Britain will lose more from Brexit than EU, bloc's foreign policy chief says

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

I believe in holding a GE in June,with the big issue being the Brexit deal.That should TM win with a large majority. That in itself should give her the mandate to decide what is the best for the U.K.  If she then  decides to waste more precious time by putting it back again to the electorate,so be it. 

Are you sure you understand what the placard means? ?

[3NUMBAS]

Sour grapes from the tyrannical losers

[delh]

2 hours ago, pitrevie said:

And that I think reveals your hypocrisy because in June you will not have the faintest idea what the deal is but nevertheless you are going to accept whatever is or is not agreed. AS Kenneth Clarke remarked its like disappearing down a rabbit hole and expecting to reappear in wonderland.

Wow, this debate continues!

 

Grow some balls.

 

Trade deals are already being lined up.   Do you remember the Commonwealth?

For a moment, think about that name : Commonwealth

 

The vast majority of world wide trade is OUTSIDE of the EU.

 

And the door is open to the UK.

[delh]

16 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Well in our system the British people had a chance to vote out the government that imposed each of the major treaties that followed. In fact Major opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastrich treaty and a few years later Blair with an overwhelming majority signed up for that giving a lot of workers protection which the Tories seemed reluctant to give. The Tories were also confirmed in power after signing up to the SEA. However your enthusiasm for allowing the British people to decide apparently disappears  from now on. Several times you have been asked whether you think the treaty that we finally agree on with the EU should be put to the British people for approval or do you think that should be imposed on the British people and each time the response is zero.

So you are still here, haha.

 

Theresa May has killed the issue by instigating a GE. 

 

There is now a vote... 

 

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it.

[Johnyo]

You are entitled to your opinion, as UK nationals are to theirs.
 
Another terrorist attack in Paris over the last 24 hours! 
 
But most of all, democracy no longer exists. 

Not sure of the relevance regarding terrorists. In the last 20 years all terrorist attacks on U.K soil were carried out by Brits.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, delh said:

So you are still here, haha.

 

Theresa May has killed the issue by instigating a GE. 

 

There is now a vote... 

 

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it.

NIgel Farage disagrees with you.

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

[pitrevie]

7 hours ago, delh said:

So you are still here, haha.

 

Theresa May has killed the issue by instigating a GE. 

 

There is now a vote... 

 

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it.

You have come late to the party that is the point I have made all along. However those that feel that we should have a referendum on every treaty now seem very reluctant to want a vote on this particular treaty. So before you come here and put your foot in it try reading the thread.

[pitrevie]

7 hours ago, delh said:

Wow, this debate continues!

 

Grow some balls.

 

Trade deals are already being lined up.   Do you remember the Commonwealth?

For a moment, think about that name : Commonwealth

 

The vast majority of world wide trade is OUTSIDE of the EU.

 

And the door is open to the UK.

And the single biggest richest market is right on our doorstep. By the way we haven't stopped trading with the Commonwealth since becoming members of the EU. As for the debate continuing, yep you might have noticed that is what this thread is all about. Nobody forces you here, like others who complain about this thread and how unimportant and irrelevant my posts are but then continue to post their responses often weeks after they were posted.

[delh]

43 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

And the single biggest richest market is right on our doorstep. By the way we haven't stopped trading with the Commonwealth since becoming members of the EU. As for the debate continuing, yep you might have noticed that is what this thread is all about. Nobody forces you here, like others who complain about this thread and how unimportant and irrelevant my posts are but then continue to post their responses often weeks after they were posted.

Hows the French election going?

 

Do you think trade with our neighbours will cease completely after we our out of the corrupt, non democratic, unaccounted, unaccountable EU?

Edited April 24, 2017 by delh

[pitrevie]

24 minutes ago, delh said:

Hows the French election going?

 

Do you think trade with our neighbours will cease completely after we our out of the corrupt, non democratic, unaccounted, unaccountable EU?

Nope why did anyone say it would, however it might become more difficult which is hardly good for trade? Is that the non democratic, unaccountable EU that we elect MEPs to?

Do tell us when you were last able to have any say in any of the appointments in the UK government.

Much to the disappointment of some Brexiters it looks as if the French as going to reject the anti EU Le Pen

[delh]

16 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Nope why did anyone say it would, however it might become more difficult which is hardly good for trade? Is that the non democratic, unaccountable EU that we elect MEPs to?

Do tell us when you were last able to have any say in any of the appointments in the UK government.

