EU Referendum

[Wes Tender]

Me too - not even worth asking the question.

 

I'm surprised at you WG. At the very least, it's worth asking the question because successive governments of this country have signed treaties that substantially amend the entire basis of what it was that we originally joined and have not had the guts to put it to the electorate to ask for their acceptance of those changes. On that basis alone, it is worth asking the question.

[bridge too far]

See, it's interesting to mention Tony Benn because; whilst yes, I am a labourite, I do not understand how they could go from the opinion that we should stay out of the EU as it "would hurt the livelihoods of British workers" to their current view of essentially sneering at anyone who would want out of it and I think that cost them a serious amount of votes and obviously they realise this now.

 

I've just finished reading Dennis Skinner's autobiography (Sailing Close to the Wind). He makes a powerful case for leaving.

 

I'm about to go out so don't have time to expand his position but it's made me think ......

[Jonnyboy]

Totally separate issue.

 

It was a key Tory policy to have a referendum. Something you don't want.

[Whitey Grandad]

It was a key Tory policy to have a referendum. Something you don't want.

 

I have to consider the overall package. We could do without a referendum because of the uncertainty ain't it causes but as for the advantages and disadvantages for me there is only one place and that's inside instead of out.

[Wes Tender]

I have to consider the overall package. We could do without a referendum because of the uncertainty ain't it causes but as for the advantages and disadvantages for me there is only one place and that's inside instead of out.

 

The Europe issue has been causing uncertainty for the past 20 years or more. Had we been given a chance to vote on the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties, they would either have received the support of the electorate, or the terms of these treaties might have been amended, as they were when the French, Dutch or Irish voted against one or other of them in Referenda. In that event, UKIP would not be the force it is today. As it is, UKIP will not be going away anytime soon and now as a credible force in British politics, they will have a strong say in the way that a referendum pans out. Had there not been this deliberate procrastination by successive governments over Europe, there would be no reason for UKIP to exist, whereas because of the success of the SNP, they have potential next to address the West Lothian question and an independent Parliament for the English.

[aintforever]

Out because I don't think we will get the reforms we will inevitably be promised. All these meeting between Cameron and the EU will be about is how to con the British public into voting to stay in.

 

While there will obviously be some negative aspects about leaving I think most of the scare stories are exaggerated and the positives outweigh the negatives. Having no control of your borders is just f@cking nuts - that's the bottom line.

[Hockey_saint]

Out because I don't think we will get the reforms we will inevitably be promised. All these meeting between Cameron and the EU will be about is how to con the British public into voting to stay in.

 

While there will obviously be some negative aspects about leaving I think most of the scare stories are exaggerated and the positives outweigh the negatives. Having no control of your borders is just f@cking nuts - that's the bottom line.

 

See, that's the thing I can't get my head around: "how can you call yourself a country without control of your own borders?"

[aintforever]

See, that's the thing I can't get my head around: "how can you call yourself a country without control of your own borders?"

 

It is bonkers. 300k turning up is more than the city of Southampton turning up every year, yet at the same time we are having to make cuts in essential services because we're skint.

 

It's not rocket science, just make cuts to the number of people needing services then we won't have to spend as much.

[scotty]

Its a pointless referendum. It would have some context if there were additional questions, such as "should the UK continue its opt out of the eurozone", " should net migration be limited to x000", but the simple question to stay in or get out is pointless.

[bridge too far]

It is bonkers. 300k turning up is more than the city of Southampton turning up every year, yet at the same time we are having to make cuts in essential services because we're skint.

 

It's not rocket science, just make cuts to the number of people needing services then we won't have to spend as much.

 

That just doesn't work though for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly, those coming in cost less than they pay in taxes etc. and certainly they claim far less in benefits.

Secondly, those coming in do work that we, in this country, are unable or unwilling to do.

Thirdly, we need a bigger population paying taxes to pay for our increasingly elderly care requirements.

