SURVEY: Brexit, do you support it?

[Kwasaki]

" Well England is on an island. " - and what is the significance of that? I hope you are not going to claim some misinformed historical significance here!

"English people that live in Lanzarote retired but not poor and they said nearly everyone speaks English." - now there's a thought - what conclusions does one draw from that re -the EU?

1. Well it was to answer a Spanish mans question, separate from mainland Europe not landlocked.

2. Lanzarote is a Spanish island where people speak English not landlocked like the EU.

Your posts are very difficult to comprehend, littered as they are with half-truths and wild guesswork, and garnished with an incredible and unsupportable arrogance.

They are not difficult to understand.

They are the posts of an imbicile.

He has provided nothing to this thread, other than being a troll.

Oh !! be fair Sarge an intelligent troll.

[Grouse]

Where is the source of accurate, unbiased information?

Certainly not from the EU Propaganda Office, and by extrapolation, the UK Government.

How about from the EU auditors?

No Juncker would not like that!

How about examining how much each country pays in, and compare that figure to what they receive?

How about looking at how many Directives have to be enshrined in UK law without any consent from MPs or the population?

That is without looking at hospital waiting lists, housing shortages, prison population, state benefits paid to Non-UK citizens.

Yes it would be interesting to have accurate figures for the EU membership cost, but this government would certainly not publicize them!

If you care to look throughout this thread.

The 2 most vocal trolls heights of intelligence have provided more than 25% of the posts with less that 10 external links to supporting information. Not that any of it is unbiased or accurate, rather pro - remain claptrap.

If you get bored, check it out.

SgtRock should not be worried that I may be a troll. My understanding is that trolls post to antagonise or otherwise obtain an emotional response from others

He should know that I don't give a damn what his views or opinions are

I will not stoop to calling him an imbecile or make some ad hominem comment. However, I find his comments facile and his conclusions assinine.

As to quoting articles, I find reliable sources few and far between. I have quoted The FT and The Economist several times

To me, I find quoting dumbed down simplistic comment aimed at the poorly educated to be of no use whatever. Quoting The Express, Mail and sadly even The Telegraph is pointless.

So, in conclusion, whereas I am happy to debate with serious contributors with whom I happen to disagree. I will not bother to respond to SgtRock in future.

Intelligent, informed discussion is always welcome. Thank you.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Grouse

[Jip99]

Where is the source of accurate, unbiased information?

Certainly not from the EU Propaganda Office, and by extrapolation, the UK Government.

How about from the EU auditors?

No Juncker would not like that!

How about examining how much each country pays in, and compare that figure to what they receive?

How about looking at how many Directives have to be enshrined in UK law without any consent from MPs or the population?

That is without looking at hospital waiting lists, housing shortages, prison population, state benefits paid to Non-UK citizens.

Yes it would be interesting to have accurate figures for the EU membership cost, but this government would certainly not publicize them!

If you care to look throughout this thread.

The 2 most vocal trolls heights of intelligence have provided more than 25% of the posts with less that 10 external links to supporting information. Not that any of it is unbiased or accurate, rather pro - remain claptrap.

If you get bored, check it out.

SgtRock should not be worried that I may be a troll. My understanding is that trolls post to antagonise or otherwise obtain an emotional response from others

He should know that I don't give a damn what his views or opinions are

I will not stoop to calling him an imbecile or make some ad hominem comment. However, I find his comments facile and his conclusions assinine.

As to quoting articles, I find reliable sources few and far between. I have quoted The FT and The Economist several times

To me, I find quoting dumbed down simplistic comment aimed at the poorly educated to be of no use whatever. Quoting The Express, Mail and sadly even The Telegraph is pointless.

So, in conclusion, whereas I am happy to debate with serious contributors with whom I happen to disagree. I will not bother to respond to SgtRock in future.

Intelligent, informed discussion is always welcome. Thank you.

You lost the right to participate in an informed discussion when you insulted other posters.

[cumgranosalum]

It seems some posters are so poor at argument they take insult when it is pointed out that their opinion or logic is so grossly ill thought out that they just look like idiots.

They then respond by calling the other person an idiot (or similar).......sadly they don't seem to understand the basic differences in the two posts.

