I'd like to apologise to anyone offended by the brick walls picture, I didn't intentionally mean to offend, I suppose I was just trying to be a clever dick.

Please accept my apology and let's move on with the thread debate.

Under the European Union Treaty's Article 34, the EU limits what our diplomats can say and do on international bodies like the UN. EU membership doesn't give us a voice on the top tables, it takes away our voice.

Jolly Good Shag


Europe is a mess
Illegal Migrants
need to get in line.


We are not a Dumping ground - You French feckers

More job losses, the futures bright in the EU

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/Arti...cleid=59111117

A fantastic article in The Washington examiner

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...stom_click=rss

Not here for prices of most items skyrocketing if we leave, a sad prospect.

Maajid Nawaz say's "Europes social fabric is falling apart"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...in-europe.html

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't again...
I have taken the report on it's merits regardless of where it came from, isn't that a positive that I didn't dismiss it without consideration?
Mind you the hokey cokey conservatives aren't sure themselves which leg to put in are they so nobody can be sure where they stand atm.
My initial concern is WTD, if that is isolated and protected prior to the vote I'm happy.
I'm not willing to be bamboozled with spin relating to immigration which distracted so many during the GE.

A chap called John Redwood has some questions he'd like to ask the remain campaigners.

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/02...-by-the-media/

'Why did they show such hostility to British beef?'

:laugh: Is this guy for real?

This argument doesn't have any reason to get at any govt since in fact no matter what govt we had unless it was a UKIP one, all other mainland Parliamentary Parties would be advocating remaining in the EU.
Maybe the DUP and UUP would be anti it but even as to N Ireland, the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party would be likely for in.

So whatever this govt or any that were in place other than this Conservative govt are going to present that will help the 'in' cause.
Then even I support the PM and the bulk of this govt on this issue,so I agree with Kizzy's presentation more obviously,
Like her despite my intense dislike for this govt, on this I agree with it completely, support it too and also support anything they present to further the 'in' cause that has a basis and fact to it.

I think staying in will destroy the Labour party, I think UKIP will become the main opposition and I'd say there's the possibility of civil war in this Country within the next twenty years.

I think staying in will remove the need for UKIP totally,they will have lost completely the argument of the EU and their credibility will be gone.
They will then have to be in turmoil,having to completely argue their policies around the UK being in the EU.
No totally anti EU Party could really then credibly govern or have great influence in my view, after an in vote result.

Just as with those saying if the vote is to leave, the PM will have lost the argument and his credibility will be gone.

As for Labour,they have no problem with the EU as a Party as to the vast majority of MPs and members.
I cannot see a single scrap of of justification to indicate any problems for Labour on this issue,no matter whatever the result of the referendum is.

I think there's going to be utter turmoil regardless.
If we remain in, Boris is going to have to start a new party which will inevitably split the present government.
UKIP will be, like you say, finished.

If we leave, Cameron will probably have to step down and Osborne would probably get a vote of no confidence as deputy PM. I think Boris would step up to the job but whoever takes on the PM role in those unpredictable fledgling years of Brexit isn't going to be as popular as he hopes. Its predicted that within a few years of us leaving the EU Britain will be hitting hard times (be that temporary) which could create civil unrest. If that happens, the nation may look towards the Labour party as a serious alternative.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has his two penn'orth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6907806.html

Who promoted the idea of that TTIP thing, where did it come from... What govt in their right mind would give businesses that much power?

YES - This guy is for real.:


European unity? Don't make me laugh - The UK has always been the EU's 'whipping boy':

Monday, October 25, 1999 Published at 16:52 GMT 17:52 UK

How the beef row escalated

French say British beef is still unsafe

Tensions between British and French farmers and politicians have simmered to boiling point throughout this month.

The French government is flouting European Commission instructions with its refusal to import British beef.

It says it has evidence that British beef is unsafe. The commission says it has misinterpreted reports.

Back in Britain, frustration at France's continuation of the ban - and revelations that the French themselves may be employing unsafe farming practices - have led to demonstrations and calls for an all-out boycott of French goods.

Key events in the escalating row

The French are facing allegations that they feed sewage to their cattle

1 October 1999:France announces that unlike the rest of Europe, it will not lift a ban on British beef. The decision is based on a report by France's Food Safety Agency, which states that British beef is not safe for human consumption. Six days peviously, Britain had exported its first beef to Europe in more than three years.

