You questioned if the previous quote would be a great achievement, so I asked what great achievements the EU make. You simply claim you haven't said the EU has made any great achievements, which I do not dispute, yet you could have given examples of great achievements that the EU has made, if any. I believe that is what andy97 is getting at.

 

LOL, don't bother asking Martin to justify ANYTHING.

He's the original for the fast Show politician:

"No it isn't! No it won't, No it doesn't, No it hasn't...." It's endless.

 

10 points to consider about Brexit and the EU Referendum

 

And as a different point of view.....


John Booth who I quote here:
"Throughout this whole referendum campaign, Cameron has been guilty of the most disgraceful and deceitful behaviour. The so-called renegotiation was all stage-managed, all choreographed and 'the deal' produced on cue as a Chamberlainesque "peace in our time" document. Cameron continues to parrot his line “we want Britain to remain in a ‘reformed European Union’.
The 'deal' he got will not 'reform' the EU, the EU will continue ...as before. Nothing will change. Cameron saying this deal will benefit Britain and increase our safety and security is a blatant, barefaced lie .... THERE WILL BE NO REFORM OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. As soon as the UK votes to remain part of the EU, should it do so, all the so-called concessions will be reneged upon and the juggernaut will continue undisturbed.
The most disgraceful part of all this is the deceitful way Cameron is behaving attempting to hoodwink the citizens he has been elected to lead, represent and serve. He has lied to us for months and made up the most fantastic ‘disaster’ scenarios to frighten us into voting ‘remain’ all the time avoiding the ‘elephant in the room’ - if we remain in, we will eventually be subsumed by a United States of Europe government - the ultimate aim of the EU which is no longer even kept secret.
Put simply, our Prime Minister does not want Britain to be an independent sovereign nation.
It is one thing being incompetent - there have plenty of examples of incompetent PMs and Ministers before Cameron but it is another thing entirely when the PM lies, spends taxpayers money on a PR leaflets full of distortions in order to deceive the people he is meant to represent in order to coerce us into voting for losing our independence and sovereignty and be subsumed by a supranational government in Brussels.

 

This is simply quite untrue, as this shows.

The deal was never going to be good enough for Leave, but to say he won nothing is not the case. The whole ethos of the EU meant we could never be a fully independent UK in the manner to which Leave want and remain in the EU, and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

 

I don't normally bother reading stuff like that but that one is actually quite a well thought out article.

 

Blatantly pro remain though, nothing but doom and gloom if we were to leave.

 

I agree that the vibe of that article is gung ho remain, but the points are still valid. And, he does concede the EU is not ideal, needs reforming, whereas the Leave campaign seem to blindly chant about how much of a nirvana an independent UK will be, conveniently forgetting all of the good things the EU has brought about, and also everything they have said about how the UK will perform outside of the EU is supposition.

Leave can offer nothing, except losing Brussels. Even that, depending on what sort of trade deal is agreed, is not really leaving their influence!

 

both sides have negative and positives for them in reality, the question has always been which has more pros than cons.

Hard to ignore the £250mill a week we pay (when rebate is taken off). would make alot of difference to the UK economy if used correctly, which is a big IF.

Would be a good excuse to overhaul our foreign aid policy. Any country that has a nuke program gets nothing from us as far as financial aid.

Also allow us to sack of TTIP instantly

 

Just had the polling cards through the post and the address read 25, our address is 22, so I phoned our Labour council to query it as it's always been listed as 22 in the past as far as I can remember.

She told me it was now 25 on the system and she'd look into it, she got back to me after a ten minute wait and asked me "was it showing 22 on the may election postal card?", I said yes and she abruptly answered "no it wasn't it's been listed as 25 on the system for 10 years."

She made me feel like sh*t, like I'd committed fraud, my wife came home and found the may postal cards and they correctly read 22. She's just given them a right bollocking.

 

I'm guessing they'd vote not to join; maintain the status quo. This referendum isn't a question of whether we remain or leave the EU, both options have equally positive and equally negative aspects. This is a vote for change. The Remainians they want business as usual because at the end of the day, remaining brings nothing new.

 

Or so they would have us believe. There is no status quo option, our relationship with the EU is constantly evolving.

 

Funnily a friend sent me that link and my reply was....

