moonraker

Some truth in what you say, however what Dave does or does not say is irrelevant to the real issue of Turkeys 'impending' membership of the EU. As you brexiters are so keen to continually point out neither Dave or our Parliament have the final say in EU matters. The fact remains that the Turkey issue is another load of bunkum from remain, where does that leave their credibility? I am still searching for the oft quoted statement, can you help? Finally this is not a referendum on David Cameron or any other slimy politician it is a vote on the future of the UK and the wider Europe and put simply you are happy to take a leap of faith and massive risk I am not. If we stay we can have another referendum if Brexit’s forecast of a USE and EU Army come to pass and I am sure if that were the case we would leave, if we leave now that’s it.

I am unable to find a pledge about Turkeys Membership what it does say is "The overall aim of the RE Programme is to support countries in the Western Balkans and Turkey on their path towards EU accession. The programme focuses, in particular, on stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities" note the conditions, even you must be able to admit that Turkey under its current leadership and direction are not going to meet any of these criteria any time soon. Additionally even without the EU angle, I fully support UK Diplomatic objectives that focus, on stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities, seems a very British set of things to aspire to.

At last a resonable view, dosnt make the case for Brexit tough as the the tresury is one of many forecasts and true to form you only site the one that tends to your view, whilst not really supporting it. Andrew Neil is paid to make politicians lives uncomfortable, he is a master at it, he does not care which side they all get the same treatment. Farage in 2 interviews with AN dosnt seem to know whether he wants net imigration at 30k or 50k either way he accepsts net immigration, do all Brexiters realise this.

It is a statement of fact, please post the quote that states the EU and Eurozone will be integrated, merged or whatver it is you are concerned about.

You are aware that the 5 Presidents Reports refers to the Eurozone, and that the UK are not part of the Eurozone. The report is aimed at strengthening the eurozone and while I acknowledge that the UK is not totally imune from Eurozone developments and changes this is also true of the US Dollar and FED RES.

They dont, not easy to find out, what they are doing is sharing National Tax Identifcation Numbers (TINS) to prevent tax avoidance, all TIN's will still come under the jurisdiction of individual member states and it is still permissable not to have TINS and there is NO requiremnt on countries who do not use TIN's to introduce a TIN's system. So another Brexit myth methinks.

Stop all this reality, it has nothing to do with the Brexit World. Brexit behaves like a medieval religious cult where reality is suspended and replaced by a quasi religious belief that everything will be provided for once we leave the shackles of the EU and the devils and demons that populate the hell that is the EU Commission.

Prey tell the significance of a small, albeit very successful, landlocked country with a long history of neutralism and non-alignment having any bearing on the choice facing the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, an historic seafaring globally engaged nation. Your predilection to draw analogies where there are none is further evidence, as if any were required, of your poor grasp of the situation and the momentous decision we face.

Is there the repost possibility that you could either use your own brain to debate or if that is to difficult please stop posting link after link, many of which are horses**t.

Call me arrogant, disparaging, smug, superior or anything else but apart from the chancer politicians and a small minority of foremost business leaders, economists, academics etc. the vast majority of the people I hear and read talking about leaving the EU are either ignorant, ill informed, bigoted or xenophobic, indeed in many case all of these and worse. I have no issue with anyone who attempts to put forward a coherent case for Brexit the problem is that I have yet to see one. The majority of the remain camp have acknowledged that there are problems within the EU but Brexit refuses to acknowledge any benefits whilst at the same time claiming it will be better out. Leaving is the most regressive policy I have witnessed in 40 odd years of following politics and to claim it is forward thinking is absurd. The Leave campaign has today set out its policies post Brexit, please tell me who will enact these policies, the current Government has no mandate for any of them, yet more deception.

So a post Brexit a Boris led Gov. might start with Jobs for the boys, that’s real progress for you, and much more in line with our parliamentary heritage! No interference from Europe here, leavers will be over the moon, perhaps they could appoint Minton Chancellor after all he is the one economist who actually understands Brexit.