 

Our welfare bill is as big as it is, not because of benefit claimants per se, but because of the cost of looking after the elderly in terms of both pensions and pension credits.

[aintforever]

That just doesn't work though for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly, those coming in cost less than they pay in taxes etc. and certainly they claim far less in benefits.

Secondly, those coming in do work that we, in this country, are unable or unwilling to do.

Thirdly, we need a bigger population paying taxes to pay for our increasingly elderly care requirements.

 

Our welfare bill is as big as it is, not because of benefit claimants per se, but because of the cost of looking after the elderly in terms of both pensions and pension credits.

 

It would be interesting to see the stats but I'm not convinced the low skilled immigrants that come in cost less than what they pay in tax. Don't disagree with the rest but if we can pick and choose who comes in the net benefit from immigration would be increased.

 

Surely if a population the size of Southampton turn up every year we need to be expanding our services at the same rate every year?

 

Also, those jobs British people are unwilling or unable to do used to be done by Brits except now with wages pushed so low they might as well just claim benefits. My company employs loads of Polish, the same jobs were still done before we opened the doors to Poland.

Edited 25 May, 2015 by aintforever

[bridge too far]

It would be interesting to see the stats but I'm not convinced the low skilled immigrants that come in cost less than what they pay in tax. Don't disagree with the rest but if we can pick and choose who comes in the net benefit from immigration would be increased.

 

Surely if a population the size of Southampton turn up every year we need to be expanding our services at the same rate every year?

 

You would think so, wouldn't you. Somewhat cynically, I think probably the increased income, rather than being ring-fenced for services, is in fact being used to pay down the deficit.

[Viking Warrior]

Listening to a 5 live reporter moaning about 16 to 18 years not allowed to vote . Yet it will be their future , so should be allowed to vote

Why doesn't he say all 8 year olds plus should be allowed to vote as it is equally their future

 

I believe there are benefits to being a member but several of the beurocratic rules and regulations need to change along with one or to other bits of legislation

[hypochondriac]

Listening to a 5 live reporter moaning about 16 to 18 years not allowed to vote . Yet it will be their future , so should be allowed to vote

Why doesn't he say all 8 year olds plus should be allowed to vote as it is equally their future

 

I believe there are benefits to being a member but several of the beurocratic rules and regulations need to change along with one or to other bits of legislation

 

Exactly. Really don't understand that logic. There has to be a cutoff somewhere and historically it's been 18 since that's when you are an adult.

[TopGun]

The only people who want 16 year old kids to vote are populists. If you want a country run by populists, go for it.

 

Tony Blair. Best PM since Gladstone.

[Saintandy666]

Stay in. Problems of the future need more international co-operation and less borders, not more division. Peace, prosperity and tackling the oncoming climate catastrophe* will require proper international effort, and more so going forward. We need to be part of that. On the economic front, the free market is also key to our own economy, and it seems plenty of jobs are integrated into that system. We need to be at the table, not on the side watching it go on, but not able to influence.

 

* even if you are a global warming denier, you can not deny the ecological effects of deforestation and other degradation such as chemical contamination and so on. This will require a lot of thought and a lot of co-operation.

[Saintandy666]

On votes at 16, we seem to let 16-18 year olds do a lot of other stuff that is perceived at 'adult' - sex, army, gambling etc - so why not voting? The 16 year olds in the Scottish Referendum are an example of how it can work given the engagement and consideration of the issues they showed.

[Batman]

On votes at 16, we seem to let 16-18 year olds do a lot of other stuff that is perceived at 'adult' - sex, army, gambling etc - so why not voting? The 16 year olds in the Scottish Referendum are an example of how it can work given the engagement and consideration of the issues they showed.

join the forces, do very little u18

even the gambling is very limited isn't it?

[trousers]

On votes at 16, we seem to let 16-18 year olds do a lot of other stuff that is perceived at 'adult' - sex, army, gambling etc - so why not voting?

