EU referendum

[TwoPints]

We have a shortage of Curry chefs. We'd love them to come, but due to EU immigration we can not get anymore immigration from countries that may benefit or country more.

 

Immigration is essential for growth. So it would be fantastic if We could control our own countries policy on it.

Are curries only able to be cooked by people from outside the EU then?

[Batman]

So, official figures today say that 224,000 EU migrants came in the last 12 months. An all time high. That figure is set to rise further in the following 12 months

 

Lucky for them, we don't have a housing issue so there is plenty of room for them to live and not impact on anyone else that much. Also, the police, schools and NHS have oodles of spare cash and capacity to cater for all immediately. Thankfully etc

[moonraker]

I have already pointed out to Charles that evidence is accepted in legal circles as being based on the professional opinion of experts in the field of criminal prosecutions, whereas here we are talking of opinions some of which might be dismissed as being biased towards personal gain or vested interests, thus rendering them flawed. Like Charles, you also fail to recognise that a consensus of opinion indicates that there must also be a body of expert opinion that opposes a certain position and that all opinions are based largely on suppositions and forecasts and that nobody at all has any clearly defined evidence as to what may occur, there having been no precedent on which to base their conclusions.

 

As you rightly say, it is up to the electorate as to how they view those opinions and no doubt they will take into account that it is in big businesses' interests to remain in and in the interests of small businesses to leave. Despite the inclination of the Remainians to concentrate on trade, people will have their own strong reasons for voting over a wide range of issues they consider important to them, much as they do in a General Election. They will also base their decision on which information they trust, based on who is giving it and whether they trust that person or organisation. I'm afraid that Cameron and Osborne don't rate very highly in the trust stakes. I have made these points many times before.

 

I observe that you also join the ranks of the arrogant who assert that the Brexit camp do not consider the importance of their children's or grandchildren's future, but that you ignore the strong possibility that many of the older voters have actually experienced the European project and are therefore better qualified to make a judgement on whether it was what they voted for originally and whether they like what it has become since. I am happy to report that my son and daughter are both campaigning for leave despite both having good educations. There are very few people still alive who remember the Empire, unless it was a cinema that is now a Bingo Hall.

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.

[Nolan]

Are curries only able to be cooked by people from outside the EU then?

Looks like it. As there's a shortage of Curry chefs and we have massive EU immigration.

[TwoPints]

Looks like it. As there's a shortage of Curry chefs and we have massive EU immigration.

I didn't realise that making a curry was such a skilled occupation of the sort that might allow you into the country on some sort of points based system. If people that can make a half decent curry would be allowed, I wonder what occupations would be prohibited. Sounds like immigration from outside the EU would go through the roof if we left. Maybe we'd best just stick with what we've got.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Is it advice or is it evidence? You seem strangely oblivious to the difference. If it was evidence, then there would not need to be a consensus on it, would there?

 

But I accept your position is that anybody who votes Brexit doesn't care for their children and that half the electorate must be mad or dimwitted. I also accept that whereas you consider that there is this overwhelming body of "evidence" supporting our remaining in the EU which you do not feel the need to question in any objective way, there is not one single shred of evidence supporting a Brexit that you consider to be worth listening to. So fundamentally, your arrogance continues unabated; you know best and pity the poor fools who dare to hold a different position from you, because you are right and they are wrong. How outraged must you be that the very future prosperity of the Nation is in the hands of half the population who are uneducated morons or a bit mental, eh?

 

There has been both evidence and advice presented in this debate.

 

For example, when the OECD or the IMF etc state that leaving the EU represents a substantial risk to the future health of the UK economy that is not some kind of wild guess is it? No, it is a conclusion based on serious calculation and expert knowledge. This referendum is not a legal trial held in court, but that does represent what amounts to the equilient of testimony and can therefore be reasonably regarded as a form of evidence. As you are transparent to me you are about to opine yet again that opinion is not evidence for about the hundreth time. In reply I tell you for the hundredth time that when not one, but a whole series of expert witnesses all state the same opinion then any judge, jury or voter is perfectly entitled to act on that information.

 

On the other hand when the senior management of first class international companies (such as Fujitsu today) warn their UK employees of the abverse consequences of leaving the EU and its huge Single Market, then any moderly bright schoolchild should be capable of comprehending that this is advice. But if you are still struggeling to understand the difference between evidence and advice then I stand ready to explain it to you as often as required.

