The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Now it is official (and some guy with a green admin name has ruined the other thread) I shall put this here for you to discuss the referendum.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/05/labour-eu-unions-EU-exit-referendum (change EU-exit to 'Bre*it)

Do Johnson and Umunna not grasp that it is the working-classes, the traditional Labour voters (though how many are left is anyone's guess), that are hit hardest by our membership of the EU?

They may be right that this referendum may be won by at the grassroots level - thankfully the Leave side have gained the initiative with that through the excellent action day held on Saturday by Grassroots Out.

dyrewolfe wrote:more importantly we will be able to ignore any directives or laws from the European Parliament we don't agree with.

Tell Norway that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the problem the "Remain" camp face with their campaign is perfectly encapsulated by this morning's arguments over the Calais camp/border. When the French Interior minister says the Le Touquet agreement would likely be torn up if the UK leaves it's dismissed as "scaremongering", and that is their easy response to any argument for the UK remaining.

Advantages the UK get out of the EU could all be kept outside the EU.
Any bad things that could ensue won't, that's just "project fear".

The thing is, I'm yet to see any sort of plan for what our relationship would be to the EU were we to leave. It would be nice if those backing the "Leave" campaign could outline what they think would actually be the scenario in this case.

A lot of the arguments put forward by the 'Remain' side are simply scaremongering (the UK would lose its influence; 3 million jobs lost; trade will collapse) - complete falsehoods spread like a virus. The leaders in charge of this absolute facade, Britain Stronger in Europe, are already seen as complete charlatans by a good deal of people - one reason, of many, for why the UK will be voting to Leave this decaying political union on 23rd June.

Our relationship with the EU upon exiting will be one of free-trade, not political union. Vietnam managed to sign one a few months ago, I'm sure Britannia could manage as well.

Complete pontification and postulation.

The Lisbon Treaty is clear that, upon a member state leaving the Union: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

It is in our interests, and the interests of the EU, to have a free-trade arrangement. Our negotiating foothold is also stronger than theirs.

Give an example where this has been successful?

You can't because EU exit would be new ground. Would will still be party to the Lisbon Treaty is we left the EU? How? If not what would be our recourse if EU states played hard-ball? We've decided we don't want the EU Courts to oversee such matters anymore, if we leave.

Again, it's the same as Scots Ref, taking a punt on what you think you can get outside/on your own. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES OR CERTAINTY. To suggest otherwise is pure bullsh!t.

That depends though. Just because a situation stands where Britain is in the EU and Scotland is part of the UK does not mean that is nirvana. For example Britain were arguably more of a worldwide powerhouse industrially prior to joining the Common Market. It had homegrown car industry, electronics industry, ship building and coal mining - all gone now.  

Any of that specifically down to the EU? Or more relfective of global market trends and globally inter-dependent economies?

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:
The Vietnam comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, a poke at those who talk this nation down at every turn. It's irrelevant how long it took, because the UK and the EU have a two-year time-frame in which to reach a deal. And I imagine, somehow, the UK will hold greater priority.

It's not irrelevant if it takes six years to implement a deal, is it??

Duty281 wrote:
The free movement of people would end and this country could implement a fair immigration policy across the board. I imagine that EU citizens would require the same documentation as non-EU citizens presently require (with the obvious exception of Ireland).

So UK people will require a visa to travel to Europe? What about the expats already living there? Specifics Duty, not just a sweeping statement...

Duty281 wrote:
Will this continue to attract top researchers? Well, I don't imagine it puts them off from working in countries such as China, the USA or Japan.

There aren't (m)any top foreign researchers in China, certainly in Maths/Computer Science. Take a look at some of the bigger universities there, there'll be usually at most one mathematician from outside China, if that. It's a shame, because they have some top researchers, but the lack of openness to the rest of the world makes it hard for them to produce cutting-edge stuff.
The US has more (though significantly fewer than the UK or other EU countries proportion-wise), partly of course because they offer much better salaries.
Not sure about Japan, though a quick look at Tokyo University shows that there aren't very many at all (none in Maths that I can tell, though they had a couple of visiting profs from Europe back in 2014).

Like it or not, not having to jump through administrative hoops is a nice attraction for people who want to focus on their research (which they find quite interesting usually). We do quite enough hoop-jumping inside the university without wanting to do more just to get into a country...

1) But there will be a two-year limit on which the EU and the UK must reach an agreement, which makes it different to whatever Vietnam hammer out.

2) Yes; and the expats they will probably be required to apply for citizenship.

3) Twas a general point, referring to how researchers seem to be in plentiful supply outside the EU.

1) And what's the recourse available to UK if that time limit isn't hit?

2) Hiding behind 'probably'

3) Hiding behind generality, whilst also missing the point.

1) The limit can be extended.
2) Let's remove the 'probably' then!
3) Incorrect.

1) So we're back to 6 years then (NB: that doesn't consitute 'recourse'). Nice job undoing your own argument.
2) Still complete guesswork on your part with no reasoning to back it up.
3) Staggering.

So on 1) you first go "There will be a two-year limit" to reach an agreement, which makes it completely different to the Vietnam case, but then go on to say "that limit will be extended" if no agreement reached, so not really a limit at all, which brings the Vietnam case back into the picture. As Toppy says, you rather undid your own argument there.

The reality, according to this article
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/07/eu-referendum-everything-you-need-to-know
is that "Practically speaking, article 50 of the EU treaty sets out that a state can quit and gives a deadline to negotiate terms within two years. The EU can permit an extension if trade and migration issues have not been hammered out. But if not, the membership will just expire."

On 2) this may be what you think will happen, but I personally doubt it. Considering just how many countries you can visit without a visa, I'd be surprised if the EU ones weren't added to the list. My point though was more on a lack of actual precise information from the "Leave" campaign regarding this point. Has a plan been announced at all? I am pretty much decided to vote "Remain" in any case, but if the "Leave" campaign actually published something clear about what exactly leaving would mean, what the specific plans would be in that case, beyond some general "regaining of sovereignty, take back control of our borders" claptrap, I would definitely look at it in detail. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to do so, given the importance of the decision we face. But I need specifics, I need someone to tell me "Leaving Europe would look like this". So far I see little of that.

