moonraker

**** me you an arrogant ****. The complaint is about numbers, migrants who come here work, therefore they are needed, how would you manage it, in or out it is supply and demand, no work no migrants.

It seems that immigration is the key isssue leading many to vote Brexit. Confusingly when it is raised that many jobs would go unfilled or that indigenous people would not accept the wages offered, Brexit supporters opt for immigration, my question is what level of immigration is accepatble (number please) to ensure jobs are filled. Additionally if there were surplus jobs in one region and high unemployemnt in another what policy would leave supporters advocate to motivate people to move for work and thus reduce the need for migrants.

You are right about IP and wealth, gernetaed from a knowledge based economy. Leaving the EU will do nothing to addrsess the issue of accepting the low standard employment regulations and that our own low paid jobs are predominantly in the service industries and we find it incresingly difficult to recruit indigenous workers to perform these roles.

Except Dyson moved production to Malysia in 2002. Dysons UK jobs are high end design and develpment based in Malmesbury Wiltshire.

But a yes or no means little. The lies on each side cancel one another out. The questions you have to ask yourself are: Is it more or less likely the UK will be better off economically out side of the EU? Will leaving the EU significantly reduce immigration? Will the EU be more or less secure and safe from terrorism outside the EU? Will our Westminster Governments govern the nation more effectively, fairly and competently outside the EU? Will the UK survive in its current form outside the EU? There are no definitive answers to any of these questions, individuals must assimilate the information evidence and analysis and form their own views. Unfortunately it seems hearts are ruling heads and a misplaced vision of some imaginary utopia of the UK before the EU is fuelling the leave campaign.

From 2014-2020, the ESF and European Regional Development Fund are investing around €11.8 billion across the UK to reduce inactivity among young people and the long-term unemployed and to improve training and skills and invest in education and lifelong learning. This equates to £38m a week, will a post Brexit UK still fund these vital initiatives? To date all I have heard is vague statements that the money saved from EU contributions will be spent on the NHS.

What exactly about the coalition was a mess, when say compared to the present government?

Why cant you do this with the EU Parliament? The problem is lack of EU wide political will not the institutions. It is the very fragmentation of the EU Parliament that I beleive will ensure we do not end up as a USE or admit any new members unless they meet the requried standards.

None, not the point she is Head of State. Paradoxically I am a constitutional monarchist as I cannot abide the idea of some has been politician as President and the head of state in a parliamentary democracy should I believe be above politics so a monarchy works for me.

What about the upper house and head of state, we have never ever voted for those.

Interesting opinion piece by a declared leaver for a primarily anti EU think tank almost exclusively patronised by Eurosceptic Tories plus a few notable non-Tories. Somewhat surprisingly it finds against the EU. There are some very good selective quotes, interesting interpretations of history and absolutely no commentary of the lack of democracy in our own Parliament. He states “For instance, despite being one of the biggest EU member states, Britain’s decision making power within EU institutions like the Council of the European Union (representing national governments) and the European Parliament, is extremely limited. British representatives only control around 8% of the total votes” or my dads bigger than yours. We have the same level of representation and influence as those arch EU Federalists Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Its not unlike the UK Parliament where constituency size varies enormously. As to the size of the anti EU vote in the EU elections, I would argue there were 2 key reasons for this: one it was a PR system and therefore much fairer; 2 The anti EU vote was more motivated to vote and I must hand it to the UKIP campaign for mobilising its support. No lies are acceptable, and I do not support any party or politician, my opionon and referendum intetions are based on my own analysis of the evidence, quality of comment, and lastly and of least importance I think the leave ‘frontmen’ are far more dishonest than ,sot of the remainians. PS. Norman Tebbit is I note president of the Bruges Group, the man who recommended getting on our bikes to find work, unless you are a EU national then bloody stay where you belong!

I was not making a judgemet on which system is worse. It is Brexit who claim that the EU to be undemocratic and one of the resosn for leaving. The system they champion is in my view no more democratic and therefore it is a non argument. Ironically the Brexit Tories and right wing press were happy to campaign to retain our un-democratic FPP system a few years ago.

Mordants blatant lies and misrepresentation of the truth was breath-taking. For UKIP, the right of the Tory party and the right wing tabloid press this referendum has only ever really been about one thing, immigration. They have lost the economic argument, the un-democratic argument is flawed when we have first past the post , an unelected second chamber, and an unelected Head of State, all they have is immigration and leaving the EU will not change that significantly. While I am sure that the vast majority of leave supporters are not outright racists or fascists it is these attitudes and ideology that leave is founded on. The irony of Bumbling Boris’s analogy with past dictators, despots, empires and tyrants wanting to create a centralised Europe fails to acknowledge they were all essentially Right Wing extremists.

Altough my mind is made up, this sums up the campaign perfectly.

