Europe should we stay in or get out?

[Cobby]

There’s no certainty that this thread will encounter rational people engaging in sensible debate without resorting to sly digs and putdowns.

Welcome to being an adult, where we can multitask.

Surely if the economy struggles, and their home country prospers under the EU, there is no removing needed because they would want to freely go back home.

So you're now banking on our economy crashing and the EU succeeding, just so you can expunge 'foreigners' by circumstance rather than decree. Your argument is getting shakier every time you try to clarify it.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Sudden catastrophic change like Brexit would be more problematic.

It wouldn't be sudden and catastrophic. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty lays out a 2 year period for the negotiation of exit for a member state.

 

[Newchodge]

Do you really expect that there would be no immediate effect on the Stock Market, investment and the economy if the result of the referendum was Brexit?

 

[john1989]

Do you really expect that there would be no immediate effect on the Stock Market, investment and the economy if the result of the referendum was Brexit?

Remainers seem to think that we are worthless as a country.

If the markets get jumpy, it will effect the EU just as much as us. Perhaps more so. It wouldn't be good for EU to lose one of its largest benefactors.

 

[Cobby]

In other words, "I don't care if innocent people suffer, as long as my sense of mob-justice has been satisfied."

Oh dear, that's terrible. Who said that? I know it wasn't me.

Of course you don't think it was you, you are giving us your opinion, and expressing your feelings which is great. But if you don't think through the logic of your opinions then you often don't realise what meaning they carry.

When you say "it's the criminal's fault their wife and kids suffer" what you are saying is that *you* want to include them in any punishment and blame their punishment on someone else. That in *your* judgement (i.e. your *opinion*) innocent people should suffer by association, regardless the lack of complicity.

This is also known as collective punishment. I'm sure that's not what you really mean, but look it up and see exactly what it is you are advocating; it might also shed a little light on why guarding our human rights via the ECHR so zealously is A Good Thing.

In fairness, I am not the one making ad hominem attacks, and I will back up with facts and figures as soon as I can post links.

By all means include a link to back up any figures you include in your argument, but you don't need to be able to post links to include facts - if your figures are off or blatantly made up (as much of the Leave campaign's seem to be), people will correct you.

 

[ShirleyM]

Do you really expect that there would be no immediate effect on the Stock Market, investment and the economy if the result of the referendum was Brexit?

Yes, initially, but it won't last long, and it won't be half as severe as the one that will hit when the Euro fails, or propping up the Euro by bailing out failing eurozone countries.

A couple of links:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/22/greece-euro-debt-crisis-imf-bearing-gifts
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/10/battle-prop-up-italy-banks-eu-brexit-grexit-bad-loans

 

[john1989]

Of course you don't think it was you, you are giving us your opinion, and expressing your feelings which is great. But if you don't think through the logic of your opinions then you often don't realise what meaning they carry.

When you say "it's the criminal's fault their wife and kids suffer" what you are saying is that *you* want to include them in any punishment and blame their punishment on someone else. That in *your* judgement (i.e. your *opinion*) innocent people should suffer by association, regardless the lack of complicity.

This is also known as collective punishment. I'm sure that's not what you really mean, but look it up and see exactly what it is you are advocating; it might also shed a little light on why guarding our human rights via the ECHR so zealously is A Good Thing.


By all means include a link to back up any figures you include in your argument, but you don't need to be able to post links to include facts - if your figures are off or blatantly made up (as much of the Leave campaign's seem to be), people will correct you.

Seems rather hypocritical to ask for links when you have not provided any to back up your opinions.

Maybe its because most of your opinions have been putdowns rather than discussing the topic in hand.

 

[Cobby]

It wouldn't be sudden and catastrophic. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty lays out a 2 year period for the negotiation of exit for a member state.

Do you think after these gradual changes of 40 years that 2 years isn't 'sudden' in the eyes of our economy? Do you think the markets will wait for two years to react to a Leave vote, because a little bit of common sense will tell you otherwise.

Remainers seem to think that we are worthless as a country.

No, those voting Remain understand that their ego is not what is at stake. What do you even mean by "worthless"? Your position seems to be that we can vote 'Leave' and Britain will magically return to the place of power it had at the peak of the British Empire. As motivation for an argument, that's quite absurd.