 

I would not claim that everybody who supports 'Vote Leave' is careless about our younger generation and their future because I know some who are honest enough to admit that there will indeed be consequences if we vote to leave the EU. As long as people accept and understand this truth then as a democrat that is fine with me. As for the likes of you however, I can only say that 'talk is cheap' and the fundamentally reckless attitudes and approach to evidence you continue to expess on here lead me to doubt your sincerity. Indeed, methinks that with the comfort of a secure pension income ahead you care little more about our younger generation than you do about the existance of the ancient nation state they live in - i.e you are really not all that "bothered" are you?

[Wes Tender]

I grow weary of the arrogant bone-headiness of those who claim to be democrats and yet are prepared to allow our democracy to be watered down by unelected bureaucrats from other countries. I am tired of claims that there are only dire consequences if we left the EU and no risks whatsoever in our remaining in.

 

In short, there is no point in debating anything with those who make accusations of their opponents that they do not care for their children's futures, or for the future of our country. When they claim to be a democrat that infers that they ought to accept the right of somebody to hold a counter viewpoint on what is best for their children and for their country without denigrating it because they do not agree with it.

 

So I will be ignoring the posts of Charles from now on, because he cannot debate anything sensibly without becoming personal in his attacks. I also worry for his blood-pressure and think that Michael Winner's advice would be efficacious. "Calm down, dear"

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I grow weary of the arrogant bone-headiness of those who claim to be democrats and yet are prepared to allow our democracy to be watered down by unelected bureaucrats from other countries. I am tired of claims that there are only dire consequences if we left the EU and no risks whatsoever in our remaining in.

 

In short, there is no point in debating anything with those who make accusations of their opponents that they do not care for their children's futures, or for the future of our country. When they claim to be a democrat that infers that they ought to accept the right of somebody to hold a counter viewpoint on what is best for their children and for their country without denigrating it because they do not agree with it.

 

So I will be ignoring the posts of Charles from now on, because he cannot debate anything sensibly without becoming personal in his attacks. I also worry for his blood-pressure and think that Michael Winner's advice would be efficacious. "Calm down, dear"

 

Yeah?

 

It seems to me that the apparent lack of ANY self-awareness in someone who continualy opts to depict others as being "bone-headed" or "arrogant" for the umpteenth time, but then complains bitterly about how poor old innocent Wes Tender has become subject to vile personal attacks is deliciously hypocritical. Speaking for myself, I do struggle to find much respect for those who enjoy insulting others, but run away demoaning the unfairness of the world whenever they receive the inevitable 'return fire'!

 

But enough of all that and back to the issue at hand. On what do you base your opinion that the so-called "risks" of staying in the EU are somehow comparable with the (very real) economic danger of leaving? That is arrant nonsence methinks, as Mark Carney showed so very persusivly last Sunday. As for your claimed concern about the fate of the British people and their wonderful old nation - I can only say that the brand of patriotism you display is a rather strange and bizarrely inconsistent one. How can it be that someone who chooses to 'wrap themselves in the flag' on the EU issue can simultaneously be so very indifferent to the continued existance of the United Kingdom as it is now constituted? You have never stated it, but is it that you are only really bothered about England rather that Britain? Again, I don't understand how you can profess to care so earnestly about our young while displaying such a brazenly cavalier attitude towards their welfare.

 

I might also ask why does Boris Johnson impress you so? It seems to me that a man who would betray his wife - and then lie about it - might also betray his country if he thought for one moment that doing so would further his shamelessly unprincipled political ambitions. Indeed, why should anyone believe a single word that he says on this or indeed any other subject - should we not look for more than just being funny on TV in our statesmen?

 

If I were to believe the above post then it seems that you don't want to talk to me anymore and I may therefore never recieve a proper answer to any of these questions. To be frank about it this is something else that I doubt somehow.

[Goatboy]

Yeah?

 

It seems to me that the apparent lack of ANY self-awareness in someone who continualy opts to depict others as being "bone-headed" or "arrogant" for the umpteenth time, but then complains bitterly about how poor old innocent Wes Tender has become subject to vile personal attacks is deliciously hypocritical. Speaking for myself, I do struggle to find much respect for those who enjoy insulting others, but run away demoaning the unfairness of the world whenever they receive the inevitable 'return fire'!

