SURVEY: Brexit, do you support it?

[Linzz]

"The country, along with the rest in the Schengen, was ordered by Brussels to accept thousands of migrants or face a £195,000 fine (250,000) per person rejected."

This from Hungary who are voting on whether to let more migrants into their country. Hungary feel they are being bullied by the E.U. Now, who would have thought that the E.U would try to force such a thing through? And this coming from elected representatives? NO.

We do need to vote OUT to stop our own beautiful country being under an E.U. dictatorship.

IMHO of course

So Whambam, what would you suggest doing about the refugee crisis? Separately, in this age of global media, what would you do about economic migration?

I'm all ears!

Which 'refugees'?

Have you seen how many of these 'refugees' are fit, healthy young men? These should be back in their own countries fighting to help liberate them. Instead, they move into Europe where they try ti intimidate the local populations. There are reports of them patrolling streets insisting life should be lived their way.

Women are harassed for wearing western style clothing. Women and children are accosted in streets, on trains, in swimming pools.

These 'immigrants should be deported back to their own countires.

I see no reason why these 'immigrants' should be forced onto any country that does not want them.

The women and children - and there seem to be very few of these - should be given safe haven in the FIRST safe country they land in. This should be a temporary measure until their own countries are deemed safe once again (which - admittedly - may take some time). But these genuine refugees should not then be allowed to have all their dozens of relatives join them. They, also, should not be allocated to a country that does not want them, but remain in the safe countries they land in.

If Turkey - as the E.U. says - is a safe place, then they should stay there, not be shipped to Europe.

I suppose you would have them flood into the U.K. and live here on benefits, get free housing, white goods and free schooling? They do not integrate wherever they go.

There are reports today that another refugee place has been torched in Italy. That would make it the 3rd time they have torched this particular place. A safe place where they are looked after and given shelter. Not that it means much to them.

My, what an angry, unpleasant person you must be. Have you tried getting help?

Interesting............

"Merkel’s failed refugee policy is destroying the fabric of Europe and raising international concerns that Europeans may need visas because she has introduced the prospect of ISIS using Europe as a stepping stone to get into the USA. Now, Merkel’s policy is forcing other countries to take refugees. The European Commission now wants to compel European member states to accept refugees by imposing a fine of 250,000 euros per applicant they deny.

Instead of admitting a huge mistake, they are creating a mandatory option that will only bring in more “refugees”. About 80% of the “refugees” are not even from Syria. Merkel’s policy is tearing Europe apart at the seams. Unless they deal with the issue directly and publicly by stating ALL refugees will be turned away, the crisis will only get worse. These are people migrating to Europe from northern Africa and other places who are using this policy as a gateway to the promised land.

The euro has been collapsing as a result of this brain-dead idea where politicians REFUSE to ever admit mistake. They will take their countries down in the process. Friends in London are starting to say if Britain does not exit the EU, they will migrate to the USA. This is becoming completely insane; the member states who do not get out of the EU are out of their minds. The economic union has become a political union with dictatorial powers from Brussels, as the Troika never even stands for election so there is no way to vote the people out of power."

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/euro-collapsing-thanks-to-another-brain-dead-eu-proposal/

Edited May 19, 2016 by Linzz

[Linzz]

Talking about Bloombergs not knowing their @rse from their elbow.

From yesterday.

The pound jumped to a new two-week high against the euro and reversed its drop against the dollar after the poll was published. It appreciated 0.7 percent to 77.70 pence per euro as of 12:35 p.m. London time. The U.K. currency rose 0.4 percent to $1.4527, reversing a drop of as much as 0.4 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/u-k-campaign-to-stay-in-eu-posts-biggest-poll-lead-in-3-months

Utter garbage.

The £ spiked against the $ and euro at the end of April before falling away again.

https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/

Are you trying to tell us that the GBP/USD did not rise from 1.44 to 1.463 following the Queens speech?

Stop trying to read my mind Sandy. You are failing miserably.

I am not telling you anything. Other than the Bloomberg headline is misleading. The £ was higher against the $ on May 04. That was before the Queens Speech.

I am saying that the small rises and dips are most likely nothing to do with the EU referendum, but are no more than the normal currency swings. A movement of 0.02 is hardly a jump.