On 3), which is linked to my previous point, I asked for specifics on leaving, precisely on a point which concerns me personally, which is that of researchers. I pointed out that as far as I know most researchers hate having to jump through administrative hoops and so leading EU researchers would be less likely to move to the UK to work if they were made to jump through said hoops to do so. You responded with an example of three countries which you purported to have no problems in attracting "top researchers": the USA, China and Japan. I pointed out that in Maths/CS (the subjects I have knowledge of) two of the three countries you used did in fact NOT attract top researchers from outside their borders. Your response: "Twas a general point". Now responding with yet more generality when asked for specifics is not particularly helpful, and as Toppy says rather misses my point. But you weren't responding with generality really: you went for three specific examples, of which two were completely erroneous, and in fact better served my point than yours.

So again, I put it that leaving the EU would damage the UK's potential to produce high class research, through restricting access to top researchers from abroad, and making it more difficult for UK researchers to go abroad. And that's before you get to the loss of EU funding for research projects in the UK. Many high level researchers in Universities have already made this point, see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/leaving-eu-would-be-a-disaster-british-universities-warn for instance.

This in itself is not a clinching argument for staying in the EU, but to pretend that leaving the EU wouldn't affect the UK severely in some areas is akin to sticking fingers in your ears and chanting "not listening!" IMO.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:So on 1) you first go "There will be a two-year limit" to reach an agreement, which makes it completely different to the Vietnam case, but then go on to say "that limit will be extended" if no agreement reached, so not really a limit at all, which brings the Vietnam case back into the picture. As Toppy says, you rather undid your own argument there.

The reality, according to this article
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/07/eu-referendum-everything-you-need-to-know
is that "Practically speaking, article 50 of the EU treaty sets out that a state can quit and gives a deadline to negotiate terms within two years. The EU can permit an extension if trade and migration issues have not been hammered out. But if not, the membership will just expire."

On 2) this may be what you think will happen, but I personally doubt it. Considering just how many countries you can visit without a visa, I'd be surprised if the EU ones weren't added to the list. My point though was more on a lack of actual precise information from the "Leave" campaign regarding this point. Has a plan been announced at all? I am pretty much decided to vote "Remain" in any case, but if the "Leave" campaign actually published something clear about what exactly leaving would mean, what the specific plans would be in that case, beyond some general "regaining of sovereignty, take back control of our borders" claptrap, I would definitely look at it in detail. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to do so, given the importance of the decision we face. But I need specifics, I need someone to tell me "Leaving Europe would look like this". So far I see little of that.

On 3), which is linked to my previous point, I asked for specifics on leaving, precisely on a point which concerns me personally, which is that of researchers. I pointed out that as far as I know most researchers hate having to jump through administrative hoops and so leading EU researchers would be less likely to move to the UK to work if they were made to jump through said hoops to do so. You responded with an example of three countries which you purported to have no problems in attracting "top researchers": the USA, China and Japan. I pointed out that in Maths/CS (the subjects I have knowledge of) two of the three countries you used did in fact NOT attract top researchers from outside their borders. Your response: "Twas a general point". Now responding with yet more generality when asked for specifics is not particularly helpful, and as Toppy says rather misses my point. But you weren't responding with generality really: you went for three specific examples, of which two were completely erroneous, and in fact better served my point than yours.

So again, I put it that leaving the EU would damage the UK's potential to produce high class research, through restricting access to top researchers from abroad, and making it more difficult for UK researchers to go abroad. And that's before you get to the loss of EU funding for research projects in the UK. Many high level researchers in Universities have already made this point, see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/leaving-eu-would-be-a-disaster-british-universities-warn for instance.

This in itself is not a clinching argument for staying in the EU, but to pretend that leaving the EU wouldn't affect the UK severely in some areas is akin to sticking fingers in your ears and chanting "not listening!" IMO.

1) It is highly likely that a deal will be reached well within the two-year time frame. It would be in our best interests, and it would be in the best interests of the EU. Securing a deal on our future relationship as quickly and as harmoniously as possible is in everyone's best interests.

2) Well leaving the EU (not Europe) would look like this:

- A restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. That is to say, our parliament would be the highest law-making body in the land.
- Restoration of the supremacy of our courts. That is to say, our supreme court would be supreme.
- Control of our borders, so a fair, skills-based immigration policy can be enacted.
- Control of our fishing waters.
- The ability to conduct our own trade deals as a nation.
- Ensuring that we do not become part of the TTIP. Something which would greatly endanger the NHS.
- Not having to pay an extortionate membership fee to the EU.
- Ensuring that we do not become further absorbed into the European Superstate.

These are the immediate advantages. Specifics after that are surely up to Her Majesty's Government.

This article may interest you, concerning UK citizens presently living in EU states.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12177399/EU-Facts-What-would-leaving-the-EU-mean-for-expats.html

3) EU funding for research projects in the UK (which is probably our own, recycled, money) can easily be replaced by the money that this country would save on not...erm...funding the EU.

"So again, I put it that leaving the EU would damage the UK's potential to produce high class research, through restricting access to top researchers from abroad, and making it more difficult for UK researchers to go abroad" - And I put it again, how does the USA cope by being outside of the EU?

Duty281 wrote:- Ensuring that we do not become part of the TTIP. Something which would greatly endanger the NHS.

With the Tories in charge?! You've surely got to be joking.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the problem the "Remain" camp face with their campaign is perfectly encapsulated by this morning's arguments over the Calais camp/border. When the French Interior minister says the Le Touquet agreement would likely be torn up if the UK leaves it's dismissed as "scaremongering", and that is their easy response to any argument for the UK remaining.

Advantages the UK get out of the EU could all be kept outside the EU.
Any bad things that could ensue won't, that's just "project fear".

The thing is, I'm yet to see any sort of plan for what our relationship would be to the EU were we to leave. It would be nice if those backing the "Leave" campaign could outline what they think would actually be the scenario in this case.

A lot of the arguments put forward by the 'Remain' side are simply scaremongering (the UK would lose its influence; 3 million jobs lost; trade will collapse) - complete falsehoods spread like a virus. The leaders in charge of this absolute facade, Britain Stronger in Europe, are already seen as complete charlatans by a good deal of people - one reason, of many, for why the UK will be voting to Leave this decaying political union on 23rd June.