Biggest plus for me was my son and step son were at te final. My son a Saints Fan was working in the Fans Zone my stepson a Scousehampton fan was, well there for the game. But best of all he got his picture in the National press, well the Daily Star. He often come to St Marys with me, I suggetsed he might want to come more often now scousehampton are only a mid table team.

He is not a Historian he is a politician, at Oxford he read classics. It does not detract from the point he should be accurate he could have said England. Your geographical analogy is grasping at straws, there was no geographical entity called the United Kingdom, Great Britain yes.

I noted Blustering Boris typical Brexit grasp of history when he claimed that the Referendum vote was the biggest event for the United Kingdom since 1066, the fact that the United Kingdom did not exist until 1707, just more misrepresentation.

Great idea, the skates only have to finish in the bottom 16 of league 2 and they can be founder members of league 5, another notable entry in the history of the greatest football club in the universe.

Not arrogance just commenting on what polling analysis is showing. I Am old enough to have voted in the last referendum and so have experienced the EU project it ain't perfect but on balence I conclude we are better in than out. Oh finally my dad rembers the Empire he's 93.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. How one uses or interprets the evidence is up to them, learned informed, and credible analysis and studies are evidence. It is interesting that polling analysis is consistently showing that the better educated one is the [/b]more likely[/b]. they are to vote remain. You may conclude from this that they are more capable of comprehending and interpreting the evidence. The analysis is also showing that it is the older generations who are more likely to favour BREXIT, as we often cite our children’s and grandchildren’s futures in this debate perhaps we should consider more carefully their views on their future not those who remember the good old days and the empire.

rather quick response Here are my answers, your less that objective language makes it quite difficult to offer simple answers but always willing to try. Should we have total control of our own borders and who we allow to enter our country? It highly unlikely (balance of probability) that we could achieve this outside of the EU and have access to the EU free market. Should our elected Parliament have supremacy over the unelected EU Commission? The Commission have no supremacy, as has been well documented they are the equivalent of the EU Civil Service, it is the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers that make decisions. Should our Law Courts have supremacy over the European Justice system? Yes, for matters pertaining to EU Rule and Regulations. If you join a club you abide by the rules. Please explain why the European Justice System is unacceptable? We are signed up to many other international judicial bodies. Is the EU becoming too big and unwieldy? Or should it be expanded still further? Possibly, any further expansion should be treated with great caution, if we leave we will have no influence or veto as to who can join. Do you approve of our further integration into a Federal United States of Europe? There is no such thing as the Federal United States of Europe. It is simple an hypothesis. Does the massive EU bureaucracy imposed on small businesses hamper them? I am not sure Massive is an accurate term, complex yes, but then trade and commerce in todays world is complex and it needs regulating. What would you replace it with, all business need to be regulated, and require a bureaucracy to administer and police it. (Note the EU Commission has 16000 staff far less than any comparable organisation). Would we benefit from the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals with those nations around the World whose economies are developing the fastest? No, we may be the 5th largest economy but are still dwarfed by the USA, CHINA and the EU and therefore I do not buy into the premise that we will somehow be able to get deals any more favourable that those achieved as part of the EU. Should we reclaim our own territorial waters to revitalise our fishing industry? No fish have no nationality, territorial waters are a red herring! Fishing quotas exist to protect fish stocks, how would you achieve that as an isolated jurisdiction? Is it preferable that the British Government decides how British taxpayers' monies given to the EU is spent, rather than have them decide how our money is distributed back to us? Another red herring, as the EU only accounts for about 1.5% of government spending I think the Government already decide on anything that matters. We also give money to other organisation over whom we do not have any sanctions on how the money is spent. Does the unlimited free movement of peoples impose massive pressures on our NHS, housing infrastructure and employment sectors? Not proven and I doubt it, any public service should be scaled to meet the needs of the population. Our current population is overwhelmingly made up of UK citizens, and much of our NHS is staffed by migrants.

Which laws do the EU set? During the general election campaign fag ash Farage claimed it was over 70% this was very quickly proved totally wrong. The best information is that it is about 25%, and even if we leave we will still have to adhere to some EU law so which laws are you so very worried about.

There it is again the £350m, that in reality is more like £180m. The net £180m does not include the additional cost to a fully independent UK in recruiting a significant number of additional civil servants to sort out all the new trade deals Brexit promise us and then to administer, police and regulate those deals, plus the additional border control costs, quick fag packet calculation I reckon that would be north of £80m, meaning the eu cost is a approx of 0.7 of our national budget.

Very happy to debate all of those things, and have done previously, but the Brexit tactic of throwing in spurious claims about what the EU does or does not do needs constant vigilance

What is alarming is your unfounded and scaremongering claims about Schengen, immigrants, what we can and cannot sell (what has the EU actually stopped us selling), flood risk management and finally and almost amusingly road signs. Road Signs come under the Vienna Convention, this is not an EU convention but a United Nations Economic and Social Council, and dates back to 1968 before we were in the EU, so more lies and spin from a leaver. If you had any self repsect you at least attempt to check your facts.