"Our models are extremely bearish the euro. I have written extensively on how the structure of the euro was a disaster, but without the euro, there is no justification for Brussels to even exist. Banks throughout Europe have been told NOT to be bearish on the euro or else. Brussels has rigged elections in Scotland and staged coups behind the curtain in Italy to prevent former Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi from running for office because he was the first to try to take Italy out of the euro. In Greece, they threaten that if he dared to allow the Greek people to vote, there would be no deal. They tried to rig the last referendum and then told the Greek government to ignore the vote when it went against them. Brussels even put all legislation on hold until after the BREXIT vote so the Brits remain clueless on what they will do next.

There have been 72 votes in the EU that all went against Britain and they never won a single vote. Why in anyone’s imagination would Britain contemplate staying within such a one-sided deal? Every effort to gain any ground from the EU is always rebuffed."......"There is no return from a yes vote"

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/britexit-the-movie/

[chiang mai]

Oh dear!

Right enough.

How is it possible that so many people use the exact same terminology, including the exact same use of punctuation marks, and make the exact same rudimentary English mistakes in the same thread.

They must all have attended the same school with the same teacher.

Damn, the secret is out, do you know about the secret handshake also and the discreet lapel badges?

Really sarge you need to lighten up a bit, go for long walks or something.

[dick dasterdly]

If only I didn't dislike/distrust Brit. govts. so much, the decision would be easy....

[Kwasaki]

The present UK gov was not voted in by the people....The vast majority of UK folk did not vote Conservative..

When I got the chance I've always voted for the Loony party.

[chiang mai]

There are loads of us that don't trust British governments, present and past plus there's loads of us who crave the return of British sovereignty and a return to those standards we can more easily identify with and like. Those of us in our sixties were bought up in a post war era that was much calmer, more dignified and the war time spirit of bulldog Britain was still evident. Many of our parents will have fought at Dunkirk and on D Day we will all remember the stories we were told about those times, memories of the sacrifices and the struggle will stay with us forever - slightly odd I think that we are able to look back on those times with such fondness but I suppose we extract the good parts and cherish them whilst trying to forget the bad.

BUT, as much as we have those fond memories, that was then and this is now, times have changed and the UK we were born into bears very little resemblance to the one that exists today. And whilst it's great to have those memories, it's also appropriate to move on and regard the matters of today with today's thinking and not with the attitudes of seventy years ago. So if some of us seem unsympathetic to the Brexit cause it's probably because we're living in 2016 and not the 1950's/1960's and our thinking is adjusted accordingly, hard as that might be for some to swallow.

[Jip99]

There are loads of us that don't trust British governments, present and past plus there's loads of us who crave the return of British sovereignty and a return to those standards we can more easily identify with and like. Those of us in our sixties were bought up in a post war era that was much calmer, more dignified and the war time spirit of bulldog Britain was still evident. Many of our parents will have fought at Dunkirk and on D Day we will all remember the stories we were told about those times, memories of the sacrifices and the struggle will stay with us forever - slightly odd I think that we are able to look back on those times with such fondness but I suppose we extract the good parts and cherish them whilst trying to forget the bad.

BUT, as much as we have those fond memories, that was then and this is now, times have changed and the UK we were born into bears very little resemblance to the one that exists today. And whilst it's great to have those memories, it's also appropriate to move on and regard the matters of today with today's thinking and not with the attitudes of seventy years ago. So if some of us seem unsympathetic to the Brexit cause it's probably because we're living in 2016 and not the 1950's/1960's and our thinking is adjusted accordingly, hard as that might be for some to swallow.

Very well said, I agree 100% - except that as far as BREXIT is concerned there are enough modern day reasons (IMO) to leave the EU at this opportunity.

[Linzz]

You really think it's so different?

Edited May 19, 2016 by Linzz

[chiang mai]

Sixty/seventy years ago the UK was a significant force in global affairs, the days of the Empire were still fresh, Europe was still a series of disparate countries and the US had not truly taken over as the worlds policeman at that stage. Today the circumstances are totally different, today is all about large and powerful entities, against which we will find if difficult to compete. So when somebody says to change matters from the inside rather than alienate and be an outsider, I can relate to that and I can agree. Perhaps if the EU were the other side of the planet I might think differently but it's our only near neighbour and it's only 22 miles away, we cannot afford to be out rather than in, not unless we want a GDP that is 90% of what it is today and are willing to accept the cost to the population accordingly. The other aspect of leaving is that we've put a whole lot of effort into grabbing business territory within the EU, leaving the EU risks losing much of what was gained in the hope that we may be able to gain some of it back as we go alone - that doesn't seem sensible to me, not unless the trade off is something truly significant and I've yet to understand what that might be.