Our relationship with the EU upon exiting will be one of free-trade, not political union. Vietnam managed to sign one a few months ago, I'm sure Britannia could manage as well.

Complete pontification and postulation.

The Lisbon Treaty is clear that, upon a member state leaving the Union: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

It is in our interests, and the interests of the EU, to have a free-trade arrangement. Our negotiating foothold is also stronger than theirs.

Give an example where this has been successful?

You can't because EU exit would be new ground. Would will still be party to the Lisbon Treaty is we left the EU? How? If not what would be our recourse if EU states played hard-ball? We've decided we don't want the EU Courts to oversee such matters anymore, if we leave.

Again, it's the same as Scots Ref, taking a punt on what you think you can get outside/on your own. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES OR CERTAINTY. To suggest otherwise is pure bullsh!t.

That depends though. Just because a situation stands where Britain is in the EU and Scotland is part of the UK does not mean that is nirvana. For example Britain were arguably more of a worldwide powerhouse industrially prior to joining the Common Market. It had homegrown car industry, electronics industry, ship building and coal mining - all gone now.  

Any of that specifically down to the EU? Or more relfective of global market trends and globally inter-dependent economies?

Who knows? But when Britain joined (what was then the Common Market) all of those industries were in fair health and in joining it 'encouraged' greater amount of imported goods to flood the market and to feel that never squeezed British companies is stretching it. The same has happened in football when clubs were allowed to buy more foreign players throttling the growth of home-grown players.

Duty cut & pasting direct from the UKIP manifesto rather than providing any actual reasoning or logic.......

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:So on 1) you first go "There will be a two-year limit" to reach an agreement, which makes it completely different to the Vietnam case, but then go on to say "that limit will be extended" if no agreement reached, so not really a limit at all, which brings the Vietnam case back into the picture. As Toppy says, you rather undid your own argument there.

The reality, according to this article
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/07/eu-referendum-everything-you-need-to-know
is that "Practically speaking, article 50 of the EU treaty sets out that a state can quit and gives a deadline to negotiate terms within two years. The EU can permit an extension if trade and migration issues have not been hammered out. But if not, the membership will just expire."

On 2) this may be what you think will happen, but I personally doubt it. Considering just how many countries you can visit without a visa, I'd be surprised if the EU ones weren't added to the list. My point though was more on a lack of actual precise information from the "Leave" campaign regarding this point. Has a plan been announced at all? I am pretty much decided to vote "Remain" in any case, but if the "Leave" campaign actually published something clear about what exactly leaving would mean, what the specific plans would be in that case, beyond some general "regaining of sovereignty, take back control of our borders" claptrap, I would definitely look at it in detail. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to do so, given the importance of the decision we face. But I need specifics, I need someone to tell me "Leaving Europe would look like this". So far I see little of that.

On 3), which is linked to my previous point, I asked for specifics on leaving, precisely on a point which concerns me personally, which is that of researchers. I pointed out that as far as I know most researchers hate having to jump through administrative hoops and so leading EU researchers would be less likely to move to the UK to work if they were made to jump through said hoops to do so. You responded with an example of three countries which you purported to have no problems in attracting "top researchers": the USA, China and Japan. I pointed out that in Maths/CS (the subjects I have knowledge of) two of the three countries you used did in fact NOT attract top researchers from outside their borders. Your response: "Twas a general point". Now responding with yet more generality when asked for specifics is not particularly helpful, and as Toppy says rather misses my point. But you weren't responding with generality really: you went for three specific examples, of which two were completely erroneous, and in fact better served my point than yours.

So again, I put it that leaving the EU would damage the UK's potential to produce high class research, through restricting access to top researchers from abroad, and making it more difficult for UK researchers to go abroad. And that's before you get to the loss of EU funding for research projects in the UK. Many high level researchers in Universities have already made this point, see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/leaving-eu-would-be-a-disaster-british-universities-warn for instance.

This in itself is not a clinching argument for staying in the EU, but to pretend that leaving the EU wouldn't affect the UK severely in some areas is akin to sticking fingers in your ears and chanting "not listening!" IMO.

1) It is highly likely that a deal will be reached well within the two-year time frame. It would be in our best interests, and it would be in the best interests of the EU. Securing a deal on our future relationship as quickly and as harmoniously as possible is in everyone's best interests.

2) Well leaving the EU (not Europe) would look like this:

- A restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. That is to say, our parliament would be the highest law-making body in the land.
- Restoration of the supremacy of our courts. That is to say, our supreme court would be supreme.
- Control of our borders, so a fair, skills-based immigration policy can be enacted.
- Control of our fishing waters.
- The ability to conduct our own trade deals as a nation.
- Ensuring that we do not become part of the TTIP. Something which would greatly endanger the NHS.
- Not having to pay an extortionate membership fee to the EU.
- Ensuring that we do not become further absorbed into the European Superstate.

These are the immediate advantages. Specifics after that are surely up to Her Majesty's Government.

This article may interest you, concerning UK citizens presently living in EU states.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12177399/EU-Facts-What-would-leaving-the-EU-mean-for-expats.html

3) EU funding for research projects in the UK (which is probably our own, recycled, money) can easily be replaced by the money that this country would save on not...erm...funding the EU.

"So again, I put it that leaving the EU would damage the UK's potential to produce high class research, through restricting access to top researchers from abroad, and making it more difficult for UK researchers to go abroad" - And I put it again, how does the USA cope by being outside of the EU?

Big tax payer, are you?? Behave.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Duty cut & pasting direct from the UKIP manifesto rather than providing any actual reasoning or logic.......

No. Just an opinion based on common logic.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the problem the "Remain" camp face with their campaign is perfectly encapsulated by this morning's arguments over the Calais camp/border. When the French Interior minister says the Le Touquet agreement would likely be torn up if the UK leaves it's dismissed as "scaremongering", and that is their easy response to any argument for the UK remaining.

Advantages the UK get out of the EU could all be kept outside the EU.
Any bad things that could ensue won't, that's just "project fear".