 

But enough of all that and back to the issue at hand. On what do you base your opinion that the so-called "risks" of staying in the EU are somehow comparable with the (very real) economic danger of leaving? That is arrant nonsence methinks, as Mark Carney showed so very persusivly last Sunday. As for your claimed concern about the fate of the British people and their wonderful old nation - I can only say that the brand of patriotism you display is a rather strange and bizarrely inconsistent one. How can it be that someone who chooses to 'wrap themselves in the flag' on the EU issue can simultaneously be so very indifferent to the continued existance of the United Kingdom as it is now constituted? You have never stated it, but is it that you are only really bothered about England rather that Britain? Again, I don't understand how you can profess to care so earnestly about our young while displaying such a brazenly cavalier attitude towards their welfare.

 

I might also ask why does Boris Johnson impress you so? It seems to me that a man who would betray his wife - and then lie about it - might also betray his country if he thought for one moment that doing so would further his shamelessly unprincipled political ambitions. Indeed, why should anyone believe a single word that he says on this or indeed any other subject - should we not look for more than just being funny on TV in our statesmen?

 

If I were to believe the above post then it seems that you don't want to talk to me anymore and I may therefore never recieve a proper answer to any of these questions. To be frank about it this is something else that I doubt somehow.

 

As opposed to someone who thinks it's ok to stick his cock in the carcass of a pig?

[trousers]

there is no point in debating anything

 

You've only just worked that out? I sussed it out years ago that most 'debates' in Webland are ultimately futile.

 

P.s. I'm still undecided

[whelk]

As opposed to someone who thinks it's ok to stick his cock in the carcass of a pig?

 

Context goat.

[trousers]

As opposed to someone who thinks it's ok to stick his cock in the carcass of a pig?

You been reading the Daily 'Fail' (chortle) again? Tut tut

[Goatboy]

Context goat.

 

In what context would you find it acceptable behaviour?

[whelk]

Context goat.

 

If someone had a gun pointed at my family.

 

Or if it had nice eyes

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As opposed to someone who thinks it's ok to stick his cock in the carcass of a pig?

 

You appear to be confusing a allegation with a established fact. But please carry on anyway.

[moonraker]

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.

[Wes Tender]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36330025

 

The strange case of the missing Veto.

[buctootim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36330025

 

The strange case of the missing Veto.

 

Surely that applies only to the Eurozone related arrangements, which we aren't in, so why would we need one?

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

I would expect that he was describing the geographical area rather than the political one, otherwise he would have had to list the countries separately. A bit like the remain lot saying that a Brexit would mean that we were leaving Europe, the geographical entity, when many European countries are not even members of the EU. Boris is an historian, so I don't think that he was ignorant of the date of the Union.

[buctootim]

Whatever the result everyone involved in campaigning comes out as a loser.

 

There has been almost zero reasoned arguments. The aim has been not to inform but to scare. Fear has been the main weapon of both sides - by the tabloids for Brexit and most politicians for remain. Its been a choice between hordes of EU migrants on benefits assaulting you in your beds, taking your jobs and blowing up our cities - or economic bankruptcy and isolation.

 

I suspect the result is that most people have less trust in our leaders and media, which is a dangerous thing. It just breeds more cynicism, thats its okay to screw everybody else because they're trying to screw me.

[Wes Tender]

Surely that applies only to the Eurozone related arrangements, which we aren't in, so why would we need one?

 

It isn't yet clear what is involved, but presumably it is something significant for it to be highlighted by Liam Fox.

 

Britain, along with every other EU member state, has the right to veto any EU treaty revision. But in exchange for the concessions he won from fellow EU leaders in February, the prime minister said he would put away the famous Thatcher handbag and actually go further by supporting further integration in the eurozone

 

This seems to be the key passage. Presumably, we have given up the right to veto any EU treaty revision, which sounds pretty important to me. No doubt it will become clearer precisely what the real implications are when it is debated further with input from the other Brexit commentators and the Remainians, especially Cameron.

[buctootim]

It isn't yet clear what is involved, but presumably it is something significant for it to be highlighted by Liam Fox.