When this debate started I said I was not biased one way or the other on this issue and that was true, I wasn't, but as the debate has gone forward I've quickly come down on the side of Remain. Why? Simply because the arguments in favour of Brexit don't stack up and the benefits of it are unclear. I've yet to see a solid case for Brexit that sets out numbers sensibly and logically and are realistic, all I see is lots of nostalgia, silly lists that are unsupportable and attempts to deride anything to do with the establishment and/or any perceived association of anyone with it. Sad as it may seem to some, there's little surprise the poll numbers are coming out the way they are, the case for Brexit has not been made in even the slightest.

[Grouse]

Here is a link to a televised referendum debate I watched on You Tube. Very informative.

The spectator debate: should Britain leave the EU?

https://youtu.be/uYTJGBBjkGo

Yep, quite a good watch

I agree, worth watching

Why is Clegg always so week?

I also shout the Labour woman on the Brexit side was poor

Overall good debate!

[Grouse]

Oh dear!

Right enough.

How is it possible that so many people use the exact same terminology, including the exact same use of punctuation marks, and make the exact same rudimentary English mistakes in the same thread.

They must all have attended the same school with the same teacher.

You just don't stop do you?

Great job as spelling master

"the exact same"? or "exactly the same"? Please clarify

Clearly I upset you knucklehead

[Grouse]

The present UK gov was not voted in by the people....The vast majority of UK folk did not vote Conservative..

How would you organise elections?

How do you expect to be taken seriously, Transam?

Get a proper V8; a Range Rover

At least it's British!

Edited May 19, 2016 by Grouse

[Grouse]

Which 'refugees'?

Have you seen how many of these 'refugees' are fit, healthy young men? These should be back in their own countries fighting to help liberate them. Instead, they move into Europe where they try ti intimidate the local populations. There are reports of them patrolling streets insisting life should be lived their way.

Women are harassed for wearing western style clothing. Women and children are accosted in streets, on trains, in swimming pools.

These 'immigrants should be deported back to their own countires.

I see no reason why these 'immigrants' should be forced onto any country that does not want them.

The women and children - and there seem to be very few of these - should be given safe haven in the FIRST safe country they land in. This should be a temporary measure until their own countries are deemed safe once again (which - admittedly - may take some time). But these genuine refugees should not then be allowed to have all their dozens of relatives join them. They, also, should not be allocated to a country that does not want them, but remain in the safe countries they land in.

If Turkey - as the E.U. says - is a safe place, then they should stay there, not be shipped to Europe.

I suppose you would have them flood into the U.K. and live here on benefits, get free housing, white goods and free schooling? They do not integrate wherever they go.

There are reports today that another refugee place has been torched in Italy. That would make it the 3rd time they have torched this particular place. A safe place where they are looked after and given shelter. Not that it means much to them.

My, what an angry, unpleasant person you must be. Have you tried getting help?

Interesting............

"Merkel’s failed refugee policy is destroying the fabric of Europe and raising international concerns that Europeans may need visas because she has introduced the prospect of ISIS using Europe as a stepping stone to get into the USA. Now, Merkel’s policy is forcing other countries to take refugees. The European Commission now wants to compel European member states to accept refugees by imposing a fine of 250,000 euros per applicant they deny.

Instead of admitting a huge mistake, they are creating a mandatory option that will only bring in more “refugees”. About 80% of the “refugees” are not even from Syria. Merkel’s policy is tearing Europe apart at the seams. Unless they deal with the issue directly and publicly by stating ALL refugees will be turned away, the crisis will only get worse. These are people migrating to Europe from northern Africa and other places who are using this policy as a gateway to the promised land.

The euro has been collapsing as a result of this brain-dead idea where politicians REFUSE to ever admit mistake. They will take their countries down in the process. Friends in London are starting to say if Britain does not exit the EU, they will migrate to the USA. This is becoming completely insane; the member states who do not get out of the EU are out of their minds. The economic union has become a political union with dictatorial powers from Brussels, as the Troika never even stands for election so there is no way to vote the people out of power."