 

[ShirleyM]

When you say "it's the criminal's fault their wife and kids suffer" what you are saying is that *you* want to include them in any punishment and blame their punishment on someone else. That in *your* judgement (i.e. your *opinion*) innocent people should suffer by association, regardless the lack of complicity.

I said nothing of the sort, but if you want to twist my meaning and think the worst of me, then so be it. It doesn't change my opinion.

The wife and kids would not be made to suffer pain or abuse, other than the possible distress of losing the company of their 'loved one' and they should have the option of accompanying the deported criminal. Who knows, they may be grateful for the opportunity to be separated from a violent spouse, but that should be their own choice, and nobody else's. The victims, and other UK citizen's safety, should be put first.

 

[john1989]

Do you think after these gradual changes of 40 years that 2 years isn't 'sudden' in the eyes of our economy? Do you think the markets will wait for two years to react to a Leave vote, because a little bit of common sense will tell you otherwise.


No, those voting Remain understand that their ego is not what is at stake. What do you even mean by "worthless"? Your position seems to be that we can vote 'Leave' and Britain will magically return to the place of power it had at the peak of the British Empire. As motivation for an argument, that's quite absurd.

I've finally understood all of your comments. You pretend someone has said something, and then argue against it.

Care to start a thread of your own and argue with yourself there? At least then the grown ups can continue with a sensible debate.

 

[Newchodge]

When you say "it's the criminal's fault their wife and kids suffer" what you are saying is that *you* want to include them in any punishment and blame their punishment on someone else. That in *your* judgement (i.e. your *opinion*) innocent people should suffer by association, regardless the lack of complicity.

I said nothing of the sort, but if you want to twist my meaning and think the worst of me, then so be it. It doesn't change my opinion.

The wife and kids would not be made to suffer pain or abuse, other than the possible distress of losing the company of their 'loved one' and they should have the option of accompanying the deported criminal. Who knows, they may be grateful for the opportunity to be separated from a violent spouse, but that should be their own choice, and nobody else's. The victims, and other UK citizen's safety, should be put first.

Have you seen the report from the Home Affairs Committee, which identifies the fact that there are many 'foreign' criminals here who could have been deported (even within the EU), but haven't been deported because the Home Office has not taken any action. Nothing to do with the EU, everything to do with the failure of the UK government. A failure that will not be changed whether we stay in the EU or leave.

 

[Cobby]

I said nothing of the sort, but if you want to twist my meaning

As I said, I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that is how it read.

The wife and kids would not be made to suffer pain or abuse

Okay, so you do care about human rights. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Cobby]

I've finally understood all of your comments. You pretend someone has said something, and then argue against it.

Care to start a thread of your own and argue with yourself there? At least then the grown ups can continue with a sensible debate.

Really? Do we have to do this? Look, if you don't want your argument picked apart into its constituent parts, or to have it followed to its logical conclusion, construct it better, but don't try and derail the conversation because you don't like it.

If you want to continue this arbitrary discussion of 'netiquette', feel free to PM me but please keep it out of this frankly fantastic thread.

edit: in fact, I think I'll leave it for a couple of days and come back to read through it all as this is distracting from Scott tearing apart the Leave arguments; he's much better at this than I am.

 

[john1989]

Really? Do we have to do this? Look, if you don't want your argument picked apart into its constituent parts, or to have it followed to its logical conclusion, construct it better, but don't try and derail the conversation because you don't like it.

If you want to continue this arbitrary discussion of 'netiquette', feel free to PM me but please keep it out of this frankly fantastic thread.

edit: in fact, I think I'll leave it for a couple of days and come back to read through it all as this is distracting from Scott tearing apart the Leave arguments; he's much better at this than I am.

I'm happy for my comments be ripped to bits. But please ensure they are my comments, and not those you've invented.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Hmm, interesting that the foundation for your argument sounds like a government funding and policy issue rather than an immigration issue.

I believe it is. Even if we discount 25% as unsuitable that's still a lot of people that could be trained to be nurses, more than we need.

I think there is also a moral consideration: should we taking the brightest and best from developing countries? What happens to the health services in those countries?

OK if there is a known surplus as I gather there is of dentists in Hungary and doctors in Germany. My own GP is German and excellent he is too.

 

[Newchodge]

I believe it is. Even if we discount 25% as unsuitable that's still a lot of people that could be trained to be nurses, more than we need.

I think there is also a moral consideration: should we taking the brightest and best from developing countries? What happens to the health services in those countries?