Much to the disappointment of some Brexiters it looks as if the French as going to reject the anti EU Le Pen

Yes, trade may be more difficult. But only as difficult as it will be for EU members to trade with UK, which evens things up don't you think?

 

Yes, we elect MEP's, but who appoints the top of the tree? Can you vote them out? No. 

 

In UK politics, we vote for MP's, who in turn, vote for their leaders.  That includes the Labour MP's, albeit with trade Unions massive input. 

 

It looks as if Le Pen will get through to the second round. Hardly a rejection. Maybe she will not win the second round, but maybe she will.

 

You appear to pick up the democracy part of my comments. Why do you not pick up the unaccounted, unaccountable theme?

 

Enjoy your day, I'm off to run my business.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by delh

[delh]

1 hour ago, pitrevie said:

You have come late to the party that is the point I have made all along. However those that feel that we should have a referendum on every treaty now seem very reluctant to want a vote on this particular treaty. So before you come here and put your foot in it try reading the thread.

'Come to the party late'.  What are you banging on about?

 

'So before you come here and put your foot in it'. -----I've read every post.      Who do you think you are, instructing others on here.

 

I will come here to comment whenever I choose, with or without your approval. 

 

See ya!

Edited April 24, 2017 by delh

[pitrevie]

Just now, delh said:

Yes, trade may be more difficult. But only as difficult as it will be for EU members to trade with UK, which evens things up don't you think?

 

Yes, we elect MEP's, but who appoints the top of the tree? Can you vote them out? No. 

 

In UK politics, we vote for MP's, who in turn, vote for their leaders.  That includes the Labour MP's, albeit with trade Unions massive input. 

 

It looks as if Le Pen will get through to the second round. Hardly a rejection. Maybe she will not win the second round, but maybe she will.

 

You appear to pick up the democracy part of my comments. Why do you not pick up the unaccounted, unaccountable theme?

 

 

I don't think of making trade more difficult, that is why we have the single market and according to UK Businesses they are in favour of it but hell what do they know.

Like most governments you have no say in the appointment of the executive. In the EU we are dealing with a multi national body so we elect MEPs and each government nominates to the council of ministers and commissioners. Not sure how that could be improved on but I look forward to your suggestions.

Who appoints the top of the tree, I believe in the UK its the Queen. Having been appointed the top of the tree the PM then appoints every single branch and leaf in her government you have no further say in the matter.

Can you vote her out, nope, only MPs get to do that you have no further say in the matter and in 5 years time your only input again will be to vote for your local MP.

Perhaps if people such as Farage who has the second worst attendance record in the EU Parliament attended more frequently the executive could be held to account.

Perhaps if Farage who was appointed to the fisheries committee and attended once out of a possible 42 times was to attend more often the executive might again be held more accountable.

Not unexpectedly Le Pen is through to the second round, however Brexiters who wish to see France withdraw from the EU and the EU imploding but somehow never get around to telling us how that will benefit the UK

 

[pitrevie]

2 minutes ago, delh said:

'Come to the party late'.  What are you banging on about?

 

'So before you come here and put your foot in it'. -----I've read every post.      Who do you think you are, instructing others on here.

 

I will come here to comment whenever I choose, with or without your approval. 

 

See ya!

Who said otherwise but as to you reading every post your remarks suggest otherwise. You were the one asking whether I wanted a referendum on everything which if you had bothered to read my previous posts you will have seen I am opposed to referendums and for the same reasons as Margaret Thatcher was.

 

Let me remind you what you wrote.

 

"So you are still here, haha.

 

Theresa May has killed the issue by instigating a GE. 

 

There is now a vote... 

 

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it."

 

Yes I am still here I don't need your permission for that. 

[nontabury]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

NIgel Farage disagrees with you.

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

But did the Mirror correctly quote Nigel Farage. Let's see what he says.

 

 

 

[delh]

7 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Who said otherwise but as to you reading every post your remarks suggest otherwise. You were the one asking whether I wanted a referendum on everything which if you had bothered to read my previous posts you will have seen I am opposed to referendums and for the same reasons as Margaret Thatcher was.

 

Let me remind you what you wrote.

 

"So you are still here, haha.

 

Theresa May has killed the issue by instigating a GE. 

 

There is now a vote... 

 

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it."

 

Yes I am still here I don't need your permission for that. 

Do you think I have implied that you need my permission? If so, tell me why you think this.