 

 

 

This seems to be the key passage. Presumably, we have given up the right to veto any EU treaty revision, which sounds pretty important to me. No doubt it will become clearer precisely what the real implications are when it is debated further with input from the other Brexit commentators and the Remainians, especially Cameron.

 

Surely the key passage is "in the Eurozone". Cameron's strategy is to create a two speed EU - further integration for those who want it and EU lite for those who dont. At present the UK can veto issues which affect only the eurozone, even though we aren't in it. Seems reasonable to me to give that up, as long as its cleat the Eurozone cant make rules which impact on the wider group.

[moonraker]

I would expect that he was describing the geographical area rather than the political one, otherwise he would have had to list the countries separately. A bit like the remain lot saying that a Brexit would mean that we were leaving Europe, the geographical entity, when many European countries are not even members of the EU. Boris is an historian, so I don't think that he was ignorant of the date of the Union.

 

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.

[Wes Tender]

Surely the key passage is "in the Eurozone". Cameron's strategy is to create a two speed EU - further integration for those who want it and EU lite for those who dont. At present the UK can veto issues which affect only the eurozone, even though we aren't in it. Seems reasonable to me to give that up, as long as its cleat the Eurozone cant make rules which impact on the wider group.

 

It is indeed a bit of a grey area until clarified further with additional detail. My understanding was that in Dave's negotiations, some of the concessions he claimed to have obtained for us had to be ratified by Treaty revisions.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/25/david-cameron-set-to-go-to-referendum-without-eu-ratifying-treaty-changes

 

Also, if our exclusion from membership of the Eurozone had meant that we were absolved from the implications of a collapse of the Euro by Treaty, then presumably that might change with a Treaty revision we did not have a veto on.

 

No doubt it will all become clearer soon.

[badgerx16]

Whatever the result everyone involved in campaigning comes out as a loser.

 

There has been almost zero reasoned arguments. The aim has been not to inform but to scare. Fear has been the main weapon of both sides - by the tabloids for Brexit and most politicians for remain. Its been a choice between hordes of EU migrants on benefits assaulting you in your beds, taking your jobs and blowing up our cities - or economic bankruptcy and isolation.

 

I suspect the result is that most people have less trust in our leaders and media, which is a dangerous thing. It just breeds more cynicism, thats its okay to screw everybody else because they're trying to screw me.

 

My summary of the debate is that on one side you have a bunch of self-serving rich b@stards who are seeking to enhance their own power base, and probably only beleive half of what they say on the subject, whilst expecting us to swallow it all.

On the other side you have exactly the same.

[Whitey Grandad]

Whatever the result everyone involved in campaigning comes out as a loser.

 

There has been almost zero reasoned arguments. The aim has been not to inform but to scare. Fear has been the main weapon of both sides - by the tabloids for Brexit and most politicians for remain. Its been a choice between hordes of EU migrants on benefits assaulting you in your beds, taking your jobs and blowing up our cities - or economic bankruptcy and isolation.

 

I suspect the result is that most people have less trust in our leaders and media, which is a dangerous thing. It just breeds more cynicism, thats its okay to screw everybody else because they're trying to screw me.

 

You are quite right.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Whatever the result everyone involved in campaigning comes out as a loser.

 

There has been almost zero reasoned arguments. The aim has been not to inform but to scare. Fear has been the main weapon of both sides - by the tabloids for Brexit and most politicians for remain. Its been a choice between hordes of EU migrants on benefits assaulting you in your beds, taking your jobs and blowing up our cities - or economic bankruptcy and isolation.

 

I suspect the result is that most people have less trust in our leaders and media, which is a dangerous thing. It just breeds more cynicism, thats its okay to screw everybody else because they're trying to screw me.

 

Christ I finally agree with you on something!

[aintforever]

Whatever the result everyone involved in campaigning comes out as a loser.

 

There has been almost zero reasoned arguments. The aim has been not to inform but to scare. Fear has been the main weapon of both sides - by the tabloids for Brexit and most politicians for remain. Its been a choice between hordes of EU migrants on benefits assaulting you in your beds, taking your jobs and blowing up our cities - or economic bankruptcy and isolation.

 

I suspect the result is that most people have less trust in our leaders and media, which is a dangerous thing. It just breeds more cynicism, thats its okay to screw everybody else because they're trying to screw me.