OK if there is a known surplus as I gather there is of dentists in Hungary and doctors in Germany. My own GP is German and excellent he is too.

I fully agree with you. It is a disgrace that we are taking trained nurses from places like the Philippines, who need their own nurses, rather than train our own. Unfortunately, under this government, the situation is likely to get worse as they are now going to get students to fund their own nursing degrees, instead of giving the bursaries, but they will not increase the number of training paces to match our need for nurses.

 

[simon field]

Who actually voted this lot in?

Is it just traditional 'government bashing' or are people just ashamed of what they've done? Nobody admits to voting Tory!

Would Labour have done things better? Are they not pretty much the same?

 

[Newchodge]

Who actually voted this lot in?

Is it just traditional 'government bashing' or are people just ashamed of what they've done? Nobody admits to voting Tory!

Would Labour have done things better? Are they not pretty much the same?

Labour would have done things different. I personally believe it would have been better, but probably not by much. That is why Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. That is also, probably, why Donald Trump is doing so well.

 

[boring-friday]

What do we even sell? Well there's about £370billion of combined import/export trade with the EU every year, so I'd say quite a bit. They are our largest trading partner by a huge margin.

The ramifications of disrupted economic trade with the EU don't just stop with the companies which directly do the importing and exporting. It ripples through vast supply chains spanning many thousands of businesses and jobs.

The point is you cannot just disrupt this and expect British businesses to work it out without some serious damage along the way. We all run businesses, so we all know what it's like. A rise in import costs can wipe out a huge chunk of the profit margin for many businesses whilst making them less competitive on the world stage.

And we also all know that it's just not that easy to immediately switch to different suppliers in other countries, or to find new clients in other countries either. It has little knock-on effects everywhere which can accumulate into hundreds of billions of pounds worth of economic losses.

That's why you have the majority of SMEs, large businesses, multi-nationals, business bodies, trade unions and economists all believing that Brexit is a bad choice which will cause damage. Across all groups combined, they are HUGELY in favour of remain.



It's partly to do with existing trade, and partly to do with the potential for encouraging and increasing trade with new partners.

You could have said the same about Switzerland and China. Wouldn't China be happy to wipe import duty off if Switzerland did the same? Why not? Both countries benefit. No big deal, right?

Except the FTA Switzerland has agreed is that they will remove all tariffs for China now, and in exchange, China will remove tariffs for Switzerland in 15 years time. Plus, this includes some indefinite tariffs and quotas for certain products and services.

That's the thing about trade deals. The best case scenario for any country is to actually be allowed free trade in another country without the other country being able to trade in theirs. This allows the country to bring in external revenue without losing internal revenue when businesses start to spend more abroad.

Obviously, this cannot happen. FTAs are not a case of "let's find the fairest and best deal for both of us". FTAs are about concessions and compromises to reach a middle ground where both countries feel they have got the best deal for themselves.

This is why China demanded free access now in exchange for free access to their economy in 15 years time. China would have much preferred to give nothing if they could, but obviously Switzerland must get something in exchange eventually.

And Switzerland accepted that. Why? Because they need China more than China needs them, and with the largest economy by far, they have the leverage to dictate the terms.

If we leave the EU, and leave the world's second largest economy, China, the United States and many other large economies will do the exact same thing to us.

And if we leave with uncertainty over single market access, and years of potential negotiations to have to get through, we will not be in a position to just walk away. We will be pressured to accept what we can get.

Obviously trade wouldn't suddenly stop with the EU but if it did there would be more money in the UK, a lot of that extra money would be spent on UK companies.
No doubt more to it than that but anything else is based on 1 guess upon another guess, don't see the point in having economists for anything so big they may aswell just enter a big random number.
And lol obviously big companies want to stay makes their tax dodging so much easier.

Won't make any difference to my business anyway, only sell about 1% to the EU and don't buy a sausage, too much effort making websites in different languages. Expect my sales will flourish if I don't have to pay vat to Germany though, I could probably undercut German companies actually.
Import tax doesn't matter for retail, you just stick '50p' on the postage label lol

 

[sirearl]

Seems rather hypocritical to ask for links when you have not provided any to back up your opinions.

Maybe its because most of your opinions have been putdowns rather than discussing the topic in hand.

"Being condescending is an unintelligent way to make yourself feel superior."

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Obviously trade wouldn't suddenly stop with the EU but if it did there would be more money in the UK, a lot of that extra money would be spent on UK companies.