The thing is, I'm yet to see any sort of plan for what our relationship would be to the EU were we to leave. It would be nice if those backing the "Leave" campaign could outline what they think would actually be the scenario in this case.

A lot of the arguments put forward by the 'Remain' side are simply scaremongering (the UK would lose its influence; 3 million jobs lost; trade will collapse) - complete falsehoods spread like a virus. The leaders in charge of this absolute facade, Britain Stronger in Europe, are already seen as complete charlatans by a good deal of people - one reason, of many, for why the UK will be voting to Leave this decaying political union on 23rd June.

Our relationship with the EU upon exiting will be one of free-trade, not political union. Vietnam managed to sign one a few months ago, I'm sure Britannia could manage as well.

Complete pontification and postulation.

The Lisbon Treaty is clear that, upon a member state leaving the Union: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

It is in our interests, and the interests of the EU, to have a free-trade arrangement. Our negotiating foothold is also stronger than theirs.

Give an example where this has been successful?

You can't because EU exit would be new ground. Would will still be party to the Lisbon Treaty is we left the EU? How? If not what would be our recourse if EU states played hard-ball? We've decided we don't want the EU Courts to oversee such matters anymore, if we leave.

Again, it's the same as Scots Ref, taking a punt on what you think you can get outside/on your own. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES OR CERTAINTY. To suggest otherwise is pure bullsh!t.

That depends though. Just because a situation stands where Britain is in the EU and Scotland is part of the UK does not mean that is nirvana. For example Britain were arguably more of a worldwide powerhouse industrially prior to joining the Common Market. It had homegrown car industry, electronics industry, ship building and coal mining - all gone now.  

Any of that specifically down to the EU? Or more relfective of global market trends and globally inter-dependent economies?

Who knows? But when Britain joined (what was then the Common Market) all of those industries were in fair health and in joining it 'encouraged' greater amount of imported goods to flood the market and to feel that never squeezed British companies is stretching it. The same has happened in football when clubs were allowed to buy more foreign players throttling the growth of home-grown players.

Think that's a fairly blinkered rose-tinted view. Our electronics industry may not be mass producing Amstrad computers any more (not even sure that's what our electronics industry did which you're suggesting was so good) but it is absolutely at the forefront of high-end high-value engineering - because in a global market place this is our competitive advangtage, not making millions of ipods or cheap laptops. That's how a globally inter-dependent marketplace works, it's not a fault of the EU, but something we're benefitting from.

And our car industry was a joke. We just chose not to blindly support and overly-subsidise something we weren't doing well at. Not the EU's fault. However again, we are now at the forefront of automotive engineering and, in fact, are the leading producer of cars in Europe I believe - record output in recent years. It's just we don't employ 1m Brummies to knock together quick rusting old bangers anymore.

Coal mining, again, dead industry. Not the EU's fault - nobody in the EU has a coal industry worth shouting about and, out of the EU, we'd still have had to negotiate trade agreements with the folk that are doing it cheaper and putting our industry out of business.


Re football, again I can't see how this is the EU's fault and you're now just starting to sound really bigoted, like that old bat Gordon Brown sniped at. The greatest British footballing contingent of the last 30 years were 'Fergies fledglings' who came through BECAUSE of UEFA meddling meaning you had to have a minimum number of homegrown players in your team.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Duty cut & pasting direct from the UKIP manifesto rather than providing any actual reasoning or logic.......

No. Just an opinion based on common logic.

No. Speculation from someone who seemingly doesn't understand the difference between conjecture and fact.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Duty cut & pasting direct from the UKIP manifesto rather than providing any actual reasoning or logic.......

No. Just an opinion based on common logic.

No. Speculation from someone too stupid to understand the difference between conjecture and fact.

Can you not debate without the insults eh?

Insult removed. Point stays the same.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the problem the "Remain" camp face with their campaign is perfectly encapsulated by this morning's arguments over the Calais camp/border. When the French Interior minister says the Le Touquet agreement would likely be torn up if the UK leaves it's dismissed as "scaremongering", and that is their easy response to any argument for the UK remaining.

Advantages the UK get out of the EU could all be kept outside the EU.
Any bad things that could ensue won't, that's just "project fear".

The thing is, I'm yet to see any sort of plan for what our relationship would be to the EU were we to leave. It would be nice if those backing the "Leave" campaign could outline what they think would actually be the scenario in this case.

A lot of the arguments put forward by the 'Remain' side are simply scaremongering (the UK would lose its influence; 3 million jobs lost; trade will collapse) - complete falsehoods spread like a virus. The leaders in charge of this absolute facade, Britain Stronger in Europe, are already seen as complete charlatans by a good deal of people - one reason, of many, for why the UK will be voting to Leave this decaying political union on 23rd June.

Our relationship with the EU upon exiting will be one of free-trade, not political union. Vietnam managed to sign one a few months ago, I'm sure Britannia could manage as well.

Complete pontification and postulation.

The Lisbon Treaty is clear that, upon a member state leaving the Union: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

It is in our interests, and the interests of the EU, to have a free-trade arrangement. Our negotiating foothold is also stronger than theirs.

Give an example where this has been successful?

You can't because EU exit would be new ground. Would will still be party to the Lisbon Treaty is we left the EU? How? If not what would be our recourse if EU states played hard-ball? We've decided we don't want the EU Courts to oversee such matters anymore, if we leave.

Again, it's the same as Scots Ref, taking a punt on what you think you can get outside/on your own. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES OR CERTAINTY. To suggest otherwise is pure bullsh!t.

That depends though. Just because a situation stands where Britain is in the EU and Scotland is part of the UK does not mean that is nirvana. For example Britain were arguably more of a worldwide powerhouse industrially prior to joining the Common Market. It had homegrown car industry, electronics industry, ship building and coal mining - all gone now.  

Any of that specifically down to the EU? Or more relfective of global market trends and globally inter-dependent economies?

Who knows? But when Britain joined (what was then the Common Market) all of those industries were in fair health and in joining it 'encouraged' greater amount of imported goods to flood the market and to feel that never squeezed British companies is stretching it. The same has happened in football when clubs were allowed to buy more foreign players throttling the growth of home-grown players.