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/euro-collapsing-thanks-to-another-brain-dead-eu-proposal/

Now that's fair comment

I am also concerned

However, I don't know what is the correct way forward.....

[allanos]

From the outset of this debate, there was never going to be a "knock out punch" or a "killer blow", by the causes espoused by either

of the protagonists. Everyone would have known that, from the beginning. One aspect which has taken me somewhat

by surprise, and to my delight, is in the strength of the opinion polls' numbers in favour of Brexit. There is a long road ahead,

much discussion to come, and the closeness of the numbers does not suggest, at this stage, that the referendum will absolutely

come down on the side of the "remainers".

To ascribe the supporters of the "out" campaign as being uneducated, nostalgic for past glories, pining for "Empire" or living in 1956 and not

2016, is an attempt to dumb down the argument. Statistics notwithstanding, the issues are deep, and we certainly cannot rely on

what the politicians on either side of the debate have to say, nor the various vested interests in the BOE, USA, IMF, EU and others

from an alphabet soup of organisations which to be heavily in favour of an "in" vote. The heads of these latter institutions are playing to

their own agendas, never forget that!

To those that believe our salvation lies in Continental Europe in an ever expanding EU, bringing on board disparate languages and

cultures and prosperities or poverties, I feel that you are blinkered. The matter of such difficult integration aside, you have not internalised

the autonomy of the EU Commission nor the "vision" for the future direction of Europe which the leaders have. You are not considering

the ever-dwindling lack of Britain's ability to "change things from the inside", as if it were some beckoning Holy Grail. Nor have you calculated

the financial black hole which is facing the EU, and which will demand more and more funding from the countries able to pay (read Britain, here).

Nor have you taken to heart the political changes that are in the offing, and at which time Britain's sovereignty will be consigned to history.

The Referendum is an event; but the withdrawal from the EU will be a process. An optimistic view is that it will take at least 2 years

to be concluded; a pessimistic opinion is that it could take 10 years. To those who say that an immediate Brexit vote will bring

down the curtain on Britain, that it will go onto an EU blacklist, that its currency is forever doomed and that trade and growth will be stifled,

I have news. The very fact that. following a majority vote to the side of the Brexit supporters, the terms of withdrawal will take such a long

time to negotiate, and then conclude, encourages me to think that new structures will be put in place in an orderly fashion by the United Kingdom,

in all relative areas, such that there will be no lurching, or toppling, or sinking, of Britain. And at all times, the future will look brighter, when

viewing the EU, finally, from the outside.

I remain as optimistic about Brexit, perhaps even more so, than I did at the commencement of this debate, the more I have weighed up the pro's

and cons as time has gone on, and listened to opposing arguments.

[Grouse]

Sixty/seventy years ago the UK was a significant force in global affairs, the days of the Empire were still fresh, Europe was still a series of disparate countries and the US had not truly taken over as the worlds policeman at that stage. Today the circumstances are totally different, today is all about large and powerful entities, against which we will find if difficult to compete. So when somebody says to change matters from the inside rather than alienate and be an outsider, I can relate to that and I can agree. Perhaps if the EU were the other side of the planet I might think differently but it's our only near neighbour and it's only 22 miles away, we cannot afford to be out rather than in, not unless we want a GDP that is 90% of what it is today and are willing to accept the cost to the population accordingly. The other aspect of leaving is that we've put a whole lot of effort into grabbing business territory within the EU, leaving the EU risks losing much of what was gained in the hope that we may be able to gain some of it back as we go alone - that doesn't seem sensible to me, not unless the trade off is something truly significant and I've yet to understand what that might be.

When this debate started I said I was not biased one way or the other on this issue and that was true, I wasn't, but as the debate has gone forward I've quickly come down on the side of Remain. Why? Simply because the arguments in favour of Brexit don't stack up and the benefits of it are unclear. I've yet to see a solid case for Brexit that sets out numbers sensibly and logically and are realistic, all I see is lots of nostalgia, silly lists that are unsupportable and attempts to deride anything to do with the establishment and/or any perceived association of anyone with it. Sad as it may seem to some, there's little surprise the poll numbers are coming out the way they are, the case for Brexit has not been made in even the slightest.

Chiang Mai,

I admire your cool, calm rational approach.

In trying to state similar views, I just seem attract alienation!