Why would there be more money in the UK?

It wouldn't just stop dead, but if it takes a hit, a number of things will happen:

1). Exports from the UK will go down.
2). Expenses will rise, causing products to be more expensive in the UK and across the competitive global market.
3). Import costs will rise, and with many imports being part of a larger supply chain of UK businesses, it will increase their costs, reduce their margins and increase their prices even further.

It's all bad news for British businesses, however you look at it.

And lol obviously big companies want to stay makes their tax dodging so much easier.

Actually, it makes tax dodging much more difficult.

Right now, the UK and the authorities of other EU nations work in full cooperation across a common framework. A "free trade agreement" of anti-avoidance measures, if you will.

Outside the EU, British companies will be more isolated from such things.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

In fairness Scott, (and I speak as someone without a nationalistic bone in his body), for many people the threat of losing a bit of money pales into insignificance compared to the other things (such as self-determination) that are on the table before us.

Would you like to be branded 'selfish' for forcing other people's children to give up more of their ability to be governed by their own government?

Within the EU, the UK always has the ultimate self-determination.

Why? Because we have the ability to leave at any point.

Brexit supporters are acting like this is our only chance to ever leave, and that if we vote to remain, we are locked into the EU and unable to ever escape.

The Treaty of Lisbon enshrined into law something called TEU Article 50. This gives any country, at any point, the self-determined right to leave the EU of its own free will. No one can stop us if we choose to do it

And to dispel the "EU super-state" theory once and for all, this article was introduced in only 2009, meaning that it is now far easier for any country to quit the EU than it ever has been since it was formed. If the EU wants to imprison countries in some super-state, then it's doing a pretty bad job by recently creating a very clear path for any country to leave when they wish.

And that doesn't even need a referendum. If the UK Government wishes to do so, we can leave the EU without the public ever being consulted. The UK will continue to hold that power if we do decide to remain.

People claim the EU is undemocratic, but we hold all the cards, and the ultimate power, when it comes to our membership. We can remain in the EU for the benefits it brings, but also leave, at any point, if we want to.

There are probably business owners on this very forum who have signed contracts which locked them into certain things without any self-determined right to escape. That absolves you of your personal sovereignty and free-will far more than the EU ever will, because in the unlikely event that things do go pear-shaped, we can just go.

And let me tell you, it's far easier to leave the EU than it is to re-join if Brexit does end up being a big mistake.

 

[ShirleyM]

Exports to the EU are reducing every year, and look likely to decrease further. Exports to non-EU countries are increasing and should continue to do so. It would be better to concentrate on non-EU markets as the EU markets are shrinking.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Exports to the EU are reducing every year and look likely to decrease further. Exports to non-EU countries are increasing and should continue to do so. It would be better to concentrate on non-EU markets as the EU markets are shrinking.

That's just complete and utter nonsense.

From HMRC:

"Non-EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.9 billion. There was a decrease of £3.6 billion (22 per cent) compared with March 2015."

"EU Exports for March 2016 were £12.0 billion. This was an increase of £0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of £0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015."

Non-EU exports have decreased by 22%, whilst EU exports have increased by 0.6%. It's a small increase, but the fact remains that EU trade is going up whilst non-EU trade is going down fast.

Must mean that non-EU markets are shrinking according to your logic, right?

This also underlines the importance of the European market even further. We have almost as much export trade with one continent as we do with the entire rest of the world. The EU accounts for around 45% of our exports every year.

But yes. You're right. We certainly should do more trade with the rest of the world. That's why the EU, with its huge economic leverage, has negotiated dozens of highly favourable trade deals with non-EU countries, and is in planned negotiations to implement many more with the likes of:

The United States
Canada
Singapore
Japan
Bahrain
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates

And eventually China in the longer-term.

We can use, and access, these EU-negotiated trade deals as if they were our own, and with the EU's massive economic clout, they're much better than what we could have achieved by ourselves.

 

[ShirleyM]

That's just complete and utter nonsense.

No, it isn't. The source is the ONS. Isolating one months figures that suit your argument is hardly fair and representative. Also, our exports to the USA increase year on year, and that's without a trade deal. Imagine if USA exports continue to grow and EU exports continue to fall, and the bonus is that we don't have to pay the USA a hefty membership fee, bail out their states, or accept free movement of people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/11/uk-trade-gap-with-eu-hits-record/

 

[KM-Tiger]

And bear in mind that the EU figure is distorted by the "Rotterdam effect" where goods destined for the rest of the world are recorded as EU exports if the first port of call is Rotterdam. I've never seen a reliable estimate of that. If anyone has any info please share.

