, offering hope however they feel like? Oh, you'll save this much money. No you won't. Ah, sure you will, I made up the statistics myself.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with your arguments is that you haven't shown that things will be better after. You THINK things will be better, you want them to be better, but I just don't see it.
> 
> The UK welfare system is broken, the border controls are broken, and these COULD HAVE been fixed at any point in the last 20 or 30 years by the UK government and they haven't been. But all of a sudden leaving the EU will suddenly fix the problems of the UK government, like as if they'll be given a magic wand or something.
> 
> They won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give you one reason to leave the EU as soon as possible     TURKEY        Who have threatened if they don't get their own way they will flood Europe with refugees. If they get in we can expect millions of muslims with Turkish passports coming to Europe and taking over. Some of us have seen the writing on the wall and don't want to be in the club when either of these happen. Under EU human rights laws we are not allowed to stop and detain an illegal immigrant before sending them back to were they came from. Once out we will be chartering every boat to sail to Europe with all the criminal elements in chains. Getting rid of the EU migrants will rid us of 10 million spongers and fraudsters, so the 3 million ex pats would be a drop in the ocean and much cheaper to accommodate.
> 
> 
> It is the remain camp that is scaremongering without offering any evidence to support their claims. All they have is to claim the Leave camp is  " are lying out of their asses ".      We will see more money as ridding the country of 10 million spongers and fraudsters has to be cheaper that 3 million ex pats.
> 
> Yes they could have been fixed if the UK had been kept in the loop, but when the EU leaders made corridor deals and back room agreements to freeze out the UK we had no chance to "fix" the welfare system. Then we had the incompetent neo Marxist Labour party that gave away all our hard earned gains to look good on the EU stage, only to be laughed at because they did too much infighting.
> So yes leaving will give us back the power to rule our nation, to close the doors to any more immigrants, stop the asylum seekers coming across the channel and refuse to pay migrants welfare they are not entitled to.
> 
> 
> 
> As the latest report shows the Stock markets are rising on the back of an impending Brexit, and the leave camp is losing all hope. Expect a new P.M to be sworn in by July
Click to expand...


Your argument doesn't make much sense. Turkey wanted to have a visa free program with the EU, not with the UK. 

They threatened to move on migrants, but then while the west is complaining about migrants, Turkey is bearing the brunt of migrants in its country, and is poorer too. So a threat by them is probably one where they're a little concerned that their country has been overflowing with migrants for longer and at a higher quantity than the EU.


----------



## skye

Celebrate .....you all!


UK is OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


of totalitarian EU


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 78165
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pay 8.5 billion a year to a club which gives you back most of this money anyway, and you risk losing 100 billion a year from loss of trade, from a falling pound etc (note, this isn't an actual figure, I did do a post on how much the UK would lose if the pound dropped 5% against the Euro but I've forgotten the figures, but it was more than 8/5 billion).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it right we pay a lot more than that and get a pittance back. Then the EU fines the UK 4 times as much to balance the books.
> Strange that as Germany and France do the same things and don't get fined ? ? ? ? ?
Click to expand...


You're not thinking about this properly.

Okay, let's deal just with facts. 

Britain’s contribution to  EU has risen by £2.7bn, quadrupling in five years

From 2014

"The net figures – which take into account the UK’s rebate – show the UK’s contribution to the EU was £2.7bn in 2008, rising to £3.8bn in 2009, £7.2bn in 2010, £7.5bn in 2011, £8.5bn in 2012 and £11.3bn in 2013."

Okay, we have a figure from the Guardian of £11.3 billion net. 

We can work with that. There might be other figures, but they'd probably be similar, unless you have something else.

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...nts/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

This site says we have 5500 billion euros worth of trade with the EU, both import and export. 

That's 4,366 billion pounds. 

In the last two weeks the UK pound has lost 7 cents to the pound against the Euro as polls said the UK would vote leave. 

The pound is 0.793986 against the Euro right now.
It was 0.7756855971 on June 1st.

That means the UK's trade per year is 4266 billion pounds a year. That means the UK has lost 100 billion pounds in 2 weeks (well not really as this trade takes place over the course of the year), or in other words, to be more accurate, if this trend continued, the UK would be losing 100 billion pounds a year. Okay, the UK just saved 11 billion and lost 100 billion, my poor math skills make that a loss of 89 billion pounds.

Now, this is just from polls saying that the UK would exit. Imagine if the UK exited and instead of 0.77 it went down to 0.7

That's the pound's trade being worth 3,857 billion. That's a loss of 516 billion pounds. 

I'm not saying this will happen. I'm saying this is a possibility. 

Not only is this a possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of trade.

If the UK loses 1% of trade, that 550 billion Euros, or 436 billion pounds, just for a 1% drop in trade. Losing deals with the EU, having to renegotiate, having to do all of that, could potentially lose the UK massive amounts of trade over a 2 or 3 year period as companies look elsewhere.

You put the 436 billion loss, plus the 516 billion loss together (okay, putting them together and you'd lose some of this figure, because if you lose this trade then you're not going to get as much anyway so the second figure would go down), but that's a 1,000 billion loss for the UK, just so they can save 11 billion a year.

Do you think that this risk is worth it? Because it's a risk. I've presented figured, figures that may or may not happen. Certainly the UK will lose, the loss of 100 billion a year based on figures over the last 2 weeks is REAL, that's already happened and we can predict with a lot of certainty that this will go down a lot more.

Basically in the last two weeks the UK has lost 0.95 billion pounds as a result of polls predicting the exit of the UK from the EU.

And you're complaining about losing 11 billion pounds. Sorry, you only need 12 two week periods (three months) in order to lose that based only on what has happened already.

Anything you don't agree with?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See scaremongering by the leave camp, as he will have a lot more money to play with after a year of sorting out the wrinkles.
> 
> 
> I am sat here watching my private pension rise as the stock market rises, something to do with Brexit being a formality now the leave camp have taken the lead
Click to expand...


See my previous post and the loss of 100 billion pounds a year in the last two weeks alone.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
Click to expand...


So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it? 

He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
Click to expand...


You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.
> 
> It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather have the old UK standards than the new EU ones that limit the power usage to nothing so they take twice as long to do half the job.    And it is bendy cucumbers with taste we will have back, and Cox's apples as opposed to golden delicious.  My Sardinian neighbour loves my cox's and asks for them every year because they are so much more tasty than the ones he grew up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you live in Italy ? Priceless.
Click to expand...







 No my neighbour originates from Sardinia, and he loves the British food that has taste, by the way he is a chef and works offshore so should know what he is talking about in regards to food.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> This is how our brave new world will look like.








 In your fantasy world, in reality it will look pretty much the same only with less migrants


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true and unfortunate.  Cameron should have been smarter.  The brexit is an excellent study in how people on average play into the hands of manipulators and goons.  Cameroon didn't even ask between his scare mongering, whether uk small business has found the new markets to sell for now that they are giving up Europe.
Click to expand...







 That's just it they aren't giving up Europe just trading on their terms and not the EU's. If the EU forces the trading partners to impose price controls and gives them a larger profit then who are we to stop them. The other companies will soon be making overtures to the UK markets and lifting our trade even further.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
Click to expand...







 And your point being what exactly ?


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls say it's OUT.
> 
> Bookies say it's IN.
> 
> I say so long as Cameron is IN and Johnson is OUT Britain is screwed.  Submissively, it is true, but well and truly screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say Johnson is probably worse than Cameron. He's a funny dude, he's likable, but is he going to think about things properly?
Click to expand...





 He plays a character for the camera's that makes him out to be a happy go lucky bumbling fool, put him in charge and watch him tell Brussels NO NO NO


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.
> 
> Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.
> 
> Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.
> 
> However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.
> 
> We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is to stop future governments doing what the EU wants?
> 
> There's all this "we'll get the right to decide", but you've just shown that they had the right to decide and chose to decide the way the EU wanted.
> 
> Now you're claiming that not being in the EU it'll all be different.
> 
> How?
> 
> Why doesn't the UK either try and make a deal with the EU, or charge foreign trucks to use the roads? It's possible, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the fact the people will vote them out and turn around any treaties made.
> 
> 
> We tried and the answer was here are some crumbs, but we might decide to give them to Turkey instead.. The EU has blocked it as being unfair to the foreign hauliers, so we have to penalise our own hauliers.  Yes it's possible when we leave the EU and watch it sink when it no longer has our money to waste.
> 
> Or is this what you are scared of, having to start working harder to make the grade in the EU and not rely on handouts and fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, with welfare, with road taxes, with all this sort of thing, the British governments have shown they're not that smart at dealing with it.
> 
> Will they start charging foreign hauliers if the UK leaves the EU? There's no indication this would happen. Seeing as it could happen with a variety of creative ways of charging foreign hauliers at Dover, but they didn't do it.
Click to expand...







 They tried and the EU blocked it saying it was against the rules of free trade. Yet they allow European nations to drain fuel tanks and force hauliers to fill up at the fuel pumps across the road. All because the fuel in the tanks is cheaper that theirs, and they were losing tax revenues on fuel. Look at EU hauliers and many of their vehicles have belly tanks under the fifth wheel that they can switch in from the cab. Many fell foul of weight rules when we loaded their vehicle with the maximum weights allowed, or when they pre weighed and found the load was too heavy under EU laws. A tractor trailer combo should weigh 11 to 12 tonnes giving a carrying capacity of 20 to 21 tonnes. We booked for a combo weight of 10.5 tonnes to carry the heavy steel plates to Germany and had 14 tonne combo's from Poland turn up. The 21.5 tonne loads carried a 15% surcharge paid on delivery so the drivers could make more money. If they were caught overweight we could be fined for loading them under UK laws, so we did what we must.

Every step of the way the EU screwed the UK to make it harder for us to operate at a profit, they stopped the canteens being subsidised because it made our goods cheaper but still allowed the European firms to offer cut price food in theirs. They brought in the working time directive and then allowed European workers to exceed the hours because of custom and practise. The British had old favourites banned because the yield was higher, and  it was stalwarts who kept seeds for their own use that have allowed them to make a comeback.    BETTER OUT THAN IN


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is the EU red tape and rules that make it worse, and they should keep out of out revenue raising if they want their £400 billion or so every year.
> 
> The incompetence was due to Labour bending over backwards to get the crumbs left on the plate, instead of demanding the whole pie
> 
> What you don't get, and never will, is that the EU has tied this country up in red tape so much that we cant even spit without being fined. All you want is to keep the money from the UK flowing into Brussels and your cushy number getting you richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
Click to expand...








 And that 700 billion loss is from what, if it is showing because we leave then it must also show if we stay. Or he is cooking the books and will be caught out.

 It is based on hocus pocus like if the sun shines at midnight on the autumn equinox then the UK economy will take a nose dive


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
Click to expand...







 We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
Click to expand...


Well, if you read it, you should see the point.

The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls say it's OUT.
> 
> Bookies say it's IN.
> 
> I say so long as Cameron is IN and Johnson is OUT Britain is screwed.  Submissively, it is true, but well and truly screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say Johnson is probably worse than Cameron. He's a funny dude, he's likable, but is he going to think about things properly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He plays a character for the camera's that makes him out to be a happy go lucky bumbling fool, put him in charge and watch him tell Brussels NO NO NO
Click to expand...


Oh, and telling Brussels "NO NO NO" will do what exactly?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.
> 
> Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.
> 
> However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.
> 
> We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is to stop future governments doing what the EU wants?
> 
> There's all this "we'll get the right to decide", but you've just shown that they had the right to decide and chose to decide the way the EU wanted.
> 
> Now you're claiming that not being in the EU it'll all be different.
> 
> How?
> 
> Why doesn't the UK either try and make a deal with the EU, or charge foreign trucks to use the roads? It's possible, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the fact the people will vote them out and turn around any treaties made.
> 
> 
> We tried and the answer was here are some crumbs, but we might decide to give them to Turkey instead.. The EU has blocked it as being unfair to the foreign hauliers, so we have to penalise our own hauliers.  Yes it's possible when we leave the EU and watch it sink when it no longer has our money to waste.
> 
> Or is this what you are scared of, having to start working harder to make the grade in the EU and not rely on handouts and fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, with welfare, with road taxes, with all this sort of thing, the British governments have shown they're not that smart at dealing with it.
> 
> Will they start charging foreign hauliers if the UK leaves the EU? There's no indication this would happen. Seeing as it could happen with a variety of creative ways of charging foreign hauliers at Dover, but they didn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried and the EU blocked it saying it was against the rules of free trade. Yet they allow European nations to drain fuel tanks and force hauliers to fill up at the fuel pumps across the road. All because the fuel in the tanks is cheaper that theirs, and they were losing tax revenues on fuel. Look at EU hauliers and many of their vehicles have belly tanks under the fifth wheel that they can switch in from the cab. Many fell foul of weight rules when we loaded their vehicle with the maximum weights allowed, or when they pre weighed and found the load was too heavy under EU laws. A tractor trailer combo should weigh 11 to 12 tonnes giving a carrying capacity of 20 to 21 tonnes. We booked for a combo weight of 10.5 tonnes to carry the heavy steel plates to Germany and had 14 tonne combo's from Poland turn up. The 21.5 tonne loads carried a 15% surcharge paid on delivery so the drivers could make more money. If they were caught overweight we could be fined for loading them under UK laws, so we did what we must.
> 
> Every step of the way the EU screwed the UK to make it harder for us to operate at a profit, they stopped the canteens being subsidised because it made our goods cheaper but still allowed the European firms to offer cut price food in theirs. They brought in the working time directive and then allowed European workers to exceed the hours because of custom and practise. The British had old favourites banned because the yield was higher, and  it was stalwarts who kept seeds for their own use that have allowed them to make a comeback.    BETTER OUT THAN IN
Click to expand...


When people tell me they "tried", I often wonder how hard they tried. Trying doesn't mean much if what you're doing isn't very good. 

The UK gets screwed over by the EU, but all the other countries don't, it happens with immigration, it happens with welfare, it happens with road fees.... tell me, do you see a pattern here? 

Do you not think the problem might just not be the British government?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that 700 billion loss is from what, if it is showing because we leave then it must also show if we stay. Or he is cooking the books and will be caught out.
> 
> It is based on hocus pocus like if the sun shines at midnight on the autumn equinox then the UK economy will take a nose dive
Click to expand...


It's what" It's 700 billion loss on trade. 

How is this hocus pocus? I've shown you the FACTS and you've just plainly ignored them. The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks already, this is fact. I notice you haven't even mentioned this.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
Click to expand...


I showed you facts. 

The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving. 

This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade. 

However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
Click to expand...


Outside of the EU, the UK has several times as many countries to trade with, as it currently has within the EU. That we'll somehow fail to 'make our way in the real world' if we leave the EU is, and must surely be, an entirely bogus argument. 

And this assumes that all trade will 'cease' with EU countries, in the event of our exit. Of course, this will not happen. Happily, not only will it not happen, but we will have whatever choices to trade as we make for ourselves ... and every country we DO trade with, will know that .. and, if they want our trade, will have to take that into account.

As for market fluctuations and falls, the stock market hates uncertainty. It reacts negatively to it. That's all you're really describing .. a stock market not liking a lack of full accountability of what trading is done, and where. Just that.

When all this settles down and the true picture emerges, I'm thoroughly confident that the market's 'mood' will fundamentally change.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
Click to expand...


Who, on the Brexit side, has claimed 'the end of Western political civilisation' if we remain within the EU ??

The 'Remain' side has basically gone berserk. Out of sheer panic, no doubt ... because, on their side, consolidation of centralised power is ALL that matters. They're no doubt unused to failure, preferring to keep people under their bureaucratic thumbs, instead.

... aww, diddums ...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of the EU, the UK has several times as many countries to trade with, as it currently has within the EU. That we'll somehow fail to 'make our way in the real world' if we leave the EU is, and must surely be, an entirely bogus argument.
> 
> And this assumes that all trade will 'cease' with EU countries, in the event of our exit. Of course, this will not happen. Happily, not only will it not happen, but we will have whatever choices to trade as we make for ourselves ... and every country we DO trade with, will know that .. and, if they want our trade, will have to take that into account.
> 
> As for market fluctuations and falls, the stock market hates uncertainty. It reacts negatively to it. That's all you're really describing .. a stock market not liking a lack of full accountability of what trading is done, and where. Just that.
> 
> When all this settles down and the true picture emerges, I'm thoroughly confident that the market's 'mood' will fundamentally change.
Click to expand...


Yes, the UK does trade outside of the EU, and this makes up 50% of its trade right now. However there isn't an infinite supply of trade in the world. If the UK lost a lot of the EU trade, will it be able to make this up elsewhere? Doubtful. 

I didn't say the UK would fail to make its way outside of the EU. I said it would lose a lot of money, firstly from the pound being devalued, second from a loss of trade, thirdly from companies choosing to stay in the EU and therefore leaving the UK. All in all the UK is going to be much poorer. 

I didn't say all trade with the EU would cease, I've merely presented the scenario of the pound devaluing and the amount of money that would cost, plus a loss of trade of a few percentage points. No one knows how much the UK could lose, just that it will almost certainly lose some trade because of it. 

Yes, markets rise and fall. That's not the point here. The point is that uncertainty leads to a drop in the pound. This uncertainty will last for a few years at the very least. If the UK is losing 500 billion a year for 2 years, that's going to have a MASSIVE impact on the UK economy. If more is lost, then what?

Trying to pass these off, as you're doing, as nothing, is rather ridiculous. These are the facts, you should know them, and you should be prepared for the economy to go downhill, higher unemployment, a weaker pound, and basically people being worse off. 

People who go "we pay the EU loads of money, we'll save 11 billion a year" are living in some kind of fantasy world. No estimates out there show the UK saving money out of leaving, in fact, it's quite the opposite.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who, on the Brexit side, has claimed 'the end of Western political civilisation' if we remain within the EU ??
> 
> The 'Remain' side has basically gone berserk. Out of sheer panic, no doubt ... because, on their side, consolidation of centralised power is ALL that matters. They're no doubt unused to failure, preferring to keep people under their bureaucratic thumbs, instead.
> 
> ... aww, diddums ...
Click to expand...


No, the Brexit people haven't claimed the end of anything. 

However what they have claimed, a lot of it is very positive, like "leave the EU and it'll all be roses", just like Helmut Kohl did in 1990, and he was wrong to say what he said in 1990.

If the UK leave, it's not going to be a positive experience. 

The Brexit side have tried their hardest to keep away from any truths out there. The Express is a perfect example, as I've shown you various times.


----------



## HenryBHough

No question BREXIT would be temporarily very difficult for Britain.

But once Germany opts out - and it won't take long to follow - the whole picture changes.  

Then there's the positive side:

Scotland will likely vote to break away and Hadrian's wall can be restored with appropriate toll booths and a proper kill zone.


----------



## frigidweirdo

HenryBHough said:


> No question BREXIT would be temporarily very difficult for Britain.
> 
> But once Germany opts out - and it won't take long to follow - the whole picture changes.
> 
> Then there's the positive side:
> 
> Scotland will likely vote to break away and Hadrian's wall can be restored with appropriate toll booths and a proper kill zone.



You think Germany will opt out? Not a chance. They EU will stay together and become more of an EU superpower than every before. You're dreaming if you think the Germans will leave.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Labour MP Jo Cox fights for life after being shot 'three times and repeatedly stabbed with foot-long knife' near Leeds by attacker who allegedly screamed 'Britain First'


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He should have said it weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
Click to expand...







 The point is this is just your opinion, and it is worth as much as an Irish 9 punt coin. I gave valid reasons backed with facts and all you have is the Chancellor threatening to increase taxes. When the word was earlier this year that the EU was looking at forcing taxes to rise anyway.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls say it's OUT.
> 
> Bookies say it's IN.
> 
> I say so long as Cameron is IN and Johnson is OUT Britain is screwed.  Submissively, it is true, but well and truly screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say Johnson is probably worse than Cameron. He's a funny dude, he's likable, but is he going to think about things properly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He plays a character for the camera's that makes him out to be a happy go lucky bumbling fool, put him in charge and watch him tell Brussels NO NO NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and telling Brussels "NO NO NO" will do what exactly?
Click to expand...





 A lot more than giving in, as this is what Maggie did and won every time. She gave them a spoonful of sugar and they swallowed the nasty medicine


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was at the demands of the EU who said they would not give them the scraps on Europe's plate if they did not sign the treaties. So Labour signed as their commissars in Europe told them to, and one of the deals was to allow all the criminals and wasters into the UK. Now we cant use ATM's because of Eastern European con men skimming. They signed away our rights so that the EU human rights court could force our keeping murderers and rapists.
> 
> We will get the right to deport those scum that the ECHR have said we must give freedom to. We will get the right to have every lorry go past an x-ray scanner to check for stowaways. we will get the right to stop welfare fraud by migrants. And we will get the right to decide who can tender for British work by British companies and not be told we must employ unqualified Easter European workers.    Finally we will remove the unfair practise of EU hauliers undercutting UK hauliers who have to pay to use the roads by placing a levee on the goods carried and also on the fuel used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is to stop future governments doing what the EU wants?
> 
> There's all this "we'll get the right to decide", but you've just shown that they had the right to decide and chose to decide the way the EU wanted.
> 
> Now you're claiming that not being in the EU it'll all be different.
> 
> How?
> 
> Why doesn't the UK either try and make a deal with the EU, or charge foreign trucks to use the roads? It's possible, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the fact the people will vote them out and turn around any treaties made.
> 
> 
> We tried and the answer was here are some crumbs, but we might decide to give them to Turkey instead.. The EU has blocked it as being unfair to the foreign hauliers, so we have to penalise our own hauliers.  Yes it's possible when we leave the EU and watch it sink when it no longer has our money to waste.
> 
> Or is this what you are scared of, having to start working harder to make the grade in the EU and not rely on handouts and fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, with welfare, with road taxes, with all this sort of thing, the British governments have shown they're not that smart at dealing with it.
> 
> Will they start charging foreign hauliers if the UK leaves the EU? There's no indication this would happen. Seeing as it could happen with a variety of creative ways of charging foreign hauliers at Dover, but they didn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried and the EU blocked it saying it was against the rules of free trade. Yet they allow European nations to drain fuel tanks and force hauliers to fill up at the fuel pumps across the road. All because the fuel in the tanks is cheaper that theirs, and they were losing tax revenues on fuel. Look at EU hauliers and many of their vehicles have belly tanks under the fifth wheel that they can switch in from the cab. Many fell foul of weight rules when we loaded their vehicle with the maximum weights allowed, or when they pre weighed and found the load was too heavy under EU laws. A tractor trailer combo should weigh 11 to 12 tonnes giving a carrying capacity of 20 to 21 tonnes. We booked for a combo weight of 10.5 tonnes to carry the heavy steel plates to Germany and had 14 tonne combo's from Poland turn up. The 21.5 tonne loads carried a 15% surcharge paid on delivery so the drivers could make more money. If they were caught overweight we could be fined for loading them under UK laws, so we did what we must.
> 
> Every step of the way the EU screwed the UK to make it harder for us to operate at a profit, they stopped the canteens being subsidised because it made our goods cheaper but still allowed the European firms to offer cut price food in theirs. They brought in the working time directive and then allowed European workers to exceed the hours because of custom and practise. The British had old favourites banned because the yield was higher, and  it was stalwarts who kept seeds for their own use that have allowed them to make a comeback.    BETTER OUT THAN IN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people tell me they "tried", I often wonder how hard they tried. Trying doesn't mean much if what you're doing isn't very good.
> 
> The UK gets screwed over by the EU, but all the other countries don't, it happens with immigration, it happens with welfare, it happens with road fees.... tell me, do you see a pattern here?
> 
> Do you not think the problem might just not be the British government?
Click to expand...







 Do you as we only got in originally because the EU was running short of money for its plans.  When the media reports that our representatives in Europe are denied everything they ask for I don't see the problem being with the UK government. And only a complete moron would even think so.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question BREXIT would be temporarily very difficult for Britain.
> 
> But once Germany opts out - and it won't take long to follow - the whole picture changes.
> 
> Then there's the positive side:
> 
> Scotland will likely vote to break away and Hadrian's wall can be restored with appropriate toll booths and a proper kill zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Germany will opt out? Not a chance. They EU will stay together and become more of an EU superpower than every before. You're dreaming if you think the Germans will leave.
Click to expand...






Do you honestly think so when the money starts to dry up and the other member states want their handouts. France and Germany have their reason/excuse to leave now in the UK's impending exit


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that 700 billion loss is from what, if it is showing because we leave then it must also show if we stay. Or he is cooking the books and will be caught out.
> 
> It is based on hocus pocus like if the sun shines at midnight on the autumn equinox then the UK economy will take a nose dive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's what" It's 700 billion loss on trade.
> 
> How is this hocus pocus? I've shown you the FACTS and you've just plainly ignored them. The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks already, this is fact. I notice you haven't even mentioned this.
Click to expand...





 Because there are no facts just conjecture, what trade is to be affected causing a loss of 700billion a week. Name one commodity that will cease to be sold to Europe and cost the UK money.


 As I said hocus pocus and smoke with no actual evidence to support the claim. Services have clauses in the contracts that make the service provided the intellectual property of the provider, so they will not hand that over for free, and will charge say 5 years of the contract price to release it. Trade agreements will be for a certain term and again will have clauses protecting both parties. So really it will mean an initial increase in funds, followed by a small period of uncertainty and finally new outlets found and new markets


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
Click to expand...






 WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
 As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of the EU, the UK has several times as many countries to trade with, as it currently has within the EU. That we'll somehow fail to 'make our way in the real world' if we leave the EU is, and must surely be, an entirely bogus argument.
> 
> And this assumes that all trade will 'cease' with EU countries, in the event of our exit. Of course, this will not happen. Happily, not only will it not happen, but we will have whatever choices to trade as we make for ourselves ... and every country we DO trade with, will know that .. and, if they want our trade, will have to take that into account.
> 
> As for market fluctuations and falls, the stock market hates uncertainty. It reacts negatively to it. That's all you're really describing .. a stock market not liking a lack of full accountability of what trading is done, and where. Just that.
> 
> When all this settles down and the true picture emerges, I'm thoroughly confident that the market's 'mood' will fundamentally change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the UK does trade outside of the EU, and this makes up 50% of its trade right now. However there isn't an infinite supply of trade in the world. If the UK lost a lot of the EU trade, will it be able to make this up elsewhere? Doubtful.
> 
> I didn't say the UK would fail to make its way outside of the EU. I said it would lose a lot of money, firstly from the pound being devalued, second from a loss of trade, thirdly from companies choosing to stay in the EU and therefore leaving the UK. All in all the UK is going to be much poorer.
> 
> I didn't say all trade with the EU would cease, I've merely presented the scenario of the pound devaluing and the amount of money that would cost, plus a loss of trade of a few percentage points. No one knows how much the UK could lose, just that it will almost certainly lose some trade because of it.
> 
> Yes, markets rise and fall. That's not the point here. The point is that uncertainty leads to a drop in the pound. This uncertainty will last for a few years at the very least. If the UK is losing 500 billion a year for 2 years, that's going to have a MASSIVE impact on the UK economy. If more is lost, then what?
> 
> Trying to pass these off, as you're doing, as nothing, is rather ridiculous. These are the facts, you should know them, and you should be prepared for the economy to go downhill, higher unemployment, a weaker pound, and basically people being worse off.
> 
> People who go "we pay the EU loads of money, we'll save 11 billion a year" are living in some kind of fantasy world. No estimates out there show the UK saving money out of leaving, in fact, it's quite the opposite.
Click to expand...






 The £ has already rallied and the stock market is buoyant on the thought of it being a leave vote. proving you and the remain camp incompetents and unable to see what is really happening


----------



## Toro

Big Money is betting on the UK staying.


----------



## L.K.Eder

jo cox has died.

Jo Cox MP dead after shooting attack - BBC News


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And will this red tape disappear? No, it won't. Many companies will still deal with the EU and the red tape to get into the EU will get worse, as they'll have to deal with what's there now AND with more. Alan Sugar stated that he wants to stay because it's a nightmare trying to deal with this sort of thing.
> 
> Okay, incompetence due to Labour, and you want incompetence running the whole show rather than incompetence and incompetence running the show? Does it make a difference all this being out of the EU stuff?
> 
> Question. Will the UK government get rid of this red tape if we leave or not? And if yes, prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious that if the EU wants kettles and toasters to be a certain standard then ours will have to be that standard. Otherwise we wont sell any.
> On another point.
> I have really enjoyed watching my SIPP being slashed in value over the past week. Gives me a warm feeling that we can have bendy bananas though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true and unfortunate.  Cameron should have been smarter.  The brexit is an excellent study in how people on average play into the hands of manipulators and goons.  Cameroon didn't even ask between his scare mongering, whether uk small business has found the new markets to sell for now that they are giving up Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it they aren't giving up Europe just trading on their terms and not the EU's. If the EU forces the trading partners to impose price controls and gives them a larger profit then who are we to stop them. The other companies will soon be making overtures to the UK markets and lifting our trade even further.
Click to expand...

This is all at the expense of the English voter, not benefit.  Corporate profits are separate things from average voter interest.  The English voters want to vote against their interest and in favor of corporate interest.  The English have now been infected with the American lie that every individual is a successful corporation.  Goons.


----------



## anotherlife

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who, on the Brexit side, has claimed 'the end of Western political civilisation' if we remain within the EU ??
> 
> The 'Remain' side has basically gone berserk. Out of sheer panic, no doubt ... because, on their side, consolidation of centralised power is ALL that matters. They're no doubt unused to failure, preferring to keep people under their bureaucratic thumbs, instead.
> 
> ... aww, diddums ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Brexit people haven't claimed the end of anything.
> 
> However what they have claimed, a lot of it is very positive, like "leave the EU and it'll all be roses", just like Helmut Kohl did in 1990, and he was wrong to say what he said in 1990.
> 
> If the UK leave, it's not going to be a positive experience.
> 
> The Brexit side have tried their hardest to keep away from any truths out there. The Express is a perfect example, as I've shown you various times.
Click to expand...

This is true but the English have now been Americanized enough to not care about reality but only about their feel good factor.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is they've been trying to counter the Brexit people, rather than just state the case simply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is this is just your opinion, and it is worth as much as an Irish 9 punt coin. I gave valid reasons backed with facts and all you have is the Chancellor threatening to increase taxes. When the word was earlier this year that the EU was looking at forcing taxes to rise anyway.
Click to expand...