Think that's a fairly blinkered rose-tinted view.  Our electronics industry may not be mass producing Amstrad computers any more (not even sure that's what our electronics industry did which you're suggesting was so good) but it is absolutely at the forefront of high-end high-value engineering - because in a global market place this is our competitive advangtage, not making millions of ipods or cheap laptops.  That's how a globally inter-dependent marketplace works, it's not a fault of the EU, but something we're benefitting from.

And our car industry was a joke.  We just chose not to blindly support and overly-subsidise something we weren't doing well at.  Not the EU's fault.  However again, we are now at the forefront of automotive engineering and, in fact, are the leading producer of cars in Europe I believe - record output in recent years.  It's just we don't employ 1m Brummies to knock together quick rusting old bangers anymore.

Coal mining, again, dead industry. Not the EU's fault - nobody in the EU has a coal industry worth shouting about and, out of the EU, we'd still have had to negotiate trade agreements with the folk that are doing it cheaper and putting our industry out of business.


Re football, again I can't see how this is the EU's fault and you're now just starting to sound really bigoted, like that old bat Gordon Brown sniped at.  The greatest British footballing contingent of the last 30 years were 'Fergies fledglings' who came through BECAUSE of UEFA meddling meaning you had to have a minimum number of homegrown players in your team.

No not rose-tinted. There was a time when Britain was a leading TV and Stereo making country and then Japanese imports flooded the market and the same went for the motorbike industry when Norton and Triumph suffered. BSA were one of the biggest motorbike manufacturing companies in the world and went from that stance to oblivion in a decade. As for your claim about the car industry booming - well if it makes you proud to say we churn out millions of cars for Italy, Japan, France, Germany, China, India and the US but not one can be claimed to be totally British then its hardly anything to claim as a British success. Steel industry is renowned as being squeezed by other countries such as Eastern Europe and China now taking the business.

As for football - open your eyes. It is a widely-recognized problem that foreign players bought in from Europe is strangling and stopping home-grown talent from getting a chance in most top flight sides - clubs now look for a quick solution and buy in foreigners rather than develop new talent. Why do you think England have not challenged seriously at an international tournament for so long now? Last time was 1990 and since then the European influx has steadily grown in pace and numbers.

And by the way I am undecided on the in-out debate. The points I am making are merely to show that there are reasons why people may opt out of Europe.

Am not totally decided either, and agree there are reasons on both sides, just think some of your reasoning is pretty pong that's all.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the problem the "Remain" camp face with their campaign is perfectly encapsulated by this morning's arguments over the Calais camp/border. When the French Interior minister says the Le Touquet agreement would likely be torn up if the UK leaves it's dismissed as "scaremongering", and that is their easy response to any argument for the UK remaining.

Advantages the UK get out of the EU could all be kept outside the EU.
Any bad things that could ensue won't, that's just "project fear".

The thing is, I'm yet to see any sort of plan for what our relationship would be to the EU were we to leave. It would be nice if those backing the "Leave" campaign could outline what they think would actually be the scenario in this case.

A lot of the arguments put forward by the 'Remain' side are simply scaremongering (the UK would lose its influence; 3 million jobs lost; trade will collapse) - complete falsehoods spread like a virus. The leaders in charge of this absolute facade, Britain Stronger in Europe, are already seen as complete charlatans by a good deal of people - one reason, of many, for why the UK will be voting to Leave this decaying political union on 23rd June.

Our relationship with the EU upon exiting will be one of free-trade, not political union. Vietnam managed to sign one a few months ago, I'm sure Britannia could manage as well.

Complete pontification and postulation.

The Lisbon Treaty is clear that, upon a member state leaving the Union: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

It is in our interests, and the interests of the EU, to have a free-trade arrangement. Our negotiating foothold is also stronger than theirs.

Give an example where this has been successful?

You can't because EU exit would be new ground. Would will still be party to the Lisbon Treaty is we left the EU? How? If not what would be our recourse if EU states played hard-ball? We've decided we don't want the EU Courts to oversee such matters anymore, if we leave.

Again, it's the same as Scots Ref, taking a punt on what you think you can get outside/on your own. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES OR CERTAINTY. To suggest otherwise is pure bullsh!t.

That depends though. Just because a situation stands where Britain is in the EU and Scotland is part of the UK does not mean that is nirvana. For example Britain were arguably more of a worldwide powerhouse industrially prior to joining the Common Market. It had homegrown car industry, electronics industry, ship building and coal mining - all gone now.  

Any of that specifically down to the EU? Or more relfective of global market trends and globally inter-dependent economies?

Who knows? But when Britain joined (what was then the Common Market) all of those industries were in fair health and in joining it 'encouraged' greater amount of imported goods to flood the market and to feel that never squeezed British companies is stretching it. The same has happened in football when clubs were allowed to buy more foreign players throttling the growth of home-grown players.

Think that's a fairly blinkered rose-tinted view.  Our electronics industry may not be mass producing Amstrad computers any more (not even sure that's what our electronics industry did which you're suggesting was so good) but it is absolutely at the forefront of high-end high-value engineering - because in a global market place this is our competitive advangtage, not making millions of ipods or cheap laptops.  That's how a globally inter-dependent marketplace works, it's not a fault of the EU, but something we're benefitting from.

And our car industry was a joke.  We just chose not to blindly support and overly-subsidise something we weren't doing well at.  Not the EU's fault.  However again, we are now at the forefront of automotive engineering and, in fact, are the leading producer of cars in Europe I believe - record output in recent years.  It's just we don't employ 1m Brummies to knock together quick rusting old bangers anymore.

Coal mining, again, dead industry. Not the EU's fault - nobody in the EU has a coal industry worth shouting about and, out of the EU, we'd still have had to negotiate trade agreements with the folk that are doing it cheaper and putting our industry out of business.


Re football, again I can't see how this is the EU's fault and you're now just starting to sound really bigoted, like that old bat Gordon Brown sniped at.  The greatest British footballing contingent of the last 30 years were 'Fergies fledglings' who came through BECAUSE of UEFA meddling meaning you had to have a minimum number of homegrown players in your team.

