I suspect if we did leave then this would push the Conservative Party (and Government) even further to the right as the swivel eyed mob would be firmly in charge. The likes of IDS and Liam Fox would be in positions of real power.



If anyone thinks we would then just keep the “good bits” of the EU like worker’s rights, environmental legislation etc you’re deluded.



That kind of stuff is seen as “red tape” and would be cut.



For that reason I’m saying Remain.

Doesn't matter one bit if you vote to stay in or out.....

Will anyone but 'goverment officials' be counting the votes?

There could be 90% to 10% out vote and we will still be staying in......

The worlds 'ELITE' wont allow us to leave anyway.

Every election is a fix and politicians only ever do what is best for them.

Still going to be voting OUT though

.

Absolutely spot on.

The River Mersey has salmon in it and the Manchester Ship Canal is used for open water swimming. In my youth, they were both open sewers. The change is a direct result of the EU limits on pollution discharge. It's not exactly hard to imagine industry lobbyists getting the law changed on the grounds the cost of it hurts their profits and sold by the right wing press as essential for business.

The fact Owen Patterson is vociferously pro-Brexit should be enough warning to anyone.

Or it could cut the legs out from under the far right. No cause, no reason to exist. Frankly the idea of a Tory party led by IDS, Gove, Fox et al fills me with joy. Totally unelectable.

I don't think it's deluded to believe we can keep in place many of the rights gained over the last 20 years. A large part of the argument against the human rights act is that judgments appear to be "imposed" by other countries.



Ironic that if the British people had voted for the most left wing Labour Leader in modern times we would not be debating wasting billions on Trident, there would be no undemocratic house of Lords, we wouldn't have had the last 8 years of economic chaos with the banks (because they would all have been nationalized) and we wouldn't be in the EU.

In yours and my view perhaps but we’re never going to vote for them anyway. A sizeable amount of people with right wing views find them very electable. Similarly the opposition is becoming equally polarised. It’s Hobson’s choice for anyone else and with the Right currently in power and dominating the political “mainstream” and holding most of the media behind them they won’t be gone in a hurry.







A Brexit would be seen as a mandate by Euro-sceptics to do what they want. There’s a heck of a lot of mileage in “rolling back the excesses of the EU”. If a “leave” vote goes through in June there’s another 4 years for them to do just that.

It's surprising how little you can do in 4 years, especially as the Whitehall workload will be very high sorting out all the other "paperwork". MP's will have to come in at weekends and work over summer to get through everything (hey, 7 day a week government - there's a thought?). I just don't see it, if they prioritize binning human rights, workers rights and environmental legislation it will be very badly received. I don't think it's anywhere near a priority to do that. You simply can't say "f*** the environment" anymore and be in politics.

Europe has to change, a No vote is the best way I can see to make it do that. If we all say yes then it carries on as it is and the eurocrats slap themselves on the back and carry on with their social experiment.



The debate continues.

What do you mean "why?" Do you really not understand the fact that in order to access the single market nations have to pay towards the running of it? Do you think the other EU nations are going to pay the cost of running it and let us join for free? If you do then you are as I said, deluded.



I presume by the rest of your comment you mean if the EU wants a contribution from us to help run the single market you think we should charge them for access to ours? If so you haven't quite worked this out have you? There would be no "ours" we would (again) be part of the [usingle[/u market which is [ufree trade zone[/u so the idea we could then charge them for accessing "our" market is just idiotic. You can't impose tariffs in a free trade zone! The idea we can just slap a charge on the rest of the EU who trade with us is nonsensical and as equally deluded as your stance that if we quit we save all the contributions.



By the way the total cost of UK Government expenditure is about £750 billion a year. We pay about £8 billion to the EU. That is the gross amount, not the net amount after we get money back in terms of grants etc. So for what will eventually be less then 1% of government expenditure you want to quit the EU on the daft assumption this £8 billion is all going to go away when what will actually happen is we will remain one of the EU's biggest financial contributors (look at Norway) won't get any EU grants and won't have a say in the rules and regulations we have to comply with. Brilliant!



And after all that we then have to start negotiating free-trade agreements with all the major economies outside of the EU. You think that will cost nothing to set up and run? Do you think we will get as favourable a set of terms standing alone as we do as part of the EU?

They can in the USA. Fracking being a prime example. Why do you think that kind of thing won't happen here?



The Tory party with a slender majority of 19 is already acting as if it rules rather than governs. It thinks itself above the law and if it does anything found to be illegal simply seeks to change the law.