 

This, they are all a bunch of self-serving assholes.

 

I have yet to see a Brexit campaigner say that leaving might be bad for the economy.

 

I have yet to see a Remain campaigner say that having uncontrolled immigration is not a good situation.

[moonraker]

This, they are all a bunch of self-serving assholes.

 

I have yet to see a Brexit campaigner say that leaving might be bad for the economy.

 

I have yet to see a Remain campaigner say that having uncontrolled immigration is not a good situation.

 

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

[Goatboy]

You been reading the Daily 'Fail' (chortle) again? Tut tut

 

Nah, I get all the words and pictures I need from Asian Babes and Carpworld.

[Wes Tender]

Whatever the result everyone involved in campaigning comes out as a loser.

 

There has been almost zero reasoned arguments. The aim has been not to inform but to scare. Fear has been the main weapon of both sides - by the tabloids for Brexit and most politicians for remain. Its been a choice between hordes of EU migrants on benefits assaulting you in your beds, taking your jobs and blowing up our cities - or economic bankruptcy and isolation.

 

I suspect the result is that most people have less trust in our leaders and media, which is a dangerous thing. It just breeds more cynicism, thats its okay to screw everybody else because they're trying to screw me.

 

Add me to the list of those agreeing with your opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

This, they are all a bunch of self-serving assholes.

 

I have yet to see a Brexit campaigner say that leaving might be bad for the economy.

 

I have yet to see a Remain campaigner say that having uncontrolled immigration is not a good situation.

 

I have been saying that for several years. Novbody ever takes any notice of what I say

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Is that our entire political class is comprised of nothing but venal self-serving types, or can it be that people end up with the politicians they deserve? A bit of both maybe, but one thing I can tell you beyond all doubt is that this voter is sick to death of referendums.

 

The Scottish Independence question was to open up old wounds and divide our nation in ways that may take decades to heal. This EU matter too is likley to lead to a outcome that (according to the latest polls anyway) is so close that whichever side losses you can almost guarantee half our nation will end up feeling cheated. In both cases I doubt the result will be as conclusive as originally intended - indeed speculation about another Scottish Independence Referendum started the very moment the last result was annouched, and weeks before the EU referendum has even been held we can already see Nigel Farage (for example) refusing to accept a narrow defeat for his cause - should that eventuality occur.

 

It seems to me that there is no better form of government than the representative democracy our nation has evolved to become over time. I say it is those we the people elect into power who are best placed to make these difficult and often complex decisions acting in the national interest as they see it. If in the fullness of time it turns out that we the people don't much like the decisions our democratically elected representatives are making then we vote the buggers out and put in a new bunch who may prove to be more to our tastes.

 

If this nation goes another forty years before another referendum is called then that would still be too soon as far as I'm concerned.

[Wes Tender]

I agree that our own elected politicians ought to be the ones who make decisions on our behalf, not the unelected bureaucrats of the EU. However referenda have to be put to the electorate when Treaties affect the basis of our sovereignty and own legal and democratic processes. Maastricht was that time, also Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

 

On another matter, the Beeb must be delighted to trumpet the Remainians position with yet another forecast of the dire consequences of a Brexit, figures provided by the Department of Guesswork that is the Treasury.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36344425

 

But examining the argument from a logical perspective, what they are also saying is that the fall in house prices will actually benefit the lower income buyers, because house price rises have put buying property beyond most of them, so Osborne's fear tactics could well backfire. In any event, the table of projected prices still show a rise in house values of 8.4% over the two calendar years or the three inclusive years for average prices and nearly 10% for London. The vast majority of the population only realise a profit or loss on property transactions when they buy or sell, so this is just a paper loss of a projected sum that has been guessed at. The majority of the population will move house over a longer period of time and I suppose that we are lucky that the Treasury hasn't seen fit to project what the average house value will be in 2030 compared to what it would be if we remained in the EU.

 

I think that the electorate will be running out of salt soon, the number of pinches that are needed if Osborne carries on guessing what the future economic effects of a Brexit will be on their wages and property values.

 

What he should realise, is that he and Cameron are increasingly eroding any trust that they might have had from the electorate.

