moonraker

You really do have the arrogance of the righteous.

In a global world all our interests are intertwined, you can kid yourself all you like I believe he is an honourable man.

I hope Brexiters really listened to Obama. You may cry foul it has nothing to do with him but his perspective is far more informed and considered than the rabble leading the Brexit charge. And so much for claiming we would easily negotiate new deals, I hope that myth will now be removed from the Brexit propaganda.

What tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber said may not be racist but it is scrapping the barrel and totally disgraceful. I am ashamed they are British.

I think the closure the poll gets the more engaged people will become, which side this will benefit will very much depend on the quality of the arguments from the two sides.

Reality and uncertainty about the furure are not mutually exclusive.

No one has any idea what the EU will look like in future years, or is fortune telling the preserve of the brexiter.

Well spotted, things do change but you used Poland as an anolgy for Turkey, two very different situations. Your attempts to sound informed and knowledgable mark you out as the plank.

You are correct, far right is extreme, however the engine of Brexit is the right wing of mainstream politics. However I am sure both far right and far left groups are unanimously in favour of Brexit.

In 1975 we were in the midst of the Cold War, they were members of the Warsaw Pact, times have changed if you had not noticed. So your analogy is somewhat spurious and ill conceived. Or perhaps you are really Rip Van Winkle?

They're getting visa free access now, where will that lead to in say 5 or 10 years time?[/b] Free access to the Schengan area only so you are safe from the hordes! I dont know and nor do you where we will be ten years time, however membership of the EU requires the applicant state to meet a very wide range of criteria, few of which Turkey currently meet, the negotions started 11 years ago and we are not much further forward so if I were a betting man I would say Turkey will not be in the EU in ten years. Why do Romania have membership, but Turkey 'no chance'? Romania and Turkey are two very different cases, why do you assocaite the two? Romania as an ex Warsaw Pact state were accepated into the EU the same as Poland, The Czech Republi, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, and Hungary. One reason for this was to remove any danger of renewed Russian influnce and control. Romania met all of the reuirements for membership. Indeed I would contend that the EU membership requiremnts have ensured that those ex Warsaw Pact countries now in the EU have stabilised far more than those outside the EU and this is of great benefit to the rest of us.

Oh of course its all part of the conspiracy, what about the 'independent' analysis, as per usual you conveniently choose to ignore that which counters your entrenched views.

Or you could read this, where the raeality is discussed, http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/2016/03/The-challenges-for-Turkey-and-their-application-for-EU-Membership.aspx or this where all me Dave's mate says the opposite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35797679

Interesting video on the BBC website that may settle the backlash debate; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features/world-middle-east-36096587/36096587

Off course there will be people from across the political spectrum who believe that the UK should not be part of the EU, however the majority of the most vocal and high profile Brexiters are what can fairly be labelled right wingers. One question I have asked myself is: Who, of the high profile players, is backing what side of the argument and why? I have concluded that Brexit’s team is split and cannot even agree on a single campaign. It is a miscellaneous collection of the ideological, the disenfranchised, chancers, discontents and yesterdays men very few of whom can point to anything on their CV that would lead me to believe they are people I would wish to follow. The remain team is more broad church and whilst politically it has many individuals with whom I would not naturally align myself, on this one issue they have set aside party rivalry and joined together to campaign for a common outcome. The Brexit cry of self-interest and conspiracy is the crude rejoinder of those who cannot refute with any conviction the arguments put to them. Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings performance in front of the select committee demonstrates only to well his contempt for our democracy and system of Government, and this is the man they appointed as there campaign director.

Wes, we could carry on until after the election, however we both know we will not change each others views. I did read the mini debate but well after it had petered out so I did not comment. My personal view is a close vote to remain would be no bad thing. I believe the UK and other less enthusiastic EU members would feel emboldened to demand changes to the current EU structure and operation, no bad thing. As an aside what did you make of the Arch Eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, warning this morning that too much EU "interference" in people's lives is eroding support for the bloc. Is this evidence that the bogey men of Europe are waking up to the fact that the people of Europe don’t like the direction they are taking us in?

I like the Irony that our Antonym, Northampton, may well be the team that consigns them another season in the Real Fans league,and with the Northampton RFU team also called The Saints there really would be some karma if it happens.

You seem to be painting the Brexit leadership as nights in shinning armour riding to save the UK with no self interest, whilst the Remain leadership are only in it for their vested interests, a rather unsophisticated and utterly unfounded assertion. The irony of your words that the predicted outcomes made by remain are pure speculation is comical. On the balance of probability the remain predictions carry far less risk and any divergence from the predictions would be far easier to mitigate by being in the EU. Just to counter some of your assumptions; what guarantee can you give that any future trade deal with the EU will not require freedom of movement as a condition aka Norway and Switzerland? The fact that the UK is bigger than either Norway and Switzerland, is not a guarantee of anything, and nowhere have I claimed that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us, what I would contend is that in any trade agreement negotiations the EU would be in a far stronger position than the UK, and whilst the negotiators would certainly take EU business lobby into account the political lobby will also demand some pay back that is unlikely to be in our favour. As to Michael Gove’s new trade area, he was not referring to the rest of the world (I do listen and read what Brexiters are saying unlike you it seems) but to a European free trade area that extends from Iceland to the Russian Border, the reference he cited, giving apparent credibility to this mystical creature was a colour map of Europe showing EU trading partners. Amazingly his own reference makes no reference to a European free trade zone. It simply does not exist. As to call me David being able to get all eight ex Republican and Democrat US Treasury Secretaries to do his bidding this is just fantasy. Please could you point me to the evidence of Cameron’s pleading with Obama on the subject, or is this just another myth. The Brexit’s ability to see conspiracies around every corner is just another feature of the campaign that convinces me to vote remain. Finally whether it be politician, business leader, celebrity, or any over high profile individual commenting on the debate, on either side, I do listen and I read their comments. I then try to put them in context and weigh the arguments, and 90% of the time I come down in favour of remain. You on the other hand seem to be dismissing anything and everything said or written in favour of remain as conspiracy and lies.