 

[roydmoorian]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1053759234700690

Well worth a watch if you are actually interested in the "bigger picture".

 

[john1989]

And bear in mind that the EU figure is distorted by the "Rotterdam effect" where goods destined for the rest of the world are recorded as EU exports if the first port of call is Rotterdam. I've never seen a reliable estimate of that. If anyone has any info please share.

There's no accurate data. I suspect that's how they want it.

I did find this, however:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ecember-2014/sty-trade-rotterdam-effect-.html

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That's just complete and utter nonsense.

No, it isn't. The source is the ONS. Isolating one months figures that suit your argument is hardly fair and representative. Also, our exports to the USA increase year on year, and that's without a trade deal. Imagine if USA exports continue to grow and EU exports continue to fall, and the bonus is that we don't have to pay the USA a hefty membership fee, bail out their states, or accept free movement of people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/11/uk-trade-gap-with-eu-hits-record/

That's the trade gap. That's very different to whether UK-EU exports are increasing or falling.

I've noticed you read the Telegraph though, one of the most horrendously biased anti-EU newspapers out there today. Explains a lot.

Exports with the USA may rise or fall over time, but the fact remains that they account for only 11% of our global exports, whilst the EU accounts for around 45%.

A trading area with a population of 500million gives us almost half of our export trade compared to the other half across a population of 6.8billion. That's the power of the single market which Brexiteers are so keen to pull from under us.

Plus, with the EU's highly favourable FTAs being negotiated with the rest of the world, which we are currently a part of, our EU trade can continue to grow whilst our non-EU trade gets a sizeable boost as well. It's the best of both worlds.

When it comes to the strength and size of the UK's economy, the best is yet to come if we remain.

 

[ShirleyM]

I've noticed you read the Telegraph though, one of the most horrendously biased anti-EU newspapers out there today. Explains a lot.

Still attacking the player instead of the ball? Deary me!

As you post links from the Guardian, one of the most horrendously biased pro-EU newspapers out there, am I to assume you read that every day?

When it comes to the strength and size of the UK's economy, the best is yet to come if we remain.

Absolutely nonsense. The EU is bust and if we 'remain' we will go down with them. We cannot cope with endless unlimited migration, It's destroying all quality of life in the UK. Also, we cannot keep borrowing just to prop up numerous failing economies. Italy is joining Greece in the bankruptcy stakes. Spain will be next. Even France and Germany are teetering on the brink. The EU is going backwards instead of forwards. It's out of date for modern times, and it's protectionism is costing EU citizens, and businesses, dearly. It's had it's day. Time to move over for something better.

Anyway, there is more to Brexit than the economy. We love Europe, hate the EU, and we want democracy not an oligarchy.

As said in Australia .... get me outta here.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Time to move over for something better.

Anyway, there is more to Brexit than the economy. We love Europe, hate the EU, and we want democracy not an oligarchy.

That actually is the most exciting prospect following Brexit.

It would not take much for the Dutch to follow us out, and then with luck the whole thing will come tumbling down.

There is then an opportunity for the UK to lead in setting up a Europe of trade and cooperation between democratic sovereign states, power having been restored to the peoples of those states.

As a country we really would have achieved something.

 

[ShirleyM]

Juncker has done it again. The president of the EU has got foot in mouth disease, but he does help generate Brexit votes. Juncker displays the arrogance of the EU elites. Was it Juncker and his threats that Cameron referred to when he said Brexit would start WWIII?. It sounds like 'Do as I say or we will punish you'. What an advert for the EU! Another own goal.

ps, I hope The Times is acceptable to the majority of UKBF members.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...-misery-junckers-warning-to-britain-7h2k90t8g

 

[Deleted member 59730]

ps, I hope The Times is acceptable to the majority of UKBF members.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...-misery-junckers-warning-to-britain-7h2k90t8g

Owned by that EU hating Oligarch Richard Murdoch.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Absolutely nonsense. The EU is bust and if we 'remain' we will go down with them.

That is absolute nonsense I'm afraid. Show me one shred of actual evidence that the EU is "bust".

The EU has the second largest economy in the world and one of the highest credit ratings in the world, indicative of extremely strong financial confidence. How is it bust?