So it is not being kept form the electorate as it has been published in those bastions of factual and impartial reporting the Fail and Explode. Item 1 seems perfectly sensible to me, why wouldn’t you want to improve energy efficiency. Item 2 Delaying it until after the UK referendum is prudent, the result of the referendum will impact on the budget, again it seems sensible, certainly don’t see any conspiracy. Item 4 As has been more than adequately demonstrated none of those countries will be joining any time soon. Also I believe there is pressure across the EU to address open borders for new entrants so the contention of the claim is far from certain. Item 4. Our LOAN last year was before Cameron’s new agreement, I know Leavers do not like to admit that he did negotiate that non Euro countries will not contribute but he did. So it is baseless fear or to use Brexits lexicon, Scaremongering. Item 5. This is a think piece and based on current pan EU pressure is highly unlikely to happen, it will not get support form the council of ministers. Item 6. First she was his daughter in law, secondly she no longer is, third it is a preliminary opinion, the ECJ advocate general has ruled that EU law means the UK cannot automatically deport her simply because she has a criminal record unless she is deemed to pose a “serious” threat to society. The offence was attempting to smuggle a SIM card into a prison. Item 9. It has been like that for some time and the London Art market is stronger than ever so a pointless statement. Item 8. This Directive does have issues but it does not apply to all ports only the EU's 329 main seaports, of which 43 are in the UK, out of over 1200 in total. Of which 43 are in the UK. Also as it was voted On on 8 March 2016 the European Parliament voted in favour of the controversial EU Port Services Regulation ("PSR") it hardly being kept hidden. It still requires further approval and it is by no means finalised. As to the pathetic attempt to slate the EU by using the European mega-ports tag, by any measure Southampton and Felixstowe would are Mega Ports. Item 9. Simply not true, the "Television without Frontiers" (TVWF) Directive requires 20% of programming to be from European Intendent producers, that 20% could be all UK Independents. It is the same act that allows events of major importance for society (such as sporting events) to be broadcast freely to the public even if exclusive rights have been purchased by pay-TV channels. Cherry picking and excluding facts has long been the default of Brexit. Item 10. The quote is not from a EU commission member but from Roderich Kiesewetter, a German Bundestag member. The Term European Army keeps being used when what is actually being proposed is greater cooperation and interoperability, something that has ben n evolving since the formation of NATO. The Swedes have just rejected NATO membership and rested the independence of their Defence Forces whilst supporting greater cooperation and interoperability. In conclusion none of the above are truthfully as they are portrayed in you link, limited information, biased opinion and political spin have been deployed to the full. It is such a shame when time and again the voting public keep asking for the facts and the truth.

They can take solace that 2 current Prem teams are below them.

It will not be heeded by those ideolgically oppsosed to the EU, they will ignore "Of course, economic life, trade and investment would go on under Brexit. But the conclusion is that they would be seriously weakened.". Instead they will quote a few odd individuals who have concluded everytning will be OK.

No it is not. The Council of Ministers (Elected) and the Parliament (Elected) decide policy and legislative priorities, the commission (non-elected civil service) draft and frame legislation As the Civil service does in the UK) to deliver the Councils policy and priorities. In the EU context the term propose means to respond to the Elected Representatives objectives with a legislative proposal. There is also the European Council, The Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions who are advisory only bodies each with a specific area of interest.

Juncker is effectively a Civil Servant, we do not elect our UK Civil Servants unless this is an unannounced Brexit policy. The Council of Ministers (democratically elected) hold the real power.

Oh dear, I have read your link, it is a generally well written, if not a little self indulgent, personal analysis. Interestingly against all of the Remain Evidence that very strongly points to significant difficulties in securing individual trade deals this Graduate paper concludes something very different. The Author had obviously determined the conclusion before he commenced writing the paper, he then presented and interpreted the evidence to suit his pre-determined conclusion. If this the kind of thing people are using to help them decide on Europe then I really am worried.