Well Cameron allegedly said to “cut the green crap” and it’s done him no harm. Changes to planning legislation mean it’s easier than ever to build in the face of local objection. If 4 years isn’t enough you can bet they’ll be using it as a main plank of their election campaign of 2020 to “reap the benefits of Brexit”.



The public are easily bought off or persuaded it’s in their interest. Look at austerity measures over the past 6 years. Most of those bothering to vote bought into it. The right wing media will spin changes to workers’ rights or environmental legislation in the same way that they’ve spun cuts to disability benefits or legal aid. These things will be dubbed as “too costly,” “a hindrance to business,” “a legacy of EU socialism imposed on plucky England,” and getting rid of them will make the country “more competitive” and will “create wealth”. I should become a Tory spin doctor. '"

Does Boris come on this site?

hat level of short-term thinking on such a key, long-term issue is, frankly, ridiculous.

Is it? Fracking will go ahead or not with or without the EU. Cameron already, with the help of a few other EU countries, put paid to any legislation to blanket ban it back in 2014. Local poilitical pressure is the only effective limitation. That won't change if we are out of or in the EU.

His deal was agreed in principle a long time ago. Limiting benefits for EU migrants for a 7 year period (in line with what other EU countries already effectively had when they first admitted the East European countries), not being forced into the Euro (never happening anyway in reality - easy give away), right to opt out of any further political union (had that already), some waffle about non-Eurozone countries being better protected - only got a delay on that one not an outright veto - so effectively nothing.

Not really game changing for me. The purpose of the summit that seemed to last an eternity, seemed more about what a lot of the little boys at the table could squeeze out for themselves by being awkward.



There is a lot of cynicism in British politics but maybe this will be a catalyst to get people more actively involved and voting. I sense that at a local level it's much harder for British politicians to sell BS to us, industry lobbying is harder, we don't like it. So they do it all in Brussels where we can't see what's going on. Corbyn's election and his steady support with the public despite some major issues with his own party suggests that maybe if we ditch the distraction that is Europe we can re-engage public interest and increase accountability. I don't think having governments that run 3-4 terms is really healthy, but we get that (I think) because the fear of changing anything outways the possibilities if we change. I prefer to be optamisitic about change.

Am I to presume by that, the U.K. leaving the E.U. will cause them to realise the folly of their actions & totally re-structure their whole political ethos?



If that was to happen, all well & good, unfortunately we’ll no longer be part of it to reap the benefits.

I meant fracking as a prime example in the USA where you[i can[/i "simply say "f*** the environment" anymore and be in politics."



You were suggesting you can't just do that, so it didn't matter if we were in or the out of the OU because it would be unacceptable to "f*** the environment". Now you are arguing that Cameron has in fact "f*** the environment" with his legislation on fracking. He' still in politics!



So that is your original point shot down in flames by yourself!



That is, if he can do that with fracking (with or without the EU's help) he can do it over other environmental legislation that [iis[/i imposed by the EU (if we leave).



Your example just proves what you said originally that essentially it would be politically unacceptable to "f*** the environment" so we are safe, is nonsense.



We need legislation to protect it and Cameron and Co will rip up any EU legislation that does so at the first chance they get. They won't be spending time re-implementing it into UK law for our benefit that is for sure.

The deal is nothing really. The only reason he went for it was as a sop to the right wing of his party and to try and stop a defection to UKIP of some of his more nuttier MP's and party as a whole.



It was a mistake to even try it if he believes we are better off in the EU. Most of the arguments against the EU are either false (such as Dally's view we will be billions £ better off if we leave), made up (low wages are a result of EU migrants), or exaggerated (we are overrun with EU migrants often confused with asylum seekers from outside the EU).



All he has done is convince people the issues are far greater than they are in reality and can only be dealt with by getting a special deal for the UK or leaving the EU. The fact the deal doesn't look that substantial (if you agree with his aims or not) has just given the BREXIT people a lot of ammo. If they can convince people it is a rubbish deal the implication is we must not stay in the EU at all.

I think a far more important issue is - precisely where do Boris Johnson's [iloyalties[/i lie? The guy was obviously tapped on the shoulder to be future PM years ago. But who did the tapping is another question.



IMO, it ties in closely with an astonishing admission I stumbled across reading an article written in 1976 about shady South American politics. Does anyone remember that minor ruckus which kicked off when the Daily Mail attacked Milliband Snr.?



Does anyone remember precisely WHY the Mail attacked Milliband?