 

You could flip that question around as there's plenty of things that 16 year olds aren't considered adult enough to do... marry (without parental consent), join the armed forces (without parental consent), buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, donate blood, drive, 'adult' gambling, etc...

[hutch]

join the forces, do very little u18

even the gambling is very limited isn't it?

So that just leaves sex, sex and sex etc.

 

Pffffft. Who'd want to be a young person these days.

[Deano6]

UK is the Texas of Europe. Forever trying to secede.

[Lord Duckhunter]

UK is the Texas of Europe. Forever trying to secede.

 

Hopefully Nigel will record " The night they drove old England down" for the campaign .

[Saintandy666]

You could flip that question around as there's plenty of things that 16 year olds aren't considered adult enough to do... marry (without parental consent), join the armed forces (without parental consent), buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, donate blood, drive, 'adult' gambling, etc...

 

Of course you can, but at 16 you can also work and contribute in tax to the economy. Although given the recent compulsory education rise to 18, this is becoming less so. But being in education shouldn't be a block to having the vote. Obviously there is a certain arbitrary feel to all this in terms of cut-off. For me, given the way we currently treat 16 year olds as a society, I think they are just as capable of making a decision in the EU referendum as your average 19 year old.

[Batman]

Of course you can, but at 16 you can also work and contribute in tax to the economy. Although given the recent compulsory education rise to 18, this is becoming less so. But being in education shouldn't be a block to having the vote. Obviously there is a certain arbitrary feel to all this in terms of cut-off. For me, given the way we currently treat 16 year olds as a society, I think they are just as capable of making a decision in the EU referendum as your average 19 year old.

 

why not allow 15 year olds?

[Saintandy666]

why not allow 15 year olds?

 

None of the societal stuff we just discussed applies to them, and they are universally of school age. But more importantly, society in no way treats them like an adult. It's a matter of consistency for me. The cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to base it off something. I used to be against votes at 16, even when I was 16, which is reasonably rare. But having seen how 16 year olds conducted themselves in the EU referendum plus a couple of other facts, I think it seems reasonable to lower the age. They are cognitively capable to consider the question, and society treats them as adults.

[Lord Duckhunter]

None of the societal stuff we just discussed applies to them, and they are universally of school age. But more importantly, society in no way treats them like an adult. It's a matter of consistency for me. The cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to base it off something. I used to be against votes at 16, even when I was 16, which is reasonably rare. But having seen how 16 year olds conducted themselves in the EU referendum plus a couple of other facts, I think it seems reasonable to lower the age. They are cognitively capable to consider the question, and society treats them as adults.

 

But society doesn't treat them as adults . They are unable to drink , to drive, to get married without Mummy's permission and although they can join the army can not fight on the front line.

 

My view is very simple , once society deems you old enough to do all the basic things , drink, marry at will, drive, ect , then you're old enough to vote.

[hutch]

None of the societal stuff we just discussed applies to them, and they are universally of school age. But more importantly, society in no way treats them like an adult. It's a matter of consistency for me. The cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to base it off something. I used to be against votes at 16, even when I was 16, which is reasonably rare. But having seen how 16 year olds conducted themselves in the EU referendum plus a couple of other facts, I think it seems reasonable to lower the age. They are cognitively capable to consider the question, and society treats them as adults.

 

Que?

[trousers]

Of course you can, but at 16 you can also work and contribute in tax to the economy. Although given the recent compulsory education rise to 18, this is becoming less so. But being in education shouldn't be a block to having the vote. Obviously there is a certain arbitrary feel to all this in terms of cut-off. For me, given the way we currently treat 16 year olds as a society, I think they are just as capable of making a decision in the EU referendum as your average 19 year old.

As you say, age is a somewhat arbitrary cut off. For every 'mature enough' 16 year old there'll be an immature 19 year old.

 

Maybe passing an IQ test would be a better measure of people's ability to vote...?