2 October:Amid protest from British farmers and outrage in the British press, the UK asks the European Commission to take action against France for its stance. Its president, Romano Prodi, gives assurances that legal action will be taken - if scientific advisers find that there is no evidence to support France's continuation of the ban.

4 October: The European Commission finds there is no justification for the French ban.

5 October:France agrees to allow transportation of British beef across its borders, but will not allow it onto shop shelves.

6 October:French agriculture minister Jean Galvany says there is "no reason for France to change its mind" about the ban.

Joyce Quin spoke informally on behalf of British farmers

7 October: At a meeting of European scientists, British farmers threaten mass demonstrations if France does not fall into line with the rest of the community.

8 October: Germany delays importing beef as a result of France's continuation of the ban. German health minister Andrea Fischler says Germany will wait and see what European scientists make of French Food Safety Agency's report.

9 October: Deputy Agriculture Minister Joyce Quin announces that she will travel to the annual food exhibition in Cologne, to speak informally on behalf of British farmers. Her boss Nick Brown cancelled his attendance in protest, and had vowed to personally boycott all French goods.

10 October: Lindsay Hoyle, Labour MP for Chorley, calls for a boycott of all French and German produce. The press is also urging its readers to "forget the Dijon, and buy British".

11 October: Approximately 600 farmers block Plymouth's Millbay docks, preventing at least two lorries from leaving ferries from France and entering the UK.

Prince Charles voiced support for British beef farmers

12 October: The French government announces that the ban could continue for months, despite the threat of legal action from the European Union. British farmers, meanwhile, promise that demonstrations at ports will continue until the French relent.

13 October: The European Commission finds that the report of the French Food Safety Agency is based on a misinterpretation of scientific findings, regarding the age of cattle and the threat of BSE infection. Prince Charles publicly supports British beef farmers.

14 October: British beef is back on the menu in Brussels at a gala dinner. France's ban is further scrutinised by an EU committee, which calls for more information into the safety of British beef. It is announced that farming profits in the UK have halved in a year.

15 October: At the EU summit in Finland, Tony Blair takes his French counterpart Lionel Jospin aside to warn him "in the stongest possible terms" that France could face legal action over the ban.

18 October: During the day, Liberal Democrat Chief Whip Paul Tyler and shadow Agriculture Minister Colin Breed deliver a prime beef joint to French Ambassador Louis Bernard at the embassy in London. They discuss the ban for 30 minutes. In the evening, 200 farmers try to break down the gates of Poole Ferry Port in Dorset in an attempt to prevent lorries from Cherbourg entering the UK. One lorry remains on the ferry, rather than disembarking.

19 October: Farmers say further demonstrations are planned.
Farmers promised more demonstrations

20 October: The south of England local supermarket chain Budgen's announces that it will take French apples and pears off the shelves of its 116 stores, and stock British alternatives.

Armed French riot police are called in as Tory MEPs protest in the Champs Elysees, with a banner reading: "Let them eat cake - let them eat British beef."

22 October: Somerfield supermarkets follow suit, saying they will stop selling French apples "as soon as possible". Every single shop and pub in the Devon town of Hatherington stops selling French goods in a show of solidarity with the community's farmers.

23 October: An EU report says that sewage has been used by French renderers to make animal feed, sparking fears of a BSE crisis on the other side of the Channel. Tony Blair congratulates agriculture minister Nick Brown - who has been criticised in the press for not taking strong action against France - on his handling of the French ban situation.

The European Commission gives France until 28 October to come up with suggestions for supervising conditions in rendering plants.


[ image: French riot police were called when Tory MEPs protested on the Champs Elysees]
French riot police were called when Tory MEPs protested on the Champs Elysees
24 October: J Sainsbury announces an advertising campaign which will concentrate on the supermarket chain's support for British farmers, although along with Tescos, it refuses to support a boycott. Tesco says it will clearly label produce so that customers can choose where they want their shopping to come from. The store announces a drop in sales of French dressing, fresh French produce and Dijon mustard - and it cancels a £2m order for French mistletoe. Asda takes French brie off its shelves.

Following the sewage in feed allegations against French meat producers, Nick Brown says labelling of food is to be tightened to allow consumers to make informed choices. He is criticised for not banning French beef outright.

25 October: While the British government still resists banning French beef in the wake of the sewage allegations, Liberal Democrat MEP Liz Lynne says she will travel to the European Parliament with prime cuts of Herefordshire beef in a Union Jack bag to protest against the ban.