I've backed up my point with sources at times. The whole "11 million Turks will end up in the UK" is scaremongering, for example. 

The Chancellor increasing taxes is almost certainly not a threat, but reality.

Like I've said, the UK has lost 100 billion from yearly trade with the EU, just in the last 2 weeks alone, because the pound has dropped. No one is saying trade will be better off with Brexit, NO ONE, not even the Brexit people. If you lose trade, if the pound is weaker, how can the chancellor say anything other than he'll have to spend less and raise taxes? I mean, that's just simple knowledge.

However the Brexit people shout "no true" for anything they don't like. So, hardly surprising they've done it again.


----------



## frigidweirdo

anotherlife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who, on the Brexit side, has claimed 'the end of Western political civilisation' if we remain within the EU ??
> 
> The 'Remain' side has basically gone berserk. Out of sheer panic, no doubt ... because, on their side, consolidation of centralised power is ALL that matters. They're no doubt unused to failure, preferring to keep people under their bureaucratic thumbs, instead.
> 
> ... aww, diddums ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Brexit people haven't claimed the end of anything.
> 
> However what they have claimed, a lot of it is very positive, like "leave the EU and it'll all be roses", just like Helmut Kohl did in 1990, and he was wrong to say what he said in 1990.
> 
> If the UK leave, it's not going to be a positive experience.
> 
> The Brexit side have tried their hardest to keep away from any truths out there. The Express is a perfect example, as I've shown you various times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true but the English have now been Americanized enough to not care about reality but only about their feel good factor.
Click to expand...


Well, this has probably always been the case. The East Germans fell for this in 1990, they weren't Americanized at all.

Helmut Kohl told the Germans that reunification would be sweet smelling flowers, the SPD told them it would be a hard road, they voted for Kohl because this is what they wanted to hear, they got what the SPD had to say, but weren't prepared for it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls say it's OUT.
> 
> Bookies say it's IN.
> 
> I say so long as Cameron is IN and Johnson is OUT Britain is screwed.  Submissively, it is true, but well and truly screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say Johnson is probably worse than Cameron. He's a funny dude, he's likable, but is he going to think about things properly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He plays a character for the camera's that makes him out to be a happy go lucky bumbling fool, put him in charge and watch him tell Brussels NO NO NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and telling Brussels "NO NO NO" will do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot more than giving in, as this is what Maggie did and won every time. She gave them a spoonful of sugar and they swallowed the nasty medicine
Click to expand...


What, like campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU? 

Basically you're talking about being tough. A leader should be able to walk into the EU and use Britain's power and influence for the good of the country, however just saying "no, no, no" isn't the answer at all, you have to be diplomatic about it, get people on your side.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question BREXIT would be temporarily very difficult for Britain.
> 
> But once Germany opts out - and it won't take long to follow - the whole picture changes.
> 
> Then there's the positive side:
> 
> Scotland will likely vote to break away and Hadrian's wall can be restored with appropriate toll booths and a proper kill zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Germany will opt out? Not a chance. They EU will stay together and become more of an EU superpower than every before. You're dreaming if you think the Germans will leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think so when the money starts to dry up and the other member states want their handouts. France and Germany have their reason/excuse to leave now in the UK's impending exit
Click to expand...


You haven't made a case at all, it feels like I'm reading the Express. 

Germany and France CONTROL the EU, why would they want out? It's like saying that if Scotland left the British Union that England would want to leave too. Er.... Come off it. You're not making arguments, you're throwing soundbites that aren't backed up with anything at me.


----------



## frigidweirdo

L.K.Eder said:


> jo cox has died.
> 
> Jo Cox MP dead after shooting attack - BBC News





Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of the EU, the UK has several times as many countries to trade with, as it currently has within the EU. That we'll somehow fail to 'make our way in the real world' if we leave the EU is, and must surely be, an entirely bogus argument.
> 
> And this assumes that all trade will 'cease' with EU countries, in the event of our exit. Of course, this will not happen. Happily, not only will it not happen, but we will have whatever choices to trade as we make for ourselves ... and every country we DO trade with, will know that .. and, if they want our trade, will have to take that into account.
> 
> As for market fluctuations and falls, the stock market hates uncertainty. It reacts negatively to it. That's all you're really describing .. a stock market not liking a lack of full accountability of what trading is done, and where. Just that.
> 
> When all this settles down and the true picture emerges, I'm thoroughly confident that the market's 'mood' will fundamentally change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the UK does trade outside of the EU, and this makes up 50% of its trade right now. However there isn't an infinite supply of trade in the world. If the UK lost a lot of the EU trade, will it be able to make this up elsewhere? Doubtful.
> 
> I didn't say the UK would fail to make its way outside of the EU. I said it would lose a lot of money, firstly from the pound being devalued, second from a loss of trade, thirdly from companies choosing to stay in the EU and therefore leaving the UK. All in all the UK is going to be much poorer.
> 
> I didn't say all trade with the EU would cease, I've merely presented the scenario of the pound devaluing and the amount of money that would cost, plus a loss of trade of a few percentage points. No one knows how much the UK could lose, just that it will almost certainly lose some trade because of it.
> 
> Yes, markets rise and fall. That's not the point here. The point is that uncertainty leads to a drop in the pound. This uncertainty will last for a few years at the very least. If the UK is losing 500 billion a year for 2 years, that's going to have a MASSIVE impact on the UK economy. If more is lost, then what?
> 
> Trying to pass these off, as you're doing, as nothing, is rather ridiculous. These are the facts, you should know them, and you should be prepared for the economy to go downhill, higher unemployment, a weaker pound, and basically people being worse off.
> 
> People who go "we pay the EU loads of money, we'll save 11 billion a year" are living in some kind of fantasy world. No estimates out there show the UK saving money out of leaving, in fact, it's quite the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The £ has already rallied and the stock market is buoyant on the thought of it being a leave vote. proving you and the remain camp incompetents and unable to see what is really happening
Click to expand...


FTSE 100 interactive chart - London Stock Exchange

Buoyed huh?

1 month ago, 6,167
3 months ago 6,201
6 months ago, 6,102
1 year ago 6,680
Today 5,966


I'm sorry, but buoyed when it's below 6,000 doesn't seem to be the case, basically, you're making stuff up, AGAIN. 

Why do you, and the Brexit people, need to make stuff up? Oh, that's right, because you don't have anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
Click to expand...


Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.

The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.

This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be. 

The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up. 

I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osbourne's come out and said he'd have to slash the budget and increase taxes if the UK leaves. That should feel good for the foreign tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that 700 billion loss is from what, if it is showing because we leave then it must also show if we stay. Or he is cooking the books and will be caught out.
> 
> It is based on hocus pocus like if the sun shines at midnight on the autumn equinox then the UK economy will take a nose dive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's what" It's 700 billion loss on trade.
> 
> How is this hocus pocus? I've shown you the FACTS and you've just plainly ignored them. The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks already, this is fact. I notice you haven't even mentioned this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are no facts just conjecture, what trade is to be affected causing a loss of 700billion a week. Name one commodity that will cease to be sold to Europe and cost the UK money.
> 
> 
> As I said hocus pocus and smoke with no actual evidence to support the claim. Services have clauses in the contracts that make the service provided the intellectual property of the provider, so they will not hand that over for free, and will charge say 5 years of the contract price to release it. Trade agreements will be for a certain term and again will have clauses protecting both parties. So really it will mean an initial increase in funds, followed by a small period of uncertainty and finally new outlets found and new markets
Click to expand...


Yeah, you just call FACTS hocus pocus because you don't want to believe. 

You mind isn't open. Drummond at least listens and makes an argument back, you're just listening in some fantasy world.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
Click to expand...


Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.

'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.

If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?

I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving them too many facts and we all know that "facts" are just elitist tricks to scare us into doing what is best for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
Click to expand...


This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence. 

If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost. 

We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything. 

Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen. 

The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting no facts just conjecture and fantasies. Were are the facts backed with hard evidence that we can all see. Like the saving we can expect if we bring in migrant welfare reforms, migrant education reforms and migrant health care reforms. The figures are available for these three aspects and the evidence of savings is overwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
Click to expand...


Timing is against you in this.

Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.

This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you facts.
> 
> The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks because the forecast has been the UK will vote leave. The Euro has dropped from 0.79 to 0.77. If it drops to 0.7, which there is every chance it will do, then the UK will lose 500 billion or more. And save 11 billion, which everyone thinks is a great saving.
> 
> This doesn't account for the unknown loss of trade.
> 
> However, in 2004 when new countries joined, the UK increased trade with some of those new countries by 200% in the space of 2 years. Imagine losing 1% of trade could cost the UK 500 billion pounds a year, this is very conceivable, in fact losing more than this is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM. 

So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?

Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
Click to expand...


There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.

And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
Click to expand...


"hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown. 

Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries. 

You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.

If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
Click to expand...


'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.

When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that they've gone to weird lengths to scare us all. Including saying that WWIII might break out, or a recent one, that 'Western political civilisation' will end !!!
> 
> Why scare us with such rot, UNLESS, the anti-Brexit case was truly a very weak one ??
> 
> Perhaps people are fed up with being treated like idiots, being bullied by scare tactics into thinking as the anti-Brexit mob want us to think. We've had enough of such shabbiness, such disreputability ... this no doubt also including the apparent latest Budget threat .. ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This made me laugh.
> 
> Yes, some on the stay campaign have said stuff that you might deem to be scary.
> 
> However the Brexit people have been talking up the joys and wonder of leaving the EU, no doubt they've said every person in the UK will get to ride unicorns if the UK leaves.
> But then they've gone really negative about immigration, like Turkish immigrants, remember this?
> 
> Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals
> 
> "
> *Time to LEAVE: Britain will receive ‘seven million immigrants’ by 2035, report reveals*"
> 
> "according to research from the think tank Migration Watch. "
> 
> MigrationWatch UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*MigrationWatch UK* is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. It was founded and is chaired by Lord Green of Deddington,"
> 
> He's a member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide which is a Christian Human Rights group that tries to stop the persecution of Christians.
> 
> Number of UK Muslims exceeds three million for first time
> 
> "he is in reality a very controversial participant in the most sensitive political issue of the moment,"
> 
> This guy isn't independent by any means. And saying 7 million Turks will be in the UK, which is based on NOTHING, then it's scaremongering too. But that scaremongering you like, right? Or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> The reality is, this whole campaign has just been very irritating with people not stating the facts so that people can see them.
> 
> You say "people are fed up with being treated like idiots", come on, you're loving being treated like idiots from the Brexit people.
> 
> Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals
> 
> I just picked the first article on the Express, knowing I'd get what I'm looking for.
> 
> "
> *Inept EU plans ENCOURAGE more migrants to flock to the bloc, furious coastguard reveals*"
> 
> So, what could this be all about? The coastguard is saying that the EU is encouraging migrants to flock to the EU. How? By letting them come, by offering shelter and so on? By going and telling these people to move to the EU?
> 
> Nope
> 
> "But international laws state that European naval vessels must stay at least 12 nautical miles from the shire of the North African country."
> 
> Ah, they're saying the EU is encouraging migrants to move to the EU by following INTERNATIONAL LAW. I mean, fucking hell, you'd have to be really stupid to think the mirror is correct when it says the EU is encouraging immigration to the EU (after saying it's harder to get from Turkey to Greece earlier in the article) by following international law and not going into other sovereign countries.
> 
> Now, the EU's been accused by you of being this big bully that says stuff and this is proof the UK should leave. Now, the Brexit people are claiming the coastguard should be invading foreign waters in order to stop this.... I'm sorry, but, wtf?
> 
> 67% of those who voted, said the EU shot itself in the foot by not invading other countries.
> 
> I think I could go on all day of examples where the Mirror, and Brexit people, are treating people like idiots, and you people are lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it, you should see the point.
> 
> The point is basically that scaremongering happens on both sides, so to say that you hate this scaremongering when you probably support that of your own side, is quite simply not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is this is just your opinion, and it is worth as much as an Irish 9 punt coin. I gave valid reasons backed with facts and all you have is the Chancellor threatening to increase taxes. When the word was earlier this year that the EU was looking at forcing taxes to rise anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've backed up my point with sources at times. The whole "11 million Turks will end up in the UK" is scaremongering, for example.
> 
> The Chancellor increasing taxes is almost certainly not a threat, but reality.
> 
> Like I've said, the UK has lost 100 billion from yearly trade with the EU, just in the last 2 weeks alone, because the pound has dropped. No one is saying trade will be better off with Brexit, NO ONE, not even the Brexit people. If you lose trade, if the pound is weaker, how can the chancellor say anything other than he'll have to spend less and raise taxes? I mean, that's just simple knowledge.
> 
> However the Brexit people shout "no true" for anything they don't like. So, hardly surprising they've done it again.
Click to expand...








 Why will he when the money being leeched by the EU is no longer going that way. The money spent on eastern Europeans welfare will no longer be spent, nor on their medical treatments, education, housing ETC. So what will he do with all that money, which will be enough to offset any losses to the government. You lot in the remain camp don't do your maths very well do you, or you hope that someone wont see the money being saved by leaving will far outweigh the costs of leaving. So why wont he be honest and say he will reduce taxes and VAT on the strength of the monetary gains he will have.


 I MEAN IT IS JUST SIMPLE MATHS AND KNOWLEDGE THAT WE WILL BE PAYING LESS AND GETTING MORE.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question BREXIT would be temporarily very difficult for Britain.
> 
> But once Germany opts out - and it won't take long to follow - the whole picture changes.
> 
> Then there's the positive side:
> 
> Scotland will likely vote to break away and Hadrian's wall can be restored with appropriate toll booths and a proper kill zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Germany will opt out? Not a chance. They EU will stay together and become more of an EU superpower than every before. You're dreaming if you think the Germans will leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think so when the money starts to dry up and the other member states want their handouts. France and Germany have their reason/excuse to leave now in the UK's impending exit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't made a case at all, it feels like I'm reading the Express.
> 
> Germany and France CONTROL the EU, why would they want out? It's like saying that if Scotland left the British Union that England would want to leave too. Er.... Come off it. You're not making arguments, you're throwing soundbites that aren't backed up with anything at me.
Click to expand...






 As opposed to the socialist worker or Islamic times.


 Where will they get the money from when the UK leaves. They even tried a threat through football and it failed when England started to pack their bags and go home. They are running scared of the impending strikes and riots when the farmers subsidies are no longer being paid. The people of France and Germany will look for a means of getting out themselves because their taxes have gone sky high to pay for the failing economies in the east


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osborne will happily try and scare people into rejecting Brexit. Just more scaremongering - and spiteful stuff ? - from the 'Remain' crowd.
> 
> Looks like the're not going to get the message until it's too late, namely, that scaremongering and blackmail will only alienate voters from supporting them. Chalk this up to another little victory for the Brexit side !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the stay camp does it, it's scaremongering, what is it when the leave camp do it?
> 
> He's the chancellor, he's the one looking at the books. I mean, look at the stats, as I've shown you, and see if the UK can cope with a 700 billion loss per year (potentially) and balance the books on the saving of 11 billion a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that 700 billion loss is from what, if it is showing because we leave then it must also show if we stay. Or he is cooking the books and will be caught out.
> 
> It is based on hocus pocus like if the sun shines at midnight on the autumn equinox then the UK economy will take a nose dive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's what" It's 700 billion loss on trade.
> 
> How is this hocus pocus? I've shown you the FACTS and you've just plainly ignored them. The UK has lost 100 billion on yearly trade in 2 weeks already, this is fact. I notice you haven't even mentioned this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are no facts just conjecture, what trade is to be affected causing a loss of 700billion a week. Name one commodity that will cease to be sold to Europe and cost the UK money.
> 
> 
> As I said hocus pocus and smoke with no actual evidence to support the claim. Services have clauses in the contracts that make the service provided the intellectual property of the provider, so they will not hand that over for free, and will charge say 5 years of the contract price to release it. Trade agreements will be for a certain term and again will have clauses protecting both parties. So really it will mean an initial increase in funds, followed by a small period of uncertainty and finally new outlets found and new markets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just call FACTS hocus pocus because you don't want to believe.
> 
> You mind isn't open. Drummond at least listens and makes an argument back, you're just listening in some fantasy world.
Click to expand...






 What facts as you have only presented conjecture, as " 700billion lost in trade"  what commodities, what trade , where will it be lost from, and where will it go to.    Shall I tell you, straight back into your fantasy world you carry around in your shoulder bag. It is just like the Scots oil fantasy that would plug any gaps in the full devolution. And then Oil started to drop in price, north sea rigs shut down and the oil industry in Scotland all but closed up shop. The projected £trillions surplus suddenly became a negative of even more £trillions and Salmond resigned as a result.

 Seems the remain team employ the same economists and would argue that they cant get it right every time. They cant get it right ever


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
Click to expand...







 See you cant even get the costs right  as the direct cost of the EU is £18,777billion per annum, and an indirect cost closer to your fantasy figure of £500 billion

 Things like we buy more from the EU than they buy from us giving us a trade deficit of £100billion
 The Lisbon treaty says that the EU is forced to make trade agreements with leaving nations
 The EU is banned from forcing tariffs on any nation by the WTO
  EU over regulation costs 600billion Euros a year, and EU regulation has cost the UK £124 billion
 Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
 EU membership costs UK billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
 The Common Fisheries Policy has cost British coastal communities 115,000 jobs


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as that would have happened anyway due to seasonal influences. How will the UK lose when we are not in the Euro, and the £ is going up. If you mean on spending power the more the Euro goes down the more we get for our £.
> As I keep telling you those countries will still be trading as they need the goods and the EU cant provide them. So what will we lose again when the EU is struggling with mountains of waste because they have no buyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
Click to expand...






 NO it is 1 day and it is a done deal. Read the Lisbon treaty.   So LIE number 1

 NO the EU is forced by their own laws to make trade deals as fast as they can     So LIE number 2

Want to try again


----------



## Tommy Tainant




----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
Click to expand...


Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here. 

However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened. 

We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring. 

All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.

How can this be the Brexit's main argument? 

Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now. 

You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong, you're talking rubbish.
> 
> The pound has clearly dropped because of the polls about leaving being ahead.
> 
> This is different the natural flow of currency which will go up and down. However the leave being ahead is sending it lower that it would be.
> 
> The pound is NOT GOING UP, stop making stuff up.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there are people like you who will be voting to exit the EU when you have no idea of the issues, you want to believe what you want to believe and you'll shamelessly make up anything to get that view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO it is 1 day and it is a done deal. Read the Lisbon treaty.   So LIE number 1
> 
> NO the EU is forced by their own laws to make trade deals as fast as they can     So LIE number 2
> 
> Want to try again
Click to expand...


Are you going to bother backing yourself up, or just squawk like a bird? 

Just shouting off that you think I'm a liar doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you cant even get the costs right  as the direct cost of the EU is £18,777billion per annum, and an indirect cost closer to your fantasy figure of £500 billion
> 
> Things like we buy more from the EU than they buy from us giving us a trade deficit of £100billion
> The Lisbon treaty says that the EU is forced to make trade agreements with leaving nations
> The EU is banned from forcing tariffs on any nation by the WTO
> EU over regulation costs 600billion Euros a year, and EU regulation has cost the UK £124 billion
> Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
> EU membership costs UK billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
> The Common Fisheries Policy has cost British coastal communities 115,000 jobs
Click to expand...


Why don't you try reading what I wrote? You have no idea what the 500 billion figure was, because you didn't read what I wrote. 

To be honest, don't bother reading what I wrote, you're talking complete and utter crap and I'm fed up with you. Bye.


----------



## montelatici

You are actually trying to discuss something rationally with that fascist maniac?


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
Click to expand...


Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?

I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.

I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.

On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.

And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.

I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
Click to expand...








 And I ask again what goods are left unsold in the factories that had been ordered and paid for. Seems you don't understand how trade works. I order 1000 vacuum cleaners to be delivered in batches of 150 every two months and pay up front an agreed price. The seller cant increase that price because the £ has dropped. The next time I might only buy 750 because my stocks are still high and the cost is too high. No lost trade just lost revenue for the seller. No impact on the economy and so no problem for the country. The problem lies with the EU that sells more to the UK than they buy as they have to find new markets for their goods or watch then rot. That is the lost trade that remain are twisting around to make it sound bad for the UK


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to score points off of any dips in the market is disingenuous. The stock market sees a successful Brexit as a move towards uncertainty. The market absolutely hates uncertainty and reacts against it.
> 
> 'Uncertainty' comes from a lack of foresight as to what the future will bring. The current dips say nothing for what ACTUAL future we can look forward to ... only a fear from a lack of complete rock-solid certainty, in their eyes, as to what it will definitely be. A good word to describe what's happening would be 'jitters'.
> 
> If the EU is such a good guarantee of our future ... tell me, how pleased were world markets to see the unfolding Greek financial crisis .. and its effect on the EU .. just not too long ago ? Greece has a small economy, yet, how much of a financial disturbance did THEY manage to cause ?
> 
> I suggest to you that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to come tumbling down. The sooner we're shot of them, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't just a "dip in the market", the whole point is that it's a dip for a reason, and it could easily signify a dip for a long time. This dip is about confidence.
> 
> If the UK leaves the EU, that dip in confidence could last years. That's a lot of money that otherwise wouldn't be lost.
> 
> We're talking hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that will have an impact on jobs, on spending, on everything.
> 
> Trying to pass this off as "nothing" is simply not going to wash. This is almost certain to happen.
> 
> The Greek crisis is an example of where low confidence has a massive adverse effect. The EU were wrong to let Greece into the Euro, they knew this would have an adverse effect on the economy, but went ahead anyway, just as leaving the EU would have the same impact for the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO it is 1 day and it is a done deal. Read the Lisbon treaty.   So LIE number 1
> 
> NO the EU is forced by their own laws to make trade deals as fast as they can     So LIE number 2
> 
> Want to try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to bother backing yourself up, or just squawk like a bird?
> 
> Just shouting off that you think I'm a liar doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

I have read the Lisbon treaty were it is stated   and I said that you have passed on two lies proven and highlighted. I can do the same with the rest of your posts if you want, highlight the posts that are lies because you are told to believe everything.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Timing is against you in this.
> 
> Suppose that the Brexit side won. We'd immediately cut all ties that very day ?? NO ... it'd take months or years of procedural wrangling to finally arrange the cutting of the cord.
> 
> This is time we can use to create other business links, outside. Indeed, the two may overlap, and for a while, we'd benefit from trading with both the EU, AND from outside it, simultaneously. I think that once the markets see that happening ... all jitters will fade to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you cant even get the costs right  as the direct cost of the EU is £18,777billion per annum, and an indirect cost closer to your fantasy figure of £500 billion
> 
> Things like we buy more from the EU than they buy from us giving us a trade deficit of £100billion
> The Lisbon treaty says that the EU is forced to make trade agreements with leaving nations
> The EU is banned from forcing tariffs on any nation by the WTO
> EU over regulation costs 600billion Euros a year, and EU regulation has cost the UK £124 billion
> Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
> EU membership costs UK billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
> The Common Fisheries Policy has cost British coastal communities 115,000 jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you try reading what I wrote? You have no idea what the 500 billion figure was, because you didn't read what I wrote.
> 
> To be honest, don't bother reading what I wrote, you're talking complete and utter crap and I'm fed up with you. Bye.
Click to expand...






 Because all it says is 500 billion and nothing else, it does not say these products or commodities were refused because of the brexit referendum.

 The devil is in the detail and you have no detail to fall back on, no supporting arguments at all. So now you hang your head and mutter but it is a 500billion loss cos I have been told it is. 

 So were are the actual facts to support your fantasy figures, were are the losses in black and white


----------



## Toro

Oddschecker still has remain at ~1/2

Brexit Referendum Betting Odds | Oddschecker


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say the UK would cut all ties. That's the PROBLEM.
> 
> So, if people know the UK is going to leave, and there's a process for this of two years. That's two years of lacking confidence. That's two years of the pound not having the confidence. We know what happens when people lose confidence, don't we?
> 
> Even using this time to create new links, or rearrange old ones, is going to be a very difficult time. Loss of jobs, loss of value in the pound, loss of money in the treasury, as the Chancellor said, and which the Brexit people have rejected, simply because they can just reject it, and not because they actually know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
Click to expand...



No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.

The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU. 

I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different. 

A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter. 

I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous. 

The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever). 



Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely. 

However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out. 
These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.


You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you. 

Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries. 
However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU. 

Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say. 

Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
Click to expand...








 Down to £100 million now and still no actual details as to what trade was lost. I think you are getting confused with the stock market losses  and trade deficits. The trade deficits have always been there and are nothing new with a EU selling 5 times the amount to the UK as the UK sells to the EU. That is a massive deficit worth more to the EU than to the UK, so who will lose the most again in trade ?   Yes the EU is already having jitters and spreading lies about who will lose and how much because they cant afford the losses they will be making


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> I have read the Lisbon treaty were it is stated   and I said that you have passed on two lies proven and highlighted. I can do the same with the rest of your posts if you want, highlight the posts that are lies because you are told to believe everything.


The Lisbon treaty is important.  What it really says is that you should be able to mitigate your personal financial and legislative losses with more higher level governmental bodies, that can compete successfully with your already captured national government.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be 'hiccups', no doubt, just as there is whenever any new arrangements are made, anywhere, in any way. But I disagree with you. Our progress in creating new trading ties will increase, not decrease, confidence in us as time goes on. We'll have residual trading with the EU (and probably some, maybe much, of that will be preserved). We will create other opportunities. We will be seen to succeed in this, and we will undoubtedly get new jobs come into the UK on the back of it. How do you know we will lose more than we'll gain ? You've no way at all of estimating that outcome.
> 
> And we'll stop paying outlandish membership fees to the EU, year-on-year, on top of it all ! Yes, I think we'll be a lot better off in the longer term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
Click to expand...


The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.

If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.

That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??

We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?

I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...

Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)

Your wording:


> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*



... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
*
We deserve that freedom*.

As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.

Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.

Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!

It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hiccups" that could cost the UK 500 billion a year or more, in order to save paying 11 billion a year.... and this could last for two or three years and the subsequent impact this has on employment and confidence later down the line. Plus the chance that the UK has less trade in the future. As I said, trade increased massively with countries that joined the EU. This could just diminish as it had grown.
> 
> Trading ties might increase over time. They might not be as good as they were under the EU, especially with EU countries.
> 
> You talk about the outlandish fees, but they are nothing compared with what the UK will lose.
> 
> If it lose 500 million a year for 2 years, then this is 100 years worth of EU fees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
Click to expand...


Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument. 

What do you have to back any of this up? 

As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up. 

The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.

The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.

"UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric. 
Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that. 

Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.

You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.

As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers. 

And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.

Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.


I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many. 
Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
Click to expand...






 So what will change then as the EU already puts things in place to harm the UK.

 Correct the UK wont have a say in Europe, at the same time the EU will no longer have a say in the UK and will be powerless to force change. No more demanding we support the Euro even though we voted to stay out of the Eurozone. No more threats when we stand up for our rights, and no more being ruled by unelected eurocrats making laws to suit themselves.  
First step is to withdraw from the European court system and start deporting foreign criminals. Then stop all welfare for migrants other than what they would have received in their own countries. Stop taking in Islamic terrorists pretending to be refugee's. Take control of our lives again and let us market our goods under the names they were marketed before the EU walked all over us with it's size 12's.

I wonder how he EU will cope when its 80% more trade deficit  ( £500billion x 4 = £2 trillion ) hits. Can it absorb that cost do you think and still stay afloat. Then where will the projected migrants from the likes of Turkey go to live when the UK is closed and locked down tight. Ready the old carriages with welded doors so that there is only one entrance to them to take them all back to France.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Could' this ... 'could' that .... really, this is all speculation on your part. Alarmist speculation at that.
> 
> When you really get down to it, the anti-Brexit side has been foisting alarmist, scaremongering stuff our way pretty much from day one. We're supposed to be scared of standing on our own two feet, as a 'standalone' political entity. So much better THAT outcome, eh, than to have autonomy. The freedom to be ourselves, and not just some satellite of the EU !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
Click to expand...


This is getting tiresome, to be honest.

You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.

You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.

But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!

If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.

On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.

It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.

I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.

*Our choice.*

Let's make it a wise one.

And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???


----------



## montelatici

What did Greece show?  It showed no more than what Puerto Rico is showing today in the U.S. Greece is a tiny percentage of the EU economy.


----------



## Drummond

montelatici said:


> What did Greece show?  It showed no more than what Puerto Rico is showing today in the U.S. Greece is a tiny percentage of the EU economy.



See this ... then tell me how a long-term propping-up of an economy even as small as Greece's (.. never mind larger economies, such as Portugal's !) can be tolerated anything like indefinitely within the EU .. and, for that matter, why Member States should feel obliged to be a part of this crippling status quo ....

IMF tells EU it must give Greece unconditional debt relief



> The International Monetary Fund has called for “upfront” and “unconditional” debt relief for Greece as it warned that without immediate action the financial plight of the recession-ravaged country would deteriorate dramatically over the coming decades.
> 
> In a strongly worded assessment, the IMF said that there was no prospect of Greece meeting the draconian terms of its current bailout plan and that interest payments on the soaring national debt would eat up 60% of the budget by 2060 in the absence of debt forgiveness.
> 
> The debt sustainability analysis by the Washington-based Fund said Greece should have longer to pay, have the interest rate on its loans fixed at 1.5%, and that its creditors should make debt relief automatic once the bailout programme ends in 2018.





> The Fund admitted *its proposals for easing Greece’s debt burden would not be easy for some countries to accept, because it would involve member states making a commitment to compensate the European Stability Mechanism – Europe’s bailout fund – for any losses occurred from fixing interest rates at 1.5%*.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's all speculation. That's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> However I'm basing my speculation on facts that have happened.
> 
> We know the pound has dropped against the Euro in the last 2 weeks, that amounts to the UK losing 100 billion a year in trade, even without a reduction in trade. I've shown you possible outcomes. If the pound drops to 0.7 against the Euro the UK will lose 500 billion a year. This is not speculation, this is the reality. The reality you and the Brexit people have been ignoring.
> 
> All the Brexit people have done, and you are doing too, is to shout down anyone or anything they don't agree with. Obama comes and says his piece "oh, you can't listen to him, he hates Britain because he moved the bust of Churchill from outside the Oval Office", the Chancellor says the treasury will have less money and have to increase taxes "oh, this is scaremongering", when in fact it actually looks like the most likely scenario.
> 
> How can this be the Brexit's main argument?
> 
> Scared of standing in your own two feet? I'd be scared. Why? Because almost every argument the Brexit people have, it appears to be the UK GOVERNMENT who have messed things up, and not the EU (welfare, immigration). Because they're talking about saving money, and the reality is the UK is not going to save any money. As I pointed out, if the scenario of losing 500 billion happens, which is an easily achievable scenario for the UK, then it's 100 years before that outweighs the cost of being in the EU right now.
> 
> You're speculating, you've been telling me how wonderful things will be. And I've pointed to Helmut Kohl doing the same thing, and this leading to Germany having 25 difficult years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
Click to expand...