[Morse]

If we leave we'll have to obey all of Europe's laws in order to trade with them, but have no leverage over the making on the laws. Just look at Norway.

Stay in and change Europe from within.

[Wes Tender]

As Charles and his horsey wife arrive for the Queen's Speech, two of the Royal Footmen indulge in an act of gross indecency

 

[Wes Tender]

If we leave we'll have to obey all of Europe's laws in order to trade with them, but have no leverage over the making on the laws. Just look at Norway.

Stay in and change Europe from within.

 

Why? Please do explain which laws will inpinge on our ability to trade with them. It will not be in anybody's interest if they were to seek to place restrictions on our exports to them and risk us placing counter-restrictions on their exports to us.

[buctootim]

Why? Please do explain which laws will inpinge on our ability to trade with them. It will not be in anybody's interest if they were to seek to place restrictions on our exports to them and risk us placing counter-restrictions on their exports to us.

 

Because its exactly what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do at present and they aren't going to modify the rules for us.

https://fullfact.org/europe/europe_debate_Norway_Switzerland-31063

[Wes Tender]

Because its exactly what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do at present and they aren't going to modify the rules for us.

https://fullfact.org/europe/europe_debate_Norway_Switzerland-31063

 

Which laws are these? We have already historically been forced into laws regarding food preparation for example. I don't see what type of laws will adversely affect us. In any event, we are hardly comparable to Norway and Switzerland in terms of them being able to bully us, as there is much more at stake with our mutual trade with the EU.

 

On the other hand, we would be free to re-establish our own rules regarding our fishing industry, as one example of a positive outcome.

 

I reiterate; it isn't in anybody's interests if we left the EU for them to place trade restrictions on us, inviting us to reciprocate.

[buctootim]

Is your argument that we wont be adversely affected because we've adopted the laws already? - or that we drop the laws and hope the EU give us a uniquely favourable access deal?

 

The EEA (which governs EU relationships with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein) covers the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — much wider than justy trade. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

 

Pretty much ALL European countries are either members of the EU, are seeking accession to the EU, or have trade agreements with the EU that require them to adopt pretty much the same EU legislation and pay market access fees, but without the representation. Why is Greece contorting themselves and ditching all their election promises? Why is that if the EU is optional, even undesirable?

 

50% of our trade is with the EU. Fishing makes up 0.07% of our GDP. Ah yes but if we had control it would be more. It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the shortfall of us leaving the EU.

Edited 27 May, 2015 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

What is your argument? - that we wont be adversely affected because we've adopted the laws already - or that we drop the laws and hope the EU give us a uniquely favourable access deal?

 

Pretty much ALL European countries are either members of the EU, are seeking accession to the EU, or have trade agreements with the EU that require them to adopt pretty much the same EU legislation and pay market access fees, but without the representation. Why is Greece contorting themselves and ditching all their election promises? Why is that if the EU is optional, even undesirable?

 

50% of our trade is with the EU. Fishing makes up 0.07% of our GDP. Ah yes but if we had control it would be more. It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the shortfall of us leaving the EU.

 

I'm saying that we have already been the victims of most of the EU laws affecting our trade with them and would be interested in what they might have in mind that would represent a problem for us in the future.

 

The mention of fishing was just one illustration of how various industries would actually benefit from not being tied to EU laws and quota systems. I can't remember which programme it was, but to illustrate how many laws come out of the EU, they showed shelf after shelf of weighty legal tomes stretching back over several years. What was noteworthy, was that whereas they showed the number of shelves that showed one year's legislation previously, the same number of tomes now filled that space each month.

 

Greece isn't exactly a good example, as they had to rely on the EU to bail them out financially.

[buctootim]

I'm saying that we have already been the victims of most of the EU laws affecting our trade with them and would be interested in what they might have in mind that would represent a problem for us in the future.