The first is based on evidence (e.g that person's post), the second is just an ad hominem attack. - all it does is underline their lack of critical abilities

Of course if they fail to grasp this, how would they possibly understand the arguments relating to the EU?

[Grouse]

Where is the source of accurate, unbiased information?

Certainly not from the EU Propaganda Office, and by extrapolation, the UK Government.

How about from the EU auditors?

No Juncker would not like that!

How about examining how much each country pays in, and compare that figure to what they receive?

How about looking at how many Directives have to be enshrined in UK law without any consent from MPs or the population?

That is without looking at hospital waiting lists, housing shortages, prison population, state benefits paid to Non-UK citizens.

Yes it would be interesting to have accurate figures for the EU membership cost, but this government would certainly not publicize them!

If you care to look throughout this thread.

The 2 most vocal trolls heights of intelligence have provided more than 25% of the posts with less that 10 external links to supporting information. Not that any of it is unbiased or accurate, rather pro - remain claptrap.

If you get bored, check it out.

SgtRock should not be worried that I may be a troll. My understanding is that trolls post to antagonise or otherwise obtain an emotional response from others

He should know that I don't give a damn what his views or opinions are

I will not stoop to calling him an imbecile or make some ad hominem comment. However, I find his comments facile and his conclusions assinine.

As to quoting articles, I find reliable sources few and far between. I have quoted The FT and The Economist several times

To me, I find quoting dumbed down simplistic comment aimed at the poorly educated to be of no use whatever. Quoting The Express, Mail and sadly even The Telegraph is pointless.

So, in conclusion, whereas I am happy to debate with serious contributors with whom I happen to disagree. I will not bother to respond to SgtRock in future.

Intelligent, informed discussion is always welcome. Thank you.

You lost the right to participate in an informed discussion when you insulted other posters.

The poor lambs!

[cumgranosalum]

OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!

[Kwasaki]

OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!

http://owwmedia.com/2015/06/flashback-in-history-july-1940-when-britain-stood-alone/

Edited May 13, 2016 by Kwasaki

[Linzz]

"OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!"

History would be an excellent thing if only it were true. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Edited May 13, 2016 by Linzz

[cumgranosalum]

"OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!"

History would be an excellent thing if only it were true. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Perhaps then, you'd care to cite an instance of England going it alone?

[Johnyo]

OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!

http://owwmedia.com/2015/06/flashback-in-history-july-1940-when-britain-stood-alone/

Ironic that Germany then became the most powerful econony in Europe. Edited May 13, 2016 by Johnyo

[cumgranosalum]

OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!

http://owwmedia.com/2015/06/flashback-in-history-july-1940-when-britain-stood-alone/

Ironic that Germany then became the most powerful econony in Europe.

Precisely the kind of schoolboy history that misleads the Brexiteers.

During WW2 UK - (united Kingdom) had a massive commonwealth that it actually dominated - we had in fact far more resources than Germany to tap into and by keeping the trade routes open we had a much more dominating potion than Brexiteers appear to realise.

The Commonwealth essentially did what the Uk told it to - we grew cash crops around the world and sucked out commodities and raw materials to our hearts content. that is why after the war, even people like Churchill realise that with the demise of empire UK needed to belong to a powerful trade block.

In fact Britain survived the one or two years in WW2 by using its commonwealth resources and by the eventual change in policy of the nazis who turned to the Soviet Union.

[Kwasaki]

"OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!"

History would be an excellent thing if only it were true. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Perhaps then, you'd care to cite an instance of England going it alone?

Quote:- 1600's

Well, to start England had a long period of stability and was one of the few European nations where the non-nobility had considerable economic and political power; in fact, the beginning of English imperialism was started as private enterprises, e.g. The British East India Company. They started by colonizing materially wealthy nations by bribing and gaining the favor of local rulers. India for instance, or what is today known as India, in the 17th century was made of smaller feuding kingdoms helping the English impose their rule. The English, unlike the Spanish and others, realized that wealth and prosperity could only be maintained and produced by creating value, which the English did by trading rarities. They then made sure no other European nation had easy access to the colonies by controlling the seas. Their wealth hinged on maintaining their trading monopolies so they made sure they had a strong Navy to protect their commercial interests. Economic stability and prosperity is probably why England was the first nation to industrialize further strengthening their Empire and allowing them to easily impose order in the colonies. So basically the reason England grew to be the most powerful nation on Earth is because of their trade monopolies in which they could command exuberant profit margins, giving the local population of England newfound wealth, and leisure, which ultimately led the industrial revolution, making England the undisputed world power for over three centuries.