Yes, it's getting tiresome. 

I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit. 

A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better? 

It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this. 

Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.


Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit. 
You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.

The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.

In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed. 

The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower. 

The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans. 

Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger. 







Estonia's GDP





Latvia's GDP





Hungary's GDP

All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing. 

The EU is growing stronger. 


You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Greece show?  It showed no more than what Puerto Rico is showing today in the U.S. Greece is a tiny percentage of the EU economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this ... then tell me how a long-term propping-up of an economy even as small as Greece's (.. never mind larger economies, such as Portugal's !) can be tolerated anything like indefinitely within the EU .. and, for that matter, why Member States should feel obliged to be a part of this crippling status quo ....
> 
> IMF tells EU it must give Greece unconditional debt relief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The International Monetary Fund has called for “upfront” and “unconditional” debt relief for Greece as it warned that without immediate action the financial plight of the recession-ravaged country would deteriorate dramatically over the coming decades.
> 
> In a strongly worded assessment, the IMF said that there was no prospect of Greece meeting the draconian terms of its current bailout plan and that interest payments on the soaring national debt would eat up 60% of the budget by 2060 in the absence of debt forgiveness.
> 
> The debt sustainability analysis by the Washington-based Fund said Greece should have longer to pay, have the interest rate on its loans fixed at 1.5%, and that its creditors should make debt relief automatic once the bailout programme ends in 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fund admitted *its proposals for easing Greece’s debt burden would not be easy for some countries to accept, because it would involve member states making a commitment to compensate the European Stability Mechanism – Europe’s bailout fund – for any losses occurred from fixing interest rates at 1.5%*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro. Portugal and Spain are different, I've seen first hand the changes in Spain, the benefits these countries are getting and the development. They're still weak because they lacked the infrastructure, they have major migration issues to the three big regions, Catalonia, Madrid and the Basque Country, and unemployment is a big problem. However things are changing, slowly, but surely.


----------



## Andylusion

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I understand from your argument that a subjective judgment made on the 'quality' of our Government means that we should surrender autonomy to a foreign power, permanently ?
> 
> I say again: uncertainty will always give the financial markets some jitters. That's actually all it is, right now, and says nothing for the correctness or otherwise of an outcome following a successful Brexit vote. You are trading on those 'jitters' and coming to a false conclusion about them.
> 
> I for one have made no attempt to 'shout you down' ... and, how could anyone do any such thing to you, here ? OK ... your lack of transparency regarding your agenda - and its source - is a disappointment, if also predictable. But, so what ? You can, and do, state your views unencumbered by such considerations.
> 
> On Obama ... he tried to subject us to an empty threat. By the time America's choice of when, how, to what extent, they chose to forge trading ties with us, this would come AFTER Obama had left Office, meaning he'd have no ability to enforce his threat. But such was the imperative that drove HIM, he made his threat regardless.
> 
> And you think we should be scared of standing on our own two feet, eh ? Tut tut ! We should have no confidence in ourselves, as a 'standalone' power ? We, an ex-Empire power, one that at one time heavily influenced the fate of much of this world ! Well ... the anti-Brexit side has relied on threats and scaremongering to win the day, even to threaten a possibility of WWIII, and to suggest the demise of 'western political civilisation'. They have precious little respect for us ... including our intelligence, evidently !! They have zero regard for our abilities as our own nation ! People have every right to react against such disreputable shabbiness.
> 
> I strongly suspect that it'll be - very clearly so, once the proper post-voting reviews are completed, in the media and in political circles - the *'Remain' side* who we will see led us all to a Brexit victory !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
Click to expand...


First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.

That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.

Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.

The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?

I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.

But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.

If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.

Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.

So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.

In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.

The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.

If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.

And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.

So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.

Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.

You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.


----------



## montelatici

The EU will not punish the UK. It has no interest in doing so.  But, the UK will not have the same rights as EU states or EFTA states to the EU market, that's just a normal consequence.  More importantly, the City will no longer have access to the EU financial markets.  Another loss for the UK is that China will replace London with Frankfurt or Paris as their base for financial deals with the EU, for example. You have to remember that the UK economy is about the same size as Italy or France, much smaller than the German economy.  Alone, the UK economy is not a major economy.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Andylusion said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.
> 
> That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.
> 
> Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.
> 
> The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?
> 
> I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.
> 
> But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.
> 
> If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.
> 
> Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.
> 
> So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.
> 
> In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.
> 
> The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.
> 
> If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.
> 
> And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.
> 
> So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.
> 
> Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.
> 
> You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.
Click to expand...



You're right about many people being uniformed. However I had thought that with referenda like the Scottish one where the points were made, and yes there was nationalistic stuff, it seemed to be that the sensible message kind of got through. 
Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong though. 

You'd have hoped that at least the campaign would be in some way sensible, instead the Brexit people started off where UKIP left off in 2015 General Election and UKIP lost one of their two seats. So it seems strange that now people seem to have reverted to type for EU elections and will vote for whatever, it doesn't matter. 

I agree with you about trade too. The UK will lose some of its power by being out of the EU and this will cost the UK. 

Yes, the Brexit side have always claimed things. Their best claim is that the UK could do the "Norway option", however someone forgot to tell them that Norway is in the Schengen Zone and the UK isn't, and being in the Schengen Zone would make it harder, not easier, for the UK to control its own borders.



Some of the arguments are these:

The UK will save 11 billion pounds a year it gives to the EU. 

However the UK has lost 100 billion pounds on yearly trade with the EU in the last 2 weeks because of currency devaluation which appears to have happened because of polls predicting an exit win.

Any threat to stability or confidence and the pound gets hurt. Leaving the EU would leave uncertainty for 2 to 5 years, based on estimates on how long it would take to get trade deals up. The UK might not leave the EU for at least 2 years.

Other arguments are that the UK would regain its sovereignty. Issues within this are:

Be able to control borders better. 

However the reality is half of all immigration, and the most costly, comes from outside of the EU where the UK has total control over its borders. 

Welfare, too many people go to the UK to get welfare, they're be able to stop this.

But why are immigrants queuing up to get into the UK? Because the welfare system in the UK is broken, but the govt doesn't fix it. Syrian refugees will still want to go to the UK, Romanians will still want to go to the UK.

It might stop a little EU immigration, but the problem is so many UK citizens live abroad in countries like Spain, France, Germany, it'd be hard to refuse a deal that continues this status quo of free movement, such as Switzerland and Norway and Iceland have. 

Also, the UK government often represents the interests of others, like the Tory government. Does it make a difference who makes these laws to an individual? Often not. People don't vote sensibly in General Elections and end up with the same two every time.


----------



## frigidweirdo

montelatici said:


> The EU will not punish the UK. It has no interest in doing so.  But, the UK will not have the same rights as EU states or EFTA states to the EU market, that's just a normal consequence.  More importantly, the City will no longer have access to the EU financial markets.  Another loss for the UK is that China will replace London with Frankfurt or Paris as their base for financial deals with the EU, for example. You have to remember that the UK economy is about the same size as Italy or France, much smaller than the German economy.  Alone, the UK economy is not a major economy.



Sure it has interest.

People are predicting the EU could collapse. They're doing so in order to give power to the need to hurt the UK and make sure EU members see what happens if they leave.

If Estonia had a referendum and their argument was "The UK did really well" then the EU is more likely to fail. A "look at how bad the UK did" means the EU stays together.


----------



## Andylusion

frigidweirdo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.
> 
> That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.
> 
> Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.
> 
> The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?
> 
> I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.
> 
> But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.
> 
> If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.
> 
> Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.
> 
> So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.
> 
> In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.
> 
> The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.
> 
> If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.
> 
> And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.
> 
> So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.
> 
> Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.
> 
> You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about many people being uniformed. However I had thought that with referenda like the Scottish one where the points were made, and yes there was nationalistic stuff, it seemed to be that the sensible message kind of got through.
> Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong though.
> 
> You'd have hoped that at least the campaign would be in some way sensible, instead the Brexit people started off where UKIP left off in 2015 General Election and UKIP lost one of their two seats. So it seems strange that now people seem to have reverted to type for EU elections and will vote for whatever, it doesn't matter.
> 
> I agree with you about trade too. The UK will lose some of its power by being out of the EU and this will cost the UK.
> 
> Yes, the Brexit side have always claimed things. Their best claim is that the UK could do the "Norway option", however someone forgot to tell them that Norway is in the Schengen Zone and the UK isn't, and being in the Schengen Zone would make it harder, not easier, for the UK to control its own borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the arguments are these:
> 
> The UK will save 11 billion pounds a year it gives to the EU.
> 
> However the UK has lost 100 billion pounds on yearly trade with the EU in the last 2 weeks because of currency devaluation which appears to have happened because of polls predicting an exit win.
> 
> Any threat to stability or confidence and the pound gets hurt. Leaving the EU would leave uncertainty for 2 to 5 years, based on estimates on how long it would take to get trade deals up. The UK might not leave the EU for at least 2 years.
> 
> Other arguments are that the UK would regain its sovereignty. Issues within this are:
> 
> Be able to control borders better.
> 
> However the reality is half of all immigration, and the most costly, comes from outside of the EU where the UK has total control over its borders.
> 
> Welfare, too many people go to the UK to get welfare, they're be able to stop this.
> 
> But why are immigrants queuing up to get into the UK? Because the welfare system in the UK is broken, but the govt doesn't fix it. Syrian refugees will still want to go to the UK, Romanians will still want to go to the UK.
> 
> It might stop a little EU immigration, but the problem is so many UK citizens live abroad in countries like Spain, France, Germany, it'd be hard to refuse a deal that continues this status quo of free movement, such as Switzerland and Norway and Iceland have.
> 
> Also, the UK government often represents the interests of others, like the Tory government. Does it make a difference who makes these laws to an individual? Often not. People don't vote sensibly in General Elections and end up with the same two every time.
Click to expand...


Both of those arguments seem bogus to me anyway.

*Any argument over immigration seems crazy*, because the US has been battling immigration for ages on end, and the problem never goes away.

It's like pot and drugs.   The only way to stop illicit drugs, is to kill people.   Singapore doesn't have a drug problem, and they are right in the hot bed of drug producers and users.  The reason they don't have a drug problem is because they simply kill them.   You kill the dealers, kill the users, and pretty soon no one is willing to risk it.

Same is true of immigration.  As long as the penalty for illegal immigration is just being sent home until you find a way back....  then it's going to keep happening, whether you are in, or out, of the EU.

*And also, I find the welfare argument bogus as well.   As* long as you offer welfare, people are going to find a way to get it.   People react to the incentives you give them.

In addition, why is it ok for natural citizens to abuse the system, but somehow if a foreigner comes, gets citizenship, and then uses it, that's bad?   Years ago I had some friends that lived in Britain, and they were pot smoking, unemployed druggies, just living off the system.   They did this all the years I knew them.

No problem with brits living their entire lives on welfare, but one Syrian shows up, and you freak out?   Why?   Between the two, one grew up in 1st world western luxury, and the other watched children shredded by barrel bombs, and people choking to death in the streets from gas attacks.....  Quite frankly, I'm more apt to give the Syrian welfare than the brit.

So neither of those arguments holds any sway on me at all.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Andylusion said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.
> 
> That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.
> 
> Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.
> 
> The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?
> 
> I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.
> 
> But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.
> 
> If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.
> 
> Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.
> 
> So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.
> 
> In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.
> 
> The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.
> 
> If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.
> 
> And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.
> 
> So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.
> 
> Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.
> 
> You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about many people being uniformed. However I had thought that with referenda like the Scottish one where the points were made, and yes there was nationalistic stuff, it seemed to be that the sensible message kind of got through.
> Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong though.
> 
> You'd have hoped that at least the campaign would be in some way sensible, instead the Brexit people started off where UKIP left off in 2015 General Election and UKIP lost one of their two seats. So it seems strange that now people seem to have reverted to type for EU elections and will vote for whatever, it doesn't matter.
> 
> I agree with you about trade too. The UK will lose some of its power by being out of the EU and this will cost the UK.
> 
> Yes, the Brexit side have always claimed things. Their best claim is that the UK could do the "Norway option", however someone forgot to tell them that Norway is in the Schengen Zone and the UK isn't, and being in the Schengen Zone would make it harder, not easier, for the UK to control its own borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the arguments are these:
> 
> The UK will save 11 billion pounds a year it gives to the EU.
> 
> However the UK has lost 100 billion pounds on yearly trade with the EU in the last 2 weeks because of currency devaluation which appears to have happened because of polls predicting an exit win.
> 
> Any threat to stability or confidence and the pound gets hurt. Leaving the EU would leave uncertainty for 2 to 5 years, based on estimates on how long it would take to get trade deals up. The UK might not leave the EU for at least 2 years.
> 
> Other arguments are that the UK would regain its sovereignty. Issues within this are:
> 
> Be able to control borders better.
> 
> However the reality is half of all immigration, and the most costly, comes from outside of the EU where the UK has total control over its borders.
> 
> Welfare, too many people go to the UK to get welfare, they're be able to stop this.
> 
> But why are immigrants queuing up to get into the UK? Because the welfare system in the UK is broken, but the govt doesn't fix it. Syrian refugees will still want to go to the UK, Romanians will still want to go to the UK.
> 
> It might stop a little EU immigration, but the problem is so many UK citizens live abroad in countries like Spain, France, Germany, it'd be hard to refuse a deal that continues this status quo of free movement, such as Switzerland and Norway and Iceland have.
> 
> Also, the UK government often represents the interests of others, like the Tory government. Does it make a difference who makes these laws to an individual? Often not. People don't vote sensibly in General Elections and end up with the same two every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of those arguments seem bogus to me anyway.
> 
> *Any argument over immigration seems crazy*, because the US has been battling immigration for ages on end, and the problem never goes away.
> 
> It's like pot and drugs.   The only way to stop illicit drugs, is to kill people.   Singapore doesn't have a drug problem, and they are right in the hot bed of drug producers and users.  The reason they don't have a drug problem is because they simply kill them.   You kill the dealers, kill the users, and pretty soon no one is willing to risk it.
> 
> Same is true of immigration.  As long as the penalty for illegal immigration is just being sent home until you find a way back....  then it's going to keep happening, whether you are in, or out, of the EU.
> 
> *And also, I find the welfare argument bogus as well.   As* long as you offer welfare, people are going to find a way to get it.   People react to the incentives you give them.
> 
> In addition, why is it ok for natural citizens to abuse the system, but somehow if a foreigner comes, gets citizenship, and then uses it, that's bad?   Years ago I had some friends that lived in Britain, and they were pot smoking, unemployed druggies, just living off the system.   They did this all the years I knew them.
> 
> No problem with brits living their entire lives on welfare, but one Syrian shows up, and you freak out?   Why?   Between the two, one grew up in 1st world western luxury, and the other watched children shredded by barrel bombs, and people choking to death in the streets from gas attacks.....  Quite frankly, I'm more apt to give the Syrian welfare than the brit.
> 
> So neither of those arguments holds any sway on me at all.
Click to expand...


The problem is that people want to believe.

Obama's campaign slogan was basically "hope", he made some comment about people clinging to their guns for hope. The more I look at it, it's all about hope. 

The Brexit people are offering hope. You don't need substance behind hope, just "this will make your life better", just don't ask how, or you'll lose that hope. These people don't want to lose that hope.

Like I've said to other posters, Helmut Kohl offered the reunified German people hope in 1990 and they voted for this hope, what they got was the doom and gloom the SPD had said would happen, but the people just wanted that joy of hope, and they weren't prepared for the doom and gloom. So they swapped 10 minutes of happiness for 25 years of hard slog that could have been better, even if it would always have been hard.


----------



## Phoenall

Andylusion said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand correctly, which I understand, this is not a simple argument here.
> 
> The point I was making was that you said you (as an individual) would be better off with the UK leaving the EU.
> 
> I've pointed out that, in reality the difference between foreigners in Brussels making laws and British people in Westminster making laws isn't actually that different.
> 
> A person in Brussels might be thinking what is best for the people, while a person in Westminster might be thinking what's best for themselves. Or the reverse is also true. I've met politicians who are self centered and I've met ones who are extremely empathetic and put their life's work into helping people. Where they're from doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm on the left of the political spectrum, but if I were in the Labour Party I'd be on the right of that party. I disagree with many people on the left, I saw what Labour has done to the UK in some ways and seen good, and in other ways seen bad. The same in the US, the left has done some good, and some bad. The same with Germany, Austria, probably not Spain as both sides in Spain are so incompetent it's ridiculous.
> 
> The point being that political autonomy doesn't actually mean as much as people are making it out to mean, you're still being run by politicians, politicians who are sometimes good and sometimes bad, even if they claim to represent you in some way (through party affiliations, through nationality or whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, uncertainty will give jitters. So far these jitters have wiped 100 billion from the UK's trade. More jitters and it's going down. However a currency is worth what? Sometimes currencies are worth what people think they're worth, other times what the society can produce. If the UK produces less, and things cost more, then the pound will remain lower for much longer, if not indefinitely.
> 
> However, what I've spoken about the massive jitters that will be an almost certainty if the UK leaves the EU, and for a long period of time until the UK gets itself sorted out.
> These jitters will cost a lot of people (who may have voted leave) their jobs, it will reduce their spending power, it'll make them worse off than being in the EU. The laws that might be different will hardly affect their lives, immigration won't be reduced any more than it would be otherwise, unless of course a whole load of EU citizens get kicked out of the UK and a whole load of people (who don't get polled and will be voting stay) who live in the EU will have to come back. The chances of this happening are not that great, so a lot of them will stay. The non-EU citizens won't have much to worry about, nothing changes for them anyway.
> 
> 
> You have made attempts to shout me down, not like that other guy, I forget his name, but he's on here every day. What you have done is, as I've told you before, gone off on one about where I'm from, even after I made it clear I wasn't interested in talking about that, and I told you why. Also you've taken up the mantle of the Brexit people in saying stuff like "that's wrong".
> However, you aren't like a lot of people on this board, you will discuss things, and I have had good debate with you.
> 
> Your argument about being scared to stand on your own two feet is rather a weak argument. The UK mostly does stand on its own two feet anyway. The EU is there, and it does do stuff, and make laws, however you look at the USA and the states there have far less powers than the governments of EU countries.
> However the UK does need friends. It's been allied with the US for a long, long time. The EU isn't going to go away and the UK will probably still be close allies with the EU.
> 
> Look, for example, at France and Belgium. Both had bombs and terrorist attacks. Neither invaded Iraq. They were tied to the UK, US and Spain played a part too, but they had nothing to do with it, but suffered anyway. The UK isn't in a different position to that, it's part of the West, an integral part. Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say.
> 
> Someone did a look at the polls, and said that the stay camp is ahead on an average of those polls. Plus this doesn't include those who don't live in the UK, but can vote, many of whom will be voting to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whatever the EU does, the UK is going to be brought into it, without a say*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.
> 
> That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.
> 
> Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.
> 
> The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?
> 
> I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.
> 
> But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.
> 
> If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.
> 
> Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.
> 
> So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.
> 
> In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.
> 
> The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.
> 
> If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.
> 
> And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.
> 
> So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.
> 
> Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.
> 
> You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.
Click to expand...







Only problem is we don't sell in the EU to the extent we buy from the EU due to EU rules and laws. We made trade deals with China, India and Russia and had to wait for 23 EU nations to give the go ahead for those deals to go through. That's right the UK firms went out and secured trade deals and the EU had the power to sanction them, set the prices and quantities produced. We only see 20% trade with the EU who demand 100% in exchange, so we are down by 80% that the EU cant afford to lose. So if the EU stops trading we are better of by that 80%, which we will either produce ourselves or get from other trading partners.

I would say that the UK is in a strong position and the EU is floundering through lack of money


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of uncertainty generates its own jitters. A known 'Brexit' vote means that the stock market will, then, have some idea of the UK's future. They may view it favourably (as they WILL, once we start to create our new trading agreements, of course) .. or, temporarily, 'doom & gloom' may predominate. It will not last forever, though, and the markets will recover once we make the progress that we ultimately cannot help but make. There is a wider, larger, trading market out there, outside the EU. There can be no reason for our not taking full advantage of it.
> 
> If we do suffer damage post-Breit, it'll be because the EU acts to inflict that damage. In so doing, it'll absolutely prove the* 'with friends like that, who needs enemies' *truth about the EU. I can't say that the EU won't be spiteful. I truly CAN say, though, that the EU is a fragile edifice .. only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> That would be -- Greece again ? Spain ? Portugal ? What further defaults will the EU know, courtesy of its 'weakest links' ? Are we better viewing that at a distance, or, tied rather more fully into the EU's crisis, being damaged by it ??
> 
> We can escape that house of cards. Or, we can tumble along with the rest of it, when future crises hit. Which is better for us ?
> 
> I agree that the idea of the UK being too scared to stand on our own two feet IS a weak argument .. it remains so, *because UK citizens are made of sterner stuff ! *Otherwise, there'd be no likelihood at all of our going for Brexit ... we'd just knuckle under, and all the polls would indicate that for next Thursday. And I'm sure that those on the 'Remain' side, not forgetting Obama, hate the truth of that. All their threats, all their at times ludicrous scaremongering, have NOT driven the 'leave' camp off, running for the hills. Au contraire ...
> 
> Terrorists TERRORISE .... the clue's in the name. This they will think they can do a better job with, if those they target could be said to lack a backbone. A power not afraid to fight terrorists, as we weren't in Iraq, is one they'll think twice about attacking. Weak targets are better than more stalwart ones. England could've been attacked instead of France, or Belgium. But, no. Those two countries were considered easier targets. Who's to say that future EU laws won't weaken our security interests (as they do now, with the EU's insistence on porous borders within the EU ???)
> 
> Your wording:
> ... perfectly describes a UK that remains tied to the EU. Doesn't it .. ? Oh, as part of the EU, we will have our ONE vote, amongst a couple of DOZEN others. Disenfranchised from the EU, we can strengthen our borders as WE choose.
> *
> We deserve that freedom*.
> 
> As for the polls .. no poll proves a thing. Our own polls were incorrect about a 'hung Parliament', and consistently so, in the run-up to our last General Election. They might well be correct in hinting at a Brexit victory. But nothing is certain. Only actual voting will make it so.
> 
> Oh, as for your being 'Left Wing' .. this I didn't doubt. The penomenon of a strong pro-'Remain' arguer was less likely from a Right winger, and you, as a Left winger, will crave greater global political ties and have a contempt for national borders. This is a 'given'.
> 
> Well .. some of us want our own national identity. Yes, really. We want our own borders, subject to OUR control. We want to claw back the many billions the EU takes from us much as a 'protection racket' would. We want to cease to be obliged to bend our lawmaking to satisfy EU edicts !!
> 
> It's rather 'naughty' of us, eh. But ... there it is. Roll on Thursday, and a successful Brexit outcome !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.
> 
> That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.
> 
> Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.
> 
> The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?
> 
> I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.
> 
> But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.
> 
> If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.
> 
> Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.
> 
> So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.
> 
> In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.
> 
> The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.
> 
> If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.
> 
> And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.
> 
> So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.
> 
> Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.
> 
> You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about many people being uniformed. However I had thought that with referenda like the Scottish one where the points were made, and yes there was nationalistic stuff, it seemed to be that the sensible message kind of got through.
> Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong though.
> 
> You'd have hoped that at least the campaign would be in some way sensible, instead the Brexit people started off where UKIP left off in 2015 General Election and UKIP lost one of their two seats. So it seems strange that now people seem to have reverted to type for EU elections and will vote for whatever, it doesn't matter.
> 
> I agree with you about trade too. The UK will lose some of its power by being out of the EU and this will cost the UK.
> 
> Yes, the Brexit side have always claimed things. Their best claim is that the UK could do the "Norway option", however someone forgot to tell them that Norway is in the Schengen Zone and the UK isn't, and being in the Schengen Zone would make it harder, not easier, for the UK to control its own borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the arguments are these:
> 
> The UK will save 11 billion pounds a year it gives to the EU.
> 
> However the UK has lost 100 billion pounds on yearly trade with the EU in the last 2 weeks because of currency devaluation which appears to have happened because of polls predicting an exit win.
> 
> Any threat to stability or confidence and the pound gets hurt. Leaving the EU would leave uncertainty for 2 to 5 years, based on estimates on how long it would take to get trade deals up. The UK might not leave the EU for at least 2 years.
> 
> Other arguments are that the UK would regain its sovereignty. Issues within this are:
> 
> Be able to control borders better.
> 
> However the reality is half of all immigration, and the most costly, comes from outside of the EU where the UK has total control over its borders.
> 
> Welfare, too many people go to the UK to get welfare, they're be able to stop this.
> 
> But why are immigrants queuing up to get into the UK? Because the welfare system in the UK is broken, but the govt doesn't fix it. Syrian refugees will still want to go to the UK, Romanians will still want to go to the UK.
> 
> It might stop a little EU immigration, but the problem is so many UK citizens live abroad in countries like Spain, France, Germany, it'd be hard to refuse a deal that continues this status quo of free movement, such as Switzerland and Norway and Iceland have.
> 
> Also, the UK government often represents the interests of others, like the Tory government. Does it make a difference who makes these laws to an individual? Often not. People don't vote sensibly in General Elections and end up with the same two every time.
Click to expand...







 How did we lose what we never had to begin with, as the trade with the EU was in defecit to 80%. Or for every £ in trade we paid the EU 80p and received 20p. So you are now saying that the UK was spending £800,000 billion in trade with the EU, why didn't we go bust with the deficit this created. Hold on was it because we had trade outside the EU that amounted to much more than this defecit, trade that will still be there when we leave the EU.

You keep saying the UK welfare system is broken and we wont fix it, even after being shown the evidence that the EU is blocking our attempts at fixing the problem. Showing that it the EU at fault and not the UK governments, we want to withhold welfare from all migrants for a period of 5 years to redress the problems with economic migration. The EU does not want 10 million plus destitute eastern Europeans camping on their doorsteps.

 The numbers of Brits living in Europe is not a problem as they are self sufficient and live of their own money, paying taxes to their host nations. They are about 3 million and can the likes of Spain lose those taxes and still exist. The ex pats are not robbing ATM's or the vulnerable they are an asset to the economy. They do not impose a strain on welfare or health services, flood schools with children unable to read and write and take all the social housing. They pay for private health care, don't have children and build their own homes. So yes we will have them back at a rate to the country of £2000 per person per annum in taxes.


Every one of your arguments destroyed by the evidence and still you peddle them as if they were facts


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Greece show?  It showed no more than what Puerto Rico is showing today in the U.S. Greece is a tiny percentage of the EU economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this ... then tell me how a long-term propping-up of an economy even as small as Greece's (.. never mind larger economies, such as Portugal's !) can be tolerated anything like indefinitely within the EU .. and, for that matter, why Member States should feel obliged to be a part of this crippling status quo ....
> 
> IMF tells EU it must give Greece unconditional debt relief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The International Monetary Fund has called for “upfront” and “unconditional” debt relief for Greece as it warned that without immediate action the financial plight of the recession-ravaged country would deteriorate dramatically over the coming decades.
> 
> In a strongly worded assessment, the IMF said that there was no prospect of Greece meeting the draconian terms of its current bailout plan and that interest payments on the soaring national debt would eat up 60% of the budget by 2060 in the absence of debt forgiveness.
> 
> The debt sustainability analysis by the Washington-based Fund said Greece should have longer to pay, have the interest rate on its loans fixed at 1.5%, and that its creditors should make debt relief automatic once the bailout programme ends in 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fund admitted *its proposals for easing Greece’s debt burden would not be easy for some countries to accept, because it would involve member states making a commitment to compensate the European Stability Mechanism – Europe’s bailout fund – for any losses occurred from fixing interest rates at 1.5%*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro. Portugal and Spain are different, I've seen first hand the changes in Spain, the benefits these countries are getting and the development. They're still weak because they lacked the infrastructure, they have major migration issues to the three big regions, Catalonia, Madrid and the Basque Country, and unemployment is a big problem. However things are changing, slowly, but surely.
Click to expand...


Not enough is made about the effect that the EU has had in the poorer areas of Europe. Somewhere like Spain has changed immeasurably in the 40 years I have been visiting.

I recently had a trip to Latvia and was really impressed with the standard of living there.

The development of these countries ,and those to join, will be a massive boost to the UK economy as markets expand. 

A wealthy and successful Europe governed by liberal western democracies is worth fighting for.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU will not punish the UK. It has no interest in doing so.  But, the UK will not have the same rights as EU states or EFTA states to the EU market, that's just a normal consequence.  More importantly, the City will no longer have access to the EU financial markets.  Another loss for the UK is that China will replace London with Frankfurt or Paris as their base for financial deals with the EU, for example. You have to remember that the UK economy is about the same size as Italy or France, much smaller than the German economy.  Alone, the UK economy is not a major economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it has interest.
> 
> People are predicting the EU could collapse. They're doing so in order to give power to the need to hurt the UK and make sure EU members see what happens if they leave.
> 
> If Estonia had a referendum and their argument was "The UK did really well" then the EU is more likely to fail. A "look at how bad the UK did" means the EU stays together.
Click to expand...






 So were will the EU make up the 80% trade deficit it will be left with when the UK leaves. That is close to losing £800,000 billion a year for France and Germany in lost trade. The other side of the coin is the UK gains that £800,000 billion a year as we wont be trading with the EU but with the Commonwealth, China, Russia, US and India.