 

By comparison, in one of your posts yesterday, you instructed others to read what you said. Who on earth do you think you are?

 

Its akin to the Ginger dwarf from the north( with thanks to Katy Hopkins)! Me me me me me, said wee Kranky.

 

The only other thing I gain from the response above is that you appear to believe I hang off your every word.

 

Believe me, this is not the case.

 

 

[pitrevie]

24 minutes ago, delh said:

Do you think I have implied that you need my permission? If so, tell me why you think this.

 

By comparison, in one of your posts yesterday, you instructed others to read what you said. Who on earth do you think you are?

 

Its akin to the Ginger dwarf from the north( with thanks to Katy Hopkins)! Me me me me me, said wee Kranky.

 

The only other thing I gain from the response above is that you appear to believe I hang off your every word.

 

Believe me, this is not the case.

 

 

You wrote "Yes I am still here I don't need your permission for that"  At no time did I imply you did but what I did point out was nobody forces you to join in.

 

You wrote "Wow, this debate continues" yes correct and as I pointed out nobody forces you to join in and at no time did I imply that you need my permission.

 

You wrote "

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it."

 

AS I pointed out previously had you bothered to read the previous posts you would known the answer to that question. However there are those that have been demanding just that but now seem markedly reluctant to have a referendum on the final trade deal that emerges. 

 

You wrote "The only other thing I gain from the response above is that you appear to believe I hang off your every word." really please do show me where I said that. it was you who wrote "So you are still here, haha." why, do I need your permission to be here?

[delh]

2 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

You wrote "Yes I am still here I don't need your permission for that"  At no time did I imply you did but what I did point out was nobody forces you to join in.

 

You wrote "Wow, this debate continues" yes correct and as I pointed out nobody forces you to join in and at no time did I imply that you need my permission.

 

You wrote "

Or do you want a referendum on everything?  Do you want a referendum on the last election, the  Chilcot enquiry, pay for teachers,

Scottish police getting bigger salaries than other UK police, higher education fees free in Scotland for all of Europe apart from English Students?

 

Where exactly would you like this to start and stop????

 

Governments GOVERN.  Its their job.  We vote for them to do it."

 

AS I pointed out previously had you bothered to read the previous posts you would known the answer to that question. However there are those that have been demanding just that but now seem markedly reluctant to have a referendum on the final trade deal that emerges. 

 

You wrote "The only other thing I gain from the response above is that you appear to believe I hang off your every word." really please do show me where I said that. it was you who wrote "So you are still here, haha." why, do I need your permission to be here?

I quote:

 

'So before you come here and put your foot in it, try reading the thread'

 

These are your words, yes?

 

I have read the thread. You are not the only contributor. You appear to be making this personal.  I will do as I please.

 

Meanwhile, back on topic......

 

This Italian is employed by the EU. It's her job to stand up for her employers.  

 

I don't agree one little bit with her opinion. I believe the UK has the upper hand in terms of the negotiations. 

 

I believe that the UK contribution leaves a huge hole in their plans. I believe the fishing issue is massive. The UK waters are exactly that...UK waters.

 

I believe European manufacturers, farmers, service sector etc who export goods and services will demand from their own elected government's to ensure a smooth agreement is reached. Purely because individual governments are answerable to their electorate.

 

I believe the EU negotiating team will have little choice to accept UK terms - purely because of already existing trade deals with non EU countries already exist. Anything other than this will be seen as unprofessional. EU businesses will not, for a moment, accept bureaucratic incompetence.

 

Individual nations who export heavily into the UK will lose out massively under a nonsensical strategy.

 

Therefore, I believe that the UK will not be disadvantaged by negotiations.

Anything less will be seen as infantile.

 

Currently, all we are seeing is positioning and a lot of wind.

 

Someone previously stated here that politicians accountable to their electorate will have something to say, they have no other choice. I believe whoever stated this before is correct.

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

18 minutes ago, delh said:

I quote:

 

'So before you come here and put your foot in it, try reading the thread'

 

These are your words, yes?

 

I have read the thread. You are not the only contributor. You appear to be making this personal.  I will do as I please.

 

Meanwhile, back on topic......

 

This Italian is employed by the EU. It's her job to stand up for her employers.  

 

I don't agree one little bit with her opinion. I believe the UK has the upper hand in terms of the negotiations. 

 

I believe that the UK contribution leaves a huge hole in their plans. I believe the fishing issue is massive. The UK waters are exactly that...UK waters.