[dick dasterdly]

And to reiterate, that is what is so dangerous.

We could be dragged the wrong way by a bunch of ill informed fools.

I believe that you worked in Germany for many years. Maybe you picked up the taints of the 1930's Germany, namely arrogance. What would your quick-fix be for those undesirably people who do not agree with your point of view and wish to leave the EU? Perhaps send them to a state holiday camp as the final solution.

kind of sums up the sort of thinking of most Brexiteers, why bother with reality when you can resort to pure ignorance and xenophobia?

Far better to resort to labeling those who disagree with your opinion, as stupid and uneducated...

[cumgranosalum]

"OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!"

History would be an excellent thing if only it were true. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Perhaps then, you'd care to cite an instance of England going it alone?

Quote:- 1600's

Well, to start England had a long period of stability and was one of the few European nations where the non-nobility had considerable economic and political power; in fact, the beginning of English imperialism was started as private enterprises, e.g. The British East India Company. They started by colonizing materially wealthy nations by bribing and gaining the favor of local rulers. India for instance, or what is today known as India, in the 17th century was made of smaller feuding kingdoms helping the English impose their rule. The English, unlike the Spanish and others, realized that wealth and prosperity could only be maintained and produced by creating value, which the English did by trading rarities. They then made sure no other European nation had easy access to the colonies by controlling the seas. Their wealth hinged on maintaining their trading monopolies so they made sure they had a strong Navy to protect their commercial interests. Economic stability and prosperity is probably why England was the first nation to industrialize further strengthening their Empire and allowing them to easily impose order in the colonies. So basically the reason England grew to be the most powerful nation on Earth is because of their trade monopolies in which they could command exuberant profit margins, giving the local population of England newfound wealth, and leisure, which ultimately led the industrial revolution, making England the undisputed world power for over three centuries.

Precisely1 even 500 years ago "England" could only support itself by having colonies and Empire - i.e. a massive union of nations. the difference being that we were able to dominate and exploit in those days. most of what we neede we took by force - in particular the navy.

BTW - in the meantime Scotland was very much orientated towards Europe...

the problem is that now we can't colonise other countries and exploit them and those that we did are going to pretty reluctant to change their economies back to the last 2 centuries just to accommodate us.

Basically for 500 years, Britain/UK in its various forms sat on top of one of the biggest Empires in history - even losing the American colonies was only a minor set back.

during that time we were able to set up and use resources from all over the world at prices we dictated.....by the end of WW@ that was no longer a viable option which is why both sides of parliament wanted to join another economic (and political block)

As for Germany and Japan, we had learned from the Treaty of Versailles that over punitive surrender conditions were not a good idea for future peace - as can be seen this worked perfectly as Japan and Germany are both staunch allies of the west for 70 years or so.

the fact is that UK Germany and France are the top 3 economies in EU and UK is forcast to be the largest by the 2020s.....overtaking Germany....however this is unlikely if we leave the EU.

I think most Brexiteers fail to comprehend that leaving the EU is a 2 year process, but then UK will have to re-establish trade, travel, human rihts rebuild industries etc etc none of which can happen without customers..

Of course you could argue the point or much easier just sneer and say "scaremonger" - why bother actually thinking about the issues let alone discussing them?

Edited May 13, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

And to reiterate, that is what is so dangerous.

We could be dragged the wrong way by a bunch of ill informed fools.

I believe that you worked in Germany for many years. Maybe you picked up the taints of the 1930's Germany, namely arrogance. What would your quick-fix be for those undesirably people who do not agree with your point of view and wish to leave the EU? Perhaps send them to a state holiday camp as the final solution.

kind of sums up the sort of thinking of most Brexiteers, why bother with reality when you can resort to pure ignorance and xenophobia?