 In reality the UK economy is the strongest in the EU and without it the EU would sink, not even Germany can hit our levels of growth in these uncertain times because they are living the EU nightmare. So much so that they are looking to implement the same rules the UK wants to bring in and curb immigration from the East.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU will not punish the UK. It has no interest in doing so.  But, the UK will not have the same rights as EU states or EFTA states to the EU market, that's just a normal consequence.  More importantly, the City will no longer have access to the EU financial markets.  Another loss for the UK is that China will replace London with Frankfurt or Paris as their base for financial deals with the EU, for example. You have to remember that the UK economy is about the same size as Italy or France, much smaller than the German economy.  Alone, the UK economy is not a major economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it has interest.
> 
> People are predicting the EU could collapse. They're doing so in order to give power to the need to hurt the UK and make sure EU members see what happens if they leave.
> 
> If Estonia had a referendum and their argument was "The UK did really well" then the EU is more likely to fail. A "look at how bad the UK did" means the EU stays together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck me,you have been hitting the purple smarties this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were will the EU make up the 80% trade deficit it will be left with when the UK leaves. That is close to losing £800,000 billion a year for France and Germany in lost trade. The other side of the coin is the UK gains that £800,000 billion a year as we wont be trading with the EU but with the Commonwealth, China, Russia, US and India.
> 
> In reality the UK economy is the strongest in the EU and without it the EU would sink, not even Germany can hit our levels of growth in these uncertain times because they are living the EU nightmare. So much so that they are looking to implement the same rules the UK wants to bring in and curb immigration from the East.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU will not punish the UK. It has no interest in doing so.  But, the UK will not have the same rights as EU states or EFTA states to the EU market, that's just a normal consequence.  More importantly, the City will no longer have access to the EU financial markets.  Another loss for the UK is that China will replace London with Frankfurt or Paris as their base for financial deals with the EU, for example. You have to remember that the UK economy is about the same size as Italy or France, much smaller than the German economy.  Alone, the UK economy is not a major economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it has interest.
> 
> People are predicting the EU could collapse. They're doing so in order to give power to the need to hurt the UK and make sure EU members see what happens if they leave.
> 
> If Estonia had a referendum and their argument was "The UK did really well" then the EU is more likely to fail. A "look at how bad the UK did" means the EU stays together.
Click to expand...






 So were will the EU make up the 80% trade deficit it will be left with when the UK leaves. That is close to losing £800,000 billion a year for France and Germany in lost trade. The other side of the coin is the UK gains that £800,000 billion a year as we wont be trading with the EU but with the Commonwealth, China, Russia, US and India.

 In reality the UK economy is the strongest in the EU and without it the EU would sink, not even Germany can hit our levels of growth in these uncertain times because they are living the EU nightmare. So much so that they are looking to implement the same rules the UK wants to bring in and curb immigration from the East. Will the EU stop them from changing the law ?


----------



## Phoenall

Andylusion said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your view on currency and the stock markets isn't based on anything other that you predicting that it will be great because it suits your argument.
> 
> What do you have to back any of this up?
> 
> As for your view that a post Brexit doom will be all the EU's fault, again, you're just making this up.
> 
> The EU might put things in place to harm the UK, no one knows this, it's a possibility. However what we're talking about here are things that will almost certainly happen, this isn't about the EU doing anything, it's about how the modern world works.
> 
> The EU is fragile, but not as fragile as those who are anti-EU would have you believe. The Euro was going to fail every year for the last, I don't know how many years. But it didn't fail.
> 
> "UK citizens are made of sterner stuff", sounds like nationalist rhetoric.
> Harping back to the Battle of Britain and the Blitz and all of that.
> 
> Actually Belgium and France were attacked for reasons that have something to do with these countries. The UK was also attacked, by people from the UK, as France and Belgium were attacked by people from those countries.
> 
> You've twisted what I said about the power of the EU. If the UK leaves, the UK won't have a say within the EU, but the EU will still be there. I don't think you get this point. The EU is a large entity right on every border. Its power will grow and its power will dominate, whether you like it or not. The only chance you have is to stay in and sort things out.
> 
> As for strengthening your own border and having the freedom to do that, sure. But the more the borders are strengthened, the more trade suffers.
> 
> And who is the UK going to stop coming in? The non-EU citizens the UK govt already has total control over these, so...... what's going to change? Nothing.
> The EU citizens, is the UK going to stop the French, the Spanish, the Germans etc from going to the UK? Will it kick out the Poles who are a source of cheaper labour who work well? Who would the UK actually prevent from coming to the UK? Also, the immigrants will still go, why? Because the welfare system is messed up.
> 
> Again, I've made these arguments 10 times and each time you brush them off without actually saying much, just you view some utopia on the other side.
> 
> 
> I think your biggest problem will be the same for the German people in 1990. If Brexit is successful, I think you'll find the other side is rather darker and gloomier than you could ever have imagined. Germany spent 25 years getting out of that, it was a painful process for many.
> Your arguments appear to be wishes, rather than based on reality and on how things work. You're quick to brush off what I say without really considering the reality. Nothing will change your view, the truth doesn't matter, you're interested in the utopia you believe will exist, but won't happen. Facts for you are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting tiresome, to be honest.
> 
> You have no reason at all to suppose that the UK can't find its own way, be profitable, know a bright future outside of the EU, and well we both know it. Since that's the case, it obviously follows that the markets, too, IF they react against the likelihood of Brexit, do so purely through a perception of uncertainty as to the UK's immediate future.
> 
> You can say I can't know we will do well. I say you can't know we won't. And so, we'll go around in circles.
> 
> But I'll tell you something I am sure of, because we've already had a taste of this truth ... namely, the EU is only 'strong' on paper. The reality is that there are weak currencies within the EU as well as strong ones, and any of them could default. Being tied into the Euro, the Euro is weakened by any - yes - UNCERTAINTY about its future. Greece gave us a taste of the Euro's fragility ... small base though their economy has ! - if larger economies buckle, the Euro collapses upon itself as others Member States enter into a bailout action that'll cripple them all !!
> 
> If we're in the EU, we'll be part of a sinking ship. If we're not, we'll just know some turbulence from the financial waves a sinking EU will create.
> 
> On 23rd June, we can contrive to build ourselves the life-raft of being UNtethered to the EU. Or, we can stay aboard the ship, and sink with it instead, once the crisis (or series of them) hits.
> 
> It's our choice. Survival (and eventual enviable prosperity) .. or ... ruination. No, not like the '*WWIII is in prospect*', or *'it'll spell the end of western political civilisation if we leave*' scaremongering rot, that stuff borne of sheer desperation. Nope. we'll be ruined by being closely tied to failing economies ... needlessly so.
> 
> I say ... we can find our backbone, be a proud nation, make our own future. Or, we can sink out of sight if / when the EU goes belly-up, as Greece has already shown us it COULD.
> 
> *Our choice.*
> 
> Let's make it a wise one.
> 
> And consider. Much of the scaremongering fantasist stuff, extremist claims, have come from people who PERMITTED US THE MEANS TO LEAVE THE EU. Now, would they have granted us a Referendum, if it could spell doom and gloom for us if we chose the Brexit route ? Why not just deny us all the Referendum and ensure our so-called 'rosy future', if in fact that was the only way we could have one ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's getting tiresome.
> 
> I didn't say the UK couldn't find its own way. I didn't say the UK couldn't make a profit.
> 
> A profit could be 1p or 100 billion pounds. Which is better?
> 
> It's CLEAR the UK is going to lose a lot of money if it decides to leave the EU. You've not argued against this once when I've presented this.
> 
> Finding your own way, well tramps find their own way, and millionaires find their own way too. So, "finding your own way" is just rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything. Every country finds its own way.
> 
> 
> Yes, we can go around in circles. What I've done is look at what is happening, what has happened and then put this onto the future to make a prediction. Sometimes predictions are not 100% accurate, but they help to make a good decision. As I've said, the economy will go downhill, the pound will lose value, Germany had a vote in 1990 and they went for the flowers and got the shit.
> You've provided me with nothing. You're not basing your argument on history (which repeats itself time and time and time again), you're just painting a picture of what you want to happen, just like Helmut Kohl.
> 
> The EU is only strong on paper? I disagree with you.
> 
> In the world the major powers are Russia, China, the USA and the EU. Russia is a weak power, China is a developing power, the US is a dwindling power, the EU is a developing power. None of them are perfect, each has their flaws, and the EU has its flaws. In fact one of the flaws is that there are some who would have the EU as a superpower, I believe this is a mistake. Superpowers are known for being arrogant and problematic for others. The EU should try and have power of unity, but also the intelligence of separation, such as the US tried to have but has failed.
> 
> The UK leaving the EU will lead to an EU superpower.
> 
> The EU isn't a sinking ship. It has problems, it's learning. The USA had 109 years of slavery before a big civil war allowed for the situation where it could be outlawed, then it had segregation for 89 years before an unelected body, the Supreme Court, could outlaw that too. It's had 239 years of gay people being suppressed. It had 100 something years of women not being able to vote. It's seen the great depression which helped lead to WW2. The US suffered a lot in its history and yet still came out as a Superpower, first as one of two, then as one of one. And even as the world superpower it has major, MAJOR problems, electing leaders like Dubya, and a place where Trump can get the nomination for the Republicans.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. However the EU is developing, it's taken in many countries only 14 years after they left the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact and they were struggling. Yet their economies are growing and they're prospering in the EU and within time they will be much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estonia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latvia's GDP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary's GDP
> 
> All these countries are growing and growing well. Greece is a problem country. Spain and Portugal are issues because they rely heavily on tourism, like Greece, but they're also developing.
> 
> The EU is growing stronger.
> 
> 
> You say "let's make a wise choice", wise choices are based on knowledge. I have the feeling that most people who will vote won't have enough knowledge, and most people who vote Brexit won't really know what the potential problems will be. Just as the Germans wanted to make a wise choice in 1990, and they made a massive mess of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no group votes based on knowledge.   An individual might vote based on knowledge, but a group inherently has a minority of informed people, and a majority of ignorant.
> 
> That's one of the reasons Democracies have always failed.
> 
> Now in general, economically speaking, the group that is most able to trade with others, ends up being the most wealthy.   Economic growth at it's bare fundamental, is people trading.  By trading, I mean any kind of trade, whether stuff for stuff, or stuff for dollars, or stuff for gold, or anything.
> 
> The group most able to trade... ends up being the most wealthy.   Now as it relates to Brexit, the case for me is, will being in the EU promote trade or harm it?  Will being out of the EU, promote trade or harm it?
> 
> I openly admit that the only reason I even know about the EU referendum, is because I watch SkyNews on my Apple TV.   And from what I have heard on SkyNews, the main argument from the Out Campaign, is that all the trade deals with Europe will remain in place.
> 
> But I find that argument a bit... questionable.  If there is one thing I know from years of watching politicians with egos, it's that they easily take things as snubs, and they rarely forget.
> 
> If the Brits ditch the EU, regardless of if they should.... some EU leader will take it personally.  Especially after working so hard to keep Greece in the EU, for the Brits to walk away, will come as a massive blow.
> 
> Additionally, if Brexit passes, the PMs will have a huge massive incentive to make sure those trade deals stay in place, and not rock the economy.   If that were to happen, after promising it wouldn't, it would spell the end of nearly all pro-Out campaigners, and severely damage the party that promoted it.
> 
> So the PMs will have tremendous pressure to keep the trade deals they have, and the EU politicians will know that going into negotiations.
> 
> In short it will become extremely easy to get massive concessions from the Brit PMs, that benefit the EU, in exchange for maintaining trade deals with the EU.
> 
> The reason the fiscal markets in the UK are in turmoil, is because the EU, without the UK, is the largest consumer market in the world.   Larger than the US, China, Japan, and any other.
> 
> If something happens to trade with the EU, yes it will harm the EU somewhat.... true.   But it will devastate the UK.   Can you recover?  Sure.   But remember what happened during the protectionist era in the US?   Great Depression?   Lasted 2 decades?   Didn't really recover until the late 1940s, early 1950s.
> 
> And why did it recover?  Tons of trade with Europe.
> 
> So I'm not convinced either way, but I would wager the risks are higher with leaving, than staying.
> 
> Is there a threat of destruction staying in the EU?   I doubt it.  Generally I doubt it.   Honestly, if there was any real danger of the EU somehow sinking the UK....  you could just leave the EU when it happens.   You can leave at any time.  No one is going to land tanks on British soil if you leave in the future.
> 
> You do realize the entire success of the American project, is entirely due to the fact we have a 3 Million square mile free-trade zone, with common laws.   The only reason we are a super power today in the world, is due to this free-trade setup we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about many people being uniformed. However I had thought that with referenda like the Scottish one where the points were made, and yes there was nationalistic stuff, it seemed to be that the sensible message kind of got through.
> Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong though.
> 
> You'd have hoped that at least the campaign would be in some way sensible, instead the Brexit people started off where UKIP left off in 2015 General Election and UKIP lost one of their two seats. So it seems strange that now people seem to have reverted to type for EU elections and will vote for whatever, it doesn't matter.
> 
> I agree with you about trade too. The UK will lose some of its power by being out of the EU and this will cost the UK.
> 
> Yes, the Brexit side have always claimed things. Their best claim is that the UK could do the "Norway option", however someone forgot to tell them that Norway is in the Schengen Zone and the UK isn't, and being in the Schengen Zone would make it harder, not easier, for the UK to control its own borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the arguments are these:
> 
> The UK will save 11 billion pounds a year it gives to the EU.
> 
> However the UK has lost 100 billion pounds on yearly trade with the EU in the last 2 weeks because of currency devaluation which appears to have happened because of polls predicting an exit win.
> 
> Any threat to stability or confidence and the pound gets hurt. Leaving the EU would leave uncertainty for 2 to 5 years, based on estimates on how long it would take to get trade deals up. The UK might not leave the EU for at least 2 years.
> 
> Other arguments are that the UK would regain its sovereignty. Issues within this are:
> 
> Be able to control borders better.
> 
> However the reality is half of all immigration, and the most costly, comes from outside of the EU where the UK has total control over its borders.
> 
> Welfare, too many people go to the UK to get welfare, they're be able to stop this.
> 
> But why are immigrants queuing up to get into the UK? Because the welfare system in the UK is broken, but the govt doesn't fix it. Syrian refugees will still want to go to the UK, Romanians will still want to go to the UK.
> 
> It might stop a little EU immigration, but the problem is so many UK citizens live abroad in countries like Spain, France, Germany, it'd be hard to refuse a deal that continues this status quo of free movement, such as Switzerland and Norway and Iceland have.
> 
> Also, the UK government often represents the interests of others, like the Tory government. Does it make a difference who makes these laws to an individual? Often not. People don't vote sensibly in General Elections and end up with the same two every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of those arguments seem bogus to me anyway.
> 
> *Any argument over immigration seems crazy*, because the US has been battling immigration for ages on end, and the problem never goes away.
> 
> It's like pot and drugs.   The only way to stop illicit drugs, is to kill people.   Singapore doesn't have a drug problem, and they are right in the hot bed of drug producers and users.  The reason they don't have a drug problem is because they simply kill them.   You kill the dealers, kill the users, and pretty soon no one is willing to risk it.
> 
> Same is true of immigration.  As long as the penalty for illegal immigration is just being sent home until you find a way back....  then it's going to keep happening, whether you are in, or out, of the EU.
> 
> *And also, I find the welfare argument bogus as well.   As* long as you offer welfare, people are going to find a way to get it.   People react to the incentives you give them.
> 
> In addition, why is it ok for natural citizens to abuse the system, but somehow if a foreigner comes, gets citizenship, and then uses it, that's bad?   Years ago I had some friends that lived in Britain, and they were pot smoking, unemployed druggies, just living off the system.   They did this all the years I knew them.
> 
> No problem with brits living their entire lives on welfare, but one Syrian shows up, and you freak out?   Why?   Between the two, one grew up in 1st world western luxury, and the other watched children shredded by barrel bombs, and people choking to death in the streets from gas attacks.....  Quite frankly, I'm more apt to give the Syrian welfare than the brit.
> 
> So neither of those arguments holds any sway on me at all.
Click to expand...






 Then you have not been following the arguments as it is European migrants coming here claiming welfare and then sending it back home. Claiming for children that don't exist or are in their home nations, going to the doctors and getting drugs for free to sell back home. A simple $2 course of antibiotics will sell in Romania for $20, a single persons annual welfare would house and feed a family in Romania for 10 years. A criminal in Romania can expect beatings by the police and harsh treatment in the prisons, over here they get fed, clothed, educated and given money.


 The Syrians get nothing and cant fiddle because of asylum rules, so they are not a problem until they start preying on our children. Then they get deported after serving time in prison and that is what they don't want to happen


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU will not punish the UK. It has no interest in doing so.  But, the UK will not have the same rights as EU states or EFTA states to the EU market, that's just a normal consequence.  More importantly, the City will no longer have access to the EU financial markets.  Another loss for the UK is that China will replace London with Frankfurt or Paris as their base for financial deals with the EU, for example. You have to remember that the UK economy is about the same size as Italy or France, much smaller than the German economy.  Alone, the UK economy is not a major economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it has interest.
> 
> People are predicting the EU could collapse. They're doing so in order to give power to the need to hurt the UK and make sure EU members see what happens if they leave.
> 
> If Estonia had a referendum and their argument was "The UK did really well" then the EU is more likely to fail. A "look at how bad the UK did" means the EU stays together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck me,you have been hitting the purple smarties this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were will the EU make up the 80% trade deficit it will be left with when the UK leaves. That is close to losing £800,000 billion a year for France and Germany in lost trade. The other side of the coin is the UK gains that £800,000 billion a year as we wont be trading with the EU but with the Commonwealth, China, Russia, US and India.
> 
> In reality the UK economy is the strongest in the EU and without it the EU would sink, not even Germany can hit our levels of growth in these uncertain times because they are living the EU nightmare. So much so that they are looking to implement the same rules the UK wants to bring in and curb immigration from the East.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







 Is that your son and his wife, as only you neo Marxists are not offended by such things being thrust in your faces.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Greece show?  It showed no more than what Puerto Rico is showing today in the U.S. Greece is a tiny percentage of the EU economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this ... then tell me how a long-term propping-up of an economy even as small as Greece's (.. never mind larger economies, such as Portugal's !) can be tolerated anything like indefinitely within the EU .. and, for that matter, why Member States should feel obliged to be a part of this crippling status quo ....
> 
> IMF tells EU it must give Greece unconditional debt relief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The International Monetary Fund has called for “upfront” and “unconditional” debt relief for Greece as it warned that without immediate action the financial plight of the recession-ravaged country would deteriorate dramatically over the coming decades.
> 
> In a strongly worded assessment, the IMF said that there was no prospect of Greece meeting the draconian terms of its current bailout plan and that interest payments on the soaring national debt would eat up 60% of the budget by 2060 in the absence of debt forgiveness.
> 
> The debt sustainability analysis by the Washington-based Fund said Greece should have longer to pay, have the interest rate on its loans fixed at 1.5%, and that its creditors should make debt relief automatic once the bailout programme ends in 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fund admitted *its proposals for easing Greece’s debt burden would not be easy for some countries to accept, because it would involve member states making a commitment to compensate the European Stability Mechanism – Europe’s bailout fund – for any losses occurred from fixing interest rates at 1.5%*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro. Portugal and Spain are different, I've seen first hand the changes in Spain, the benefits these countries are getting and the development. They're still weak because they lacked the infrastructure, they have major migration issues to the three big regions, Catalonia, Madrid and the Basque Country, and unemployment is a big problem. However things are changing, slowly, but surely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not enough is made about the effect that the EU has had in the poorer areas of Europe. Somewhere like Spain has changed immeasurably in the 40 years I have been visiting.
> 
> I recently had a trip to Latvia and was really impressed with the standard of living there.
> 
> The development of these countries ,and those to join, will be a massive boost to the UK economy as markets expand.
> 
> A wealthy and successful Europe governed by liberal western democracies is worth fighting for.
Click to expand...


Yeah, a perfect example of this was the Marshall Plan.


----------



## Toro

I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.  

A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toro said:


> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.



Yep, the markets go up and down based on whether leave or stay is in the lead. 






The pound hasn't been as high as today since then end of May.

Why would people want to leave when they know that the pound is going to go down?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Remain was 56% to 39% for ages 18-34

Says a lot about those who have a future are more likely to stay, those whose careers are already settled and there's nothing much new want to leave. 

Over 65s is 55% leave and 39% stay.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Toro said:


> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.


The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.

Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
Click to expand...


When they do these polls, are they counting in those British people who live in the EU or abroad? I know a few, I don't know any who are pro-exit. I know some who don't know anything.


----------



## HenryBHough

People are seldom forced into slavery these days.
They vote themselves into it.

And so we watch.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the markets go up and down based on whether leave or stay is in the lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pound hasn't been as high as today since then end of May.
> 
> Why would people want to leave when they know that the pound is going to go down?
Click to expand...






 Why would people want to remain when they know they will be unable to get treatment at the NHS, or be helped when their jobs go to France or Germany.

 Don't forget the 80% trade deficit that is doing UK business's no favours, that will impact on the EU ability to make more money out of the UK. The £350million a day given to the EU would do a lot better for the country in our pockets


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Remain was 56% to 39% for ages 18-34
> 
> Says a lot about those who have a future are more likely to stay, those whose careers are already settled and there's nothing much new want to leave.
> 
> Over 65s is 55% leave and 39% stay.






 One question were is the money coming from to build the houses needed for the impending migrants of the new nations on the list of new members. If we give up any more arable lands we wont have any left for crops, and we will be even more prone to flooding when the water has nowhere to go. Were is the money coming from for education, health and welfare when all the jobs have gone to cheap migrant labour working cash in hand ?


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they do these polls, are they counting in those British people who live in the EU or abroad? I know a few, I don't know any who are pro-exit. I know some who don't know anything.
Click to expand...







 They ask a sample population for their views, many times just a few thousand. This is why these polls are worthless for predicting anythging


----------



## Toro

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
Click to expand...


Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Toro said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
Click to expand...

Is that just the weight of money though ?

Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.

My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.

Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that just the weight of money though ?
> 
> Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.
> 
> My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.
> 
> Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.
Click to expand...


"Brighter than the average."

 Gratuitous arrogance.


----------



## Mindful

Fox Business News is reporting  Brexit.   A LOT.


----------



## Toro

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that just the weight of money though ?
> 
> Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.
> 
> My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.
> 
> Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.
Click to expand...


Follow the money


----------



## Tilly

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that just the weight of money though ?
> 
> Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.
> 
> My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.
> 
> Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.
Click to expand...

So you're a thief as well as a violent thug, both by your own admission.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tilly said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that just the weight of money though ?
> 
> Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.
> 
> My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.
> 
> Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're a thief as well as a violent thug, both by your own admission.
Click to expand...

The tossers are welcome to have them back if they are quick enough.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Basic sense.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Basic sense.


Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that just the weight of money though ?
> 
> Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.
> 
> My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.
> 
> Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Brighter than the average."
> 
> Gratuitous arrogance.
Click to expand...

Basic sense.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably vote for Brexit, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
> 
> A new Daily Mail poll came out having the Remain in the lead, and the odds widened for the Leave.  Markets are soaring.
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are all over the place. I think its too close to call.
> 
> Bookmakers shorten odds on Brexit for EU referendum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odds are 1/3 to 1/4 that Remain wins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that just the weight of money though ?
> 
> Its a bizarre situation. All the noise is coming from brexit, all the banners are brexit. I am hoping its because they are motivated for change rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. I have a car boot full of brexit banners I have ripped down in the locality. Will have a bonfire with it all later.
> 
> My friends are roughly 90/10 in favour of remain but they are generally brighter than the average.
> 
> Fingers crossed, a brexit would set us back decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Brighter than the average."
> 
> Gratuitous arrogance.
Click to expand...








 He means brighter than the average idiot


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Basic sense.









 That you don't have, or you would not want to remain in the EU and be told what sheep you can shag


----------



## Tommy Tainant

You are just bitter because you have lost the argument and the vote.

Wales loves Europe and Europe loves Wales.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> You are just bitter because you have lost the argument and the vote.
> 
> Wales loves Europe and Europe loves Wales.
> 
> View attachment 78830View attachment 78830






 Don't count your chickens


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> You are just bitter because you have lost the argument and the vote.
> 
> Wales loves Europe and Europe loves Wales.
> 
> View attachment 78830View attachment 78830



Lost the argument and the vote, eh ?

What vote is that, Tommy ? The one *that HASN'T HAPPENED YET ??*

Wait to see what happens. Remember, the polls got it badly wrong on the last General Election .. not until the very evening after the vote, did one poll - that from the BBC, of all people !! - actually come up with an accurate prediction. We had weeks of pollsters telling us something different to what happened .. a Conservative majority !

It's far from impossible for equal inaccuracy to be true on the Brexit issue, Tommy. *Or,* for someone to commit a gaffe that skews things wildly in one direction at the last possible moment. I cite, to prove the veracity of my point ... Kinnock's 'triumphalist rally', on the eve of voting, early 1990's (and his defeat the following day, after polls predicted a win for Kinnock). Or, if you prefer, Gordon Brown's 'that bigoted woman' gaffe when he was caught on microphone disparaging a Northern woman for DARING to care about immigration ! Remember that one ?

Considering just how low the 'Remain' side have already sunk, considering the obvious panic that must be involved on their side to do so (the end of Western political civilisation 'predicted' if we leave, for example, or maybe the eventual 'outbreak of WWIII' !!) ... anything's possible, it seems to me.

Trust to your side's proven talent to screw up at the last moment, Tommy !!


----------



## HenryBHough

If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:

"Do it _for the children_....."


----------



## Tommy Tainant

HenryBHough said:


> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."


Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Here's what will happen on Friday if Britain votes to leave the EU

"The pound could collapse by as much as 15% against the dollar"

Well, that'd only lose the UK a lot of money, probably more than the UK spends on the EU in a year would be lost within a month, easily.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
Click to expand...


I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.

As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff. 

Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.


----------



## frigidweirdo

montelatici said:


> About 10% of Italy's registered population are now immigrants.  Unregistered who knows.  This population is destined to grow dramatically.  And, contrary to popular belief, most of the migrants remain in Italy unlike in Greece.  They work in agriculture mostly at very low wages because they are mostly uneducated sub-saharans who are a benefit for tomato, olive and grape harvests.  But, at some point they become too many to handle.



Yes, the EU need to deal with immigration, but so too do individual governments and the latter is where most of the problems lie.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Here's what will happen on Friday if Britain votes to leave the EU
> 
> "The pound could collapse by as much as 15% against the dollar"
> 
> Well, that'd only lose the UK a lot of money, probably more than the UK spends on the EU in a year would be lost within a month, easily.









You really need to learn how to read as could is not the same as will.    As in   "Iran will explode a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv today"  and not " Iran could explode a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv today "


We faced a larger drop not that long ago when the Euro went belly up, and it was the British economy that saved the day and pulled the Euro up.  All you have is conjecture and not facts


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
Click to expand...





 But you are not being realistic are you, you are LYING to try and sway peoples views. A pity that the points of most interest are not touched on by the remain camp, then we would see the biggest LIES.   How will leaving increase the migrants again, and how will saving £350million a day be bad for the country again ?


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10% of Italy's registered population are now immigrants.  Unregistered who knows.  This population is destined to grow dramatically.  And, contrary to popular belief, most of the migrants remain in Italy unlike in Greece.  They work in agriculture mostly at very low wages because they are mostly uneducated sub-saharans who are a benefit for tomato, olive and grape harvests.  But, at some point they become too many to handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU need to deal with immigration, but so too do individual governments and the latter is where most of the problems lie.
Click to expand...






 Ignoring the facts at your peril    The EU stops governments from bringing in migrant controls because they want the migrants to force down wages and prices. Stop 1 million from going to the UK and you need to support their needs, where will the money, housing, education and health care come from ? Take 50 million people out of the tax threshold and you have lost 50 million taxes, the only answer is to tax those left more till they leave and you go belly up


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.*There is no argument for brexit*.



A joke, surely ?

Our autonomy .. our freedom .. the regained right of the UK to be ITSELF, instead of being slowly subsumed within the EU and a large chunk of its laws emanating from Brussels, and FOREIGN POWERS.

Freedom to seek out and enjoy a far larger trading base, unencumbered by others' edicts ...

Freedom to finally get control of immigration !! Immigration which has to be controlled sooner or later, because our resources aren't infinite, nor yet is the size of our territory !!

*No argument, you say ??*

Continuing within the EU makes us risk the following:

1. Immigration ultimately makes us fall apart at the seams. The EU has, as a foundling policy, the free movement of EU citizens within all its Member States. For as long as that is true - and the EU is determined to apply that indefinitely !! - we cannot control at least 50 percent of current immigration. We face ultimate disaster if this isn't turned around. ONLY BREXIT CAN SOLVE THIS.

2. The EU is a financial house of cards, one just begging to be knocked down, *with disaster waiting for EVERY Member State. *Greece gave us a taste of that fragility. Spain, Portugal, the weaker economies in the EU, may well create a far bigger such crisis. Give us another 2008-style collapse, and it'll be more than enough to trigger the collapse of the Euro, and with it, the financial viability of the EU itself.

We need to have got shot of the EU long before that. 23rd June - and a BREXIT vote - is our means of surviving such future crises. Without it, we'll be permanently subject to potential collapse, being dragged down with a sinking ship.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the EU has several such weak links. Any / all of them can spell a terrible fate for us.

*Do we accept that fate, or, do we evade it ?*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
Click to expand...

I didnt see all of the debate but Sadiq Khan absolutely nailed Johnson, he left him looking like a naughty schoolboy. The biggest joke came when they were asked what level of immigration we would get post brexit. They didnt know.

I dont know why they didnt make up a figure as that tactic has worked really well so far.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt see all of the debate but Sadiq Khan absolutely nailed Johnson, he left him looking like a naughty schoolboy. The biggest joke came when they were asked what level of immigration we would get post brexit. They didnt know.
> 
> I dont know why they didnt make up a figure as that tactic has worked really well so far.
Click to expand...


Again ... you must be joking ...

Khan ended his attack on Boris Johnson by uttering his 'Project Hate' accusation (you've conveniently overlooked that, eh ?). That was definitely an own-goal scored there. I listened to LBC on my DAB radio, hours later ... and heard one supporter of Khan tell the phone-in presenter that until then, she'd been a Labour supporter and a supporter of Khan. After hearing Khan stoop so low, however, she declared that she was 'deeply disappointed' in Sadiq Khan, and intended to tear up her Labour Party membership card.

Johnson, you see, had - along with his colleagues - dared to point to unrestrained immigration as a weakness of staying in the EU. Khan, a Muslim and obviously a friend to immigrating minorities, decided to attack Johnson for daring to address the truth of uncontrolled immigration. It was a 'if you attack or criticise immigration, you've automatically spoken unacceptably' point .. one borne of 'PC' constraints someone like Khan would insist on seeing applied, rather than risk losing an argument.