Scientific advisory committees tell Mr Blair there is no scientific case for banning French meat.

...... Notice the non-action against the French by the EU...............................

Brexit or not is a cross party issue, so it is hardly a Tory thing.

'25 October: While the British government still resists banning French beef in the wake of the sewage allegations'

Yes things have to be pretty grim to get banned here even scabby horse burgers were given the green light.
Thousands of pigs were found dead on a farm in the UK there is just not enough regulation in our food standards and if the French don't want it that is their prerogative. They can eat their ****ty meat and we'll eat ours.

THE UK WAS TAKEN INTO THE EU ILLEGALLY

1) When alleged paedophile SIR Edward Heath took us into the 'Common Market', he did so by pushing the 'European Communities Bill' through an ordinary vote in the Commons WITHOUT any consultation of the British people by way of a Referendum or General Election - an act which is invalid under British Law, which lays down that a General Election or Referendum MUST take place BEFORE any related Parliamentary Debate.

2) Just before he became Prime Minister in the 1970 General Election, Heath himself declared that it would be wrong for any Government to join the European Community without first gaining "the full hearted consent of Parliament and people" - YET, when the polls showed in 1972 that TWO THIRDS of the British Population DID NOT WANT to join , corrupt Heath merely SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS WHICH TOOK US INTO THE COMMON MARKET.

3) In doing so, Heath misused Parliament to DENY the political sovereignty of the electorate and both HE and PARLIAMENT acted immorally and illegally under the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) - ALL OF WHICH LAY DOWN THAT Parliament HAS to "consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect."

4) The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath:

"I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm."


This Bill has NEVER been repealed, which renders it irrefutable that EVERY SINGLE TREATY WHICH THE UK HAS SIGNED WITH THE EU IS ILLEGAL.

5) Heath repeatedly LIED to the British people when he swore that our 'National Sovereignty' would be unaffected by his signing of the 'Treaty of Rome' and he even ADMITTED to this gross deception in later years.

6) However, as shocking as this act of treachery and confession are, Heath's proffered REASON for lying and deceiving Britain is even more incredible. He admitted that he lied; "because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth."

And that 'TRUTH' was, that though Heath conned voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association, he KNEW that the original members of the EEC had one common agenda to political union and creation of a European superstate with a surrender of our sovereignty mandatory under such goals.

7) The totally corrupt, self-serving Heath even received covert DIRECT PERSONAL FINANCIAL REWARD from his BRUSSELS PAYMASTERS for illegally handing our country over to them 'Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels' when he was awarded 'The Charlemagne Prize' and the sum of £35,000 paid to him PERSONALLY even though he was Prime Minister. £35,000 is worth a conservative (no pun intended) £400,000 by today's standards.

Heath knew all about bribery, because one of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official with a payment of £25,000 for details of Harold Wilson’s election tactics.

8) So Heath received DIRECT FINANCIAL REWARD for his treachery, but there were other, more INDIRECT REWARDS for Heath, and the Party and Class which he represents, which are still ongoing today, and it is these 'benefits' which explain just WHY we are STILL in, and why David Cameron ANOTHER TORY PRIME MINISTER is campaigning so vigorously with LIES, DECEIT, and SCAREMONGERING to KEEP US IN - in spite of all the IRREFUTABLE evidence of the full past 42 years which DEMANDS that we COME OUT.

Good gracious the insults fly on this thread at times,totally unnecessary.
There are misleading statements coming from all sides in this from the Politicians the in camp and the out camp.

People have the right to feel strongly for in or out without getting insulted for goodness sake.
There is no need for attacks as to political leanings or words like ****** to be used to make any points.

Honestly,it is ridiculous,the 'in' camp only need to point out how things are now,the securities, the success and the stronger we likely are in the EU, despite its many and I mean many failings.
The 'out' camp instead of attacking people as being on the left or otherwise,all they need to do is avoid all that and explain in full with 'substantiation of same', what the UK would be like out of the EU.

Instead of going on about old arguments, that are null and void that is what people undecided need to know from the out camp.
Just to make my point as to old arguments.

I agree with Kirk that the Conservative govt in the early 70s took us into Europe without asking the voters.
I agree that was wrong.

It happened however and had they not,then Harold Wilson and Labour would have likely done so after 1974.
The polling Kirk stated, had a healthy vote against going into Europe,then as now the polls are meaningless since after only 2 years in Europe and even a re-negotiation of sorts already needed to be done, the Nation voted by almost 2 to 1 to 'stay in',in Labour's referendum on the issue.