 

The mention of fishing was just one illustration of how various industries would actually benefit from not being tied to EU laws and quota systems. I can't remember which programme it was, but to illustrate how many laws come out of the EU, they showed shelf after shelf of weighty legal tomes stretching back over several years. What was noteworthy, was that whereas they showed the number of shelves that showed one year's legislation previously, the same number of tomes now filled that space each month.

 

Greece isn't exactly a good example, as they had to rely on the EU to bail them out financially.

 

I added another paragraph since you quoted, so I'll put it here for clarity.

 

The EEA (which governs EU relationships with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein) covers the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — much wider than just trade. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Switzerland has a raft of agreements which add up to the same thing.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

 

So essentially they are members of the EU with all the obligations and responsibilities but without the voting rights. Only around 20% of Britain's laws emanate from Brussels and those which do set a common standard across Europe - so you can argue that the EU reduces bureacracy and complexity rather than increasing it.

 

I get the sense that you mourn Britain's loss of independence and freedom of action. Thats a legitimate position - I agree we have lost independence. Globalisation has a lot of disbenefits and I dislike the world aggregating into trading blocs. The EU isnt the cause though, its a symptom of countries banding together for strength because of the changed situation.

 

We arent going to go back to the days of waiting for seasonal Jersey tomatoes and potatos to hit the shops and buying British. People demand year round availability and choice. That comes from global trade - and global trade is governed by access agreements and tariffs. Collectively the EU has a big stick and can negotiate hard terms with China, NAFTA etc. Britain alone, not so much. Im not saying we drown outside the EU, but we would certainly take a big hit in GDP and exports.

Edited 27 May, 2015 by buctootim

[solentstars]

I added another paragraph since you quoted, so I'll put it here for clarity.

 

The EEA (which governs EU relationships with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein) covers the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — much wider than just trade. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Switzerland has a raft of agreements which add up to the same thing.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

 

So essentially they are members of the EU with all the obligations and responsibilities but without the voting rights. Only around 20% of Britain's laws emanate from Brussels and those which do set a common standard across Europe - so you can argue that the EU reduces bureacracy and complexity rather than increasing it.

 

I get the sense that you mourn Britain's loss of independence and freedom of action. Thats a legitimate position - I agree we have lost independence. Globalisation has a lot of disbenefits and I dislike the world aggregating into trading blocs. The EU isnt the cause though, its a symptom of countries banding together for strength because of the changed situation.

 

We arent going to go back to the days of waiting for seasonal Jersey tomatoes and potatos to hit the shops and buying British. People demand year round availability and choice. That comes from global trade - and global trade is governed by access agreements and tariffs. Collectively the EU has a big stick and can negotiate hard terms with China, NAFTA etc. Britain alone, not so much. Im not saying we drown outside the EU, but we would certainly take a big hit in GDP and exports.

thanks, that the reality of the world and not the fantasy make believe world of being outside and still paying into the eu, without any say at the top table and i voted yes the last time back in the 1970s and see no reason to leave now,i remember how things were before we joined with tariffs and poor quality products we produced and travelling to eu had loads of paper work and bland food we use to eat. Edited 27 May, 2015 by solentstars

[Lord Duckhunter]

thanks, that the reality of the world and not the fantasy make believe world of being outside and still paying into the eu, without any say at the top table and i voted yes the last time back in the 1970s and see no reason to leave now,i remember how things were before we joined with tariffs and poor quality products we produced and travelling to eu had loads of paper work and bland food we use to eat.

 

If you think being in the EUSSR is responsible for changing our eating habits and getting rid of the bland food , you're clearly deluded. The world is shrinking and influences from all other the world have changed our diet. It has **** all to do with the EU.