Well done (on behalf of my family also)

[Grouse]

The political label doesn't really matter when an individual's words resonate with a large percentage of the population.

That said, UKIP with 4m voters is a powerful block of votes to have for either camp.

You're absolutely correct!

They still make me laugh though! What bunch of misfits! Have you heard any of them speak on a panel or suchlike?

I'd drink several pints with Nigel but I wouldn't lend him money [emoji4]

I think I can speak for many on TV. We would't even want to have a drink with you,be it a pint or a g+t.

No problem, I never liked Wetherspoons

(SgtRock, have I got the punctuation correct? Should it be an apostrophe "'s" for possession or does it belong to multiple Wethersoons

No matter, at least it's cheap!)

Edited May 19, 2016 by Grouse

[allanos]

There are loads of us that don't trust British governments, present and past plus there's loads of us who crave the return of British sovereignty and a return to those standards we can more easily identify with and like. Those of us in our sixties were bought up in a post war era that was much calmer, more dignified and the war time spirit of bulldog Britain was still evident. Many of our parents will have fought at Dunkirk and on D Day we will all remember the stories we were told about those times, memories of the sacrifices and the struggle will stay with us forever - slightly odd I think that we are able to look back on those times with such fondness but I suppose we extract the good parts and cherish them whilst trying to forget the bad.

BUT, as much as we have those fond memories, that was then and this is now, times have changed and the UK we were born into bears very little resemblance to the one that exists today. And whilst it's great to have those memories, it's also appropriate to move on and regard the matters of today with today's thinking and not with the attitudes of seventy years ago. So if some of us seem unsympathetic to the Brexit cause it's probably because we're living in 2016 and not the 1950's/1960's and our thinking is adjusted accordingly, hard as that might be for some to swallow.

I very much enjoyed this post and think that some of it has merit. Personally, I can empathise with some of the romanticism which is contained therein,

although nostalgia is not what it used to be (joke).

I am, however, a little confused by your post's conclusion. Perhaps you would like to expound on what "today's thinking" means, as opposed to the

implied different "thinking" of a generation or two ago.

How has your (critical) thinking altered compared to your "thinking" back in the 50's and 60's (apart from the obvious advanced maturity which you now have).

How has it been impacted by being in 2016 as opposed to 1966 (50 years' ago) for example?

[allanos]

The present UK gov was not voted in by the people....The vast majority of UK folk did not vote Conservative..

How would you organise elections?

How do you expect to be taken seriously, Transam?

Get a proper V8; a Range Rover

At least it's British!

Indian?

[allanos]

Oh dear!

Right enough.

How is it possible that so many people use the exact same terminology, including the exact same use of punctuation marks, and make the exact same rudimentary English mistakes in the same thread.

They must all have attended the same school with the same teacher.

You just don't stop do you?

Great job as spelling master

"the exact same"? or "exactly the same"? Please clarify

Clearly I upset you knucklehead

In fact, we are probably referring to "phraseology" here, and not spelling.

That aside, I would suggest that "the exact same", or "exactly the same", are both good English grammar.

My vote, therefore, comes down on the side of the Sergeant; so much so that I am inclined to promote him to Top Sergeant!

[Jip99]

That said, UKIP with 4m voters is a powerful block of votes to have for either camp.

You're absolutely correct!

They still make me laugh though! What bunch of misfits! Have you heard any of them speak on a panel or suchlike?

I'd drink several pints with Nigel but I wouldn't lend him money [emoji4]

I think I can speak for many on TV. We would't even want to have a drink with you,be it a pint or a g+t.

No problem, I never liked Wetherspoons

(SgtRock, have I got the punctuation correct? Should it be an apostrophe "'s" for possession or does it belong to multiple Wethersoons

No matter, at least it's cheap!)

There is a brilliant Wethersoons in Hammersmith.

The William Morris... tasty food at sensible prices washed down a couple of weeks ago with a pint of IPA at GBP 2.05.

Off topic, but if Wetherspoons is OK for Farage it is OK for me.

[allanos]

The subject of a good venue for a tipple is somewhat (indeed, very much) off-topic. Personally, and I have only experienced

ones in the South-West of England (and it is Wetherspoons' with the apostrophe after the "s", IMHO). I find them seedy and

run-down; in support of Mr Grouser, I find them "down market", and "past their 'sell by date". I am also not too enamoured

as to their culinary offerings, although the price points are extremely good.