I was talking to 4 people who are totally undecided and are sick of the whole thing already.They listen to both sides and are getting no info as to what the really need to make a decision.
They have stopped listening to UKIP as they say all they go on about is immigration.

They want the picture, as near guaranteed picture as should be possible, if things are true and right from the out camp, as to the future of the UK out of the EU.
Nothing has been given as to such assurances so the likelihood for them is to stay with what they know for sure now in the EU.

If all the out camp are going to do is insult others of a different view and political leaning to them, then they will lose the argument bigtime.

I cannot say what the UK would be like out of the EU because I have seen and heard nothing to convince of any claims being right.
Statistics mean nothing, we know a good number of the EU statistics, statistics can say whatever a particular viewpoint wants then to say.
I don't know who said it but is was once said, there were 'lies,damned lies and statistics'.
Or words to that effect.

To change over from something, people have to be assured the change they are making is for the better of all and Country,if that cannot be shown and substantiated with right and true facts,then for me change is best avoided.
We have been in Europe for over 40 years now as a partner in this process.
If David Cameron is to be believed he has got in his deal, a fact of no further political union by the UK in the EU.

If the out camp can prove him wrong on that,do so if not then he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt on it since he did the re-negotiation.
Those in his party attacking and insulting him from 'the' out side, make the whole issue look ugly and they also paint a very bad picture indeed of being out of the EU too by that nonsense.
he is presenting his deal to the voters,he believes he did his very best and got the best he could.
I cannot bear the man but on this I applaud his work on this issue and believe him right.

I also do believe fully, that he has started a chain of events in the EU that will surface as more change within the EU is demanded now in light of what he has begun.
That for me is another reason why I will be voting to stay put and take no risks whatsoever.

[QUOTE=joeysteele;8547233]Good gracious the insults fly on this thread at times,totally unnecessary.
There are misleading statements coming from all sides in this from the Politicians the in camp and the out camp.

People have the right to feel strongly for in or out without getting insulted for goodness sake.
There is no need for attacks as to political leanings or words like ****** to be used to make any points.

And people have the right to post without their posts constantly being misrepresented or parts of their posts being quoted out of context.

Your comments above Joey just totally substantiate my often stated point that if lies and falsehoods and misrepresentations concerning certain posts are allowed to remain unchallenged on here, then they do so for posterity, with the result that they then stand as fact and truth.

NOWHERE in my post which you allude to did I call any member on here a '******'.

I was quoted out of context and had the meaning of what I had really said in an earlier post misrepresented by a member so that it 'justified' her criticism of me.

I pointed this much out to that member in a response, and reproduced what I ACTUALLY said, with the comment that; "even a ****** could understand the meaning".

I then received another very personally insulting response and yet more misrepresentation from that same member which left anyone reading that response under the impression that I had called her personally a '******' - which is a damned lie and an easily verifiable lie to boot, because those posts are still here earlier in the thread.

Now, I have repeatedly and very politely appealed to this member that she please refrain from her constant misrepresentatins of my posts, which makes this issue all the more vexing - and I KNOW from some of your own posts in other threads that you too find being misquoted, misrepresented, and being 'quoted out of context' as equally as irritating.

I am perceptive enough to recognise baiting when I encounter it.

"Honestly,it is ridiculous,the 'in' camp only need to point out how things are now,the securities, the success and the stronger we likely are in the EU, despite its many and I mean many failings.
The 'out' camp instead of attacking people as being on the left or otherwise,all they need to do is avoid all that and explain in full with 'substantiation of same', what the UK would be like out of the EU."


I totally agree, and I have invested a lot of time and effort in making posts on here which fit your brief.

I defy ANYONE to prove just how I have attacked anyone on here no matter what their politics are. I have posted what I see is the TRUTH about the EU and our 'membership' and have confined myself to those issues.

I will however, ALWAYS defend myself if I am being attacked, unfairly criticised, misrepresented, or baited.

"Instead of going on about old arguments, that are null and void that is what people undecided need to know from the out camp.
Just to make my point as to old arguments.

I agree with Kirk that the Conservative govt in the early 70s took us into Europe without asking the voters.
I agree that was wrong.

It happened however and had they not,then Harold Wilson and Labour would have likely done so after 1974.
The polling Kirk stated, had a healthy vote against going into Europe,then as now the polls are meaningless since after only 2 years in Europe and even a re-negotiation of sorts already needed to be done, the Nation voted by almost 2 to 1 to 'stay in',in Labour's referendum on the issue."