At the beginning of this campaign the leave line was we would renegotiate access to the single market if we were to leave. Now the arch brexiter Wes tells us (assumes) if we did this there will be severe repercussions? Why, because this is really a single issue campaign, immigration and you can't access the single market without free movement. You may not like those nasty Johnny foreigners telling us what will happen if we leave , but it would be arrogance of the highest order to ignore them.

Hardly arogant to have a different opinion. You are correct there is no historical precedent and yet you are the one who invoked the Poll Tax riots, make your mind up.

Your argument seems to assume that the majority of leave voters would vote UKIP in a General Election if we left the EU but remained in the Single Market, this is a rather ambitious assumption. The Government will have to abide by the letter of the referendum, that does not preclude the Government agreeing to remain in the single market and all that entails, we are not voting on the single market. Evidencing the reactions of electorates in other European counties is not very enlightening. British culture is not one of extremism, the majority of our electorate shun extremist parties and extremist action. The Poll Tax riots are a better example of what might occur. But it needs qualifying as the two issues are not truly analogous. The Poll Tax had an immediate and direct impact on individuals, times change, the riots occurred during a period when Left Wing Socialism had far more influence and support , the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation was set up by the Militant tendency and were the main driver for the London Rally that resulted in the biggest riots. As the big beasts of the leave campaign are almost exclusively on the right of politics but never likely to align with extreme right wing entities such as the EDL or the less extreme UKIP such influence and support is lacking. Like, as you are oft quick to point out in relation to economic assessments, a repeat of the Poll Tax riots whilst not unfeasible, is an ill informed assessment of an unlikely outcome conceived to support your strongly held opinion.

But that’s not the question on the Ballot paper is it. We are being asked to vote stay or leave the EU not do you want stay in or outside the single market. Perversely the leave campaign started out by claiming we would renegotiate admittance to the single market in response to stay claims we would suffer out side of it, leavers really must make their collective minds up, what it is they actually want, and please can they do it before the vote and publish a coherent post Brexit manifesto.

I see a paradox in your argument. If as you claim there is a groundswell of anti Federalist sentiment across Europe then what the UK does or does not do will not change that. My take is that Eurocrats and EU politicians are starting to acknowledge, albeit grudgingly that the federalist USE dream is loosing its wheels in the face of increasing EU wide campaigning and protest. For me staying in and driving reform from the ground up is preferable to exiting and watching from the side-lines as the EU gets it act together.

Is that a fact; based on evidence, an opinion, a possible scenario based on self selecting assumptions or wishful thinking? I try in the main to avoid xenophobic, it is to extreme for the majority of leave supporters however my perception is that many leave supporters believe that the ‘British' our abilities and culture are superior to our European cousins, at best misguided at worst arrogant, it is this perception that leads many remain supporters to understandably but incorrectly label leave supporters as xenophobic.

The more important figure is how many peoples livelihoods are to some degree directly attributable to their employers ability to access the single market. There are businesses and businesses, the vast majority of SME’s, sole traders, etc. exist to serve local needs. The single biggest complaint of these entities is EU red tape and employment law. If we dismiss the truly fanciful Euromyths that Eurosceptics use to deliberately mislead the public e.g. straight bananas, the two areas I see most commonly sited as over burdensome are: employment law and product labelling. If one cared to actually research and understand the background and rationale for most of these directives they are based on sound reasoning, broad consultation and a desire to improve peoples lives and better inform, something I am sure leave supporters would still wish for. In fact in the case of employment law it is often sited that UK employment law is far more favourable for employers than many other parts of the EU. So I am truly interested to know what will actually change if we leave the EU and how would it improve our lives

We wont need all those hospitals and schools if we keep Johnny foreigner out. Perhaps we could spend it on something else, like negotiating and administering all our own trade deals, funding the staff to run the visa system, employing more border staff to ensure the new system works, paying benefits to the unemployed MEP's, repatriating our own citizens and making up for a likely reduction in GDP.