By the way, Tommy ... I've asked you this before - care to finally answer ?* How many immigrants into the UK is too many ?* At what point will we have found we've taken in too many of them ?

The EU seemingly thinks our resources and available territorial room are both infinite. Do you agree with them, Tommy ?


----------



## ThirdTerm

I'm secretly hoping that Britain will vote to leave the EU tomorrow, which is an increasingly powerful institution for Russia. A divided and weakened EU is good for other parts of the world as well. The Germans are scheming to build a superstate comparable to the US. Polls are too close to call and predicting an outcome is not an easy task.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt see all of the debate but Sadiq Khan absolutely nailed Johnson, he left him looking like a naughty schoolboy. The biggest joke came when they were asked what level of immigration we would get post brexit. They didnt know.
> 
> I dont know why they didnt make up a figure as that tactic has worked really well so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again ... you must be joking ...
> 
> Khan ended his attack on Boris Johnson by uttering his 'Project Hate' accusation (you've conveniently overlooked that, eh ?). That was definitely an own-goal scored there. I listened to LBC on my DAB radio, hours later ... and heard one supporter of Khan tell the phone-in presenter that until then, she'd been a Labour supporter and a supporter of Khan. After hearing Khan stoop so low, however, she declared that she was 'deeply disappointed' in Sadiq Khan, and intended to tear up her Labour Party membership card.
> 
> Johnson, you see, had - along with his colleagues - dared to point to unrestrained immigration as a weakness of staying in the EU. Khan, a Muslim and obviously a friend to immigrating minorities, decided to attack Johnson for daring to address the truth of uncontrolled immigration. It was a 'if you attack or criticise immigration, you've automatically spoken unacceptably' point .. one borne of 'PC' constraints someone like Khan would insist on seeing applied, rather than risk losing an argument.
> 
> By the way, Tommy ... I've asked you this before - care to finally answer ?* How many immigrants into the UK is too many ?* At what point will we have found we've taken in too many of them ?
> 
> The EU seemingly thinks our resources and available territorial room are both infinite. Do you agree with them, Tommy ?
Click to expand...

Why do you deny Project Hate ? There is already a body count..


----------



## frigidweirdo

ThirdTerm said:


> I'm secretly hoping that Britain will vote to leave the EU tomorrow, which is an increasingly powerful institution for Russia. A divided and weakened EU is good for other parts of the world as well. The Germans are scheming to build a superstate comparable to the US. Polls are too close to call and predicting an outcome is not an easy task.



There are 4 powerbases for the future, China and Russia on one side and the US and EU on the other. The UK will be included in this no matter what, however how much impact the UK has is another matter.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt see all of the debate but Sadiq Khan absolutely nailed Johnson, he left him looking like a naughty schoolboy. The biggest joke came when they were asked what level of immigration we would get post brexit. They didnt know.
> 
> I dont know why they didnt make up a figure as that tactic has worked really well so far.
Click to expand...








 Then you watched a different programme to me and thousands of other people. The major points were put across with the facts supporting them and Khan had nothing but conjecture and fear of what might happen in return.   Like you still have not said were the next lot of migrants will be housed, given health care and educated and with what money ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt see all of the debate but Sadiq Khan absolutely nailed Johnson, he left him looking like a naughty schoolboy. The biggest joke came when they were asked what level of immigration we would get post brexit. They didnt know.
> 
> I dont know why they didnt make up a figure as that tactic has worked really well so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again ... you must be joking ...
> 
> Khan ended his attack on Boris Johnson by uttering his 'Project Hate' accusation (you've conveniently overlooked that, eh ?). That was definitely an own-goal scored there. I listened to LBC on my DAB radio, hours later ... and heard one supporter of Khan tell the phone-in presenter that until then, she'd been a Labour supporter and a supporter of Khan. After hearing Khan stoop so low, however, she declared that she was 'deeply disappointed' in Sadiq Khan, and intended to tear up her Labour Party membership card.
> 
> Johnson, you see, had - along with his colleagues - dared to point to unrestrained immigration as a weakness of staying in the EU. Khan, a Muslim and obviously a friend to immigrating minorities, decided to attack Johnson for daring to address the truth of uncontrolled immigration. It was a 'if you attack or criticise immigration, you've automatically spoken unacceptably' point .. one borne of 'PC' constraints someone like Khan would insist on seeing applied, rather than risk losing an argument.
> 
> By the way, Tommy ... I've asked you this before - care to finally answer ?* How many immigrants into the UK is too many ?* At what point will we have found we've taken in too many of them ?
> 
> The EU seemingly thinks our resources and available territorial room are both infinite. Do you agree with them, Tommy ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you deny Project Hate ? There is already a body count..
Click to expand...







 Why do you ignore requests for answers to salient points.     Project hate is what neo marxists are good at and is all they have in this case. Which is why Khan resorted to it when he had been beaten to a pulp


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> ThirdTerm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm secretly hoping that Britain will vote to leave the EU tomorrow, which is an increasingly powerful institution for Russia. A divided and weakened EU is good for other parts of the world as well. The Germans are scheming to build a superstate comparable to the US. Polls are too close to call and predicting an outcome is not an easy task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 powerbases for the future, China and Russia on one side and the US and EU on the other. The UK will be included in this no matter what, however how much impact the UK has is another matter.
Click to expand...






 What about India and the M.E or are they not counted in your figures. Forget the EU as it is way down the list of thriving economies and is always just one step away from collapse


----------



## HenryBHough

By this time tomorrow we'll have a fair idea whether The British have voted themselves into serfdom.  But the actual outcome will not be know for many days.  Cameron, however, should take advantage of the noise to quietly resign and slink away.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe LEAVE was leading then today's whine from Cameron should have enlightened.  He's lost on jobs.  He's lost on immigration.  He's lost of the economy.  So now he's fallen back on The American Liberal Mantra:
> 
> "Do it _for the children_....."
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I despise Cameron the remain campaign has won every argument.There is no argument for brexit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading about Johnson's debate speech, and apparently he's said things like Remain "keep talking down our country", as if making stuff up to make the country look good is better.
> 
> As I've said about 1990 Germany, Kohl was positive, the SPD were negative, they got Kohl and they got the negative stuff.
> 
> Johnson is essentially saying that being realistic is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt see all of the debate but Sadiq Khan absolutely nailed Johnson, he left him looking like a naughty schoolboy. The biggest joke came when they were asked what level of immigration we would get post brexit. They didnt know.
> 
> I dont know why they didnt make up a figure as that tactic has worked really well so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again ... you must be joking ...
> 
> Khan ended his attack on Boris Johnson by uttering his 'Project Hate' accusation (you've conveniently overlooked that, eh ?). That was definitely an own-goal scored there. I listened to LBC on my DAB radio, hours later ... and heard one supporter of Khan tell the phone-in presenter that until then, she'd been a Labour supporter and a supporter of Khan. After hearing Khan stoop so low, however, she declared that she was 'deeply disappointed' in Sadiq Khan, and intended to tear up her Labour Party membership card.
> 
> Johnson, you see, had - along with his colleagues - dared to point to unrestrained immigration as a weakness of staying in the EU. Khan, a Muslim and obviously a friend to immigrating minorities, decided to attack Johnson for daring to address the truth of uncontrolled immigration. It was a 'if you attack or criticise immigration, you've automatically spoken unacceptably' point .. one borne of 'PC' constraints someone like Khan would insist on seeing applied, rather than risk losing an argument.
> 
> By the way, Tommy ... I've asked you this before - care to finally answer ?* How many immigrants into the UK is too many ?* At what point will we have found we've taken in too many of them ?
> 
> The EU seemingly thinks our resources and available territorial room are both infinite. Do you agree with them, Tommy ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you deny Project Hate ? There is already a body count..
Click to expand...


... eh ??


----------



## Phoenall

HenryBHough said:


> By this time tomorrow we'll have a fair idea whether The British have voted themselves into serfdom.  But the actual outcome will not be know for many days.  Cameron, however, should take advantage of the noise to quietly resign and slink away.








 He did say that he would not be doing three terms, and this could be his chance to leave with his head up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Brexit"

This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’

In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

4 in votes just been cast by my family. Dont give in to hate.


----------



## Indofred

The last of the opinion polls were far too close to offer any real suggestion as to who will win, and polls are notoriously inaccurate anyway.
The Labour party is pushing for 'remain', but many of their natural voters are reporting they voted to leave.

The campaigns have both been more about scare tactics than much else, so very little of real substance has come out.

It's a "watch this space" thing we will have the result of in less than 24 hours ... then comes the tin foil hat jobs.


----------



## Drummond

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*



... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]

I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make. 

One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.

Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !

Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
Click to expand...


One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?

Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't. 

Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
Click to expand...


One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).

On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.

Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
Click to expand...


Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.


----------



## Drummond

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
Click to expand...


Thank you for helping to confirm the correctness of a Brexit vote !!

So, we agree. The UK is faced with either keeping its national identity, or, having it swamped into non-existence by foreign powers.

Do we want our freedom ? Or, must we knuckle under to foreign power-mongers, who'll happily rob us of it ? It ultimately comes down to that.

What would British soldiers have said during WWII, to an argument that had us becoming subservient to a (- then -) European Reich, its leader, A Hitler ... ?? Would they have agreed with your sentiments today ?

They fought, and many died, for our freedom ! Would you like to tell us that their deaths were ultimately wasted, that we MUST bend to a European colossus, just because it IS one ?


----------



## Phoenall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.









 No it is because the "dark people" that come here are the ones that their own people don't want. and we are only a small island and can only sustain a small population.

By the way a referendum is simple majority rule done through the ballot box. Not like your presidential elections were over 50% OF THE POPULATION ARE BARRED FROM VOTING


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
Click to expand...






 HOW when we will control our borders, and will turn back the EU migrants


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> 4 in votes just been cast by my family. Dont give in to hate.







 You already have and you wasted your votes as the consensus is OUT


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
Click to expand...







 Because the EU has forced laws on the UK that stop us from closing the doors

 It tried and the EU said no, and then fined us a lot of money for even thinking about it

 No it cant when the EU will remove that identity and make us all Europrats


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for helping to confirm the correctness of a Brexit vote !!
> 
> So, we agree. The UK is faced with either keeping its national identity, or, having it swamped into non-existence by foreign powers.
> 
> Do we want our freedom ? Or, must we knuckle under to foreign power-mongers, who'll happily rob us of it ? It ultimately comes down to that.
> 
> What would British soldiers have said during WWII, to an argument that had us becoming subservient to a (- then -) European Reich, its leader, A Hitler ... ?? Would they have agreed with your sentiments today ?
> 
> They fought, and many died, for our freedom ! Would you like to tell us that their deaths were ultimately wasted, that we MUST bend to a European colossus, just because it IS one ?
Click to expand...

My Taid fought in the war. He was a big supporter of the EU because he thought we should work together to prevent another war. Your argument is disgraceful.


----------



## Bleipriester

At least, the Brits sucked some more national competences out of the EU in case they stay.


----------



## Freja

When do we get to know the voting results?
I hope the brittish have taken this opportunity to free themselves...!! 

The debate about voting about EU has been going on in Sweden as well. But the leading politicians refuses to let us vote...


----------



## Bleipriester

Freja said:


> When do we get to know the voting results?
> I hope the brittish have taken this opportunity to free themselves...!!
> 
> The debate about voting about EU has been going on in Sweden as well. But the leading politicians refuses to let us vote...


The first results are expected for about 23.30 UTC.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for helping to confirm the correctness of a Brexit vote !!
> 
> So, we agree. The UK is faced with either keeping its national identity, or, having it swamped into non-existence by foreign powers.
> 
> Do we want our freedom ? Or, must we knuckle under to foreign power-mongers, who'll happily rob us of it ? It ultimately comes down to that.
> 
> What would British soldiers have said during WWII, to an argument that had us becoming subservient to a (- then -) European Reich, its leader, A Hitler ... ?? Would they have agreed with your sentiments today ?
> 
> They fought, and many died, for our freedom ! Would you like to tell us that their deaths were ultimately wasted, that we MUST bend to a European colossus, just because it IS one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Taid fought in the war. He was a big supporter of the EU because he thought we should work together to prevent another war. Your argument is disgraceful.
Click to expand...


 I like your sense of humour ! 

So, let me get this straight. Your 'Taid' fought in WWII, and he was anti-war (.. which was why he helped to fight one ! ..). And having fought .. he did so, so that a foreign power (one had taken over Europe ...) could be comprehensively defeated, and the UK could know freedom from a Europe-wide power !

Now, you say he was a big supporter of the EU .. a Europe-wide power !! .. and seeing it* defeat* the UK's freedom from it (!!?) ....

Perhaps - correct me if I'm wrong, naturally - he was only against Hitler because Hitler achieved his aims militarily ? If he'd used another method, would he have approved of Hitler ?

Either he wanted the UK to be free of European domination, or, he didn't. WHICH ?? 

Did he even know himself ???


----------



## Dekster

People who think they personally are on a good track will want to remain.  Those who think their life is not on a good track will want to leave.  This is a vote that will be decided by personal economic confidence, not the merits of the EU.


----------



## Bleipriester

Dekster said:


> People who think they personally are on a good track will want to remain.  Those who think their life is not on a good track will want to leave.  This is a vote that will be decided by personal economic confidence, not the merits of the EU.


Both. And idiocy.
Just this minute there was a guy on TV telling he votes to stay because he likes food from other countries - as if the Brexit would draw an iron curtain around the UK.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for helping to confirm the correctness of a Brexit vote !!
> 
> So, we agree. The UK is faced with either keeping its national identity, or, having it swamped into non-existence by foreign powers.
> 
> Do we want our freedom ? Or, must we knuckle under to foreign power-mongers, who'll happily rob us of it ? It ultimately comes down to that.
> 
> What would British soldiers have said during WWII, to an argument that had us becoming subservient to a (- then -) European Reich, its leader, A Hitler ... ?? Would they have agreed with your sentiments today ?
> 
> They fought, and many died, for our freedom ! Would you like to tell us that their deaths were ultimately wasted, that we MUST bend to a European colossus, just because it IS one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Taid fought in the war. He was a big supporter of the EU because he thought we should work together to prevent another war. Your argument is disgraceful.
Click to expand...








 Just one out of millions and no doubt found the Union of Great Britain not to his liking at the same time.


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> At least, the Brits sucked some more national competences out of the EU in case they stay.







 Nope because before the ink was dry they were told the EU could renege on the deal at any time


----------



## Bleipriester

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, the Brits sucked some more national competences out of the EU in case they stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because before the ink was dry they were told the EU could renege on the deal at any time
Click to expand...

Proof?


----------



## HenryBHough

If "Remain" wins it will be testament that a majority of Britons are sad Hitler didn't win because they'll have chosen to be ruled from Germany.  Think of all the lives that could have been saved....well, white non-Jewish, non Romany lives.  And all the mental defectives that would have been rooted out in infancy.  But, wait, then how could a "Remain" vote have...............


----------



## LastProphet

*Female politician "killed" before "referendum": Brexit 2016 remake of Sweden eurozone 2003*
"_British Labour MP JO Cox didn't resist injuries_" = remake of "_Anna Lindh murdered in Sweden before the 2003 referendum_".
"Murdered" in headlines: all fake blood setting the stage for the BIG BANG.

Talk of setting the stage:
*Fake murder of a woman politician before a EU referendum: agenda is NOTto influence the result. *
Illuminati don't need that, because the other side is always ALSO led by illuminazi agents whose main role is to validate the rigged results.
Examples other than leaders of the Brexit 2016 and anti-eurozone in Sweden 2003 range from pro-independence in Scotland to anti-gay marriage in Ireland.

*So why did the illuminati stage the murders of Lindh in Sweden 2003 and Cox in England 2016?*
Answer: psychology, part of creating explanations to solve the contradiction between reality (rallies, stickers) and what will be announced as results.
In other words: have the human cattle accept the simulated reality.

*Contrast it with plane crashes, terror attacks and shark attacks.*
A general agenda of these series of fake blood is also  to set the psychological stage, but in this case not for human cattle to accept rigged results but to accept global slavery.
In other words: 
- episodes of these series will cause a few to voluntarily cancel plans for their holidays or weekends.
- yet the direct goal is not to strip human cattle from air travel, tourism and the beach but rather to make it easier for human cattle to accept to be stripped.
Reminder: global slavery, a world where there's no room for human cattle to relax, will be proclaimed following the imminent BIG BANG, that starts with the same actor in two acts within two days:
- Osama Bin Laden resurrects in Jerusalem crucified to the missing Boeing 777 caught on CCTV camera 
- Obama Bi(nla)den's presidency arrested on live TV. 

*BASICS*
See the context for Anna Lindh here: fake Putin stages the fake death of Nemtsov 
Illuminati faking deaths: Oppositor Boris Nemtsov killed by Putin for dummies: parallel script to Spock, Anna Lindh; reverse script to Anna Politkovskaya

Fake airliner crashes: "end of show" series.
Vaporized airliners of "all dead" type of fake crashes, from 9/11 to the ongoing "end of show" series.
General agenda now: set the stage for human cattle stripped from air travel.
Each episode and its specific agendas:
Hoaxes of End Times - for an audience reduced to cattle: Fake airliner crashes: end of show series.

Apr 2014:
Rigged Scotland's referendum: illuminati jokes with the actor playing #1 and #2 in UK's Britain's biggest lottery winners
Jokes by the Illuminati - mock the human cattle: Rigged Scotland independence referendum mocked by lottery jackpot collector


----------



## Igrok_

calm down, if britain had been to go away, it would not have been held at all. So, that voting is only for making a show for whose who are pro brexit. To kick them out of the game.


----------



## HenryBHough

No matter which way the vote goes it will be long remembered that Our Kenyan President used our tax money to fly His "private" 747 to Britain to threaten them if they didn't vote His way.

Great diplomacy, no?


----------



## Bleipriester

There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it

Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:





Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.


----------



## Bleipriester

Current YouGov poll after closure of the polling stations: 
Remain: 52 %
Leave: 48 %


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bleipriester said:


> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.


All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.


----------



## HenryBHough

Moments ago from BBC News:

"*There is no exit poll *- so the millions who cast a ballot will have to wait until results start coming in to find out how the country voted.:

"Flash floods in the South of England disrupted voting and led to some polling stations being relocated."


----------



## Bleipriester

Tommy Tainant said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
Click to expand...

Even for German conditions this "coverage" is ridiculous. But there is free press and they can express their opinions. However, bad decisions are not only made in Brussels but in national parliaments too.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Drummond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brexit"
> 
> This illustrates the fundamental failure that are democracies, and why the American Constitutional Republic is far superior and desirable, where such a significant issue wouldn’t be decided by referendum and simple ‘majority rule.’
> 
> In this case the UK might make the mistake of leaving the EU *because ignorant bigots and racists want to keep the ‘dark people’ out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for helping to confirm the correctness of a Brexit vote !!
> 
> So, we agree. The UK is faced with either keeping its national identity, or, having it swamped into non-existence by foreign powers.
> 
> Do we want our freedom ? Or, must we knuckle under to foreign power-mongers, who'll happily rob us of it ? It ultimately comes down to that.
> 
> What would British soldiers have said during WWII, to an argument that had us becoming subservient to a (- then -) European Reich, its leader, A Hitler ... ?? Would they have agreed with your sentiments today ?
> 
> They fought, and many died, for our freedom ! Would you like to tell us that their deaths were ultimately wasted, that we MUST bend to a European colossus, just because it IS one ?
Click to expand...


If Britain can't keep its own identity within the EU, it's not going to keep it outside either. The number of immigrants in the UK is high, not because of the EU, but because of the British government. Many of whom are from outside of the EU in the first place.

You keep thinking leaving the EU suddenly makes the UK government turn into the fairy godmother.


----------



## frigidweirdo

HenryBHough said:


> If "Remain" wins it will be testament that a majority of Britons are sad Hitler didn't win because they'll have chosen to be ruled from Germany.  Think of all the lives that could have been saved....well, white non-Jewish, non Romany lives.  And all the mental defectives that would have been rooted out in infancy.  But, wait, then how could a "Remain" vote have...............



Wow, this is a new low in Brexit thinking.


----------



## Dekster

Looks like the Leaves are winning right now and expected to win.  I suspect the theater shooting may have swayed some of the fence sitters toward the brexit.


----------



## Blackrook

OP was wrong.  Time to celebrate.


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, the Brits sucked some more national competences out of the EU in case they stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because before the ink was dry they were told the EU could renege on the deal at any time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...







 Posted two days ago and you ran for the hills then


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
Click to expand...







 Like you do you mean


----------



## there4eyeM

Strange that between the two critical positions, staying or leaving, the difference is so small.
Too bad for England, Europe and unity.


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ah. The same old Leftie argument, I see ... an interest in, and wish to, equate concerns about levels of immigration with racism and bigotry. [Gordon Brown tried that, in 2010, and where did it lead him ?]
> 
> I have three (.. rather tired, by now ? ..) points to make.
> 
> One - a country has a right to exercise controls over its own borders. Only a successful Brexit vote will achieve that for the UK.
> 
> Two - it's a matter of sheer practicality. The UK does not have either an infinitely-sized landmass capable of taking in everyone, neither does it have infinite resources to see to all their needs. Sooner or later (? sooner), the UK will find itself unable to cope with persistently large numbers of immigrants .. and certainly not with uncontrollable numbers coming in !
> 
> Three - Every country has a right to its own identity and its own path to take, to decide its own future. Again ... only a Brexit vote will serve to satisfy this, it seems to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One - why are so many non-EU citizens getting into the UK?
> 
> Two - Britain could have been dealing with all this immigration before, but didn't.
> 
> Three - Britain can still make its own identity being in the EU. Nothing will change in these respects being out of the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One & two .. I agree with the points you make (or intended to infer).
> 
> On three ... nonsense. The EU is moving towards a Federalistic SuperState. One day, none of its members will retain their identities as countries .. neither will we, if we remain.
> 
> Today, we've a chance for freedom. *We should take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU is making a move towards a federalist superstate. It will do so with or without the UK. It will still end up diluting the UK no matter what. Think Canada and the impact the US has on Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for helping to confirm the correctness of a Brexit vote !!
> 
> So, we agree. The UK is faced with either keeping its national identity, or, having it swamped into non-existence by foreign powers.
> 
> Do we want our freedom ? Or, must we knuckle under to foreign power-mongers, who'll happily rob us of it ? It ultimately comes down to that.
> 
> What would British soldiers have said during WWII, to an argument that had us becoming subservient to a (- then -) European Reich, its leader, A Hitler ... ?? Would they have agreed with your sentiments today ?
> 
> They fought, and many died, for our freedom ! Would you like to tell us that their deaths were ultimately wasted, that we MUST bend to a European colossus, just because it IS one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Britain can't keep its own identity within the EU, it's not going to keep it outside either. The number of immigrants in the UK is high, not because of the EU, but because of the British government. Many of whom are from outside of the EU in the first place.
> 
> You keep thinking leaving the EU suddenly makes the UK government turn into the fairy godmother.
Click to expand...









 Watch this space and you will see millions of migrants going the other way when they find they wont get any money


----------



## Tilly

I don't think I've ever been so happy. I'm proud of the U.K. For once. Yay!!!!
I guess Tammy stealing flags just wasn't enough. Lol.


----------



## Phoenall

there4eyeM said:


> Strange that between the two critical positions, staying or leaving, the difference is so small.
> Too bad for England, Europe and unity.









 Maybe Europe should have done their research and saw what the people wanted.  You watch the £ bounce back over the next week or so when Europe offers the olive branch


----------



## Phoenall

Tilly said:


> I don't think I've ever been so happy. I'm proud of the U.K. For once. Yay!!!!
> I guess Tammy stealing flags just wasn't enough. Lol.








 The latest is that Wales voted out while Scotland and N.I. voted stay.    Fishy is looking at a Scotland only deal with the EU because she knows she is on the ropes.


----------



## Drummond

Tilly said:


> I don't think I've ever been so happy. I'm proud of the U.K. For once. Yay!!!!
> I guess Tammy stealing flags just wasn't enough. Lol.



It's brilliant - isn't it ??

*Finally, we have the backbone to think OUR identity, OUR future, is worth fighting for. And we've done it with this vote.*

Do try not to be a sore loser, Tommy.


----------



## there4eyeM

Phoenall said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange that between the two critical positions, staying or leaving, the difference is so small.
> Too bad for England, Europe and unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Europe should have done their research and saw what the people wanted.  You watch the £ bounce back over the next week or so when Europe offers the olive branch
Click to expand...


Does this mean you think England will continue to negotiate as in the past with Europe, as exceptional and worthy of special treatment?


----------



## Freja

Congratulations to all the britts!! I'm so happy for you!!


----------



## Tilly

Freja said:


> Congratulations to all the britts!! I'm so happy for you!!


Thank you Freja  I wonder which country will be next?


----------



## Bleipriester

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, the Brits sucked some more national competences out of the EU in case they stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because before the ink was dry they were told the EU could renege on the deal at any time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted two days ago and you ran for the hills then
Click to expand...

What?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Tilly said:


> Freja said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations to all the britts!! I'm so happy for you!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Freja  I wonder which country will be next?
Click to expand...

Texas


----------



## Tilly

Wales voted Brexit.
Poor Tammy


----------



## Swagger

Is Timmy on suicide watch?


----------



## Bleipriester




----------



## Tilly

Swagger said:


> Is Timmy on suicide watch?


Lol. I just heard that 17 of the 22 local authorities in Wales voted Brexit. Quite a result!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tilly said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Timmy on suicide watch?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. I just heard that 17 of the 22 local authorities in Wales voted Brexit. Quite a result!
Click to expand...


Hardly surprising, the amount of English in Wales.


----------



## Andylusion

Tommy Tainant said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
Click to expand...


What have we learned?

Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.

So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.

However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.

Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.

And what have we learned...?

At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying 

"Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."

That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.  

Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.

And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.

So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.


----------



## Freja

Tilly said:


> Freja said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations to all the britts!! I'm so happy for you!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Freja  I wonder which country will be next?
Click to expand...

You're so welcome!!

I wish Sweden was next... but that's probably wishful thinking. Right now swedish media is talking about this like somebody died. 
Only Jimmie Åkesson has expressed happiness over the UK leaving, and that he wants Sweden do vote about it too. 
Heh... in this dictatorship they would never allow us to vote. 

The country I would guess is next is either Germany or France!


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tilly said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Timmy on suicide watch?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. I just heard that 17 of the 22 local authorities in Wales voted Brexit. Quite a result!
Click to expand...


*Wales*

Leave* 52.5%*
854,572 VOTES

Remain* 47.5%*
772,347 VOTES


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.
> 
> So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.
> 
> However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.
> 
> Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.
> 
> And what have we learned...?
> 
> At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying
> 
> "Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."
> 
> That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.
> 
> Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.
> 
> And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.
> 
> So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Tommy Tainant said:


> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Tommy Tainant said:


> Brexit Poll: Leave is falling away
> 
> The latest polls show that support for leaving is falling away.
> 
> The innate good sense of the British people comes to the rescue.
> 
> The outers are all about immigration but the real issue is jobs.
> 
> They cannot answer the most basic question.


----------



## Igrok_

totally unexpectable by me. Very interesting what is going to be now!


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.
> 
> So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.
> 
> However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.
> 
> Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.
> 
> And what have we learned...?
> 
> At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying
> 
> "Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."
> 
> That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.
> 
> Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.
> 
> And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.
> 
> So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
Click to expand...

Great news.  

National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?

Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

This is amazing, I truly didn't think the Brits had it in them.
It's good to see that there are at least some westerners in the world that still believe in their nations sovereignty and control of their own borders.


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.
> 
> So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.
> 
> However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.
> 
> Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.
> 
> And what have we learned...?
> 
> At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying
> 
> "Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."
> 
> That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.
> 
> Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.
> 
> And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.
> 
> So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
Click to expand...

I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it
> 
> Media outlets in Britain clearly make up their minds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the outcome of the referendum is not binding for the parliament. But Cameron promised to adhere to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.
> 
> So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.
> 
> However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.
> 
> Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.
> 
> And what have we learned...?
> 
> At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying
> 
> "Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."
> 
> That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.
> 
> Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.
> 
> And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.
> 
> So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.
Click to expand...

A system controlled by a very small criminal elite, always fails.


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of those papers are owned by people who do not pay British taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.
> 
> So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.
> 
> However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.
> 
> Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.
> 
> And what have we learned...?
> 
> At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying
> 
> "Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."
> 
> That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.
> 
> Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.
> 
> And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.
> 
> So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A system controlled by a very small criminal elite, always fails.
Click to expand...

Oh, it has worked for centuries. There wasn´t any progress, though.


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Roughly 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that the UK would leave the EU.  I didn't know when, but I assumed they would for reasons that have not been brought up anywhere in this thread, or any other thread I have been apart of.
> 
> So when this referendum came up, I assumed at the very start that they would leave.
> 
> However the only news I get on uniquely British affairs, is from the BBC, and SkyNews.   Well both of these sources made it seem like Brexit was finished, was done, was a non-starter.  The debate was over, and Brexit was busted, like the title of this thread suggests.
> 
> Now I never thought the UK would stay in the EU, again for reasons not listed anywhere on this forum that I know of.   But I just accepted the mass media's narrative, and assumed THIS vote was to stay.
> 
> And what have we learned...?
> 
> At 1 AM this morning (6 AM local UK), I was watching SkyNews, when the polls showed 50.1% to 49.9%, and they had one of these "experts" for the Remain Campaign, saying
> 
> "Well the votes that are reported, are all the rural areas.  The big city populations are pro-remain, and when those votes come in....."
> 
> That's when I knew they were talking out of their butt.
> 
> Every time you deal with a left-leaning people, they all talk only to other people that all thing the same way they do.  Then they simply assume that obviously everyone must think the way they do.
> 
> And the media, no matter how hard they try to be neutral, will always have some bias.  Always.   There is no such thing as 100% non-partisan reporting, because the individual has a world view of their own, and it will always influence what they report....  it might be a small influence, and it might be a MSNBC massive influence, but there is always some amount of influence.
> 
> So what did we learn?   Don't assume you know what the public thinks.   You don't.   Especially in a democracy, the mood and opinions change with the wind.   And don't trust the media to be the ultimate arbiter of truth.  They aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A system controlled by a very small criminal elite, always fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, it has worked for centuries. There wasn´t any progress, though.
Click to expand...

It has?

