Brexit busted.

[frigidweirdo]

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

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"

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?

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.

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]

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.

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 ?

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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 ?

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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]

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 ?

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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"

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?

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.

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?

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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]