Having said all of that, the business continues to grow, turn in good profits, and has a solidly-performing share price.

So what's not to like?

[nontabury]

Sixty/seventy years ago the UK was a significant force in global affairs, the days of the Empire were still fresh, Europe was still a series of disparate countries and the US had not truly taken over as the worlds policeman at that stage. Today the circumstances are totally different, today is all about large and powerful entities, against which we will find if difficult to compete. So when somebody says to change matters from the inside rather than alienate and be an outsider, I can relate to that and I can agree. Perhaps if the EU were the other side of the planet I might think differently but it's our only near neighbour and it's only 22 miles away, we cannot afford to be out rather than in, not unless we want a GDP that is 90% of what it is today and are willing to accept the cost to the population accordingly. The other aspect of leaving is that we've put a whole lot of effort into grabbing business territory within the EU, leaving the EU risks losing much of what was gained in the hope that we may be able to gain some of it back as we go alone - that doesn't seem sensible to me, not unless the trade off is something truly significant and I've yet to understand what that might be.

When this debate started I said I was not biased one way or the other on this issue and that was true, I wasn't, but as the debate has gone forward I've quickly come down on the side of Remain. Why? Simply because the arguments in favour of Brexit don't stack up and the benefits of it are unclear. I've yet to see a solid case for Brexit that sets out numbers sensibly and logically and are realistic, all I see is lots of nostalgia, silly lists that are unsupportable and attempts to deride anything to do with the establishment and/or any perceived association of anyone with it. Sad as it may seem to some, there's little surprise the poll numbers are coming out the way they are, the case for Brexit has not been made in even the slightest.

I remember you saying at the start of this thread that you were undecided,however from your first imput I quickly came to the conclusion that you were,and are firmly in the remain camp.

You mention that if we do exit, our GDP we would be down to 90% of what it is today,my question to you is "WHY".

In the event of a Britex there is more chance of our GDP increasing,due to the fact we could make more trade deals with other countries, that's assuming that trade deals are the B all and end all of international trade. Personally I believe trade is based on supplying products that others actually need. And all these trade deals are is a way of circumventing protectionism.

[allanos]

Sixty/seventy years ago the UK was a significant force in global affairs, the days of the Empire were still fresh, Europe was still a series of disparate countries and the US had not truly taken over as the worlds policeman at that stage. Today the circumstances are totally different, today is all about large and powerful entities, against which we will find if difficult to compete. So when somebody says to change matters from the inside rather than alienate and be an outsider, I can relate to that and I can agree. Perhaps if the EU were the other side of the planet I might think differently but it's our only near neighbour and it's only 22 miles away, we cannot afford to be out rather than in, not unless we want a GDP that is 90% of what it is today and are willing to accept the cost to the population accordingly. The other aspect of leaving is that we've put a whole lot of effort into grabbing business territory within the EU, leaving the EU risks losing much of what was gained in the hope that we may be able to gain some of it back as we go alone - that doesn't seem sensible to me, not unless the trade off is something truly significant and I've yet to understand what that might be.

When this debate started I said I was not biased one way or the other on this issue and that was true, I wasn't, but as the debate has gone forward I've quickly come down on the side of Remain. Why? Simply because the arguments in favour of Brexit don't stack up and the benefits of it are unclear. I've yet to see a solid case for Brexit that sets out numbers sensibly and logically and are realistic, all I see is lots of nostalgia, silly lists that are unsupportable and attempts to deride anything to do with the establishment and/or any perceived association of anyone with it. Sad as it may seem to some, there's little surprise the poll numbers are coming out the way they are, the case for Brexit has not been made in even the slightest.

I remember you saying at the start of this thread that you were undecided,however from your first imput I quickly came to the conclusion that you were,and are firmly in the remain camp.

You mention that if we do exit, our GDP we would be down to 90% of what it is today,my question to you is "WHY".

In the event of a Britex there is more chance of our GDP increasing,due to the fact we could make more trade deals with other countries, that's assuming that trade deals are the B all and end all of international trade. Personally I believe trade is based on supplying products that others actually need. And all these trade deals are is a way of circumventing protectionism.

Where does this 90% figure come from? How has it been quantified; after all, no one can predict the future? Scare-mongering, perhaps?