Far better to resort to labeling those who disagree with your opinion, as stupid and uneducated...

30,000 people and a description that you don't seem to fully understand? - QED

[Kwasaki]

OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!

http://owwmedia.com/2015/06/flashback-in-history-july-1940-when-britain-stood-alone/

Ironic that Germany then became the most powerful econony in Europe.

Yeah Japan did alright too, reminds of what me Dad use say, " what the bloody hell did we fight a war for."

My Dad loved motorcycles and when my Dads friend from childhood turned up on a BMW they fell out for a while.

When Japan started churning out motorcycles better than anyone's Dad said " l give up ".

[dick dasterdly]

Where is the source of accurate, unbiased information?

Certainly not from the EU Propaganda Office, and by extrapolation, the UK Government.

How about from the EU auditors?

No Juncker would not like that!

How about examining how much each country pays in, and compare that figure to what they receive?

How about looking at how many Directives have to be enshrined in UK law without any consent from MPs or the population?

That is without looking at hospital waiting lists, housing shortages, prison population, state benefits paid to Non-UK citizens.

Yes it would be interesting to have accurate figures for the EU membership cost, but this government would certainly not publicize them!

And that is precisely the problem IMO - there are few actual facts, and its down to individual opinion as to whether sources of information are accurate and unbiased.

[dick dasterdly]

kind of sums up the sort of thinking of most Brexiteers, why bother with reality when you can resort to pure ignorance and xenophobia?

Far better to resort to labeling those who disagree with your opinion, as stupid and uneducated...

30,000 people and a description that you don't seem to fully understand? - QED

I have no idea what you are going on about. Please elucidate.

[cumgranosalum]

"OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!"

History would be an excellent thing if only it were true. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Perhaps then, you'd care to cite an instance of England going it alone?

Quote:- 1600's

Well, to start England had a long period of stability and was one of the few European nations where the non-nobility had considerable economic and political power; in fact, the beginning of English imperialism was started as private enterprises, e.g. The British East India Company. They started by colonizing materially wealthy nations by bribing and gaining the favor of local rulers. India for instance, or what is today known as India, in the 17th century was made of smaller feuding kingdoms helping the English impose their rule. The English, unlike the Spanish and others, realized that wealth and prosperity could only be maintained and produced by creating value, which the English did by trading rarities. They then made sure no other European nation had easy access to the colonies by controlling the seas. Their wealth hinged on maintaining their trading monopolies so they made sure they had a strong Navy to protect their commercial interests. Economic stability and prosperity is probably why England was the first nation to industrialize further strengthening their Empire and allowing them to easily impose order in the colonies. So basically the reason England grew to be the most powerful nation on Earth is because of their trade monopolies in which they could command exuberant profit margins, giving the local population of England newfound wealth, and leisure, which ultimately led the industrial revolution, making England the undisputed world power for over three centuries.

" to start England had a long period of stability" - which period was that?

[Kwasaki]

One period was as answer top of post, 1600's.

[allanos]

This is what happens when "faceless and largely unaccountable bureaucrats have sway over British taxpayers' (and other

nations') funds. If the EU was a Public Company, its share price would be falling and executives' heads would be rolling.

'According to the annual report of the European Court of Auditors, seen by The Telegraph, £5.5 billion of the EU budget last year was misspent because of controls on spending that were deemed to be only partially effective by experts.

The audit, published this morning, found that £109 billion out of a total of £117 billion spent by the EU in 2013 was "affected by material error.

It means that the Brussels accounts have not been given the all clear for 19 years running.

Treasury sources said that the disclosure shows why the EU needs urgent reform'.

[sandyf]

And to reiterate, that is what is so dangerous.

We could be dragged the wrong way by a bunch of ill informed fools.

You had a perfectly valid comment until the last word, which should have been 'voters'.

I am in favour of remaining and accept that others have a different point of view but it does not make them fools or idiots. It is all about information and how that is perceived and it appears that the leave campaign seem to want to restrict the debate to one issue in particular. There are still far too many unanswered questions and too much is being brushed off as to be dealt with during exit negotiations, not good enough. I suspect many of the undecided are waiting on some better answers and if they are not forthcoming will probably stick with the status quo.