 

I believe European manufacturers, farmers, service sector etc who export goods and services will demand from their own elected government's to ensure a smooth agreement is reached. Purely because individual governments are answerable to their electorate.

 

I believe the EU negotiating team will have little choice to accept UK terms - purely because of already existing trade deals with non EU countries already exist. Anything other than this will be seen as unprofessional. EU businesses will not, for a moment, accept bureaucratic incompetence.

 

Individual nations who export heavily into the UK will lose out massively under a nonsensical strategy.

 

Therefore, I believe that the UK will not be disadvantaged by negotiations.

Anything less will be seen as infantile.

 

Currently, all we are seeing is positioning and a lot of wind.

 

Someone previously stated here that politicians accountable to their electorate will have something to say, they have no other choice. I believe whoever stated this before is correct.

 

 

 

 

There's lot of stuff that you just wrote that is basically unsound. But there's one huge issue that you don't even seem cognizant of, much less address. It's this: if the UK can withdraw from the EU without suffering for it, then why should any nation stay in the EU if it costs nothing to leave?

Edited April 24, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[pitrevie]

15 minutes ago, delh said:

I quote:

 

'So before you come here and put your foot in it, try reading the thread'

 

These are your words, yes?

 

I have read the thread. You are not the only contributor. You appear to be making this personal.  I will do as I please.

 

Meanwhile, back on topic......

 

This Italian is employed by the EU. It's her job to stand up for her employers.  

 

I don't agree one little bit with her opinion. I believe the UK has the upper hand in terms of the negotiations. 

 

I believe that the UK contribution leaves a huge hole in their plans. I believe the fishing issue is massive. The UK waters are exactly that...UK waters.

 

I believe European manufacturers, farmers, service sector etc who export goods and services will demand from their own elected government's to ensure a smooth agreement is reached. Purely because individual governments are answerable to their electorate.

 

I believe the EU negotiating team will have little choice to accept UK terms - purely because of already existing trade deals with non EU countries already exist. Anything other than this will be seen as unprofessional. EU businesses will not, for a moment, accept bureaucratic incompetence.

 

Individual nations who export heavily into the UK will lose out massively under a nonsensical strategy.

 

Therefore, I believe that the UK will not be disadvantaged by negotiations.

Anything less will be seen as infantile.

 

Currently, all we are seeing is positioning and a lot of wind.

 

Someone previously stated here that politicians accountable to their electorate will have something to say, they have no other choice. I believe whoever stated this before is correct.

 

 

 

 

Yes correct, because you were asking me how many referendums I wanted when my previous posts if you had read them had made that clear, zero. I was asking the question of others why they were so keen on these issues being addressed in referendums but that was no longer the case. Does that make it clear to you now?

 

You might not agree with her one bit but the fact is that every leader of every country with which we were on friendly terms wanted the UK to remain in the EU. That included China which is where she was at the time. But hell what do all those world leaders know about anything.

 

However since January one man has become a world leader and he is in favour of Brexit, Donald Trump. He had to ask his since disgraced national security adviser whether a weak or a strong dollar was a good thing so I am sure he knows all about Brexit.

 

As for having the upper hand I have no idea since the negotiations have barely started so who can say. However you appear to have come to a conclusion on these matters. I would hope it works out to the benefit of both blocs, and I often quote Ken Clarke who does not think it will work out well for his country but hopes nevertheless it will, but hell what does he know about it.

[delh]

8 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Yes correct, because you were asking me how many referendums I wanted when my previous posts if you had read them had made that clear, zero. I was asking the question of others why they were so keen on these issues being addressed in referendums but that was no longer the case. Does that make it clear to you now?

 

You might not agree with her one bit but the fact is that every leader of every country with which we were on friendly terms wanted the UK to remain in the EU. That included China which is where she was at the time. But hell what do all those world leaders know about anything.

 

However since January one man has become a world leader and he is in favour of Brexit, Donald Trump. He had to ask his since disgraced national security adviser whether a weak or a strong dollar was a good thing so I am sure he knows all about Brexit.

 

As for having the upper hand I have no idea since the negotiations have barely started so who can say. However you appear to have come to a conclusion on these matters. I would hope it works out to the benefit of both blocs, and I often quote Ken Clarke who does not think it will work out well for his country but hopes nevertheless it will, but hell what does he know about it.

Are you still banging on about reading YOUR posts, its getting childish, you are not important.

 

You bring up Ken Clarke, haha. What does he know? One politician, haha.