1. "we will still need to harmonise with Europe" Really? Why ? He doesn't (unsurprisingly) explain why. He may be referring to the fact that to sell in the EU, our goods need to abide by EU regs. True. Same applies to Japan, but we dont harmonise (or even need to) their laws with ours. Verdict: Claptrap
2. He conflates several things here, but as per this article http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_res...of-courts.html look whos top of the pile. Once we leave the EU, we can leave the ECHR. Verdict: Claptrap
3. He is being deliberately obtuse here. He knows that any EU citizen can come here and we cant stop them, regardless of their criminal record, health or economic status. Not being able to stop these peoples means we don't have control. Verdict: Claptrap
4. No one has said anything about pulling up the drawbridge. Its a classic straw man argument. Brexiters say controlled immigration based on Australian style points system. Completely different. And the overall benefit depends who you admit. If you only admit billionaires, you will be better off than admitting only benefit claimants. So it depends. Verdict: Claptrap
5. Amazing. So we KNOW that Islamic fighters are coming into the the EU from the Muslim countries, and excluding them means they cant attack us. So yes, not allowing them in (see point 4) is safer. Verdict: Claptrap
6. Lost the will to live
7. Lost the will to live
8. Just read this one, whilst engaging your brain. "Seriously? It’s not even worth bothering trying to answer this one! The statement is just so blatantly devoid of logic" Translation: I have no good reasoned argument. Here's a starter for 10, We will save £10bn in membership fees. Why will the City of London move to Frankfurt? Facts arent important it seems. Verdict: Claptrap
9. "But we’re stuck with it one way or the other" Really? That's the whole point of the referendum you stupid cvnt! Cameron tried to do a great reform, remind me how successful that was?! A prime example of complete fantasy of the Remainers. The experiment was done and the results are in. **** OFF. Verdict: Claptrap
10. Thank God for the EU! We wouldn't be able to have the working time directive (which we have an opt out for!). No English Parliament could have made that law! Errr... hang on... BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
    The Simpsons - Helen Lovejoy - Think of the children - YouTube
    Verdict: Claptrap

And to finish a nice emotive piece of nonsense. 180 countries around the world are in the process RIGHT NOW of committing economic suicide as they go crazy through not being in the EU. Who knew?

I would be interested in seeing where this guys funding comes from. I would have a small wager he gets money from the EU. This article is pure propaganda

 

So basically what you're telling us is that it's your wife that wears the trousers in your household!

 

To be honest, this was also my conclusion with that link, full of misinformation and unsubstantiated "facts". But unfortunately this is endemic on both sides of the argument

 

Wow, so this is why the popular vote is so "high"...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/may/23/study-confirms-that-the-national-press-is-biased-in-favour-of-brexit

 

They don't make it easy to link anything with iphone

 

And overalls.

 

what IS disingenuous, or naive, is that you seem to either misunderstand, or ignore the FACT that, once we vote to stay, the whole shebang promised to Cam-Moron will be reneged on.

They have almost come out and said it verbatim.

 

What utter rubbish! If the EU were to renege on the agreement, it would simply trigger another referendum, which would overwhelmingly go in favour of leaving. That's hardly likely, is it?

Do you think they are all sat in Brussels going "tee hee, those dumb Brits, we'll renege and then they will have to stay, forever!"

Do you just make **** up?

 

FACT????

 

Alcazar has trouble distinguishing facts and conjecture.

 

Problem is that money gets bandied around as being the solution to so many problems it's probably been hypothetically spent 2 or 3 times over by now.

 

Clickable link...
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...vour-of-brexit

Sadly not surprising IMHO, the press should be required to be unbiased or print their bias in large text on the front cover so that people know what b*****t they're spouting!

I find it amazing how much stick the BBC has got for being pro remain from the pro leavers here. Personally, I think the BBC has also be somewhat biased to the leave camp, so maybe that shows they have just been pretty neutral, especially compared to the newspapers.

In the end, one only has to consider the majority of MPs are pro remain, the majority of business leaders are pro-remain, the majority of economists are pro-remain, the majority of scientists and education leaders are pro-remain.

There is quite simply no substantive arguments to leave the EU that aren't based on nationalistic ideology that quite frankly sounds like Hitler speaking in the Munich beer halls!

 

That pretty much sums up Leave. You can take the boys out of the island, but you can't take the island out of the boys.....

 

Some of the BBC articles have been mega stay, especially the way the headlines have been written.

The funniest thing is there all arguing about opinions, there is no fact about it

 

Simply reflecting the majority opinion from politicians and experts!

Nobody can really state as FACT what will happen if Britain leaves the UK, we can only make educated guesses, and the educated are mostly guessing it will be bad for the UK!

 

lol, even Fraser Nelson from the Torygraph recognises that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ed-on-the-vot/

"The secret of Trump’s success should be familiar to Brits because his core supporters are precisely the people who tend to support Ukip. Low-educated, low-income whites living in areas of high unemployment: precisely the sort of people who can be written off as yesterday’s men (and they are, overwhelmingly, men). They represent a very modern and fast growing phenomenon: the losers of gloablisation."

 

I wouldn't automatically assume a referendum would be triggered. Take a look at Scottish Referendum and Cameron's broken promises. Besides, Cameron's "negotiated" agreements have been watered down from what he originally drafted and have yet to be ratified in a treaty and therefore not legally binding, just like this EU referendum. If the results of the referendum favours an exit, Cameron could still disregard the result and still choose to remain "in the interest of this country". It would be political suicide but I expect he will resign if he loses the referendum in any case.

 

There is a significant difference with the EU agreements and the promises from the Scottish referendum. The Scottish referendum promises were somewhat vague in content and were not detailed in a binding agreement.

The EU deal is a set of agreements that is bound by a signed agreement from all member states. Yes the fine print of the details is not set in stone and will have to be bashed out later, but the principle agreement is binding and cannot be repealed.