[nontabury]

Here is a link to a televised referendum debate I watched on You Tube. Very informative.

The spectator debate: should Britain leave the EU?

Yep, quite a good watch

I agree, worth watching

Why is Clegg always so week?

I also shout the Labour woman on the Brexit side was poor

Overall good debate!

The Labour MP on the Brexit side was Kate Hoey, who has been an MP for over 26yrs.

I thought she was outstanding, she spoke at length on Democracy. So I can see why you din't rate her, as she believes ( even though she is University educated ) in everyone being entitled to vote and how the executive should be answerable to the electorate, something that those in Brussels do not agree with.

[nontabury]

The present UK gov was not voted in by the people....The vast majority of UK folk did not vote Conservative..

How would you organise elections?

How do you expect to be taken seriously, Transam?

Get a proper V8; a Range Rover

At least it's British!

Two alternatives, not saying they're perfect, but they are alternatives.

2/Promotional representation.

2/ Compulsive voting, as in Australia.

[SgtRock]

Oh dear!

Right enough.

How is it possible that so many people use the exact same terminology, including the exact same use of punctuation marks, and make the exact same rudimentary English mistakes in the same thread.

They must all have attended the same school with the same teacher.

You just don't stop do you?

Great job as spelling master

"the exact same"? or "exactly the same"? Please clarify

Clearly I upset you knucklehead

Upset me ? Do not flatter yourself. I pity you.

Let me explain.

I was brought up to be respectful and to pity those that were less fortunate than myself.

As someone who has continually posted throughout this thread and others, about the great unwashed and the low levels of education associated with those who support Brexit. You have constantly showed your own outstanding levels of intelligence. Some of these I have already highlighted, but let me remind you of your latest howlers that highlight quite clearly your intelligence levels.

Why is Clegg always so week? Is he a Clegg ( blood sucking fly ) 7 days a week or did you mean weak ?

Landrover has not been British for near on a decade. Never mind.

I am also a great believer in the old adage '' Never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience''

I came to the conclusion months ago that you were always up for an argument debate, but did not have the grey matter to actually debate anything, resorting to throwing your personal favourites, those being the great unwashed and lacking in education.

For this reason, you joined my ignore list months ago. I still reserve the right to read and respond appropriately to whatever post I deem fit.

You now know why you joined my ignore list. Do not take it personally, I blame the schools.

[uksomchai]

Brexit the Movie is available to watch now and makes for an enlightening hour. The link to it is here

There is also a very good video that shows the same tales of doom and destruction that are being spouted now by the same, usual suspects about what will happen if the people of the UK vote to leave are the exact same tales warning the people of Norway before they decided to join fully or not. Huge job losses, huge interest rises, nobody would ever deal with them outside the EU, they would never get a trade deal, etc, etc, etc. As it happens Norway voted NO and then went from strength to strength having unemployment and growth figures the EU can only dream of and has more trade deals than the EU. The link here

The tales that are being used now to scare the people of the UK to vote remain need to be put into the context of lies, deception and deceit where they belong.

[SgtRock]

Brexit the Movie is available to watch now and makes for an enlightening hour. The link to it is here

There is also a very good video that shows the same tales of doom and destruction that are being spouted now by the same, usual suspects about what will happen if the people of the UK vote to leave are the exact same tales warning the people of Norway before they decided to join fully or not. Huge job losses, huge interest rises, nobody would ever deal with them outside the EU, they would never get a trade deal, etc, etc, etc. As it happens Norway voted NO and then went from strength to strength having unemployment and growth figures the EU can only dream of and has more trade deals than the EU. The link here

The tales that are being used now to scare the people of the UK to vote remain need to be put into the context of lies, deception and deceit where they belong.

I read a brilliant piece yesterday about the scare stories that were used in Norway.

As luck would have it, I never kept the link and cannot remember where I read it.

[Jip99]

Sixty/seventy years ago the UK was a significant force in global affairs, the days of the Empire were still fresh, Europe was still a series of disparate countries and the US had not truly taken over as the worlds policeman at that stage. Today the circumstances are totally different, today is all about large and powerful entities, against which we will find if difficult to compete. So when somebody says to change matters from the inside rather than alienate and be an outsider, I can relate to that and I can agree. Perhaps if the EU were the other side of the planet I might think differently but it's our only near neighbour and it's only 22 miles away, we cannot afford to be out rather than in, not unless we want a GDP that is 90% of what it is today and are willing to accept the cost to the population accordingly. The other aspect of leaving is that we've put a whole lot of effort into grabbing business territory within the EU, leaving the EU risks losing much of what was gained in the hope that we may be able to gain some of it back as we go alone - that doesn't seem sensible to me, not unless the trade off is something truly significant and I've yet to understand what that might be.