This is not a trick question, BTW. But I don't think the Mail was being entirely honest, either.

An inane post. The fact that others pay for access to the dingle market is irrelevant. It is not set in stone. We are in a much stronger negotiating position and would be free to negotiate our own terms. The Germans are pragmatic and it would be in their interests to allow that and so it would probably happen. Even if it did not it would not matter much in the long-term. If our exports to the EU were subject to tariffs we would still be better if long-term because the EU is a failing and dime would say failed duper state. If we stay in it will drag us down. We will have no bargaining power if the electorate say yes as our politicians will have no threat to back up their demands.



If you feel that we could not negotiate as mentioned above, that implies that the EU is incapable of reform in the medium term at least. Again, that is one its major problems and for economic security we therefore need to get out.



Like all the in crowd all you come up with is short-term scaremongering. This is a long-term issue of the UK future destiny. Even if there were a short-term blip in the long-term it is my view that we would be much more prosperous over time.



In any event like all forced together blocs it will eventually collapse through people power and probably knowing Europe in bloodshed - ironically the thing it was originally set up to prevent. The writing is already on the wall with the migrant crisis and the economic cries acting as a catalyst. One more shock - like a major bank collapse or similar could tip it over. Likewise, in the unlikely event we vote out the thing may disintegrate - others will demand referenda.

And you call my post inane? Of course it is relevant what others pay to access the single market. We now have concrete proof you are totally deluded.



This argument that we are in a much stronger negotiating position is just plain stupidity on your part. Where have you dreamt that one up? Have you just missed the saga of Cameron trying to negotiate a deal and coming away with naff all? Yet you are suggesting once we are out having spurned the EU they will roll out the red carpet and just let us benefit from the single market for free? You don't think for a minute that would not simply break the EU up overnight?







I have seen you spout some nonsense on here before but that takes the biscuit. No it won't happen. There is no reason for it to. We have to ask them for access to 400 million consumers. They in return get access to 65 million. We have no clout to demand anything except what they put on the table.







You aren't talking about negotiation but us dictating to them what we will pay (or not) for access the market. If they won't jump to our tune getting out doesn't solve anything as we are in exactly the same position.







It is not short term scaremongering. It's common sense. And in case yo missed it we haven't had a full on war between any members of EU since 1945, so it worked on that score as well. It's nationalism (and the Le Pen faction in France) that is far more dangerous in that regard.

Dave O: The "rules" are not set in stone. To decide they are is ridiculous and if you believe everything is then that supports the case for Brexit. They ARE in fact negotiable. The fact that Germany has such a big balance of payments surplus with us makes the 400 million v 65 million point redundant. You must remember we are the 5th biggest economy in the world and so they will wish to trade with us. Lord Lawson takes this view and as he says even if we cannot negotiate better terms and have to accept tariffs - so what? In the long-term we could deal with that, just as we did before we joined the EU. We would find our way in the world - as the UK is just about the most creative and innovative place on the globe.



Thatcher used to talk about the need to encourage those "risk-takers" (entrepreneurs) and it seems our PM and defeatist people like you think it is too risky to pull out of a failing super-state that we don't even want to be a part of! If that's what has become of this nation there is no hope for the UK's future.



You also forget that if (probably when) we vote yes then it will be revenge time for a decade or two to come - no British politician will have a leg to stand on in Brussels' negotiations because the people will have been deemed to have spoken. On the other hand, if we vote out it is likely that the EU will face an existential crisis and there may well be no one to worry about paying for single market access.

We haven't had a full war with Japan since 1945. So, what is your point?

It's just pure scaremongering from the 'In' campaign.

But until the “Out” lot explain what they think their future plans entail, it is scary stuff.



The “In” lot can’t “Pooh,pooh” the alternatives, because so far it’s all so sketchy.



Just because Henley Boris wants out, should we all tick the box?

Lord Owen, Lord Lawson, Boris, Gove, etc. seems like the more thoughtful and intelligent of our politicians want out. Most of those advocating in are yes men / women with a warped sense of loyalty to Calamity Cameron. The sort of people who have spent the rest of their careers pretending to be anti-EU. So the dishonest slime balls want in and the eveything / nothing to lose want out. Doesn't that help you?

Yes it does

.



David Owen – Stabbed the Labour party in the back.



Nigel Lawson – Stabbed Thatcher in the back.



Boris Johnson – Stabbed Cameron in the back.



Your generalisation that nearly all the Conservative Politicians who want to stay in the E.U. are dishonest is utterly ludicrous.