I agree about the polls being 'useless' Joey, because back then in 1975, the the 'OUT' lobby had no media or newspapers behind it, no big businesses and a very spartan campaign budget.

Meanwhile, the 'IN' campaign was supported by the Government, The Tory Opposition Party, ALL the newspapers with the exception of the communist 'Morning Star', and ALL of the other media, and they enjoyed unlimited funding via immensely wealthy idustrialists and the all-powerful Confederation of British Industry, who all had vested interests in remaing in, and they used the public's very limited knowledge and understanding of the Common Market to enable them to spread fear about exiting and to lie about the benefits of remaining in.

Nothing much changes does it?

"I was talking to 4 people who are totally undecided and are sick of the whole thing already.They listen to both sides and are getting no info as to what the really need to make a decision.
They have stopped listening to UKIP as they say all they go on about is immigration.

They want the picture, as near guaranteed picture as should be possible, if things are true and right from the out camp, as to the future of the UK out of the EU.
Nothing has been given as to such assurances so the likelihood for them is to stay with what they know for sure now in the EU."

I have actually been out campaigning for the 'OUT' lobby Joey - In Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Wakefield - and I have found that the great majority of those whom I engaged with were equally as confused, but it was a confusion with a difference because most of that 'great majority' wanted out.

They may not have had a grasp on the fine details of the EU and our membership of it, and they too sought more definite reassurance from 'our politicians' and media on any disadvantages of Brexit, but those 'niggles' were not enough to eradicate even their limited understanding of the huge damage the past 42 years has cost this country.

In short - they KNEW that all the evidence of the past 42 years right up to the present of being in the EU was enough of a reason to exit, vague uncertaintities or not.

"If all the out camp are going to do is insult others of a different view and political leaning to them, then they will lose the argument bigtime."

I do not understand what you mean by this Joey? On here? Or in the world at large?

Who is insulting who on here?

"I cannot say what the UK would be like out of the EU because I have seen and heard nothing to convince of any claims being right.
Statistics mean nothing, we know a good number of the EU statistics, statistics can say whatever a particular viewpoint wants then to say.
I don't know who said it but is was once said, there were 'lies,damned lies and statistics'.
Or words to that effect."


I only know that the scaremongering is absolute tosh.

The 'Three Million Jobs At Risk' scaremongering is a proven lie.

Trading?

We import much more FROM the EU than we export to it and ALWAYS have done - it is on 'one way' street.

Less than 30% of our export trade is with the EU once the dishonest 'Rotterdam Effect' is discounted, and we rely more on trade with non-EU countries like the USA and China.

In 2014 alone we had a trade deficit of over £50bn with the EU and our current deficit is just under £100 billion.

The EU is also BOUND under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty to make a trade agreement with any country which exits the EU. So that is us.

The EU and UK are also bound by the rules of The World Trade Organization concerning International Trade and this alone safeguards jobs in the uk in industries which rely on exports.

"To change over from something, people have to be assured the change they are making is for the better of all and Country,if that cannot be shown and substantiated with right and true facts,then for me change is best avoided."

I'm afraid that I am in emphatic opposition to you here Joey.

There comes a time in ANY situation when 'enough is enough' and the historical evidence of one's own continuously and continued bad experiences is so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied, and a change is the only option.

42 years of hundreds of billions of pounds of NET LOSSES to the EU.
42 years of SURRENDING OUR SOVEREINGTY to the EU.
42 years of taking from the tax-payers of this country and meekly handing over those hundreds of billions to the EU to LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS and SUBSIDISE OTHER COUNTRIES - some undeserving and ungrateful, others un-needing - while WE NEGLECT OUR OWN STRUGGLING CITIZENS WITH CONTEMPT.

Just ONE YEAR's tribute to our Brussels overlords would give the entire UK a TWO THIRDS CUT IN COUNCIL TAX or would BUILD and EQUIP 200 HIGH TECH HOSPITALS - So think what those 42 years of wasted payments could have achieved in this country?

During the last Parliament, while Cameron's Government saved £36 billion through the entire 'AUSTERITY CUTS, it handed our Brussels Overlords over £85 billion by way of our EU 'Membership Fee' . So our EU 'membership cost us over TWICE what we took from our own poor and needy.