No not rose-tinted. There was a time when Britain was a leading TV and Stereo making country and then Japanese imports flooded the market and the same went for the motorbike industry when Norton and Triumph suffered. BSA were one of the biggest motorbike manufacturing companies in the world and went from that stance to oblivion in a decade. As for your claim about the car industry booming - well if it makes you proud to say we churn out millions of cars for Italy, Japan, France, Germany, China, India and the US but not one can be claimed to be totally British then its hardly anything to claim as a British success. Steel industry is renowned as being squeezed by other countries such as Eastern Europe and China now taking the business.

As for football - open your eyes. It is a widely-recognized problem that foreign players bought in from Europe is strangling and stopping home-grown talent from getting a chance in most top flight sides - clubs now look for a quick solution and buy in foreigners rather than develop new talent. Why do you think England have not challenged seriously at an international tournament for so long now? Last time was 1990 and since then the European influx has steadily grown in pace and numbers.

Ok, so basically you do just sound bigoted, unable to accept that maybe good ol Britannia (funny from a Scots nationalist) just isn't that great at some things.

No not bigoted. Just capable of looking at both sides to an argument - you see I may crave independence but can still reason about what Britain ONCE had. And the United side that first catapulted them to success were United youth products in the shape of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville brothers that made up more than half of the team for about a decade - now it is crammed with imports and not exactly shining.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Duty cut & pasting direct from the UKIP manifesto rather than providing any actual reasoning or logic.......

No. Just an opinion based on common logic.

No. Speculation from someone too stupid to understand the difference between conjecture and fact.

Can you not debate without the insults eh?

I think it's best to ignore TopHat most of the time. He frequently uses personal insults - the sign of a very poor debater - and struggles to argue the points that have been raised.

Having not followed the leave campaign particularly closely can anyone explain how immigration will actually look, beyond "get back control of our borders" rhetoric? What happens to the 3 million Europeans enjoying free movement rights in the UK, what happens to their spouses, partners etc? What happens to the couple of million Brits doing likewise in Europe? What happens to our relationship with the human rights treaty?

Are there any specifics beyond get control of our borders? Huge logistical questions to be resolved, there must be a plan, surely?

Rowley wrote:Having not followed the leave campaign particularly closely can anyone explain how immigration will actually look, beyond "get back control of our borders" rhetoric? What happens to the 3 million Europeans enjoying free movement rights in the UK, what happens to their spouses, partners etc? What happens to the couple of million Brits doing likewise in Europe? What happens to our relationship with the human rights treaty?

Are there any specifics beyond get control of our borders? Huge logistical questions to be resolved, there must be a plan, surely?

Well bombing em from the air is the recent trend

Rowley wrote:Having not followed the leave campaign particularly closely can anyone explain how immigration will actually look, beyond "get back control of our borders" rhetoric? What happens to the 3 million Europeans enjoying free movement rights in the UK, what happens to their spouses, partners etc? What happens to the couple of million Brits doing likewise in Europe? What happens to our relationship with the human rights treaty?

Are there any specifics beyond get control of our borders? Huge logistical questions to be resolved, there must be a plan, surely?

This article should answer such queries:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12177399/EU-Facts-What-would-leaving-the-EU-mean-for-expats.html

Immigration will be properly managed by a points system. The Human Rights Act 1998 (which I think is what you're referring to) is, I believe, separate from our membership of the EU.

Rowley, nobody knows. It's all just been bluster at the moment.

The "Leave" campaign seems to be succumbing to the same problems that the "Leave" campaign suffered in the Scottish referendum. There's no concrete policy, no specifics. They shout very loud and are full of bluster towards the "Remain" campaign but Remain has the luxury of not having to provide specifics. They have the status quo to fall back on.

All this sniping serves to do is allow the days to trickle away without any real policy on how GB would cope if we left.

Pr4wn wrote:Rowley, nobody knows. It's all just been bluster at the moment.

The "Leave" campaign seems to be succumbing to the same problems that the "Leave" campaign suffered in the Scottish referendum. There's no concrete policy, no specifics. They shout very loud and are full of bluster towards the "Remain" campaign but Remain has the luxury of not having to provide specifics. They have the status quo to fall back on.

All this sniping serves to do is allow the days to trickle away without any real policy on how GB would cope if we left.

Remain should have to provide specifics. There is no status quo, the EU is continually evolving. If we vote to remain:

1) How can we guarantee the NHS will be free from large-scale privatisation, thanks to TTIP?
2) What will the EU look like in five/ten/twenty years time? Will it be expanding into ever-closer union, a United States of Europe if you will?
3) How many more nations will be joining the EU?
4) With net migration at ridiculously high levels, how will this country manage to expand its infrastructure sufficiently? How can we manage to plan ahead, when we are in the dark about future levels of migration?
5) What will the EU's attitude be towards Russia, in the next few years?
6) Will their be an EU army in the future, making NATO redundant?
7) The Eurozone is crumbling - what measures will the EU take to deal with this?

No, they actually don't have to provide anything. Think about it.

They can demand it of you and if the public don't get a suitable answer, they'll vote remain. It's the way it works.

All of these questions are just bluster.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not bigoted. Just capable of looking at both sides to an argument - you see I may crave independence but can still reason about what Britain ONCE had. And the United side that first catapulted them to success were United youth products in the shape of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville brothers that made up more than half of the team for about a decade - now it is crammed with imports and not exactly shining.

Except you're not seeing 'both sides', you're picking a handful of things you don't like, all of which (you think) can be blamed on jonny foreigner, and despite them having little or nothing to do with the EU you're using them as an anti-EU argument.

It's laughable.

Will there be an EU army in the future?? straws well and truly clutched!

Pr4wn wrote:No, they actually don't have to provide anything. Think about it.

They can demand it of you and if the public don't get a suitable answer, they'll vote remain. It's the way it works.

All of these questions are just bluster.

Exactly, no answers whatsoever on what the future of our membership of the EU would be like.

Huge swathes of the population are concerned about migration, housing, school places, and health provision. That is not 'bluster'. And the Remain side have no answers.

Just one reason, of many, for why 'Leave' will triumph by a good margin in June.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Will there be an EU army in the future?? straws well and truly clutched!