I think not.  Central government is responsible for more death, suffering, and destruction than any other force.  If we could just get rid of centralized government entirely, the world would be much better place.


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
> 
> 
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A system controlled by a very small criminal elite, always fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, it has worked for centuries. There wasn´t any progress, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has?
> 
> I think not.  Central government is responsible for more death, suffering, and destruction than any other force.  If we could just get rid of centralized government entirely, the world would be much better place.
Click to expand...

That was not what I meant. 
No centralized government? What do you want?


----------



## Tilly

Where is Tommy Tainant ? He was reading the board a little while ago. Guess he's not in the mood to post in his own thread


----------



## Iceweasel

Tilly said:


> Where is Tommy Tainant ? He was reading the board a little while ago. Guess he's not in the mood to post in his own thread


Are the pubs open over there?


----------



## Tilly

Iceweasel said:


> Tilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Tommy Tainant ? He was reading the board a little while ago. Guess he's not in the mood to post in his own thread
> 
> 
> 
> Are the pubs open over there?
Click to expand...

Yes. I guess he's nursing a warm pint of leek soup or something. Lol.


----------



## Care4all

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I never expected this referendum to take place at all! It was announced and announced...
> I also did not expect the referendum to be allowed to state: OUT.
> 
> 
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A system controlled by a very small criminal elite, always fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, it has worked for centuries. There wasn´t any progress, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has?
> 
> I think not.  Central government is responsible for more death, suffering, and destruction than any other force.  If we could just get rid of centralized government entirely, the world would be much better place.
Click to expand...

what does that mean for us?  dissolve the United States to get rid of our central govt, and each State becomes a country?


----------



## Mindful

Care4all said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great news.
> 
> National sovereignty over rule by a very small elite.  Is it any wonder they voted against the EU?
> 
> Now...if only the American people could vote down our central state government and make the states sovereign again.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is not the system of an Union that is the cause for concern but the total failure of this system. EU lawmaking is based on caprice and it does not consider the regional differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A system controlled by a very small criminal elite, always fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, it has worked for centuries. There wasn´t any progress, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has?
> 
> I think not.  Central government is responsible for more death, suffering, and destruction than any other force.  If we could just get rid of centralized government entirely, the world would be much better place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that mean for us?  dissolve the United States to get rid of our central govt, and each State becomes a country?
Click to expand...


Not at all.


----------



## Mindful

This is a wakeup call to Europe to initiate profound change in the EU.

David Cameron had tried for this, and failed, which brought about the referendum.


----------



## Bleipriester

Tilly said:


> Where is Tommy Tainant ? He was reading the board a little while ago. Guess he's not in the mood to post in his own thread


I rated that Tommy Tainant suicide post funny but now I am really concerned...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Hmmm, guess we had better stop laughing at the Americans who support Trump. Idiots do have a voice.

There is a long way to go on this one.

Once the negotiations start it will be very difficult for any British government to present the deal to the British public.

There will be a second referendum which will vote in.

What a waste of time.


----------



## Bleipriester

He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.


It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA. 

LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bleipriester said:


> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.


Well we have had one vote where people were not told,or were too thick , the consequences.Perhaps a vote on the deal would be more useful.
The idiots cheering on the prospect of a white britain are going to be disappointed.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
Click to expand...

Not nice Limey...

Look it up.


----------



## Bleipriester

Tommy Tainant said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we have had one vote where people were not told,or were too thick , the consequences.Perhaps a vote on the deal would be more useful.
> The idiots cheering on the prospect of a white britain are going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

The people expressed their opinion. It was close but the decision is made. You need to accept this or elsewhere don´t have a sense for democracy.
Further it is not about a white Britain but about a British Britain, which is naturally white. There is no problem with white skincolor. There is a problem with white people being oppressed in their own country. The Brits should not expect too much from a Brexit, though. In the end it is the national politics that allowed all this to happen. Don´t make it a racist thing - nobody complains of some migrants - in a reasonable framework.


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Do they? They are not going to Trump?


----------



## Unkotare

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
Click to expand...






Bitter...?


----------



## Unkotare

Tommy Tainant said:


> Hmmm, guess we had better stop laughing at the Americans who support Trump. Idiots do have a voice.
> 
> There is a long way to go on this one.
> 
> Once the negotiations start it will be very difficult for any British government to present the deal to the British public.
> 
> There will be a second referendum which will vote in.
> 
> What a waste of time.








Someone's going through the 5 stages...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Unkotare said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
Click to expand...

Very.


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they? They are not going to Trump?
Click to expand...

If you think Trump is the establishment choice, you are not paying attention.


----------



## Unkotare

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
Click to expand...






Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they? They are not going to Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think Trump is the establishment choice, you are not paying attention.
Click to expand...

I don´t think that. I thought Trump is the leftists´ second choice after Bernie´s defacto withdrawal.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Unkotare said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> He´s back, recovered and belligerent.
> Yeah, there could be another referendum. We know in "EU  Democracy" they keep repeating referendums until the wanted result has come.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
Click to expand...


Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result

Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News

When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"

If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.

So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.

Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.

The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.

The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.

A second vote is inevitable.

*"You cant always get what you want"*


----------



## HenryBHough

I'll be over that way in a couple of weeks so anyone needing a little help with their packing up house to move to Belgium....I COULD lend a hand:


----------



## Bleipriester

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
Click to expand...

I don´t think so. The voters were aware about what "experts" said about the consequences. And if that redirection causes a temporary decline in the economy it is not honest to meet the trouble halfway. The British economy is not in a good shape, anyway, with a small industry share and focus on financial services.


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think so. The voters were aware about what "experts" said about the consequences. And if that redirection causes a temporary decline in the economy it is not honest to meet the trouble halfway. The British economy is not in a good shape, anyway, with a small industry share and focus on financial services.
Click to expand...

When leftists don't get their way at the ballot box, they naturally think the majority are a bunch of knuckle dragging dummies.  Only they are the smart ones, yet leftism has always failed wherever it is tried.  Why you ask?  I shall tell you...because rule by a small group of elitists (like those ruling the EU) always results in stupidity, corruption, and ultimately death and suffering.


----------



## gipper

Hopefully this columnist is correct...

*'Brexit is Proof That Trump Will Be The Next President'*
*'Anti-immigration' message and shift to the Right that led to UK's seismic break with Europe draws parallels with rise of The Donald*


----------



## theHawk

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
Click to expand...


Classic leftist progressive response.  The people are too stupid to know what they voted for, so we'll just ignore it.  We're just going to keep holding elections/referendums until we get the result we want!

Progressive c_nts never change.


----------



## guno

*Brexit: Do you #Regrexit? UK voters voice doubt over referendum choice

From Brexit to #Regrexit -- an online petition demanding a second referendum on Britain's decision to leave the EU has passed 2 million signatures.

By Saturday afternoon, more than 2 million people had signed the petition on the official UK Parliament website.That number takes it well over the 100,000-signature threshold needed to force a debate on the issue by members of Parliament.
A rush to sign the petition caused the website to crash temporarily due to the high volume of traffic.


That news came as some voters who had backed the "Leave" campaign took to Twitter to register their regret -- adopting the #Regrexit hashtag.

Brexit: Do you #Regrexit? - CNNPolitics.com
*


----------



## Decus

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather amusing (really more like disgusting, but I am being kind) that many on the left lined up with the establishment with Brexit, just as they line up with the establishment candidate for POTUS in the USA.
> 
> LOL...and they consider themselves anti-establishment.  The Left is nothing if not hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
Click to expand...


The facts are that:

Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
England voted in favour of leaving the EU

Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU 

Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

.


----------



## HenryBHough

I will believe in the Second Coming of Christ - arriving on a pink Harley wearing an Elvis costume before I will accept the possibility of Ulster reuniting with Catholic, priest-ridden Ireland.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> 
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think so. The voters were aware about what "experts" said about the consequences. And if that redirection causes a temporary decline in the economy it is not honest to meet the trouble halfway. The British economy is not in a good shape, anyway, with a small industry share and focus on financial services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When leftists don't get their way at the ballot box, they naturally think the majority are a bunch of knuckle dragging dummies.  Only they are the smart ones, yet leftism has always failed wherever it is tried.  Why you ask?  I shall tell you...because rule by a small group of elitists (like those ruling the EU) always results in stupidity, corruption, and ultimately death and suffering.
Click to expand...

The left wanted a brexit you idiot.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Decus said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.


----------



## skye

Tommy Tainant said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> 
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
Click to expand...




  


joke of the day.


----------



## MaryL

Anyone that is brash enough on take on the moniker "Tommy." Love ya. I was shocked that Brexit passed, totally. But I get it, that is also why Trump is so popular in the states. There is a revolution  going on here, PEOPLE  don't like  being  dictated too by any group. We are breaking free from the tyranny of the left. Are you shocked?  Good, smell the bloody coffee.


----------



## Unkotare

Decus said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fuckwit. Tell me who the establishment is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...











Tragic?????


----------



## Unkotare

Tommy Tainant said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> 
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
Click to expand...









=   Stuck on denial.


----------



## HenryBHough

Alas, Tainted Tommy (sorry to see the common nickname for British soldiers so abused), The EU has knickers all in a twist and enjoying their hissy threat so thoroughly that Britain is FREE and is going to stay FREE whether, in future, it might wish to or not.  Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat spurned.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Unkotare said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.


----------



## Decus

Tommy Tainant said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter...?
> 
> 
> 
> Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
Click to expand...


Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:

_"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
_
Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News

Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendum.

.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

HenryBHough said:


> Alas, Tainted Tommy (sorry to see the common nickname for British soldiers so abused), The EU has knickers all in a twist and enjoying their hissy threat so thoroughly that Britain is FREE and is going to stay FREE whether, in future, it might wish to or not.  Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat spurned.


Free is  a concept that you do not understand.
People will not enjoy their "freedom" when they are signing on the dole.


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
Click to expand...

Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Decus said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendum.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Its unprecedented.But they wont want to lose the UK and will do what it takes.


----------



## HenryBHough

Decus said:


> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendum.
> 
> .



The reading I've done, and in the last days I've read a hell of a lot of British press, confirms that Article 50 must be activated within two years but that only (in this instance) Britain can activate it.  True there is all sorts of scurrying about to try to find a way to force activation but none yet has been found (as of this writing).


----------



## MaryL

Tommy Tainant said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendu
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its unprecedented.But they wont want to lose the UK and will do what it takes.
Click to expand...

I support the English, and if they want out, that is OK. It might hurt my 401k and the market, But I am ok with that. I really wished the UK had stayed in the EU. But I will stick with them, whatever.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

MaryL said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendu
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its unprecedented.But they wont want to lose the UK and will do what it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the English, and if they want out, that is OK. It might hurt my 401k and the market, But I am ok with that. I really wished the UK had stayed in the EU. But I will stick with them, whatever.
Click to expand...

It is now clear that the out campaign was a pack of lies. That cant be right.


----------



## Decus

HenryBHough said:


> I will believe in the Second Coming of Christ - arriving on a pink Harley wearing an Elvis costume before I will accept the possibility of Ulster reuniting with Catholic, priest-ridden Ireland.



An independent Ireland is too tempting even for a Protestant politician. 

_"The combined economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic could grow by more than €30bn if Ireland reunified, with the bulk of the benefits accruing north of the border, according to a highly speculative new report."_

Report proposes €30bn benefit from Irish reunification - FT.com

.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Decus said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will believe in the Second Coming of Christ - arriving on a pink Harley wearing an Elvis costume before I will accept the possibility of Ulster reuniting with Catholic, priest-ridden Ireland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An independent Ireland is too tempting even for a Protestant politician.
> 
> _"The combined economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic could grow by more than €30bn if Ireland reunified, with the bulk of the benefits accruing north of the border, according to a highly speculative new report."_
> 
> Report proposes €30bn benefit from Irish reunification - FT.com
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I cant see that happening anytime soon.More likely to see a resumption of sectarian violence. Lets hope that we have shit weather this summer.


----------



## Unkotare

Tommy Tainant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you respect that your fellow subjects have spoken or you don't. Consider carefully the conclusion if you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
Click to expand...






Having trouble accepting reality? You poor thing.


----------



## montelatici

Ireland is in line for receiving most of the companies and investment that went to the UK to be in the EU.  Unless Scotland exits and has a quick EU entry, maybe inheriting the UK's, Ireland, being the only English speaking country in the EU, will gain great benefits.  NI, Catholic and Protestant, will take that into consideration.  Of course, if Scotland exists quick enough, they will have to share.


----------



## MaryL

Well, I disagree with and  agree with it too Tommy. My take away is people don't like being dictated to by a minority of whatever group. There is a revolution going on here. Listen to us.


----------



## montelatici

MaryL said:


> Well, I disagree with and  agree with it too Tommy. My take away is people don't like being dictated to by a minority of whatever group. There is a revolution going on here. Listen to us.



What minority was that? The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  The empire is gone, so up your's English.  The EU will go on and may have a new member, Scotland.  NI will merge with Ireland who will receive much of the companies and investment that was going to the UK.  Sadly, the progressive and more educated English and Welsh are the losers.


----------



## Unkotare

montelatici said:


> The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  ......





That is obviously not the case, you dishonest douche.


----------



## montelatici

Unkotare said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is obviously not the case, you dishonest douche.
Click to expand...


That is exactly the case, you asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

montelatici said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is obviously not the case, you dishonest douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the case, you asshole.
Click to expand...



OK bigmouth,


montelatici said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is obviously not the case, you dishonest douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the case, you asshole.
Click to expand...



Wrong, idiot


----------



## Unkotare

montelatici said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is obviously not the case, you dishonest douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the case, you asshole.
Click to expand...



OK bigmouth, quote the British representative who said they insist on controlling 400 million other Europeans. Let's see it, big mouth.


----------



## Drummond

gipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News
> 
> When the brexit negotiations start it will become apparent how bad a deal it is for the UK. The government, whoever it is will be forced to go back to the country and say "this is the actual deal, do you still want it ?"
> 
> If there is no deal cut inside two years then british manufacturers will automatically face 12% tariffs when exporting to Europe. Why would Eurpean countries offer us better terms than that unless we knuckle down and accept the EU terms.
> 
> So you can have decent terms if you allow free movement and all the other stuff that the brexiteers hate.
> 
> Or you can pay through the nose and see jobs lost.
> 
> The reality of that will focus minds more than the fantasy weaved by the brexiters.
> 
> The former would be the status quo, the latter would be a disaster.
> 
> A second vote is inevitable.
> 
> *"You cant always get what you want"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
Click to expand...


This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.

Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.

Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*

More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.

Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !


----------



## Decus

HenryBHough said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendum.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reading I've done, and in the last days I've read a hell of a lot of British press, confirms that Article 50 must be activated within two years but that only (in this instance) Britain can activate it.  True there is all sorts of scurrying about to try to find a way to force activation but none yet has been found (as of this writing).
Click to expand...


The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.

The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:

_"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."

"It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_

Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News

The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.

.


----------



## Tilly

Tommy Tainant said:


> Hmmm, guess we had better stop laughing at the Americans who support Trump. Idiots do have a voice



So 60% of of your fellow Wrexhamites are idiots?
Good to know. 
Maybe you didn't do enough thieving of their Brexit banners. 
Nothing funnier than a bad loser. Lol.


----------



## Decus

HenryBHough said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendum.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reading I've done, and in the last days I've read a hell of a lot of British press, confirms that Article 50 must be activated within two years but that only (in this instance) Britain can activate it.  True there is all sorts of scurrying about to try to find a way to force activation but none yet has been found (as of this writing).
Click to expand...


The latest evidence that the EU will seek to trigger article 50 in the coming days:

_"Britain need not send a formal letter to the European Union to trigger a two-year countdown to its exit from the bloc, EU officials said, implying *British Prime Minister David Cameron could start the process when he speaks at a summit on Tuesday*."

"'Triggering' ... could either be a letter to the president of the European Council *or an official statement at a meeting of the European Council duly noted in the official records of the meeting*," a spokesman for the council of EU leaders said."_

'No need to write, David,' impatient EU tells Cameron

.


----------



## ESay

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its a process. The Brexit camp have already admitted that two of their main campaign planks were "misunderstood".
> Firstly that money saved by brexit would support the NHS. That aint gonna happen.
> Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS pledge' hours after EU referendum result
> 
> Secondly that the levels of immigration would fall. Again they have backtracked on that.
> EU referendum: No promise of immigration drop - Nigel Evans MP - BBC News




Marvelous.
Soon, on all TV channels of Britain, pro-Brexit politicians about their promises.


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
Click to expand...


Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.

Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.

Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.

The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain

I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made


----------



## gipper

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
Click to expand...

The propaganda and fear mongering by those who want elitist rule from Brussels, has unfortunately duped many.


----------



## Unkotare

Challenger said:


> ... Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from ...



So, anyone who disagrees with your lordship on this issue must have 'crawled out from under a rock'?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyone who disagrees with your lordship on this issue must have 'crawled out from under a rock'?
Click to expand...

They must demonize and marginalize their political opponents.  

I mean really...who wouldn't want to be ruled by a bunch of unaccountable elitists, with unlimited power????


----------



## Andylusion

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
Click to expand...


I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.

It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.

Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.

Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.

Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.


----------



## HenryBHough

Decus said:


> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .



And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.


----------



## Andylusion

HenryBHough said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.

You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave? 

This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.

Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.

Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.


----------



## Decus

HenryBHough said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
Click to expand...


Henry, can I call you Henry?....probably not. Anyway the issue is presenting voters with the facts and consequences of their vote, something that many who voted to leave the EU now claim they really didn't understand.....some who voted for Brexit in fact claim that they were lied to by politicians and now regret their vote to leave.

Several arguments were given by Brexit politicians in prompting voters to leave the EU. For example:

That the 350 million a week sent as the UK's contribution to the EU could be better spent on the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Leave the EU and save the NHS...........The morning after the vote UKIP's Mr. Farage admitted this was a mistake.

Another claim motivating voters to leave the EU was that it would reduce the number of immigrants in the UK. That was also a lie.

*"When asked to say if migration to the UK would fall significantly now the country was leaving the EU, Mr Evans answered: “No.""*

Nigel Evans says idea that Brexit will bring immigration down is a 'misunderstanding'

The argument that Brexit supporters made that they could simply renegotiate a trade deal with the EU freeing them from any of the present cost and obligations was the biggest lie of all. To access the EU market as an independent country the UK will have to follow a model similar to that used by Norway:

accept freedom of movement.
pay into the EU's structural fund
the UK will still have to abide by all the EU rules the British hate but now they will have no say or influence in their creation
Before the vote Norway paid more per capita to the EU than the UK because as an EU member country the UK enjoyed a rebate. Now the UK will have more to pay, no influence and all the rules they hate.

Brits look to Norway for post-Brexit model. Norwegians urge Brits to look again.

Brexit voters were lied to.

The next country should know the truth and consequences of their decision and should they choose to leave they do so as an informed choice, something that British voters were not given.

.


----------



## Drummond

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
Click to expand...


The markets change. They go down. They recover. It's been the established nature of them for around a century, at least !! 

Uncertainty is hated, and is reacted against. This is, RIGHT NOW, what the Brexit vote has supplied .. in their minds, anyway. But these circumstances will change, as they inevitably do, and a resurgence will happen. I can't say when. I can say with great confidence that it WILL. 

It's my belief that the EU is a house of cards just waiting to collapse. Possibly through other Member States quitting, but I think it far more likely that the end will come from another Greece-like fiscal default, only coming from a far larger economy, requiring a far larger and more crippling bailout to steady the scales. The crunch will come from the rest of the EU's fitness to respond .. and even their willingness to.

We will not be a part of any such unfolding failure. We will therefore do massively better ! Yes, WE are the long-term future of stable economics in my part of the world. I feel it !!


----------



## Drummond

Andylusion said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.
> 
> You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave?
> 
> This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.
> 
> Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.
> 
> Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.
Click to expand...


Unity is wanted because* power* is wanted. It's all about power. The greater the act of subsuming a nation to your will, the greater the power exercised.

The EU is all about remolding in order to consolidate power.

The EEC was its forerunner .. existing for the purpose of facilitating trade, and simply that. It's mutated out of all recognition to become a power-hungry colossus. 

The UK has a right to self-determination. Any of the EU's Member States do, and I wish them every success in gaining it. Yet ... to what extent does Brussels rule them ?

It's reckoned that it'll take around TEN years to 'de-louse' the British set of laws to remove all EU interference in our affairs, courtesy of them all !!!


----------



## MaryL

Tommy Tainant said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
> Wales voted in favour of leaving the EU
> England voted in favour of leaving the EU
> 
> Scotland voted in favour of staying in the EU and may now vote for independence and seek membership in the EU
> 
> Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying in the EU and could reunite with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU
> There will be no second referendum and Great Britain may have to change its name to reflect the fact that only two countries remain in the "United Kingdom" .......England and Wales.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> There will have to be a second referendum. The consequences of Brexit will be so grim that the public will need to be consulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once Article 50 is activated a deal has to be completed within 2 years, if not:
> 
> _"If no deal is reached, *membership will automatically cease two years after notification*"
> _
> Brexit referendum: EU ministers press UK for quick exit - BBC News
> 
> Hard to imagine that the 27 remaining EU countries would be willing to allow the UK a second referendu
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its unprecedented.But they wont want to lose the UK and will do what it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the English, and if they want out, that is OK. It might hurt my 401k and the market, But I am ok with that. I really wished the UK had stayed in the EU. But I will stick with them, whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is now clear that the out campaign was a pack of lies. That cant be right.
Click to expand...

It blew me away, I never thought after all the work of getting the UK in the EU would be taken away like that. And my understanding is older folks supported the leave push, and I respect that. I am sure there is a undercurrent to this that popular press or the netbots ignore. They can't anymore.


----------



## montelatici

The UK will devolve into England and Wales and will return to what it was, economically,  before it was allowed to join the EEC (now the EU).


----------



## MaryL

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I disagree with and  agree with it too Tommy. My take away is people don't like being dictated to by a minority of whatever group. There is a revolution going on here. Listen to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What minority was that? The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  The empire is gone, so up your's English.  The EU will go on and may have a new member, Scotland.  NI will merge with Ireland who will receive much of the companies and investment that was going to the UK.  Sadly, the progressive and more educated English and Welsh are the losers.
Click to expand...

The minority would be those that want Britain to remain in the EU, you fill in the blanks, Einstein. I would have rather they stayed in. It fills me with sadness and gloom, but I see this as a democratic revolution. Turn and face the changes.


----------



## montelatici

MaryL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I disagree with and  agree with it too Tommy. My take away is people don't like being dictated to by a minority of whatever group. There is a revolution going on here. Listen to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What minority was that? The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  The empire is gone, so up your's English.  The EU will go on and may have a new member, Scotland.  NI will merge with Ireland who will receive much of the companies and investment that was going to the UK.  Sadly, the progressive and more educated English and Welsh are the losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The minority would be those that want Britain to remain in the EU, you fill in the blanks, Einstein. I would have rather they stayed in. It fills me with sadness and gloom, but I see this as a democratic revolution. Turn and face the changes.
Click to expand...


The UK was a minority in the EU, you moron. They tried to dictate terms to the majority while representing 10% of the EU population.


----------



## MaryL

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I disagree with and  agree with it too Tommy. My take away is people don't like being dictated to by a minority of whatever group. There is a revolution going on here. Listen to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What minority was that? The problem is the English want it their way and believed their small minority should control the other 400 million Europeans.  The empire is gone, so up your's English.  The EU will go on and may have a new member, Scotland.  NI will merge with Ireland who will receive much of the companies and investment that was going to the UK.  Sadly, the progressive and more educated English and Welsh are the losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The minority would be those that want Britain to remain in the EU, you fill in the blanks, Einstein. I would have rather they stayed in. It fills me with sadness and gloom, but I see this as a democratic revolution. Turn and face the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK was a minority in the EU, you moron. They tried to dictate terms to the majority while representing 10% of the EU population.
Click to expand...

Yadda yadda yadda. The matter is settled, what do you hope to do here?


----------



## montelatici

I am very happy the UK has left the EU.  But, what are you hoping to here big mouth.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Andylusion said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> =   Stuck on denial.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
Click to expand...

They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.


----------



## Andylusion

Drummond said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.
> 
> You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave?
> 
> This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.
> 
> Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.
> 
> Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unity is wanted because* power* is wanted. It's all about power. The greater the act of subsuming a nation to your will, the greater the power exercised.
> 
> The EU is all about remolding in order to consolidate power.
> 
> The EEC was its forerunner .. existing for the purpose of facilitating trade, and simply that. It's mutated out of all recognition to become a power-hungry colossus.
> 
> The UK has a right to self-determination. Any of the EU's Member States do, and I wish them every success in gaining it. Yet ... to what extent does Brussels rule them ?
> 
> It's reckoned that it'll take around TEN years to 'de-louse' the British set of laws to remove all EU interference in our affairs, courtesy of them all !!!
Click to expand...


In some ways, you are correct.  But then, there is always a trade off.   We in Ohio, could declare independence from the Union as well.   And then we could make choices about immigrants, and taxes, and federal laws, and all sorts of things.

But then would we have the economic power that comes with being part of the union?  Answer?   Not even close.

There are always trades off in joining a group.  If I join a football time, I'm going to have to show up for practice.... every practice.  I'll have to deal with the freaks on the team, all of them.   I'll have to wear a uniform.   The trade off is that I'll end up traveling around all over the world, go to major sporting events with millions of people watching, and maybe win some trophies. 

And is there consolidation of power? Sure.  I have to do what the coach says too.  He's got authority over me.

Does Brussels have some authority over the UK while you are part of the Union?   Yes.   But by any reasonable measure, the UK has had more weight on the EU, than the EU had on the UK.  Historically the EU has given many concessions to the UK.  

That said, it's likely that leaving the EU will isolate England, and possibly mark the end of the United Kingdom.  Scotland has already signaled a possible referendum of their own to leave the UK, to stay in the EU.   North Ireland has said a willingness to consider reunification with greater Ireland, to stay in the EU.

That would leave Wales, which is a spec of dust on the map, and is part of England mainland.  In short, England will be an island again.

Moreover, while keeping out the immigrants seems like a bright idea in the short term, in the long run you have ruined England.  

The population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.   Today in England, the fertility rate is 1.8.    And it has been below the replacement rate for many years now.  The only reason England hasn't seen the dangerous economic stagnation that follows population decline that Japan has seen for decades now, is because of immigration, the exact thing you are cutting off.

So now, we're seeing the early signs of capital flight, and the next will be population flight.  Immigration to the UK will be replaced with emigration from the UK.

Nothing is set in stone of course.  All of this could be reversed.   Only time will tell.


----------



## montelatici

Excellent overview.


----------



## Andylusion

Tommy Tainant said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
Click to expand...


Do you really think that the EU will want you back after this?   I doubt it.  And if they do have you back, it most certainly won't be on any favorable terms.

Besides, where do you think all the business and banking markets are going to move to, with the UK leaving the EU?   To the EU.    Now surely they wouldn't want you to leave, but once you are gone, they won't have much reason to want you back.   They can't trust you now.  I wouldn't want you back myself.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him 'Leave Campaign Don't Have A Plan'

"
He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”

According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”."

How about this. The Tories are imploding (on top of Labour imploding), the economy's imploding..... well..... good time to go to Britain, to see the fireworks.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Andylusion said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think that the EU will want you back after this?   I doubt it.  And if they do have you back, it most certainly won't be on any favorable terms.
> 
> Besides, where do you think all the business and banking markets are going to move to, with the UK leaving the EU?   To the EU.    Now surely they wouldn't want you to leave, but once you are gone, they won't have much reason to want you back.   They can't trust you now.  I wouldn't want you back myself.
Click to expand...


Anyone who joins the EU now has to go into the Schengen Agreement. The UK hasn't actually declared that it's leaving, so... if there were an referendum before that, then they wouldn't be able to stop the UK staying.

However the chances of that are slim. It's general psychology. People won't like to admit their wrong no matter how bad things are, they'll continue to pretend things are good.


----------



## Andylusion

frigidweirdo said:


> Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him 'Leave Campaign Don't Have A Plan'
> 
> "
> He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
> 
> According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”."
> 
> How about this. The Tories are imploding (on top of Labour imploding), the economy's imploding..... well..... good time to go to Britain, to see the fireworks.



The plan is to leave the EU.    Gain control over immigration, control over regulation, and control over trade.     That was the plan.    I'm not sure what "plan" the other people expected to hear.


----------



## frigidweirdo

HenryBHough said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
Click to expand...


There's bullying and threatening there? Where?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Andylusion said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him 'Leave Campaign Don't Have A Plan'
> 
> "
> He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
> 
> According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”."
> 
> How about this. The Tories are imploding (on top of Labour imploding), the economy's imploding..... well..... good time to go to Britain, to see the fireworks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plan is to leave the EU.    Gain control over immigration, control over regulation, and control over trade.     That was the plan.    I'm not sure what "plan" the other people expected to hear.
Click to expand...


Well.... you know, like details. Somewhere to start.


----------



## Challenger

This was published on Facebook and not written by me, but it sums up the current situation very well:

"If you voted out because of "unelected politicians" then well done because we're about to get an unelected prime minister.

If you voted out because of immigration then well done, because you just lost the right of free movement too. Just wait 'til you have to get a visa to go to Glasgow or Belfast.

If you voted out because people were "stealing your jobs" then well done, because you're about to see Germany and France "steal" Nissan and a bunch of other companies who only manufacture here as a gateway to the eu market.

If you voted out because you think we'll get a great trade deal with the EEA "like Norway did", think again. Take a look around your Sainsbury's Local and try and find any fruit and veg that's grown in the UK. We need them more than they need us, and like the EEA, we'll have to accept EU policies like free movement as part of a trade deal anyway - except now we won't be able to have any say in them.

If you voted out because of vague scaremongering headlines like "Migrant Crisis" then please, feel free to remind me when it was that Syria joined the EU.

If you voted out because Farage promised £350m for the NHS, then I'm sure you'll be happy to watch him on This Morning revealing that that was a lie.

If you voted out and you're heading into retirement, then great job! Because now the working people of this nation will break their backs to afford your pension without the influx of young, economically active and skilled EU migrants.

If you voted out because you think we'll be better off, the £ has just fallen by 8% against the dollar.

And if you voted out because you love this country, prepare to see it crumble, with threats of a unified Ireland and an independent Scotland just hours after the result was confirmed.

Well done, Britain."

In 10-12 years time one of us will be able to post on this or another forum *"I told you so"* to be brutally honerst, I sincerely hope it's not me.