No, I'm afraid that claiming that the historical evidence of the past 42 years is NOT IN ITSELF reason enough to 'CHANGE' is like telling a 'battered wife' who has suffered the 42 years of the most horrendous violent abuse from her husband, NOT to leave because every little question concerning her future OUTSIDE OF THAT UNENDURABLE MARRIAGE cannot be answered in 'one fell swoop'.

"We have been in Europe for over 40 years now as a partner in this process.
If David Cameron is to be believed he has got in his deal, a fact of no further political union by the UK in the EU."


David Cameron IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED ON THIS ISSUE.

"If the out camp can prove him wrong on that,do so if not then he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt on it since he did the re-negotiation.
Those in his party attacking and insulting him from 'the' out side, make the whole issue look ugly and they also paint a very bad picture indeed of being out of the EU too by that nonsense.
he is presenting his deal to the voters,he believes he did his very best and got the best he could."


I cannot bear the man but on this I applaud his work on this issue and believe him right.

I also do believe fully, that he has started a chain of events in the EU that will surface as more change within the EU is demanded now in light of what he has begun.
That for me is another reason why I will be voting to stay put and take no risks whatsoever.

I'm afraid that I shortly have to leave for work Joey, but I will that respond to these other points in another post.

Kirk, I respect your passion but your answers give again no concrete assurances as to out success out of the EU.

We are successful after being in the EU,so we can easily expect to remain successful remaining in.
That much we know.
Yes the costs may be high but you cannot and neither does anyone from the out camp, tell us what out costs,tariffs and other charges even may be,never mind will be.

There are several million jobs that are linked to the the EU and our membership,the wording is in your own post, the in camp say 3,000,000 could be at risk.
Not that they all are but being linked to other EU nations, can you 100% assure the undecided that those jobs are safe totally if we leave the EU.
If not, then since they are already in place, they are more likely to be secure remaining in than coming out.

The real waste of space on the out side, Ian Duncan Smith even tried to really frighten people,(he is rather adept at doing that actually,)by saying we would have attacks like Paris if we remain in the EU.
What blatant scaremongering that is too, it is understood several incidents of terrorism have been thwarted by the UK over the last few years, our involvement with the USA and being involved in the Middle East is what will bring those attacks to the UK, in or out of the EU.

I think you do David Cameron an injustice, would have voted to remain in the EU even with no deal won by Cameron.
That is my position.
However I would still give him credit for his efforts and unlike you I do believe he has done the best deal he could at this time.
Had he too said,I cannot get a deal after the time he put in,then came away, although I would still be voting in, I'd still have given him credit for trying.

The out camp calling him a liar and saying he should not be believed on this,is again for me, why the out camp could and in my view should lose the referendum.
The austerity cuts was a choice of govt policy,we don'e need these austerity cuts just as we didn't need the top rate of tax down to 45%.
Govts choose the action they wish tot take as to the UK citizens, sadly the priority of this govt is to penalise and punish the poorest.

me, I would have raised all taxation for a period of 4 to 5 years, get the UK out of the problem after the global financial crisis then re-set taxes back down again.
I think any savings, even if there were any at all in the end after all negotiations after leaving the EU, could soon be squandered away by UK govts anyway in a short space of time.

Maybe used to be wasted on even more top down re-organisations of the NHS for instance.
That is domestic policy however and while I accept we pay more into the EU than we likely get out,for me for stability, economic success, security and some social issues,it is for me a price worth paying still and far into the future for those issues.

I also really do think, the EU could change,Cameron has shown many Nations he could get a deal against the odds, had he got anything it would have been commendable.
So I can see change in the EU being demanded in the future and I hope the UK is there, as a full member to support and help bring about any real change that becomes possible,always now assuring the best deals for the UK too.

Even in our own Parliament and law, it is now set in stone any more treaties from the EU cannot be signed by any PM,the treaty has to be put to the voters to agree it.
The coalition did that.
We are totally exempt from having to join the Euro,I honestly now would never risk what we already have and are doing by voting to leave.
Especially in the absence of costs of trading deals, time and what other condition will have to still be imposed on the UK to be able to have any deals with the EU at all.

We know the cheques we have to pay as to the EU,we know they could and should be less but we know we have to do it.
What the out camp are hoping for from the voters,are whole books of blank cheques with not a single costing as to what we will have to shell out after leaving.

Not from me will the out camp get that.
I like to know the full substantiated costs of all actions beforehand, not learn them and have then thrust on me afterwards.

What Kirk said