 

It also makes we wonder how we ever managed to become a world power without political union with the Greeks and Belgians . How did we ever trade with all these shoddy goods we used to produce. Thanks EUSSR without you, we aren't capable of eating nice food or of making anything worthwhile, we can not manage on our own. Let's become the 17th constituent state of Germany as we're clearly too stupid to cook or make things anyone wants to buy. Because Grocer Heath and Wilson helped the unions screw the country in the 70's we will be forever in the EUSSR's debt for taking pity on our small insignificant island and allowed us into their great state.

[solentstars]

If you think being in the EUSSR is responsible for changing our eating habits and getting rid of the bland food , you're clearly deluded. The world is shrinking and influences from all other the world have changed our diet. It has **** all to do with the EU.

 

It also makes we wonder how we ever managed to become a world power without political union with the Greeks and Belgians . How did we ever trade with all these shoddy goods we used to produce. Thanks EUSSR without you, we aren't capable of eating nice food or of making anything worthwhile, we can not manage on our own. Let's become the 17th constituent state of Germany as we're clearly too stupid to cook or make things anyone wants to buy. Because Grocer Heath and Wilson helped the unions screw the country in the 70's we will be forever in the EUSSR's debt for taking pity on our small insignificant island and allowed us into their great state.

love your insults and hatred,but reading your post i let the forum posters decide if have the mindset of someone of die hard nationalist or a open mind type mindset . the problem is we are all getting older but your still useing childish nonsense like eussrs which i expect anyone under a certain age would not have a clue your on about .we chose to join the eu threw parliament and voted yes to stay in under wilson,thats democracy,... stick with ukip i,m sure they love you intellectual rantings when you had your warm beer and pie with like crusty like minded souls.

[Wes Tender]

I added another paragraph since you quoted, so I'll put it here for clarity.

 

The EEA (which governs EU relationships with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein) covers the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — much wider than just trade. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Switzerland has a raft of agreements which add up to the same thing.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

 

So essentially they are members of the EU with all the obligations and responsibilities but without the voting rights. Only around 20% of Britain's laws emanate from Brussels and those which do set a common standard across Europe - so you can argue that the EU reduces bureacracy and complexity rather than increasing it.

 

I get the sense that you mourn Britain's loss of independence and freedom of action. Thats a legitimate position - I agree we have lost independence. Globalisation has a lot of disbenefits and I dislike the world aggregating into trading blocs. The EU isnt the cause though, its a symptom of countries banding together for strength because of the changed situation.

 

We arent going to go back to the days of waiting for seasonal Jersey tomatoes and potatos to hit the shops and buying British. People demand year round availability and choice. That comes from global trade - and global trade is governed by access agreements and tariffs. Collectively the EU has a big stick and can negotiate hard terms with China, NAFTA etc. Britain alone, not so much. Im not saying we drown outside the EU, but we would certainly take a big hit in GDP and exports.

 

It seems to me that being party to the EEA, but not becoming full members of the EU must suit those countries. Otherwise, I'm sure that the EU would welcome them joining ahead of all of the recent new members such as the former USSR countries. Therefore the arrangement must suit them, not for the things that they have to opt in to, but for those that they do not have to be a part of. I can't be bothered to delve into that too deeply, as it's mainly our membership and its shortcomings that interest me, but I suspect that they enjoy a higher level of sovereignty in their parliaments than we do and that they might not be as subservient to Brussels as when it comes to the jurisdiction of Brussels over their own legal systems.

 

I don't see cooperation in research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture necessarily as a bad thing. That happens with us where many companies here are now multi-nationals and operate with sister factories in Europe, as is the case in reverse. We have cooperated on joint projects like the Airbus to our mutual advantage, but I see no reason why we should stop this sort of joint project as we are a big customer of the aircraft. If push came to shove however, I don't see why we would be incapable of making our own aircraft in time. But of that list of items of cooperation, I am content that the UK has as great a capability of managing most of them on our own.