I do not excuse George at all. My position is clear, Brexit need to make the argument for leaving and to date In my opinion they have totally failed. The claims they make are false: Control of our borders, we have control of our borders; Sovereignty, even outside of the EU we will not control 100% of our laws, currently 27% of Norway’s Laws emanate from the EU, in addition we enact Laws emanating from a range of international organisations, e.g. the WTO and IMO. Trade; Brexit have no idea what will happen in negotiations, they make hopeful claims that German car manufacturers will force a deal at the least acceptable to the UK with the EU, and yesterday Michael Gove invented a whole new trade area that doesn’t exist. Defence; Brexit predict of European Super Army, they seem to base this on interoperability, asset sharing, joint training and joint operations, all things we have done since WWII. What is your take on the Eight former US Treasury Secretaries who have unanimously stated leaving the EU will be bad for the UK. Why should I listen to The Ideologue (Farage) The Chancer (Boris) The Story Teller (Gove), The Spurned (L Fox), and The Absurd (Galloway), as opposed to the vast majority of major world leaders, 80% of studies and analysis (admittedly some dodgy), major business leaders, influential and respected foreign politicians and businessmen. I realise and respect that millions of my fellow citizens believe we should leave the EU but I really struggle to see any up side to leaving, and nothing posted on this thread or countless articles, reports and comments I have read have changed that.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I think it has been amply demonstrated that most Brexit claims on the key issues are either false or exaggerated. What an individual politician says or does is irrelevant the issues are far bigger than petty party politics.

An I am flattered you have plagerised my argument, as usual you are not very original. Mixing domestic politics and the referendum doesn’t quite answer the question. Its the oppositions job to challenge the Government. As to the vison for Europe do you honestly believe that if a USE were to be proposed that we would not get another referendum, indeed it would require all member states to ratify such a move and no country would do so without the backing of their electorates. So just like Turkey will be joining soon this is more scaremongering that has little substance other than a few eurocrats claiming it is their personal vision.

Well little will change in the short term, the current policies, arrangements, agreements and relationships will endure. It is not for the remain campaign to offer alternatives to what they are campaigning for, we know what that is. It is for Brexit to provide a clear and coherent alternative, something they have continually failed to do, they cant even agree on a single campaign, if heaven forbid we vote to leave the infighting will be torturous . Change is only worth doing if you have real evidence that things will improve, Brexit has none and I for one do not believe the risk of leaving is acceptable. You are a prime example of one who continually points us to this problem or that issue with the EU or something you often incorrectly associate with the EU. Not once have you provided any real alternative as to how in the 2016 world we would be better off out than in.

Agree but please as an obvious Brexiter what are the policies, where is the evidence that we will be better off out than in. To date all I have read ( and thats quite a lot) is a series of hopeful assertions that all favour the UK and assume the rest of Europe indeed the World will deal with us in the kindest and most welcoming way. I dont buy it.

How is that relevent?

The EU referendum is one prompted by the anti EU lobby. It is therefore beholden on the leave campaign to make a case for leaving. The remain campaign have 2 roles, to present the case for staying in and to respond to the leave campaigns claims. The leave campaign have, in my view, utterly failed to make a any coherent argument for leaving the EU. There strategy has one line, tap into peoples emotions. They make claims on sovereignty, immigration, trade, defence and anything else one can think of, that are if I am generous, based on misunderstanding, but more likely I suspect are actually devious misrepresentations to support their ideological myopia. I have heard and seen written by convicted Brexiters that they would be happy to be worse off provided they are out of the EU, this for me is tantamount to admitting that exit will indeed have a negative impact, that they know it, and that they don’t care. The flip side is the remain campaign have also been creative with some of their claims, however what cannot be denied is that remaining will ensure that all of our current international agreements remain in tact, our relationships with our nearest neighbours don’t sour, we have an ongoing say and in some areas a veto on EU policy and directives, and leaders around the world (those that matter to us) will breath a huge sigh of relief. The Brexit portrayal of remain as project fear is part of their emotional campaign, it not fear its called debating, you say something I respond, I say something you respond. They cannot produce any real evidence and are incapable of delivering any clear policies so instead they attempt to rubbish not just the leave campaign but any organisation however highly respected, successful and credible that dares to present the case for remain. It is a parallel to our fishy friends blaming the FA and everyone else but themselves for their failures, but now they are fan owned everything is fine and dandy. Well I do not want my country to end up in the 2nd division of nations without a pot to **** whilst goading my neighbours about our ancient history.