People should be aware that Boris Johnson is far from a fool, a politician with a media background makes him a particularly dangerous manipulator. He has seen an opening and gone for it,doesn't appear to matter what he said in the past.

[Grouse]

And to reiterate, that is what is so dangerous.

We could be dragged the wrong way by a bunch of ill informed fools.

You had a perfectly valid comment until the last word, which should have been 'voters'.

I am in favour of remaining and accept that others have a different point of view but it does not make them fools or idiots. It is all about information and how that is perceived and it appears that the leave campaign seem to want to restrict the debate to one issue in particular. There are still far too many unanswered questions and too much is being brushed off as to be dealt with during exit negotiations, not good enough. I suspect many of the undecided are waiting on some better answers and if they are not forthcoming will probably stick with the status quo.

People should be aware that Boris Johnson is far from a fool, a politician with a media background makes him a particularly dangerous manipulator. He has seen an opening and gone for it,doesn't appear to matter what he said in the past.

I take the point

BUT it is my opinion that many realise they do not have all the facts but STILL take a determined line to leave. So, yes, they are uniformed voters. They are also fools not to realise they are poorly informed. How else can I put it?

[sandyf]

Yes I would, as I believe that had the UK government been left to do its own thing the UK would still have unequal opportunities, bad working conditions, poor health and safety, unsafe products, inadequate food information, secondary smoking etc etc etc.

I think most of the population would want to join as they would have seen how much further ahead the EU lifestyle had become.

I agree with your comment about working conditions being a strong positive in favour of the EU. But we have also seen the corruption and cost of the EU.

Butter mountains and wine lakes etc. (increasing the cost for consumers) were, sadly, just the start of escalating EU costs. The disaster that befell Greece and other EU problems are also well known.

If the UK hadn't joined, and was now holding a referendum on whether we should become part of the EU - I have no doubt that the answer would be a resounding 'NO!'. But we did become part of the EU, and leaving is a more complicated issue.

I believe that Jip99 asked if I would join, or have I got that wrong.

Thank you for answering the question.

My view differs - I would certainly have voted to join the 9 member state in 1973 based on the information available. From what I see now I would not wish to be part of the current structure of EU - for example, freedom of movement of people could not have envisaged the enlarged EU or the economic migration created by the inclusion of 'poorer' countries.

I cannot dispute your assertions about working conditions etc as no one actually knows what would have happened had we not been 'in'. I would certainly dispute the secondary smoking comment where it is far worse on other European countries. That does not matter because I am not saying that the EEC was a bad thing (I was pro-Europe in the early days and for most of my working life) - many good things came out of membership. My issue is the monster that the EU has become and would argue that a significant majority would NOT join now.

My instinct is that (subject to the UK having politicians with the balls to manage through some choppy waters..... ??) it is time for Britain to take control of its own affairs.

Will the EU collapse if we leave? I imagine that BREXIT would certainly accelerate the likelihood of that happening.

You are absolutely right, no one knows what would have happened and I think your comment about the majority saying NO is biased on what we we do know. Had the UK been left behind, human nature being what it is, it is more than likely the UK would want the same as the others.

Your second last comment really is the crux of where we are today. The track record of the UK government post war and prior to involvement with Europe was dismal and it is unlikely that anyone will ever convince me that they will do any better in the future. In 1966 they restricted how much money you could take out of the country to £50. In 67 they devalued the pound by 14% and years prior to the EEC were a nightmare with industrial action. When we did join the EEC, unemployment and inflation were at post war highs.

As far as the EU collapsing, never going to happen, modified possibly, and it would be better if we were party to the modifications.

When I was stationed in Germany, the nearest major shopping area was in Venlo just across the border in Holland. Excellent shopping but you could not but anything fresh as it was illegal to take it back across the border. Really frustrating to queue up for the border guards to go through your vehicle. I used to drive back and fore to the UK and always had to have some French franc and Dutch Guilders in case of emergency. Invariably there was a huge queue on the motorway at the borders.

No European is ever going to want to go back to the way it was.

[dick dasterdly]

And to reiterate, that is what is so dangerous.

We could be dragged the wrong way by a bunch of ill informed fools.