We cannot cope with endless unlimited migration, It's destroying all quality of life in the UK.

No it isn't. I live in the North East of the UK, which has the smallest foreign-born population in England at only 1.6% of the total. That includes global foreign-born people, so the amount of EU migrants is a small chunk of that.

London has 36.9% of the total. Perhaps the real issue here is the foreign-born population, and the UK population in general, bunching up in the South due to the wealth and job inequality created by the north/south divide.

And as the EU works its magic and all nations grow together, with some Eastern European countries growing at a rapid rate, EU inequality will decline and immigration will decline as a result. This also has the handy benefit of creating more financially stronger trading partners for us to grow our own economy.

Closing borders fixes the symptom. Countries growing and developing fixes the cause.

The recent spike in EU migration to the UK was also caused by this whole referendum. People who previously might have been on the fence about leaving their country were pressured into making the leap for fear of the doors being closed for good. This would not have happened if we didn't have this whole situation going on.

Also, we cannot keep borrowing just to prop up numerous failing economies. Italy is joining Greece in the bankruptcy stakes. Spain will be next. Even France and Germany are teetering on the brink. The EU is going backwards instead of forwards. It's out of date for modern times, and it's protectionism is costing EU citizens, and businesses, dearly. It's had it's day. Time to move over for something better.

No it isn't, no they won't, and no they aren't.

The EU is growing, and with favourable FTAs on the way, it's going to grow even faster in the future.

Do not confuse the modest EU growth with the implication that the EU is to blame for this. The entire economy of the planet has slowed, including in the United States and China especially. It is now, more than ever, that we're better off in the single market with the financial strength of the EU behind us.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Juncker has done it again. The president of the EU has got foot in mouth disease, but he does help generate Brexit votes. Juncker displays the arrogance of the EU elites. Was it Juncker and his threats that Cameron referred to when he said Brexit would start WWIII?. It sounds like 'Do as I say or we will punish you'. What an advert for the EU! Another own goal.

ps, I hope The Times is acceptable to the majority of UKBF members.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...-misery-junckers-warning-to-britain-7h2k90t8g

You really cannot tell just by looking at the headline that The Times is one of newspapers with the strongest anti-EU bias? The newspaper is ran by Rupert Murdoch, who wants the UK out of the EU so he is able to exert stronger influence and control over our Government.

That being said, he is entirely right in what he says. He obviously did not say "we will make your lives a misery". That is not a quote and that quote is not implied to exist.

What he did say is that we won't be welcomed with open arms. And why would we be? We will no longer be a member of the European Union, we will no longer be afforded the same benefits of being a member, and we'll suddenly become an economic competitor to the EU more than a trading partner.

The EU will obviously no longer look out for our best interests, much in the same way that we won't look out for the EU's best interests if we leave either. It's a two-way street.

 

[john1989]

If you think immigration is only a problem in the south, you really need to get out more.

Try looking at places such as Bradford, Dewsbury, many areas of Leeds, Rochdale. There's also Boston where 17% of the population is from another EU country.

 

[KM-Tiger]

The Times is one of newspapers with the strongest anti-EU bias?

Not in my opinion and I read it every day. They are also very anti-UKIP, the vile poison they dripped out prior to the last Euro elections was quite something.

Correct me if I am wrong, but despite previous anti EU statements, Murdoch has not as yet come out for or against in this referendum?

 

[ShirleyM]

The EU will obviously no longer look out for our best interests, much in the same way that we won't look out for the EU's best interests if we leave either. It's a two-way street.

No surprise there. We are used to it already. It most definitely does not work in the interests of it's citizens, which is why there are riots and protests against the EU in many countries. The EU really want an army to control the rising civil unrest.

The EU is finished, both economically and politically. Brexit may help it along a little, but a Remain vote will only delay the inevitable.

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160226/1035385539/european-union-collapse-scenario.html

ps. don't bother telling me you don't approve of my source. You will declare it is horrendously biased anti-EU, or something along those lines just because it isn't pro-EU.

 

[ShirleyM]

This is why we are having a referendum. Camerons own words:

The video only lasts just over 1 minute, and well worth watching.

 

[roydmoorian]

Try looking at places such as Bradford, Dewsbury, many areas of Leeds, Rochdale.

Many of the "Immigrants" in those districts were born here, some are 3rd and 4th generation and mainly with non-european roots....