----------



## Challenger

Tommy Tainant said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might ask an adult to help you form an argument. At the moment you support the public not having the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
Click to expand...


There won't be another referendum in two years, it'll be far too late by then.


----------



## Andylusion

frigidweirdo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him 'Leave Campaign Don't Have A Plan'
> 
> "
> He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
> 
> According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”."
> 
> How about this. The Tories are imploding (on top of Labour imploding), the economy's imploding..... well..... good time to go to Britain, to see the fireworks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plan is to leave the EU.    Gain control over immigration, control over regulation, and control over trade.     That was the plan.    I'm not sure what "plan" the other people expected to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... you know, like details. Somewhere to start.
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not sure what details you want, that are not obvious.   At least it's obvious to me.  You start negotiating new trade deals, to replace EU deals.  You pass your own immigration laws and boarder control, to replace the EU laws.   You pass your own regulations, to replace EU regulations.

All of which the government of the UK has announced starting.

Now maybe you want the details of exactly what trade agreement they will come up with.  But that isn't the point to many of the Leave Campaign people.   Even if they come up with a trade deal that exactly mirrors the EU deal, the point wasn't necessarily to have a different deal.  The point was to have control over the deal, instead of having terms dictated by Brussels.

Even if they negotiate the same deal of free movement of people across boarders, the point was to have control over their boarders themselves.

Even if they put in place the same regulations, the point was to have control over those regulations, rather than Brussels.

It's impossible to know exactly what the details are going to be on any of this, until the negotiations are signed.   That's unavoidable in any treaty negotiations.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Andylusion said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him 'Leave Campaign Don't Have A Plan'
> 
> "
> He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
> 
> According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”."
> 
> How about this. The Tories are imploding (on top of Labour imploding), the economy's imploding..... well..... good time to go to Britain, to see the fireworks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plan is to leave the EU.    Gain control over immigration, control over regulation, and control over trade.     That was the plan.    I'm not sure what "plan" the other people expected to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... you know, like details. Somewhere to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not sure what details you want, that are not obvious.   At least it's obvious to me.  You start negotiating new trade deals, to replace EU deals.  You pass your own immigration laws and boarder control, to replace the EU laws.   You pass your own regulations, to replace EU regulations.
> 
> All of which the government of the UK has announced starting.
> 
> Now maybe you want the details of exactly what trade agreement they will come up with.  But that isn't the point to many of the Leave Campaign people.   Even if they come up with a trade deal that exactly mirrors the EU deal, the point wasn't necessarily to have a different deal.  The point was to have control over the deal, instead of having terms dictated by Brussels.
> 
> Even if they negotiate the same deal of free movement of people across boarders, the point was to have control over their boarders themselves.
> 
> Even if they put in place the same regulations, the point was to have control over those regulations, rather than Brussels.
> 
> It's impossible to know exactly what the details are going to be on any of this, until the negotiations are signed.   That's unavoidable in any treaty negotiations.
Click to expand...


What kind of immigration deal? 

The UK could decide to join the Schengen Agreement. You'd want to know that if you were voting out, right? Or it could be all EU citizens out, you'd want to know that too, right? What kind of immigration? They just said "we'd control our own borders", well to be honest the UK has done that for non-EU citizens for the whole of eternity, and not done a great job of it, so what does it actually mean? What have people actually voted for? Nothing, just a "we'll control border", doesn't mean much.


----------



## gipper

Andylusion said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.
> 
> You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave?
> 
> This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.
> 
> Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.
> 
> Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unity is wanted because* power* is wanted. It's all about power. The greater the act of subsuming a nation to your will, the greater the power exercised.
> 
> The EU is all about remolding in order to consolidate power.
> 
> The EEC was its forerunner .. existing for the purpose of facilitating trade, and simply that. It's mutated out of all recognition to become a power-hungry colossus.
> 
> The UK has a right to self-determination. Any of the EU's Member States do, and I wish them every success in gaining it. Yet ... to what extent does Brussels rule them ?
> 
> It's reckoned that it'll take around TEN years to 'de-louse' the British set of laws to remove all EU interference in our affairs, courtesy of them all !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some ways, you are correct.  But then, there is always a trade off.   We in Ohio, could declare independence from the Union as well.   And then we could make choices about immigrants, and taxes, and federal laws, and all sorts of things.
> 
> But then would we have the economic power that comes with being part of the union?  Answer?   Not even close.
> 
> There are always trades off in joining a group.  If I join a football time, I'm going to have to show up for practice.... every practice.  I'll have to deal with the freaks on the team, all of them.   I'll have to wear a uniform.   The trade off is that I'll end up traveling around all over the world, go to major sporting events with millions of people watching, and maybe win some trophies.
> 
> And is there consolidation of power? Sure.  I have to do what the coach says too.  He's got authority over me.
> 
> Does Brussels have some authority over the UK while you are part of the Union?   Yes.   But by any reasonable measure, the UK has had more weight on the EU, than the EU had on the UK.  Historically the EU has given many concessions to the UK.
> 
> That said, it's likely that leaving the EU will isolate England, and possibly mark the end of the United Kingdom.  Scotland has already signaled a possible referendum of their own to leave the UK, to stay in the EU.   North Ireland has said a willingness to consider reunification with greater Ireland, to stay in the EU.
> 
> That would leave Wales, which is a spec of dust on the map, and is part of England mainland.  In short, England will be an island again.
> 
> Moreover, while keeping out the immigrants seems like a bright idea in the short term, in the long run you have ruined England.
> 
> The population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.   Today in England, the fertility rate is 1.8.    And it has been below the replacement rate for many years now.  The only reason England hasn't seen the dangerous economic stagnation that follows population decline that Japan has seen for decades now, is because of immigration, the exact thing you are cutting off.
> 
> So now, we're seeing the early signs of capital flight, and the next will be population flight.  Immigration to the UK will be replaced with emigration from the UK.
> 
> Nothing is set in stone of course.  All of this could be reversed.   Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

Great Britain did quite well for many centuries and was not part of a union of other nations, ruled by unaccountable elites with unlimited power.  This belief that nations must centralize to thrive, is foolish and dangerous.  

To think GB must have immigration to stay economically viable and increase population, is silly and factually incorrect.  Reduce the burden of government and the people will thrive.  Socialism destroys the will of the people, resulting in economic and demographic stagnation..clearly evident throughout western Europe.  This is known by anyone who bothers to study Socialism, but the elites love socialism because it gives them all the power and they easily dupe a good percentage of the people into their tyrannical ways.


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU wants the exit to take place as quickly as possible to avoid further chaos. The longer the exit lasts the more toxic it becomes. France will hold presidential elections in 2017 and Le Pen has said she wants a referendum for France. If the EU doesn't make it clear before than that leaving the EU has undesirable consequences and pushes French voters to elect someone other than Le Pen than the EU is finished.
> 
> The EU seems ready to accept any statement by the British in order to claim that notification under article 50 has been delivered:
> 
> _"The European Union has clarified the way the UK can kickstart formal negotiations to exit the bloc following Thursday's referendum."
> 
> "It says Britain can trigger Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for a deal, by making a formal declaration either in a letter *or a speech*."_
> 
> Brexit: EU spells out procedure for UK to leave - BBC News
> 
> The EU wants them out now and will look to any justification to do so.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.
> 
> You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave?
> 
> This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.
> 
> Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.
> 
> Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unity is wanted because* power* is wanted. It's all about power. The greater the act of subsuming a nation to your will, the greater the power exercised.
> 
> The EU is all about remolding in order to consolidate power.
> 
> The EEC was its forerunner .. existing for the purpose of facilitating trade, and simply that. It's mutated out of all recognition to become a power-hungry colossus.
> 
> The UK has a right to self-determination. Any of the EU's Member States do, and I wish them every success in gaining it. Yet ... to what extent does Brussels rule them ?
> 
> It's reckoned that it'll take around TEN years to 'de-louse' the British set of laws to remove all EU interference in our affairs, courtesy of them all !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some ways, you are correct.  But then, there is always a trade off.   We in Ohio, could declare independence from the Union as well.   And then we could make choices about immigrants, and taxes, and federal laws, and all sorts of things.
> 
> But then would we have the economic power that comes with being part of the union?  Answer?   Not even close.
> 
> There are always trades off in joining a group.  If I join a football time, I'm going to have to show up for practice.... every practice.  I'll have to deal with the freaks on the team, all of them.   I'll have to wear a uniform.   The trade off is that I'll end up traveling around all over the world, go to major sporting events with millions of people watching, and maybe win some trophies.
> 
> And is there consolidation of power? Sure.  I have to do what the coach says too.  He's got authority over me.
> 
> Does Brussels have some authority over the UK while you are part of the Union?   Yes.   But by any reasonable measure, the UK has had more weight on the EU, than the EU had on the UK.  Historically the EU has given many concessions to the UK.
> 
> That said, it's likely that leaving the EU will isolate England, and possibly mark the end of the United Kingdom.  Scotland has already signaled a possible referendum of their own to leave the UK, to stay in the EU.   North Ireland has said a willingness to consider reunification with greater Ireland, to stay in the EU.
> 
> That would leave Wales, which is a spec of dust on the map, and is part of England mainland.  In short, England will be an island again.
> 
> Moreover, while keeping out the immigrants seems like a bright idea in the short term, in the long run you have ruined England.
> 
> The population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.   Today in England, the fertility rate is 1.8.    And it has been below the replacement rate for many years now.  The only reason England hasn't seen the dangerous economic stagnation that follows population decline that Japan has seen for decades now, is because of immigration, the exact thing you are cutting off.
> 
> So now, we're seeing the early signs of capital flight, and the next will be population flight.  Immigration to the UK will be replaced with emigration from the UK.
> 
> Nothing is set in stone of course.  All of this could be reversed.   Only time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great Britain did quite well for many centuries and was not part of a union of other nations, ruled by unaccountable elites with unlimited power.  This belief that nations must centralize to thrive, is foolish and dangerous.
> 
> To think GB must have immigration to stay economically viable and increase population, is silly and factually incorrect.  Reduce the burden of government and the people will thrive.  Socialism destroys the will of the people, resulting in economic and demographic stagnation..clearly evident throughout western Europe.  This is known by anyone who bothers to study Socialism, but the elites love socialism because it gives them all the power and they easily dupe a good percentage of the people into their tyrannical ways.
Click to expand...

EU is economical neoliberal, not socialist. It is furthermore not the type of government that leads to oppression but the way the leaders rule. Socialism was invented for the people, it is basically a good idea. However, when it results in seizing even the smallest property and in incarceration of critics, they didn´t understand the idea of socialism.


----------



## gipper

Bleipriester said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  Confirmation that The EU is all about bullying and threatening.  Even trying to interfere in national elections.  May I please have your permission to forward this to Ms. Le Pen?  I'm sure it would be helpful in convincing French voters that the change in national leadership has to come quickly if their freedom to vote in/out is to be maintained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.
> 
> You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave?
> 
> This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.
> 
> Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.
> 
> Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unity is wanted because* power* is wanted. It's all about power. The greater the act of subsuming a nation to your will, the greater the power exercised.
> 
> The EU is all about remolding in order to consolidate power.
> 
> The EEC was its forerunner .. existing for the purpose of facilitating trade, and simply that. It's mutated out of all recognition to become a power-hungry colossus.
> 
> The UK has a right to self-determination. Any of the EU's Member States do, and I wish them every success in gaining it. Yet ... to what extent does Brussels rule them ?
> 
> It's reckoned that it'll take around TEN years to 'de-louse' the British set of laws to remove all EU interference in our affairs, courtesy of them all !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some ways, you are correct.  But then, there is always a trade off.   We in Ohio, could declare independence from the Union as well.   And then we could make choices about immigrants, and taxes, and federal laws, and all sorts of things.
> 
> But then would we have the economic power that comes with being part of the union?  Answer?   Not even close.
> 
> There are always trades off in joining a group.  If I join a football time, I'm going to have to show up for practice.... every practice.  I'll have to deal with the freaks on the team, all of them.   I'll have to wear a uniform.   The trade off is that I'll end up traveling around all over the world, go to major sporting events with millions of people watching, and maybe win some trophies.
> 
> And is there consolidation of power? Sure.  I have to do what the coach says too.  He's got authority over me.
> 
> Does Brussels have some authority over the UK while you are part of the Union?   Yes.   But by any reasonable measure, the UK has had more weight on the EU, than the EU had on the UK.  Historically the EU has given many concessions to the UK.
> 
> That said, it's likely that leaving the EU will isolate England, and possibly mark the end of the United Kingdom.  Scotland has already signaled a possible referendum of their own to leave the UK, to stay in the EU.   North Ireland has said a willingness to consider reunification with greater Ireland, to stay in the EU.
> 
> That would leave Wales, which is a spec of dust on the map, and is part of England mainland.  In short, England will be an island again.
> 
> Moreover, while keeping out the immigrants seems like a bright idea in the short term, in the long run you have ruined England.
> 
> The population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.   Today in England, the fertility rate is 1.8.    And it has been below the replacement rate for many years now.  The only reason England hasn't seen the dangerous economic stagnation that follows population decline that Japan has seen for decades now, is because of immigration, the exact thing you are cutting off.
> 
> So now, we're seeing the early signs of capital flight, and the next will be population flight.  Immigration to the UK will be replaced with emigration from the UK.
> 
> Nothing is set in stone of course.  All of this could be reversed.   Only time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great Britain did quite well for many centuries and was not part of a union of other nations, ruled by unaccountable elites with unlimited power.  This belief that nations must centralize to thrive, is foolish and dangerous.
> 
> To think GB must have immigration to stay economically viable and increase population, is silly and factually incorrect.  Reduce the burden of government and the people will thrive.  Socialism destroys the will of the people, resulting in economic and demographic stagnation..clearly evident throughout western Europe.  This is known by anyone who bothers to study Socialism, but the elites love socialism because it gives them all the power and they easily dupe a good percentage of the people into their tyrannical ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EU is economical neoliberal, not socialist. It is furthermore not the type of government that leads to oppression but the way the leaders rule. Socialism was invented for the people, it is basically a good idea. However, when it results in seizing even the smallest property and in incarceration of critics, they didn´t understand the idea of socialism.
Click to expand...

Whatever you prefer to call it, is fine by me.  Essentially socialism in practice is centralizing power into the hands of a few elites, which is why elites love it.  It is big unaccountable unlimited government and this form of government never works well, for a majority of the people.


----------



## Drummond

Challenger said:


> This was published on Facebook and not written by me, but it sums up the current situation very well:
> 
> "If you voted out because of "unelected politicians" then well done because we're about to get an unelected prime minister.
> 
> If you voted out because of immigration then well done, because you just lost the right of free movement too. Just wait 'til you have to get a visa to go to Glasgow or Belfast.
> 
> If you voted out because people were "stealing your jobs" then well done, because you're about to see Germany and France "steal" Nissan and a bunch of other companies who only manufacture here as a gateway to the eu market.
> 
> If you voted out because you think we'll get a great trade deal with the EEA "like Norway did", think again. Take a look around your Sainsbury's Local and try and find any fruit and veg that's grown in the UK. We need them more than they need us, and like the EEA, we'll have to accept EU policies like free movement as part of a trade deal anyway - except now we won't be able to have any say in them.
> 
> If you voted out because of vague scaremongering headlines like "Migrant Crisis" then please, feel free to remind me when it was that Syria joined the EU.
> 
> If you voted out because Farage promised £350m for the NHS, then I'm sure you'll be happy to watch him on This Morning revealing that that was a lie.
> 
> If you voted out and you're heading into retirement, then great job! Because now the working people of this nation will break their backs to afford your pension without the influx of young, economically active and skilled EU migrants.
> 
> If you voted out because you think we'll be better off, the £ has just fallen by 8% against the dollar.
> 
> And if you voted out because you love this country, prepare to see it crumble, with threats of a unified Ireland and an independent Scotland just hours after the result was confirmed.
> 
> Well done, Britain."
> 
> In 10-12 years time one of us will be able to post on this or another forum *"I told you so"* to be brutally honerst, I sincerely hope it's not me.



The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny. To be free to fully govern ourselves. They did so democratically, and as part of a process which should receive all proper respect. Those refusing to show respect for such a process are, at bare minimum, engaging in 'sour grapes', and uselessly. The decision's been made - live with it.

As for this, from the above ...

*'If you voted out because of vague scaremongering headlines like "Migrant Crisis" then please, feel free to remind me when it was that Syria joined the EU.'*

... that surely has its 'funny' side ?

Syria didn't 'join' the EU through democratic process. But millions of their people did decide to 'join' us, or more precisely, to force themselves upon us. The EU's response to that invasion: accommodate them. Berate countries resisting the demand to 'take their share'.

Member States didn't ask for any of this, but the control-freaking EU still demanded that they all do their 'share' to take them. Those people are largely unvetted (how can you properly check such numbers, and from a war-torn country where it must be nearly impossible to get such information, freely and efficiently ?). Unvetted or not, the EU still chose its path. And - to all intents and purposes, it may well make sense to say that Syria 'did join'.

Let's say ... 'they voted with their feet'. How about that ?

In the meantime, the UK has voted for greater immigration control. We have that right, and we've exercised it. You don't like it ? Tough ....


----------



## Bleipriester

gipper said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the UK, or any other nation, has never done that.
> 
> You flipped off the EU, and now you are complaining because they want you out even more than you want to leave?
> 
> This is how it works dude.  The EU has been fighting to keep unity for several years now, and you just slapped them in the face with the biggest 'screw you' vote since the EU was formed.
> 
> Now you expect them to be happy and friendly as you leave?  I'm not sure what you expected the reaction of the EU to be after spending 5 years trying to hold the EU together, only to have the UK suddenly and abruptly vacate, but your expectations are unreasonable.
> 
> Not don't get me wrong.  I don't know if leaving the EU was good or bad in the long run.   But spare me this complaining and moaning about how the EU is taking this badly.    You should have known from the very start, that leaving the EU would have consequences, and that you were going to make a ton of people extremely upset.   You made that choice, so buck up and take it, and stop whining about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unity is wanted because* power* is wanted. It's all about power. The greater the act of subsuming a nation to your will, the greater the power exercised.
> 
> The EU is all about remolding in order to consolidate power.
> 
> The EEC was its forerunner .. existing for the purpose of facilitating trade, and simply that. It's mutated out of all recognition to become a power-hungry colossus.
> 
> The UK has a right to self-determination. Any of the EU's Member States do, and I wish them every success in gaining it. Yet ... to what extent does Brussels rule them ?
> 
> It's reckoned that it'll take around TEN years to 'de-louse' the British set of laws to remove all EU interference in our affairs, courtesy of them all !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some ways, you are correct.  But then, there is always a trade off.   We in Ohio, could declare independence from the Union as well.   And then we could make choices about immigrants, and taxes, and federal laws, and all sorts of things.
> 
> But then would we have the economic power that comes with being part of the union?  Answer?   Not even close.
> 
> There are always trades off in joining a group.  If I join a football time, I'm going to have to show up for practice.... every practice.  I'll have to deal with the freaks on the team, all of them.   I'll have to wear a uniform.   The trade off is that I'll end up traveling around all over the world, go to major sporting events with millions of people watching, and maybe win some trophies.
> 
> And is there consolidation of power? Sure.  I have to do what the coach says too.  He's got authority over me.
> 
> Does Brussels have some authority over the UK while you are part of the Union?   Yes.   But by any reasonable measure, the UK has had more weight on the EU, than the EU had on the UK.  Historically the EU has given many concessions to the UK.
> 
> That said, it's likely that leaving the EU will isolate England, and possibly mark the end of the United Kingdom.  Scotland has already signaled a possible referendum of their own to leave the UK, to stay in the EU.   North Ireland has said a willingness to consider reunification with greater Ireland, to stay in the EU.
> 
> That would leave Wales, which is a spec of dust on the map, and is part of England mainland.  In short, England will be an island again.
> 
> Moreover, while keeping out the immigrants seems like a bright idea in the short term, in the long run you have ruined England.
> 
> The population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.   Today in England, the fertility rate is 1.8.    And it has been below the replacement rate for many years now.  The only reason England hasn't seen the dangerous economic stagnation that follows population decline that Japan has seen for decades now, is because of immigration, the exact thing you are cutting off.
> 
> So now, we're seeing the early signs of capital flight, and the next will be population flight.  Immigration to the UK will be replaced with emigration from the UK.
> 
> Nothing is set in stone of course.  All of this could be reversed.   Only time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great Britain did quite well for many centuries and was not part of a union of other nations, ruled by unaccountable elites with unlimited power.  This belief that nations must centralize to thrive, is foolish and dangerous.
> 
> To think GB must have immigration to stay economically viable and increase population, is silly and factually incorrect.  Reduce the burden of government and the people will thrive.  Socialism destroys the will of the people, resulting in economic and demographic stagnation..clearly evident throughout western Europe.  This is known by anyone who bothers to study Socialism, but the elites love socialism because it gives them all the power and they easily dupe a good percentage of the people into their tyrannical ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EU is economical neoliberal, not socialist. It is furthermore not the type of government that leads to oppression but the way the leaders rule. Socialism was invented for the people, it is basically a good idea. However, when it results in seizing even the smallest property and in incarceration of critics, they didn´t understand the idea of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever you prefer to call it, is fine by me.  Essentially socialism in practice is centralizing power into the hands of a few elites, which is why elites love it.  It is big unaccountable unlimited government and this form of government never works well, for a majority of the people.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Example: In the 50´s the GDR government attempted to increase working time but the unions didn´t sign and it wasn´t implemented. The Soviet T-34 were rolling in, though, but when they got how things were working there, they slowly rolled home. This despite the GDR was not a very democratic state.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Challenger said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Limey, get your fat ass to bed.  Its late and your cognitive abilities have failed you once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There won't be another referendum in two years, it'll be far too late by then.
Click to expand...

Nah, there is a long way to go yet. None of the detail has been worked through yet. As the full horror unfolds people will rethink.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There won't be another referendum in two years, it'll be far too late by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, there is a long way to go yet. None of the detail has been worked through yet. As the full horror unfolds people will rethink.
Click to expand...


They'll prefer to be ruled by the EU, rather than have their own freedom ?


----------



## Bleipriester

*The Full Horror*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Drummond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There won't be another referendum in two years, it'll be far too late by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, there is a long way to go yet. None of the detail has been worked through yet. As the full horror unfolds people will rethink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'll prefer to be ruled by the EU, rather than have their own freedom ?
Click to expand...

Still trotting out the lies I see. Not much freedom for people without jobs or unable to retire.


----------



## HenryBHough

Hitler had to learn the hard way that The British do not respond at all well to threats.  Now it's the neo-fascist's turn to be schooled.  Hard cheese.


----------



## Drummond

Tommy Tainant said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> 
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There won't be another referendum in two years, it'll be far too late by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, there is a long way to go yet. None of the detail has been worked through yet. As the full horror unfolds people will rethink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'll prefer to be ruled by the EU, rather than have their own freedom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trotting out the lies I see. Not much freedom for people without jobs or unable to retire.
Click to expand...


I asked you this question:  '*They'll prefer to be ruled by the EU, rather than have their own freedom ?*'. Do you have a proper reply for me, rather than something snide ?

Then again ... how many times have I asked you to give an estimate of where the numbers of immigrants here reach too great a number. Unless you do choose to reply, I'd have to assume your view was that we take an infinite number. Which of course is ridiculous ... YET ... consistent with the way the EU acted ....


----------



## Bleipriester

News:
Second EU referendum petition FRAUD: Thousands sign who AREN'T FROM UK


----------



## Tilly

Bleipriester said:


> News:
> Second EU referendum petition FRAUD: Thousands sign who AREN'T FROM UK


40,000 from the Vatican, which has a population of 830


----------



## Vikrant

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'Limey' shames us other Limeys.
> 
> Fact is that we voted for, and will obtain, our freedom from a bureaucratic, largely undemocratic control-freaking colossus. One moving towards so-called 'SuperState' status, in which all its member States must march to the beat of the Brussels drum. No freedom to do otherwise.
> 
> Here's the truth. The UK, until it formally cuts ties with the EU, will have to maintain porous borders, meaning that 50 percent of all immigration is out of its control.* This is unacceptable, and our electorate found it to be. They acted accordingly.*
> 
> More ... the EU is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Greece, with its small economy, nonetheless gave the EU a major headache not too long ago. Similar, but rather larger 'headaches' can be expected when other weak economies default in future. I don't believe the EU will ultimately stand up to the enormous pressures this will foist on other EU members ... and we'll see the EU eventually disintegrate.
> 
> Happily, we'll have got out in time. I believe the UK's long-term future is the brightest one of all on my part of the planet !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The £ in freefall, the equivalent of 15 years EU contributions wiped off the stock market in a single day, the Brexit lying scum actually having the gall to admit they lied about the how they'd pend the £350million a day on the NHS (whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view) amongst other lies they peddled. France overtaking us as the world's 5th largest economy, loosing our AAA credit rating....and we haven't formally said we're leaving yet.
> 
> Long term, macro-economically, means a periond of around 7-10 years, that added to the 2 year exit, means we're looking at 9-12 years of chaos and "super-austerity", with no guarentee of things improving after that time. That brightness you see on this particular part of the planet is the flash of the nuclear explosion, just before the fireball engulfs not only you, but the next generation.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Brexiters are crawling out from whatever rocks they came from and sayind "I didn't mean it" makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen and how monumentaly stupid they've been.
> 
> The Bregretters! Meet the voters who wish they'd chosen to remain
> 
> I voted for Brexit - and now I realise what a terrible mistake I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain either way on the entire thing, but I have to laugh at your post for a different reason.
> 
> It's funny how people run around "Democracy!" this, and "Democracy" that, and it's democracy wonderful, and isn't democracy fantastic, and democracy will fix everything.
> 
> Then you get the democracy you want.... and all of a sudden.... "whoever believed that in the first place, is too stupid to be allowed a vote, in my view".   Suddenly you shouldn't have democracy if you believe that!   And "ashamed of my fellow countrymen" who engaged in Democracy.
> 
> Funny how that works.   Democracy is great and wonderful and perfect, and the solution to all problems, until.... they vote against you, and then how dare they, how stupid of them, how dumb the public is.  They shouldn't have Democracy.
> 
> Dude... this is democracy.  You are getting what you asked for.  The public spoke.   Power to the people man.  That's how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lied about the major part of their campaign. That is not democracy it is fascism. Another referendum will happen in a couple of years. Hopefully by then people will actually understand the real consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There won't be another referendum in two years, it'll be far too late by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, there is a long way to go yet. None of the detail has been worked through yet. As the full horror unfolds people will rethink.
Click to expand...


If UK/Britain does not leave EU now then it will look pretty pathetic. EU will then truly treat UK/Britain like a b****. It is time for UK/Britain to find a leader with balls who can invoke Article 50 or whatever that is and speed up the separation process.


----------



## Boss

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nah, there is a long way to go yet. None of the detail has been worked through yet. As the full horror unfolds people will rethink.



The worst mistake the UK could make now is to turn back. Yes, it is going to be a little rough going for a bit... that shouldn't be unexpected, did you think everything would be awesome?


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.



I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.


----------



## Boss

Challenger said:


> I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.



I think that might have been all the people who were so cocksure Brexit was dead.


----------



## montelatici

From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.

"Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.

Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."


What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com


----------



## Drummond

montelatici said:


> From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.
> 
> "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
> 
> After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
> 
> Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."
> 
> 
> What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com



You're overlooking a key component in your analysis, it seems to me.

Calling us 'The sick man of Europe' was a reasonable description, back then in 1973. And, just two years later, we suffered a massive 26 percent inflation rate. 

What made us that 'Sick man of Europe' came down to just one basic thing ... *union militancy*. Strike after strike was seen in our society. You see, our problem never has been that we are incapable of doing well, pulling our weight, prospering ... it's been one of Leftieism choosing to put a spanner in the works, courtesy of unrestrained militancy.

Well, that was before Margaret Thatcher set about passing laws which did restrain Trade Unions. These are laws that have never been repealed. So ... in a UK society NOT beset by such wrecking activities, I'm confident that we will prosper outside of the EU, and do a great job of it.


----------



## Drummond

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
Click to expand...


Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.


----------



## Phoenall

there4eyeM said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange that between the two critical positions, staying or leaving, the difference is so small.
> Too bad for England, Europe and unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Europe should have done their research and saw what the people wanted.  You watch the £ bounce back over the next week or so when Europe offers the olive branch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this mean you think England will continue to negotiate as in the past with Europe, as exceptional and worthy of special treatment?
Click to expand...







 And when has it ever done that, all we have asked for is a level playing field and a fair crack of the whip. Not be forced into have an 80% deficit in trade in the EU's favour. Not to be told we cant save our workers jobs because the workers in Europe want our work to keep themselves in a better trading position. Fr5om day one the EU has made it abundantly clear that they tolerated Britain for their money that kept the EU going for the last 15 years. We voted to stay out of the Eurozone and still the EU forced us to prop it up without any return of the money taken. So lets just say that the EU is now facing hardships and possible bankruptcy because they treated Britain appallingly.   They deserve all they get


----------



## Phoenall

Tilly said:


> Freja said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations to all the britts!! I'm so happy for you!!
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Freja  I wonder which country will be next?
Click to expand...







 France or Germany as they wont want to see their cash go down the sink.   Some of the Eastern nations are regretting their having joined now and will look at leaving and forming a renegade common market without so many strings.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
Click to expand...








 Far too many people had seen what was happening and were no longer fooled by your stories of the benefits. Seeing the state of the NHS, education, housing and welfare because of increasing migration that was unstoppable. Then watching politicians come back from meeting after meeting with nothing but empty promises. They were thrown a lifeline and clung to it, and now will ride out the storm knowing that they have got control back and that the EU will no longer force us to go against ourselves.IT is you neo marxist scum that have most to lose as your power base is growing smaller, and your vision of a new USSR is fading faster than fake tan


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.
> 
> "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
> 
> After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
> 
> Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."
> 
> 
> What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com









 Spamming the board again as you have posted this 6 times on here already. Typical monte troll activity


----------



## Challenger

Drummond said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
Click to expand...


You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.
> 
> "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
> 
> After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
> 
> Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."
> 
> 
> What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com


FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
Click to expand...








 They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

 And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave


----------



## Andylusion

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
Click to expand...


I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free." 

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?   

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?   

Bad plan I think.  Very bad.


----------



## montelatici

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.
> 
> "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
> 
> After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
> 
> Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."
> 
> 
> What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com
> 
> 
> 
> FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.
Click to expand...