You are so astonishingly ignorant.

The original plans for the EEC contained an idea for implementing a European Army and a European Minister of Defence. The current President, Mr. Juncker, has recently revived such an idea. That is the basis of the question.

How about you read a bit more about the European Union, and its predecessor, before making embarrassing posts?

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No, they actually don't have to provide anything. Think about it.

They can demand it of you and if the public don't get a suitable answer, they'll vote remain. It's the way it works.

All of these questions are just bluster.

Exactly, no answers whatsoever on what the future of our membership of the EU would be like.

Huge swathes of the population are concerned about migration, housing, school places, and health provision. That is not 'bluster'. And the Remain side have no answers.

Just one reason, of many, for why 'Leave' will triumph by a good margin in June.

Your failure to grasp what I'm saying is hilarious, yet unsurprising.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No, they actually don't have to provide anything. Think about it.

They can demand it of you and if the public don't get a suitable answer, they'll vote remain. It's the way it works.

All of these questions are just bluster.

Exactly, no answers whatsoever on what the future of our membership of the EU would be like.

Huge swathes of the population are concerned about migration, housing, school places, and health provision. That is not 'bluster'. And the Remain side have no answers.

Just one reason, of many, for why 'Leave' will triumph by a good margin in June.

Your failure to grasp what I'm saying is hilarious, yet unsurprising.

I get exactly what you're saying - you're saying the electorate will be happy to keep the status quo unless convinced otherwise, henceforth Remain do not need to make a proactive push.

And I'm disagreeing with that.

To be honest I don’t think the posted article addresses any of the numerous immigration questions, it speculates things will probably be alright for British citizens in Europe, it does not give any information as to what will happen to the European citizens living in the UK, what transitional arrangements will be in place, what will happen if they are forced to return to their home country, how the logistics of this would work, would the removal be appealable, challengeable against Human Rights, what would their work status be during this period, if they have no work status would they be able to claim benefits, how would the decision as to who is allowed to remain in the UK be decided, would such a decision be based on length of residence, ties to the UK, income level, if there is a date where we effectively close the door, how would the inevitable deluge that will come in the days immediately before this cut-off be managed?

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious surely the terms of the deal our ex-pats will be received will largely be dictated by the deal we give those enjoyed free movement rights in the UK, would seem common sense to suggest a too punitive approach to European residents in the UK will surely lead the EU reciprocating with a similarly punitive deal for Brits on the mainland. Does anyone really get the impression there is a mood in the country to adopt a softly, softly approach to dealing with the Europeans currently in the UK? Seems more than a little optimistic to believe we can hammer those Europeans already here or force them to up sticks and go home and expect the rest of the EU to say to the Brits living overseas, don’t worry about the fact you no longer have any legal status to be in the country and the fact your home country has just kicked out all our nationals living there, pour yourself another Sangria and enjoy the sunshine.

This for me is where the exit campaign such as the Scottish leave campaign and I suspect this campaign will ultimately fail, they are big on sloganeering and impressive sounding “wrestle back our sovereignty” bluster but very scant when it comes to detail or practicalities.

Finally can we stop with all this talk of a points based system like it is some sort of revolutionary idea that is going to solve every and all problems in immigration, we have had one for about the last eight years for non EEA migration, it has hardly gone so great so far has it?

Rowley wrote:To be honest I don’t think the posted article addresses any of the numerous immigration questions, it speculates things will probably be alright for British citizens in Europe, it does not give any information as to what will happen to the European citizens living in the UK, what transitional arrangements will be in place, what will happen if they are forced to return to their home country, how the logistics of this would work, would the removal be appealable, challengeable against Human Rights, what would their work status be during this period, if they have no work status would they be able to claim benefits, how would the decision as to who is allowed to remain in the UK be decided, would such a decision be based on length of residence, ties to the UK, income level, if there is a date where we effectively close the door, how would the inevitable deluge that will come in the days immediately before this cut-off be managed?

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious surely the terms of the deal our ex-pats will be received will largely be dictated by the deal we give those enjoyed free movement rights in the UK, would seem common sense to suggest a too punitive approach to European residents in the UK will surely lead the EU reciprocating with a similarly punitive deal for Brits on the mainland. Does anyone really get the impression there is a mood in the country to adopt a softly, softly approach to dealing with the Europeans currently in the UK? Seems more than a little optimistic to believe we can hammer those Europeans already here or force them to up sticks and go home and expect the rest of the EU to say to the Brits living overseas, don’t worry about the fact you no longer have any legal status to be in the country and the fact your home country has just kicked out all our nationals living there, pour yourself another Sangria and enjoy the sunshine.

This for me is where the exit campaign such as the Scottish leave campaign and I suspect this campaign will ultimately fail, they are big on sloganeering and impressive sounding “wrestle back our sovereignty” bluster but very scant when it comes to detail or practicalities.

Finally can we stop with all this talk of a points based system like it is some sort of revolutionary idea that is going to solve every and all problems in immigration, we have had one for about the last eight years for non EEA migration, it has hardly gone so great so far has it?

With regards to the point system, it is perhaps the case that this country's immigration woes are directly related to the EU - a points system that can be applied across the board will fare far better than one which is limited in its scope.

As mentioned in the article, the Vienna Convention safeguards the rights of European Citizens living in the UK and vice-versa*. The House of Commons library notes that:

“Generally speaking, withdrawing from a treaty releases the parties from any future obligations to each other, but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal.”

*Though there is the exception of France, who aren't tied to the Vienna Convention. I admit to being unsure in this one instance.

Poor old Boris well and truly caught out!  After pontificating profusely about the chairman of the Chambers of Commerce who got into trouble because he breached his own organisation's agreed line on neutrality we find that Boris's own office was actually trying to gag his own people.  These things do tend to come back to bite you.

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Will there be an EU army in the future?? straws well and truly clutched!

You are so astonishingly ignorant.

The original plans for the EEC contained an idea for implementing a European Army and a European Minister of Defence. The current President, Mr. Juncker, has recently revived such an idea. That is the basis of the question.

How about you read a bit more about the European Union, and its predecessor, before making embarrassing posts?