You had a perfectly valid comment until the last word, which should have been 'voters'.

I am in favour of remaining and accept that others have a different point of view but it does not make them fools or idiots. It is all about information and how that is perceived and it appears that the leave campaign seem to want to restrict the debate to one issue in particular. There are still far too many unanswered questions and too much is being brushed off as to be dealt with during exit negotiations, not good enough. I suspect many of the undecided are waiting on some better answers and if they are not forthcoming will probably stick with the status quo.

People should be aware that Boris Johnson is far from a fool, a politician with a media background makes him a particularly dangerous manipulator. He has seen an opening and gone for it,doesn't appear to matter what he said in the past.

I agree with all of your post although personally, I may well end up voting to leave (in the absence of facts/unbiased info) because a couple of the 'remain' posters are so arrogant on this thread - believing they are far superior to anyone with a different opinion .

They're so vehement and rude, I have to wonder if they are desperate for financial reasons - and (mistakenly) think that calling into question the intelligence and education of those with a different point of view will make people be worried about being thought of as stupid, and so vote to stay? THIS insults my intelligence.

The whole thing is unfortunate as the EU has been good for ordinary Brit workers in many ways, and a good reason to stay as the Brit govt. has little concern about ordinary people -other than how it will affect votes, their own power and their own financial prospects.

But (as I keep saying), the EU is corrupt, undemocratic, overpaid and generally ridiculous in many ways - and I don't believe for one minute that they will reform themselves unless forced to do so. Perhaps the UK leaving will be the catalyst for reform, as the constituents of other EU countries aren't happy either and Brexit may bring these concerns to a head?

[Scott]

The nasty, personal and inflammatory remarks need to cease. There are some people that will be in favor of a Brexit and there will be some people who will be against it. That is why there will be a referendum on the issue.

What had been an interesting and very informative discussion is beginning to deteriorate.

Which ever way the referendum goes there will be positives and negatives. In an informed discussion those can be brought up. In a mud slinging match, then it is people digging in their heals.

Please be respectful so that suspensions do not have to be issued.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

[Linzz]

"OK - if you think England can go it alone - check your history - it NEVER has before!"

History would be an excellent thing if only it were true. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Perhaps then, you'd care to cite an instance of England going it alone?

No the question is would you care to cite an instance of an empire, a kingdom, a federation that did not eventually fall and break up

The reason for that is you cannot expect countries of differing cultures, languages, systems, beliefs and expectations to lose their autonomy under what has to amount to authoritarian rule to prevent secession. Always the driver for this will be economic and while this may not happen immediately, eventually it will happen democratically or by revolt in cycles that have continued for thousands of years. "As far as the EU collapsing, never going to happen" says another soothsayer. As in the Soviet Union, looks like we maybe seeing the beginnings of that already in the European Union.

Would you like to tell me what happens to Greek pension funds when the European Central Bank (Mario Draghi ex Goldman Sachs) cuts interest rates into negative territory? (deposit rate -0.4%) Can anyone on here grow their account when depositors have to pay banks to hold their funds? Banks cannot absorb and will pass on those losses. The risk of a run on money with people withdrawing their money and a capital flight to gold or the US dollar is huge especially if the Fed carries out it's promises to raise interest rates in the near future. What happened in Greece previously when customers tried to withdraw their money? It's dangerous territory to be locked into.

I find the trite and vapid comments like " uninformed fools" egocentric and quite unhelpful and counterproductive to intelligent discussion.

[Grouse]

OLIVE BRANCH

It is my view that the decision to stay or leave the EU is both a serious and complex issue

The situation is made more difficult because of the apparant lack of universally trusted sources of information.

Currently, and ON BALANCE, I think the UK is better off staying in and trying to resolve some if not all of the many problems from within.

For me, the biggest problem is the democratic deficit

The greatest benefit is the benign social democratic influence that tends to temper the more extreme right wing tendencies of the Tory's and our American cousins

I'm also inclined to agree with The Economist's view of the benign influences on trade an business generally

Thank you

[Jip99]

I agree with your comment about working conditions being a strong positive in favour of the EU. But we have also seen the corruption and cost of the EU.