A few years ago he was a significant politician, nowadays he is not at all significant. If he was, he'd be in the cabinet.

[pitrevie]

8 minutes ago, delh said:

Are you still banging on about reading YOUR posts, its getting childish, you are not important.

 

You bring up Ken Clarke, haha. What does he know? One politician, haha.

A few years ago he was a significant politician, nowadays he is not at all significant. If he was, he'd be in the cabinet.

So why bother replying if you don't read them and if they are not important again why bother replying just ignore them? You are just like another guy here who tells me my posts are unimportant, low priority but yet somehow responds to them.

 

Ken Clarke yeah right what does he know. I would hazard a gues he knows a littel bit more about the subjevt than either of us giving his experience of government.

 

And all the other world leaders?

[delh]

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

So why bother replying if you don't read them and if they are not important again why bother replying just ignore them? You are just like another guy here who tells me my posts are unimportant, low priority but yet somehow responds to them.

 

Ken Clarke yeah right what does he know. I would hazard a gues he knows a littel bit more about the subjevt than either of us giving his experience of government.

 

And all the other world leaders?

Why do I reply...?

I was raised in old fashioned proper way. Its out of politeness.

 

And you are still banging on about you, why we should read about you. Why you should be read.  You do sound like Nic the fish.

 

Ken Clarke, he used to know a lot more..... 30 YEARS AGO.  The world changes. His opinion was not accepted 30 years ago. Its not being listened to now EITHER.

 

And your laughable ' And all the other world leaders'

 

Does that include the completely discredited Obama?

 

Let's have another giggle....

 

Google.... Financial Times. How Cameron marshalled support for his UK in his EU drive.

 

All world leaders.......you are having a laugh.

 

I am bored with your tunnelled vision.

 

Good night.

 

 

[Scott]

Unless the personal bickering stops, some members will only be able to read posts because they will be suspended from posting for a time.  

 

Please stay on the topic and the topic isn't about who read whose posts.

[delh]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

Unless the personal bickering stops, some members will only be able to read posts because they will be suspended from posting for a time.  

 

Please stay on the topic and the topic isn't about who read whose posts.

Fair play Scott, with you totally. I'm out of this.

[pitrevie]

8 hours ago, delh said:

Why do I reply...?

I was raised in old fashioned proper way. Its out of politeness.

 

And you are still banging on about you, why we should read about you. Why you should be read.  You do sound like Nic the fish.

 

Ken Clarke, he used to know a lot more..... 30 YEARS AGO.  The world changes. His opinion was not accepted 30 years ago. Its not being listened to now EITHER.

 

And your laughable ' And all the other world leaders'

 

Does that include the completely discredited Obama?

 

Let's have another giggle....

 

Google.... Financial Times. How Cameron marshalled support for his UK in his EU drive.

 

All world leaders.......you are having a laugh.

 

I am bored with your tunnelled vision.

 

Good night.

 

 

Well I think that remark "the completely discredited Obama " sums up your post, no evidence offered in support of that but in view of the fact that the present incumbent is Trump almost laughable.

Perhaps you can quote one World Leader with whom the UK is on friendly terms that wanted the UK to leave the EU apart from Trump which in itself speaks volumes. Or did Cameron force them all to support him including the Chinese leadership.

[dick dasterdly]

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

There's lot of stuff that you just wrote that is basically unsound. But there's one huge issue that you don't even seem cognizant of, much less address. It's this: if the UK can withdraw from the EU without suffering for it, then why should any nation stay in the EU if it costs nothing to leave?

Because they believe being part of the EU benefits their country and so have no desire to leave?

 

Otherwise, they're staying in the EU not because they support it, but because they're too frightened to leave.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Edited April 25, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because they believe being part of the EU benefits their country and so have no desire to leave?

 

Otherwise, they're staying in the EU not because they support it, but because they're too frightened to leave.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.

EU is a good club for us. It does need improvements, like any other collective society.

Generally there are more benefits  than negative aspects.

[dick dasterdly]

11 minutes ago, oilinki said:

EU is a good club for us. It does need improvements, like any other collective society.

Generally there are more benefits  than negative aspects.

Quite possibly, but I keep coming back to the EU showing no sign of addressing the negative aspects.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because they believe being part of the EU benefits their country and so have no desire to leave?

 

Otherwise, they're staying in the EU not because they support it, but because they're too frightened to leave.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Why would they be too frightened to leave if the benefits of leaving outweigh the costs?