Doesn't stop it being a desperate and ridiculous question.

Will the colour of our stamps change?
Will UK airliners be able to fly over EU countries?
Will babysitting costs become more expensive?

Blah blah blah......

The only deal-breaker for me is that I want my bananas to be straighter.

Which way should I vote?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not bigoted. Just capable of looking at both sides to an argument - you see I may crave independence but can still reason about what Britain ONCE had. And the United side that first catapulted them to success were United youth products in the shape of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville brothers that made up more than half of the team for about a decade - now it is crammed with imports and not exactly shining.

Except you're not seeing 'both sides', you're picking a handful of things you don't like, all of which (you think) can be blamed on jonny foreigner, and despite them having little or nothing to do with the EU you're using them as an anti-EU argument.

It's laughable.

No you are forgetting what I said earlier. I am undecided. These are points that those that have decided will see as being pertinent whether you like them or not. Others will go for toughening up on border control etc.

You are also undecided are you not so lets hear your reasons as to why that is? What reasons would you vote out for?

The leave campaigners are a bit like some weird cult for me.

They're campaigning for something that they have 0% of an idea how it will turn out if people follow them and vote for to leave. It is all 100% complete and utter guesswork, and to be honest I don't deal on guesswork.

Those who want to "reclaim our borders" are just racists. Immigration of expertise has done great things for public services like the NHS, not to mention the private sector. And if you're unable to get a job and claim "some immigrants take all the cheap work available" then you should have worked harder in school because you must be a bloody idiot to be overlooked by someone who isn't even from these isles. The US has some of the toughest border controls and working visa policies in the world - yet how many millions of illegal immigrants do they have?

Sad to see Boris committing political suicide by going down the leave route. But that's his own doing, the leave vote won't win as moderates will always back stability and control over the economy rather than follow some brigade in to unknown waters. Kind of like when labour lerch to the left the moderates vote tory as they view it as the "safe" bet. Same will happen here.

As for that idiot Nigel Farage. Thankfully once the 'in' vote wins we won't be subjected to this idiot. "600,000 immigrants blah blah blah they're pulling the wool over your eyes" - except you shouldn't use NI numbers as a way of calculating immigration figures. Everyone who wants to work here (even if it's for a few weeks) has to apply for one. It's an absurd and frankly retarded way of trying to hype up the real immigration numbers. But I'd expect nothing less from that moron.

And if you want closed borders and control without any interference after the 'in' vote wins then move to North Korea.

superflyweight wrote:The only deal-breaker for me is that I want my bananas to be straighter.  

Which way should I vote?

That's pretty much the level of it...

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not bigoted. Just capable of looking at both sides to an argument - you see I may crave independence but can still reason about what Britain ONCE had. And the United side that first catapulted them to success were United youth products in the shape of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville brothers that made up more than half of the team for about a decade - now it is crammed with imports and not exactly shining.

Except you're not seeing 'both sides', you're picking a handful of things you don't like, all of which (you think) can be blamed on jonny foreigner, and despite them having little or nothing to do with the EU you're using them as an anti-EU argument.

It's laughable.

No you are forgetting what I said earlier. I am undecided. These are points that those that have decided will see as being pertinent whether you like them or not. Others will go for toughening up on border control etc.

You are also undecided are you not so lets hear your reasons as to why that is? What reasons would you vote out for?

How are any of the points you raised either to do with the EU or in supoort of leaving?? They're your arguments, how about trying to sustain them?

The problem is saying those currently here or on the continent in the case of ex-pats can stay barely touches the sides of the issues to be resolved. How would those people qualify for citizenship, should that be their intention, does their access to healthcare, education and employment remain exactly the same? Say for instance a German national living in the UK marries an American national, can he still bring her over with relative ease, as is the case now, if so what are her entitlements to work, would such an application be charged/prioritized. The wrong answer to any of these would represent a fundamental change to how they are treated currently. Even if we accept the Vienna convention allows Europeans currently in the UK to remain it does not answer what would happen to their family members still in Europe they may wish to join them. It is extremely common for the male of the family to come over first before bringing his family over later once he is established here, can he still do this? If not, what does he have to do to bring his family over, on what criteria would he be assessed. Also if we accept the Vienna convention protects the rights of those already here, how do they actually prove they were here before the cut-off point, EEA nationals are currently not logged into the UK and in most instances do not have to make applications to be here or work here so how are the logistics of actually establishing someone’s residence and by dint right to remain here actually going to work.

As I say I have not followed the exit campaign with any great enthusiasm but have these questions been addressed, or are we all just burying our head in the sand and believing if we say “regain our sovereignty” “reclaim control of our borders” “introduce a points based system (different to the one we have had for the last eight years apparently)” everything will be alright in the long run.

superflyweight wrote:The only deal-breaker for me is that I want my bananas to be straighter.  

Which way should I vote?

You're Scottish. The only banana you've ever eaten is in a fritter.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

superflyweight wrote:The only deal-breaker for me is that I want my bananas to be straighter.  

Which way should I vote?

You're Scottish.  The only banana you've ever eaten is in a fritter.  

Bananas have AIDS now...

Coxy001 wrote:Those who want to "reclaim our borders" are just racists.

Strange argument.

Vote Remain - have an open border with roughly 500 million people, mostly white, whilst making it harder for migrants from outside the EU (who are mostly not white) to come and work in our country.

Vote Leave - a level-playing field for all.

Duty281 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Those who want to "reclaim our borders" are just racists.

Strange argument.

Vote Remain - have an open border with roughly 500 million people, mostly white, whilst making it harder for migrants from outside the EU (who are mostly not white) to come and work in our country.

Vote Leave - a level-playing field for all.

Quite right. Boris, IDS, Gove and that moron cheat Fox are voting out in support of this noble cause.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Those who want to "reclaim our borders" are just racists.

Strange argument.

Vote Remain - have an open border with roughly 500 million people, mostly white, whilst making it harder for migrants from outside the EU (who are mostly not white) to come and work in our country.

Vote Leave - a level-playing field for all.

Quite right. Boris, IDS, Gove and that moron cheat Fox are voting out in support of this noble cause.

And Jeremy Corbyn, don't forget.