 

Yes, it is mainly the loss of sovereignty that annoys me and the subjugation of our legal system to the European Court of Law. Regarding trade, I agree that the World has evolved into trading blocks and that there are advantages of belonging to the European trading block. I voted for the original Common Market and apart from the previously shocking shortcomings of the Common Agriculture Policy, I would still be content to remain in Europe on that basis. But the entire basis of our membership has altered irrevocably via successive treaties and if we cannot revert back towards what we originally signed up for, then there are other trading blocks that we could join or indeed enlarge with our membership if there were obstacles applied to our continued trade with Europe. But as I said, any such obstacles would be counter-productive affecting their major manufacturers and exporters too, so I don't see it happening.

 

Bad example the Jersey Royals, as indeed would be strawberries and the like. When these are in season, there is nothing better in Europe or indeed the World. We might like to eat strawberries at Christmas from Spain, or new potatoes from Egypt before the spring here, but the seasonal produce in this country is generally unrivalled. At the moment the consumer likes to buy their produce out of season from around the World, but much of that comes from outside the EU from the likes of Brazil and Africa. Increasingly though, the attraction of this unseasonable produce is being frowned upon because it is air-freighted halfway across the World which isn't very environmentally friendly on the one hand and often morally suspect when a large percentage of the indigenous population is starving.

[Lord Duckhunter]

love your insults and hatred,but reading your post i let the forum posters decide if have the mindset of someone of die hard nationalist or a open mind type mindset . the problem is we are all getting older but your still useing childish nonsense like eussrs which i expect anyone under a certain age would not have a clue your on about .we chose to join the eu threw parliament and voted yes to stay in under wilson,thats democracy,... stick with ukip i,m sure they love you intellectual rantings when you had your warm beer and pie with like crusty like minded souls.

 

I'll reply when my 13 year old gets in and can translate this pony for me.

[Sour Mash]

I would definitely vote to leave. I can see few adverse effects of leaving, but we'd actually become a country again, control our own borders and make our own laws. The EU is heading in one direction, a United States of Europe, I don't want the UK to become part of that.

[Deano6]

I want the UK to be a part of a United States of Europe, so I will be voting to stay in.

[mcjwills]

If we did vote to leave, where would that leave all the immigrants from Europe that arrived in this country to work. As we would no longer be in the European Union does that mean their rights to work here would be removed or would they have to Naturalise as British Citizens to stay.

[bridge too far]

If we did vote to leave, where would that leave all the immigrants from Europe that arrived in this country to work. As we would no longer be in the European Union does that mean their rights to work here would be removed or would they have to Naturalise as British Citizens to stay.

 

And what would happen to OUR migrants who are now working in Spain / France / Germany etc. etc?

[Sour Mash]

I want the UK to be a part of a United States of Europe, so I will be voting to stay in.

Why do you want that?

[Sour Mash]

If we did vote to leave, where would that leave all the immigrants from Europe that arrived in this country to work. As we would no longer be in the European Union does that mean their rights to work here would be removed or would they have to Naturalise as British Citizens to stay.

I'd imagine they'd be allowed to stay, wouldn't be too hard to decide on a simple cut off point.

[Sour Mash]

And what would happen to OUR migrants who are now working in Spain / France / Germany etc. etc?

Ultimately up to those countries, as it should be.

[solentstars]

I would definitely vote to leave. I can see few adverse effects of leaving, but we'd actually become a country again, control our own borders and make our own laws. The EU is heading in one direction, a United States of Europe, I don't want the UK to become part of that.

so you vote to leave our biggest export market and we will still have to to pay the same money into the eu and abide by tradeing rules with out any say on the rules to have access to there markets or leave and refuse to pay in and have tariffs put on us and accept less investment and our auto industry. and big manufacturis relocating to the mainland and poorer standard of living as a nation. its a more complicated argument and people will need to understand the consequences of being a island trapped outside our biggest markets.we were one of the poorest nations before we joined the eu and have had massive investment since because of the single market.

[solentstars]

I want the UK to be a part of a United States of Europe, so I will be voting to stay in.

that will never happen in our lifetime.