When this debate started I said I was not biased one way or the other on this issue and that was true, I wasn't, but as the debate has gone forward I've quickly come down on the side of Remain. Why? Simply because the arguments in favour of Brexit don't stack up and the benefits of it are unclear. I've yet to see a solid case for Brexit that sets out numbers sensibly and logically and are realistic, all I see is lots of nostalgia, silly lists that are unsupportable and attempts to deride anything to do with the establishment and/or any perceived association of anyone with it. Sad as it may seem to some, there's little surprise the poll numbers are coming out the way they are, the case for Brexit has not been made in even the slightest.

I remember you saying at the start of this thread that you were undecided,however from your first imput I quickly came to the conclusion that you were,and are firmly in the remain camp.

You mention that if we do exit, our GDP we would be down to 90% of what it is today,my question to you is "WHY".

In the event of a Britex there is more chance of our GDP increasing,due to the fact we could make more trade deals with other countries, that's assuming that trade deals are the B all and end all of international trade. Personally I believe trade is based on supplying products that others actually need. And all these trade deals are is a way of circumventing protectionism.

I agree. The case for REMAIN has not been made by chiang mai and his posts are normally more substantive.

Apart from the fear factor homilies, that are being tripped out by naby, there have been no concrete reasons to stay in the EU.

I understand that many would prefer the expected status quo (I doubt it will be) to the risks associated with exit. I don't see that a reason to REMAIN.

[allanos]

Sixty/seventy years ago the UK was a significant force in global affairs, the days of the Empire were still fresh, Europe was still a series of disparate countries and the US had not truly taken over as the worlds policeman at that stage. Today the circumstances are totally different, today is all about large and powerful entities, against which we will find if difficult to compete. So when somebody says to change matters from the inside rather than alienate and be an outsider, I can relate to that and I can agree. Perhaps if the EU were the other side of the planet I might think differently but it's our only near neighbour and it's only 22 miles away, we cannot afford to be out rather than in, not unless we want a GDP that is 90% of what it is today and are willing to accept the cost to the population accordingly. The other aspect of leaving is that we've put a whole lot of effort into grabbing business territory within the EU, leaving the EU risks losing much of what was gained in the hope that we may be able to gain some of it back as we go alone - that doesn't seem sensible to me, not unless the trade off is something truly significant and I've yet to understand what that might be.

When this debate started I said I was not biased one way or the other on this issue and that was true, I wasn't, but as the debate has gone forward I've quickly come down on the side of Remain. Why? Simply because the arguments in favour of Brexit don't stack up and the benefits of it are unclear. I've yet to see a solid case for Brexit that sets out numbers sensibly and logically and are realistic, all I see is lots of nostalgia, silly lists that are unsupportable and attempts to deride anything to do with the establishment and/or any perceived association of anyone with it. Sad as it may seem to some, there's little surprise the poll numbers are coming out the way they are, the case for Brexit has not been made in even the slightest.

Chiang Mai,

I admire your cool, calm rational approach.

In trying to state similar views, I just seem attract alienation!

Well done (on behalf of my family also)

May I make a constructive criticism, in response to your rather plaintive line above that "in trying to state similar views (to those of Chiang Mai),

I just seem to attract alienation"?

You are quite right, your views are often similar to his, and equally rational. It is clear that you have had a good education; that is beyond dispute.

The problem is with the "delivery" of your views, in my opinion.

The perception gained from your delivery is that you are arrogant, pretentious and patronising. And, as we all know, perception is reality. There

are many members on this Forum who find it objectionable, and, consequently, take umbrage. And when you attempt to demean them with remarks

such as that they are not educated, are not able to appreciate the historical facts underlying the in/out debate over EU membership, etc., then you

are simply pouring oil on to the flames.

My suggestion would be that you tone down some of the overtly "superior" comments which you are prone to make, and you will find that you will be

taken more seriously by the contributors to this Forum, and not so likely to arouse antagonism.

Best regards