Butter mountains and wine lakes etc. (increasing the cost for consumers) were, sadly, just the start of escalating EU costs. The disaster that befell Greece and other EU problems are also well known.

If the UK hadn't joined, and was now holding a referendum on whether we should become part of the EU - I have no doubt that the answer would be a resounding 'NO!'. But we did become part of the EU, and leaving is a more complicated issue.

I believe that Jip99 asked if I would join, or have I got that wrong.

Thank you for answering the question.

My view differs - I would certainly have voted to join the 9 member state in 1973 based on the information available. From what I see now I would not wish to be part of the current structure of EU - for example, freedom of movement of people could not have envisaged the enlarged EU or the economic migration created by the inclusion of 'poorer' countries.

I cannot dispute your assertions about working conditions etc as no one actually knows what would have happened had we not been 'in'. I would certainly dispute the secondary smoking comment where it is far worse on other European countries. That does not matter because I am not saying that the EEC was a bad thing (I was pro-Europe in the early days and for most of my working life) - many good things came out of membership. My issue is the monster that the EU has become and would argue that a significant majority would NOT join now.

My instinct is that (subject to the UK having politicians with the balls to manage through some choppy waters..... ??) it is time for Britain to take control of its own affairs.

Will the EU collapse if we leave? I imagine that BREXIT would certainly accelerate the likelihood of that happening.

You are absolutely right, no one knows what would have happened and I think your comment about the majority saying NO is biased on what we we do know. Had the UK been left behind, human nature being what it is, it is more than likely the UK would want the same as the others.

Your second last comment really is the crux of where we are today. The track record of the UK government post war and prior to involvement with Europe was dismal and it is unlikely that anyone will ever convince me that they will do any better in the future. In 1966 they restricted how much money you could take out of the country to £50. In 67 they devalued the pound by 14% and years prior to the EEC were a nightmare with industrial action. When we did join the EEC, unemployment and inflation were at post war highs.

As far as the EU collapsing, never going to happen, modified possibly, and it would be better if we were party to the modifications.

When I was stationed in Germany, the nearest major shopping area was in Venlo just across the border in Holland. Excellent shopping but you could not but anything fresh as it was illegal to take it back across the border. Really frustrating to queue up for the border guards to go through your vehicle. I used to drive back and fore to the UK and always had to have some French franc and Dutch Guilders in case of emergency. Invariably there was a huge queue on the motorway at the borders.

No European is ever going to want to go back to the way it was.

What you say Sandy is not wrong, BUT, I would take the p-poor UK governments over Brussels Eurocrats any day. Governments generally sink or swim as a result of macro economic factors.

There is no reason why movement between countries needs to be difficult. Quoting a return to the days of border guards and Franc/Guilders/Marks is simply scaremongering. Exchange control regulations existed in those days and no way will they return. Using money is much easier with the advent of plastic and singe currency in other parts of Europe.

Interestingly (for me at least) is the fact that I would be happy for the UK to have the Euro as its currency takes away any exchange rate risk of trading with or traveling to Europe.

[dick dasterdly]

OLIVE BRANCH

It is my view that the decision to stay or leave the EU is both a serious and complex issue

The situation is made more difficult because of the apparant lack of universally trusted sources of information.

Currently, and ON BALANCE, I think the UK is better off staying in and trying to resolve some if not all of the many problems from within.

For me, the biggest problem is the democratic deficit

The greatest benefit is the benign social democratic influence that tends to temper the more extreme right wing tendencies of the Tory's and our American cousins

I'm also inclined to agree with The Economist's view of the benign influences on trade an business generally

Thank you

Ignoring the Olive branch, as its too late for that - I have said all along that the stay/leave vote is v complex and trusting 'sources' is down to each individuals' own personal opinion on those sources.

I do however agree that the EU has been a good (albeit expensive) influence on the UK when it comes to workplace rights - not to mention trying to limit bankers' bonuses.

On the other hand, I vehemently disagree that the EU will sort out its problems if the UK remains part of the EU. It would take a likely disintegration before they (possibly) put their house in order IMO.

Even so, I'm still v unhappy about the possibility of (personally) voting to leave - as I trust the Brit govt. even less than I trust the EU govt .

Edited May 13, 2016 by dick dasterdly