You don't get irony, do you.


----------



## Phoenall

Andylusion said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
Click to expand...







 That would be the only way that this one aspect could be nulled out. They have it in Australia with a box to tick that says NONE OF THE ABOVE and it seems to work as then people can complain freely about election results


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.
> 
> "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
> 
> After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
> 
> Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."
> 
> 
> What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com
> 
> 
> 
> FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get irony, do you.
Click to expand...







 You dont have many friends do you ???????????????????????????????


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.
> 
> "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
> 
> After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
> 
> Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."
> 
> 
> What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com
> 
> 
> 
> FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get irony, do you.
Click to expand...

I thought we invented it...


----------



## montelatici

Andylusion said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
Click to expand...


Some EU states, like Italy, provide small but important benefits for those who vote.  For example, kids of people who voted get to jump in line for state provided day care.  I think small benefits for voting are acceptable.


----------



## Challenger

Andylusion said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
Click to expand...


Civic duty is "very bad"? OK. 

Wonder what Australians think about it? or the Belgians; or even the "fathers" of Western Democracy themselves, the Greeks?


----------



## Challenger

Andylusion said:


> Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?



Why not? Unless they are medically disqualified from voting (i.e. clinically insane), they should vote regardless of what their political views are; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my view.


----------



## HenryBHough

Challenger said:


> Why not? Unless they are medically disqualified from voting (i.e. clinically insane), they should vote regardless of what their political views are; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my view.



"Disqualified" FOR BEING INSANE?

Good Grief, do you hate The Democrat Party sufficiently that you'd outlaw it entirely?


----------



## Challenger

HenryBHough said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Unless they are medically disqualified from voting (i.e. clinically insane), they should vote regardless of what their political views are; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Disqualified" FOR BEING INSANE?
> 
> Good Grief, do you hate The Democrat Party sufficiently that you'd outlaw it entirely?
Click to expand...


No, they're far more sane than the GOP who picked Trump; now that's what I call insane.


----------



## HenryBHough

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.


----------



## Challenger

HenryBHough said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.


Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.
> 
> 
> 
> Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.
Click to expand...








 Better than having Corbyn who cant even spell his own name, and is supportive of child rape in the name of islam and increasing taxes for the workers to help pay for unemployable migrants


----------



## Andylusion

Phoenall said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the only way that this one aspect could be nulled out. They have it in Australia with a box to tick that says NONE OF THE ABOVE and it seems to work as then people can complain freely about election results
Click to expand...


Right, but then they are still supposedly part of the problem.  They voted for nothing.

I just don't see the purpose.  What exactly is the end goal here?   Whether people vote or not, they are still going to complain about the outcome. 

In fact, forcing them to vote, when they don't care enough to educate themselves, will simply result in even more problems, I would think.

If 10 Million people voted on Brexit, when they honestly do not know enough about the issue, and then didn't like the results, they would still complain, and still blame deceptive campaigning for their vote.

You do realize that the easiest people to sway to an argument, are those who don't care enough to self-inform?   Right?

Well now you are forcing those people to vote.   That's like a gift to propagandists.


----------



## Andylusion

montelatici said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some EU states, like Italy, provide small but important benefits for those who vote.  For example, kids of people who voted get to jump in line for state provided day care.  I think small benefits for voting are acceptable.
Click to expand...


That's what I want.  People who don't know, and don't care about any of the major political issues, voting for no other reason than because they want free day care.   Talk about literally buying votes.


----------



## Andylusion

Challenger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect  a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civic duty is "very bad"? OK.
> 
> Wonder what Australians think about it? or the Belgians; or even the "fathers" of Western Democracy themselves, the Greeks?
Click to expand...


I'm always curious about this "civic duty".  I thought the point of having freedom, was specifically not be pressed in to "civic duty" by a king or dictator.

Moreover, I have never considered voting to be a civic duty.   If you don't know anything about the issues, and you don't care at all about politics.... you voting is a civic dis-service.    

Your civic duty should be to not vote, if you are ignorant and/or uncaring about the issues of the day.

The more ignorant uncaring people you have voting, the more that showmanship, and propaganda is going to rule over the country.   Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is just tiny taste of what will come, when ignorant uncaring people, swayed by slick advertising and charisma, determine the course of the country.

If you need a reminder of what that looks like, try Lenin and Hitler.

Honestly if you combined the rheteric of Bernie Sanders, with the showmanship of Trump, it would be like a Lenin or Hitler speech.    The only reason Bernie didn't replace the crime boss Hillary, is because he was old and grey, and couldn't whip the people up with propaganda.

Go read some of the early speeches by Hitler or Lenin.   They talk about the fat rich, the evil banks, the investors, and the bad 1%ers and the good 99%ers.... they read like a Bernie Sanders speech.

Both are notoriously devoid of specifics, and talk very little about what specific policies they want to implement.  Only that it will be great for the 'working class'.   Again very much like a Bernie Sanders speech.

And both were extremely showy.  Very much self aggrandizing.   Just like Trump.

That's where your "civic duty" of getting people to vote, who don't know any better about any of the topics, leads to.   Following your plan we'll end up in ruins, or in war, and likely both.


----------



## Phoenall

Andylusion said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the only way that this one aspect could be nulled out. They have it in Australia with a box to tick that says NONE OF THE ABOVE and it seems to work as then people can complain freely about election results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but then they are still supposedly part of the problem.  They voted for nothing.
> 
> I just don't see the purpose.  What exactly is the end goal here?   Whether people vote or not, they are still going to complain about the outcome.
> 
> In fact, forcing them to vote, when they don't care enough to educate themselves, will simply result in even more problems, I would think.
> 
> If 10 Million people voted on Brexit, when they honestly do not know enough about the issue, and then didn't like the results, they would still complain, and still blame deceptive campaigning for their vote.
> 
> You do realize that the easiest people to sway to an argument, are those who don't care enough to self-inform?   Right?
> 
> Well now you are forcing those people to vote.   That's like a gift to propagandists.
Click to expand...









 Personally I could not care less if they voted or not, the stones were cast and the result is in. We voted for exit and the vote stands, the apathetic can not have a re-do just because the vote went against their POV they should have went to the polling station and voted.


----------



## Phoenall

Andylusion said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought for you.
> 
> Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.
> 
> What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.
> 
> I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. *That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.*
> 
> 'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.
> 
> Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement  you'd like to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.
> 
> *And because voting is not compulsory* we will see this happening more and more, then the *apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because* they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for jumping in here.   You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.
> 
> First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement?   Compulsory voting in a democracy?
> 
> Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again?   Page 121 in my book:
> 
> "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."
> 
> "But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"
> 
> "Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​
> See a problem here?   Force people to have Democracy?
> 
> And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy".....    If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?
> 
> Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them?    Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote.  Now you want to require them to vote by law?
> 
> Bad plan I think.  Very bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some EU states, like Italy, provide small but important benefits for those who vote.  For example, kids of people who voted get to jump in line for state provided day care.  I think small benefits for voting are acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I want.  People who don't know, and don't care about any of the major political issues, voting for no other reason than because they want free day care.   Talk about literally buying votes.
Click to expand...






 True and then when they dont get what they thought they were promised they behave like spoilt brats. Our forefathers fought for the universal vote for all and would be spinning in their graves now at the antics of the looney left hangers on


----------



## Freja

Jimmie Åkesson, party leader of the Sweden Democrats is the only party leader in Sweden who has congratulated the UK on brexit. He wants Sweden to do the same.

He says:_ "The british vote(to leave EU) has greatly shook up the political elite. Finally a big leap in the right direction! I am a friend of Europe and incredibly proud of our joint heritage. There are lots of things uniting us historically, culturally and politically. But I also have respect for our differences. Let us hope that the UKs brave decision is the beginning to the end of the federalists unpleasant, freedom-hostile plans. Let us, friends of Sweden, friends of Europe walk in the same direction to become one of those brave frontrunning countries. Let us take back our country!"_

Once again, congratulations to you! I'm sure you have taken one of the best decisions in modern history!


----------



## Vagabond63

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.
> 
> 
> 
> Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than having Corbyn who cant even spell his own name, and is supportive of child rape in the name of islam and increasing taxes for the workers to help pay for unemployable migrants
Click to expand...


I thought you said that was Blair and the champagne socialist neo-Marxists?


----------



## Phoenall

Vagabond63 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.
> 
> 
> 
> Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than having Corbyn who cant even spell his own name, and is supportive of child rape in the name of islam and increasing taxes for the workers to help pay for unemployable migrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said that was Blair and the champagne socialist neo-Marxists?
Click to expand...







 Which is what Corbyn and the rest of his supporters are, they are the follow on champagne socialists after Blair, Brown and the rest


----------



## LastProphet

from Jun 23, 2016, page 93


LastProphet said:


> *Female politician "killed" before "referendum": Brexit 2016 remake of Sweden eurozone 2003*
> "Murdered" in headlines: all fake blood setting the stage for the BIG BANG.
> 
> Talk of setting the stage:
> *Fake murder of a woman politician before a EU referendum: agenda is NOT to influence the result. *
> Illuminati don't need that, because the other side is always ALSO led by illuminazi agents whose main role is to validate the rigged results.
> Examples other than leaders of the Brexit 2016 and anti-eurozone in Sweden 2003 range from pro-independence in Scotland to anti-gay marriage in Ireland.
> 
> *So why did the illuminati stage the murders of Lindh in Sweden 2003 and Cox in England 2016?*
> Answer: psychology, part of creating explanations to solve the contradiction between reality (rallies, stickers) and what will be announced as results.
> In other words: have the human cattle accept the simulated reality.
> ...
> *BASICS*
> Apr 2014:
> Rigged Scotland's referendum: illuminati jokes with the actor playing #1 and #2 in UK's Britain's biggest lottery winners
> Jokes by the Illuminati - mock the human cattle: Rigged Scotland independence referendum mocked by lottery jackpot collector
> 
> ...


More precisely: the simulated "head to head race" while more than 70% voted LEAVE.

*BASICS*
BREXIT LEAVE: WHY Illuminati changed 75% to 51% not 48%: FULL script was exposed in advance: start here:
Last Prophet's words (revised July 2016 after the fake coup in Turkey) from Sep 11 2015, one week before the illuminati "victory" in Greece.
In other words: nine months after the illuminati "defeats" in the January 2015 "election" and two monthes after the "NO" to "EU austerity" in the "referendum".
Election repeated Turkey Greece: 2015: parallel reversed script before Brexit
BIG LIE TECHNIQUE: Election repeated Turkey Greece parallel reverse script before Brexit

Apr 2017: Increasingly viciously scary May before June : predicted, explained only by one:
"Theresa May", the main actor in this chapter, was already playing the leading role before May 7, when tranny "Brigitte Macron, first lady of France" will also be placed in the spotlight.
The chapter's title is meant as literal parallelism to both the timing (starting with Theresa May's image in May) and the main agenda (repeat UK "election" to "undo Brexit" in June).
End Times Prophet: Brigitte first lady of France: why tranny scripted as 24 yrs older than pimp Mac


----------



## Tommy Tainant

LastProphet said:


> from Jun 23, 2016, page 93
> 
> 
> LastProphet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Female politician "killed" before "referendum": Brexit 2016 remake of Sweden eurozone 2003*
> "Murdered" in headlines: all fake blood setting the stage for the BIG BANG.
> 
> Talk of setting the stage:
> *Fake murder of a woman politician before a EU referendum: agenda is NOT to influence the result. *
> Illuminati don't need that, because the other side is always ALSO led by illuminazi agents whose main role is to validate the rigged results.
> Examples other than leaders of the Brexit 2016 and anti-eurozone in Sweden 2003 range from pro-independence in Scotland to anti-gay marriage in Ireland.
> 
> *So why did the illuminati stage the murders of Lindh in Sweden 2003 and Cox in England 2016?*
> Answer: psychology, part of creating explanations to solve the contradiction between reality (rallies, stickers) and what will be announced as results.
> In other words: have the human cattle accept the simulated reality.
> ...
> *BASICS*
> Apr 2014:
> Rigged Scotland's referendum: illuminati jokes with the actor playing #1 and #2 in UK's Britain's biggest lottery winners
> Jokes by the Illuminati - mock the human cattle: Rigged Scotland independence referendum mocked by lottery jackpot collector
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> More precisely: the simulated "head to head race" while more than 70% voted LEAVE.
> 
> *BASICS*
> BREXIT LEAVE: WHY Illuminati changed 75% to 51% not 48%: FULL script was exposed in advance: start here:
> Last Prophet's words (revised July 2016 after the fake coup in Turkey) from Sep 11 2015, one week before the illuminati "victory" in Greece.
> In other words: nine months after the illuminati "defeats" in the January 2015 "election" and two monthes after the "NO" to "EU austerity" in the "referendum".
> Election repeated Turkey Greece: 2015: parallel reversed script before Brexit
> BIG LIE TECHNIQUE: Election repeated Turkey Greece parallel reverse script before Brexit
> 
> Apr 2017: Increasingly viciously scary May before June : predicted, explained only by one:
> "Theresa May", the main actor in this chapter, was already playing the leading role before May 7, when tranny "Brigitte Macron, first lady of France" will also be placed in the spotlight.
> The chapter's title is meant as literal parallelism to both the timing (starting with Theresa May's image in May) and the main agenda (repeat UK "election" to "undo Brexit" in June).
> End Times Prophet: Brigitte first lady of France: why tranny scripted as 24 yrs older than pimp Mac
Click to expand...

Get help mate.


----------



## Mindful

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.
> 
> These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.
> 
> Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.
> 
> 
> The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’


Why does democracy scare you so much ?


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.
> 
> These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.
> 
> Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.
> 
> 
> The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’
> 
> 
> 
> Why does democracy scare you so much ?
Click to expand...


Why do you flamebait?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.
> 
> These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.
> 
> Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.
> 
> 
> The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’
> 
> 
> 
> Why does democracy scare you so much ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you flamebait?
Click to expand...

You are supposed to add some personal content. Cutnpaste is frowned on without it.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.
> 
> These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.
> 
> Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.
> 
> 
> The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’
> 
> 
> 
> Why does democracy scare you so much ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you flamebait?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are supposed to add some personal content. Cutnpaste is frowned on without it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.
> 
> These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.
> 
> Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.
> 
> 
> The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’


This should have some input from yourself rather than cut and paste. Its in the rules somewhere.


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.
> 
> These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.
> 
> Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.
> 
> 
> The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’
> 
> 
> 
> This should have some input from yourself rather than cut and paste. Its in the rules somewhere.
Click to expand...


You think I take you seriously? You're a troll.


----------



## Mindful

I’ve just been reading about Greece, 260bn in bailouts, 322bn in debt. 24bn left in the bank to survive another 2 years, then basically they start paying it back until 2060. And to do that they’ll need above 2% growth year on year...if not then it’ll be back to the ECB (ie the Germans)...


----------



## Mindful

From the pen of Boris Johnson.

So it is “Cabin crew, doors to manual” and, as you settle back and prepare to hand over €20 for an easyMeal, you may be reflecting on that delightful week you just had in the Med – the bustling marinas, the crowded restaurants – and you may conceivably have been persuaded by all those UK cheerleaders for the EU that the euro crisis is indeed at an end.
You may now go along with the fashionable pro-EU narrative, that the nice Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank has cracked it, that the euro is in robust health, that Club Med countries are on the way to durable recoveries. And you may even ask yourself whether they are therefore right – those same London-based cheerleaders for the EU – when they say that this tentative euro recovery proves that the UK’s best bet is to stay in legal lockstep with Brussels, to the point of doing exactly what the EU tells us to do – even when we have no influence on those decisions.

Is that what you have concluded, after a week in the sun? If so, you have been drinking too much retsina. The euro crisis is far from over. The single currency remains an unmitigated disaster. One day it remains highly likely that it will implode. And in the meantime the experience of Greece alone is a lesson in the absolute insanity of any country allowing itself to be bullied by EU negotiators.

Drive around any big Greek city, away from the tourist spots, and in every boarded-up building and smashed window you see the devastation of Greek industry – which, in three years from 2010, went from boasting 80,000 factories to 57,000. In the frenzied anti-establishment graffiti you see the rage of a lost generation of young people who still feel they have no hope of a job. Overall unemployment is still running at 20 per cent; the economy is still a quarter smaller than in 2008; and there are an astonishing 35 per cent of people living in absolute poverty.

That is an extraordinary figure for an EU country; yet it is so high precisely because Greece is an EU country and meekly obeyed the prescriptions of Brussels. It wasn’t just that they could not (or dared not) reclaim their monetary independence. The Greeks were forced – mainly by Angela Merkel of Germany – to accept an austerity regime of draconian budget cuts that became a self‑perpetuating downwards cycle of economic decay.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that when the EU imposed this programme they were not thinking first of Greece or the Greek people. No, they were thinking of the EU; of the balance sheets of EU banks; of the risk to the euro of a Greek default. So the Greeks found themselves in the appalling position of negotiating with people who did not really have their interests at heart, and who believed furthermore that it was politically useful to make an example of Greece, and that Greek suffering might be a memento mori to anyone tempted to differ with the orthodoxy of Brussels (sound familiar?).

Ten years after the crisis began, it is just nonsense to believe that the EU project – to save the euro at all costs – has worked. Yes, Greece has become a kind of economic colony with many Greek assets (state telecoms, 14 regional airports) now owned by Germany. But the economy is still plagued by debt. And as you look around the Mediterranean, you can see elements of the same story: how the euro has not only failed in its objective, but produced the exact opposite of what was intended.

The economic advantages of monetary union were always sketchy – something to do with boosting cross‑border trade by reducing transaction costs. But as Helmut Kohl and others made clear, the real purpose was political – to knit the peoples of the EU together in a union of hearts and minds.

Neither outcome has happened. There has been no measurable intra-EU trade boost as a result of the euro; and instead of producing economic and political convergence, the euro has been a force for divergence, as the northern economies – mainly Germany – have done better, and the less productive economies have done worse, as so many economists predicted before the euro was launched.

Far from dissolving any political tensions between the nations and peoples of the EU, the euro has actually created tensions where none existed before. The last time I was in Athens, I actually heard an anti‑German demonstration outside the foreign ministry: that’s right, people marching against the paymaster of the EU. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and it is the direct result of the euro.

It is true that the Eurozone is benefiting from a general global economic upturn – hence the eager talk of the Remainers in the UK – but it is clear that the weaker economies, notably Italy, are in a much worse position than in 2008 to withstand the next economic shock, banking crisis or whatever. There will be such a shock, of course, and this time, for the euro, it could well be fatal.

In the meantime, the Greek suffering goes on, and the lesson is clear. As the former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis, has explained, the tragedy of the Greeks was that they never had the nerve to tell their EU masters to get lost. They were never able to take back control, to run their economy in the interest of their electors.

That has a direct read-across for Britain. Under the Chequers proposals, we are about to make a historic mistake and turn this country into a rules-taker from Brussels, with no say on those rules – not just for industrial goods and agri-foods but across a wide range of economic activity. Look at the humiliation of Greece – an EU member – and ask yourself how the EU will legislate with the UK out of the room, and when we can no longer do anything to protect ourselves from the imposition of those rules. Will the EU act in our interests and the interests of UK jobs and growth, or the interests of the EU?

The answer is clear. It is written in graffiti all over Greece. Why, then, are we proposing to turn the UK, in important respects, into the perpetual punk of Brussels? Chuck Chequers.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> From the pen of Boris Johnson.
> 
> So it is “Cabin crew, doors to manual” and, as you settle back and prepare to hand over €20 for an easyMeal, you may be reflecting on that delightful week you just had in the Med – the bustling marinas, the crowded restaurants – and you may conceivably have been persuaded by all those UK cheerleaders for the EU that the euro crisis is indeed at an end.
> You may now go along with the fashionable pro-EU narrative, that the nice Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank has cracked it, that the euro is in robust health, that Club Med countries are on the way to durable recoveries. And you may even ask yourself whether they are therefore right – those same London-based cheerleaders for the EU – when they say that this tentative euro recovery proves that the UK’s best bet is to stay in legal lockstep with Brussels, to the point of doing exactly what the EU tells us to do – even when we have no influence on those decisions.
> 
> Is that what you have concluded, after a week in the sun? If so, you have been drinking too much retsina. The euro crisis is far from over. The single currency remains an unmitigated disaster. One day it remains highly likely that it will implode. And in the meantime the experience of Greece alone is a lesson in the absolute insanity of any country allowing itself to be bullied by EU negotiators.
> 
> Drive around any big Greek city, away from the tourist spots, and in every boarded-up building and smashed window you see the devastation of Greek industry – which, in three years from 2010, went from boasting 80,000 factories to 57,000. In the frenzied anti-establishment graffiti you see the rage of a lost generation of young people who still feel they have no hope of a job. Overall unemployment is still running at 20 per cent; the economy is still a quarter smaller than in 2008; and there are an astonishing 35 per cent of people living in absolute poverty.
> 
> That is an extraordinary figure for an EU country; yet it is so high precisely because Greece is an EU country and meekly obeyed the prescriptions of Brussels. It wasn’t just that they could not (or dared not) reclaim their monetary independence. The Greeks were forced – mainly by Angela Merkel of Germany – to accept an austerity regime of draconian budget cuts that became a self‑perpetuating downwards cycle of economic decay.
> 
> It is absolutely crucial to understand that when the EU imposed this programme they were not thinking first of Greece or the Greek people. No, they were thinking of the EU; of the balance sheets of EU banks; of the risk to the euro of a Greek default. So the Greeks found themselves in the appalling position of negotiating with people who did not really have their interests at heart, and who believed furthermore that it was politically useful to make an example of Greece, and that Greek suffering might be a memento mori to anyone tempted to differ with the orthodoxy of Brussels (sound familiar?).
> 
> Ten years after the crisis began, it is just nonsense to believe that the EU project – to save the euro at all costs – has worked. Yes, Greece has become a kind of economic colony with many Greek assets (state telecoms, 14 regional airports) now owned by Germany. But the economy is still plagued by debt. And as you look around the Mediterranean, you can see elements of the same story: how the euro has not only failed in its objective, but produced the exact opposite of what was intended.
> 
> The economic advantages of monetary union were always sketchy – something to do with boosting cross‑border trade by reducing transaction costs. But as Helmut Kohl and others made clear, the real purpose was political – to knit the peoples of the EU together in a union of hearts and minds.
> 
> Neither outcome has happened. There has been no measurable intra-EU trade boost as a result of the euro; and instead of producing economic and political convergence, the euro has been a force for divergence, as the northern economies – mainly Germany – have done better, and the less productive economies have done worse, as so many economists predicted before the euro was launched.
> 
> Far from dissolving any political tensions between the nations and peoples of the EU, the euro has actually created tensions where none existed before. The last time I was in Athens, I actually heard an anti‑German demonstration outside the foreign ministry: that’s right, people marching against the paymaster of the EU. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and it is the direct result of the euro.
> 
> It is true that the Eurozone is benefiting from a general global economic upturn – hence the eager talk of the Remainers in the UK – but it is clear that the weaker economies, notably Italy, are in a much worse position than in 2008 to withstand the next economic shock, banking crisis or whatever. There will be such a shock, of course, and this time, for the euro, it could well be fatal.
> 
> In the meantime, the Greek suffering goes on, and the lesson is clear. As the former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis, has explained, the tragedy of the Greeks was that they never had the nerve to tell their EU masters to get lost. They were never able to take back control, to run their economy in the interest of their electors.
> 
> That has a direct read-across for Britain. Under the Chequers proposals, we are about to make a historic mistake and turn this country into a rules-taker from Brussels, with no say on those rules – not just for industrial goods and agri-foods but across a wide range of economic activity. Look at the humiliation of Greece – an EU member – and ask yourself how the EU will legislate with the UK out of the room, and when we can no longer do anything to protect ourselves from the imposition of those rules. Will the EU act in our interests and the interests of UK jobs and growth, or the interests of the EU?
> 
> The answer is clear. It is written in graffiti all over Greece. Why, then, are we proposing to turn the UK, in important respects, into the perpetual punk of Brussels? Chuck Chequers.


What do you think ?


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the pen of Boris Johnson.
> 
> So it is “Cabin crew, doors to manual” and, as you settle back and prepare to hand over €20 for an easyMeal, you may be reflecting on that delightful week you just had in the Med – the bustling marinas, the crowded restaurants – and you may conceivably have been persuaded by all those UK cheerleaders for the EU that the euro crisis is indeed at an end.
> You may now go along with the fashionable pro-EU narrative, that the nice Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank has cracked it, that the euro is in robust health, that Club Med countries are on the way to durable recoveries. And you may even ask yourself whether they are therefore right – those same London-based cheerleaders for the EU – when they say that this tentative euro recovery proves that the UK’s best bet is to stay in legal lockstep with Brussels, to the point of doing exactly what the EU tells us to do – even when we have no influence on those decisions.
> 
> Is that what you have concluded, after a week in the sun? If so, you have been drinking too much retsina. The euro crisis is far from over. The single currency remains an unmitigated disaster. One day it remains highly likely that it will implode. And in the meantime the experience of Greece alone is a lesson in the absolute insanity of any country allowing itself to be bullied by EU negotiators.
> 
> Drive around any big Greek city, away from the tourist spots, and in every boarded-up building and smashed window you see the devastation of Greek industry – which, in three years from 2010, went from boasting 80,000 factories to 57,000. In the frenzied anti-establishment graffiti you see the rage of a lost generation of young people who still feel they have no hope of a job. Overall unemployment is still running at 20 per cent; the economy is still a quarter smaller than in 2008; and there are an astonishing 35 per cent of people living in absolute poverty.
> 
> That is an extraordinary figure for an EU country; yet it is so high precisely because Greece is an EU country and meekly obeyed the prescriptions of Brussels. It wasn’t just that they could not (or dared not) reclaim their monetary independence. The Greeks were forced – mainly by Angela Merkel of Germany – to accept an austerity regime of draconian budget cuts that became a self‑perpetuating downwards cycle of economic decay.
> 
> It is absolutely crucial to understand that when the EU imposed this programme they were not thinking first of Greece or the Greek people. No, they were thinking of the EU; of the balance sheets of EU banks; of the risk to the euro of a Greek default. So the Greeks found themselves in the appalling position of negotiating with people who did not really have their interests at heart, and who believed furthermore that it was politically useful to make an example of Greece, and that Greek suffering might be a memento mori to anyone tempted to differ with the orthodoxy of Brussels (sound familiar?).
> 
> Ten years after the crisis began, it is just nonsense to believe that the EU project – to save the euro at all costs – has worked. Yes, Greece has become a kind of economic colony with many Greek assets (state telecoms, 14 regional airports) now owned by Germany. But the economy is still plagued by debt. And as you look around the Mediterranean, you can see elements of the same story: how the euro has not only failed in its objective, but produced the exact opposite of what was intended.
> 
> The economic advantages of monetary union were always sketchy – something to do with boosting cross‑border trade by reducing transaction costs. But as Helmut Kohl and others made clear, the real purpose was political – to knit the peoples of the EU together in a union of hearts and minds.
> 
> Neither outcome has happened. There has been no measurable intra-EU trade boost as a result of the euro; and instead of producing economic and political convergence, the euro has been a force for divergence, as the northern economies – mainly Germany – have done better, and the less productive economies have done worse, as so many economists predicted before the euro was launched.
> 
> Far from dissolving any political tensions between the nations and peoples of the EU, the euro has actually created tensions where none existed before. The last time I was in Athens, I actually heard an anti‑German demonstration outside the foreign ministry: that’s right, people marching against the paymaster of the EU. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and it is the direct result of the euro.
> 
> It is true that the Eurozone is benefiting from a general global economic upturn – hence the eager talk of the Remainers in the UK – but it is clear that the weaker economies, notably Italy, are in a much worse position than in 2008 to withstand the next economic shock, banking crisis or whatever. There will be such a shock, of course, and this time, for the euro, it could well be fatal.
> 
> In the meantime, the Greek suffering goes on, and the lesson is clear. As the former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis, has explained, the tragedy of the Greeks was that they never had the nerve to tell their EU masters to get lost. They were never able to take back control, to run their economy in the interest of their electors.
> 
> That has a direct read-across for Britain. Under the Chequers proposals, we are about to make a historic mistake and turn this country into a rules-taker from Brussels, with no say on those rules – not just for industrial goods and agri-foods but across a wide range of economic activity. Look at the humiliation of Greece – an EU member – and ask yourself how the EU will legislate with the UK out of the room, and when we can no longer do anything to protect ourselves from the imposition of those rules. Will the EU act in our interests and the interests of UK jobs and growth, or the interests of the EU?
> 
> The answer is clear. It is written in graffiti all over Greece. Why, then, are we proposing to turn the UK, in important respects, into the perpetual punk of Brussels? Chuck Chequers.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think ?
Click to expand...



As it's you, a troll post.


----------



## Mindful

A veteran man of the left like me, proud to be the former editor of _Living Marxism magazine_, now finds he has more in common on the biggest issue of the age with the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg than with their allegedly left-wing opponents. A major realignment in British politics is surely long overdue. Let people stand for what they really believe today, instead of half-heartedly waving whichever faded colours they are still wearing for Britain’s zombie political parties.

‘Get Boris?’ It’s another backdoor plan to stop Brexit


----------



## Mindful

*Brexit means cosmic apocalypse…*

As we edge closer to the UK leaving the EU, the hysteria coming from the Remain lobby (aka The British Government) gets greater but I think it MAY have reached a peak in this revelation!

*THE European Union will stop warning the UK about potential fatal space debris plummeting towards Earth in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new Government papers have sensationally revealed despite claims the bloc and Britain will work closely together after the divorce.*

So, I hope the 17.4m who voted to leave the EU are feeling totally ashamed of themselves and their reckless action in condemning the UK to possible  cosmic obliteration.

Posted in ATW


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> *Brexit means cosmic apocalypse…*
> 
> As we edge closer to the UK leaving the EU, the hysteria coming from the Remain lobby (aka The British Government) gets greater but I think it MAY have reached a peak in this revelation!
> 
> *THE European Union will stop warning the UK about potential fatal space debris plummeting towards Earth in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new Government papers have sensationally revealed despite claims the bloc and Britain will work closely together after the divorce.*
> 
> So, I hope the 17.4m who voted to leave the EU are feeling totally ashamed of themselves and their reckless action in condemning the UK to possible  cosmic obliteration.
> 
> Posted in ATW


If it actually happens we will be praying for a comet to sink the country.


----------