[derry]

Osborne caught bending the truth again. The Treasury has clarified that the 10% to 18% fall in the value of property is no such thing, it's the decrease in the increase in house prices over that period, an entirely different thing but won't scare anybody. Not long until the plague of locusts Cameron joked about.

 

They have become so arrogant and transparent, next the Britain better in the EU statements from politicians attending the talks in Japan, they really are a joke. When this is all over there will be a day of reckoning. The government unable to pass bills, a vote of confidence and a leadership challenge for Cameron whatever the result.

[benjii]

I suppose the reason a lot of the campaigning is so pathetic and fear-laden is that this tactic was perceived to be successful viz. the Scotland referendum.

[Whitey Grandad]

Osborne caught bending the truth again. The Treasury has clarified that the 10% to 18% fall in the value of property is no such thing, it's the decrease in the increase in house prices over that period, an entirely different thing but won't scare anybody. Not long until the plague of locusts Cameron joked about.

 

They have become so arrogant and transparent, next the Britain better in the EU statements from politicians attending the talks in Japan, they really are a joke. When this is all over there will be a day of reckoning. The government unable to pass bills, a vote of confidence and a leadership challenge for Cameron whatever the result.

 

Semantics. So what he was saying is that the prices would be lower than they would have otherwise have been? Seems fair to me even if it is only a wild guess.

 

Personally I can't see any price fall so long as demand outstrips supply. If you really believe that a Brexit would halt all immigration then maybe the demand would not increase as much as it otherwise would.

[badgerx16]

Osborne caught bending the truth again.

 

It's all he ever does.

[buctootim]

Is that our entire political class is comprised of nothing but venal self-serving types, or can it be that people end up with the politicians they deserve?

 

The electorate gets what it deserves. We consistently vote in whoever promises us the most - no matter how unlikely or impossible to deliver. That simplicity means honest measured politicians generally don't get elected. Instead you get mendacious party leaders who demand that the candidates the constituencies select will toe the party line.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The biggest (immediate) effect on our housing market that leaving would have is more likley to be what effect that outcome would have on interest rates. Predictions that the international money markets will force a old school 'run on the pound' post our retreat from the EU are legion - forum 'head in the sand' types who doubt this need only spend a minute or two Googleing the matter.

 

HM Tresury has reportedly been preparing for a new Sterling crisis, but there is only so much they can do I think before being forced into significantly raising interest rates. That in turn would obviously increase mortgage costs for millions of British people which will further damage our economy as they have less money in their pockets.

[Wes Tender]

Semantics. So what he was saying is that the prices would be lower than they would have otherwise have been? Seems fair to me even if it is only a wild guess.

 

Personally I can't see any price fall so long as demand outstrips supply. If you really believe that a Brexit would halt all immigration then maybe the demand would not increase as much as it otherwise would.

 

Completely agree. The value or price of anything is governed by simple laws of supply and demand. This is evident to 4th form students of economics, so it won't take much brainpower for the average voter to see right through it. As you say, if immigration is slowed down because of a Brexit, then demand for housing will slacken, reducing house prices to make them more affordable. If anybody bemoans the loss of that profit on the value of their house, which will only anyway be realised when they sell, then they can console themselves that it will be counter-balanced by less pressure on pay, our schools and the NHS. If the immigration situation does not decrease, then the cost of housing will remain strong, so as George would say, it is win/win.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would have thought house prices being lower would be considered a good thing.

[Trader]

I would have thought house prices being lower would be considered a good thing.

 

Too right, I can't be the only person in this country concerned that my children won't ever be able to afford to buy property of their own.

[Joesaint]

Anyone who wants to live in a democratic society will vote leave. The people who benefit from remain are the rich, as well as Europe's political elite. There is no opposition in the EU, no accountability, and no choice of direction from the public... Its like a dictatorship. Tony Benn was 100% spot on, please watch.

 

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

• EU Commission remains not directly elected = it is a sinister undemocratic dictatorship.

 

• EU Commission becomes directly elected = it is the sinister United States of Europe.

 

[Batman]

[whelk]

Too right, I can't be the only person in this country concerned that my children won't ever be able to afford to buy property of their own.

 

Should encourage the young to vote leave

 

I am homeowner with low mortgage but would vote for house prices to come down by 18%.

[Batman]

Should encourage the young to vote leave

 

I am homeowner with low mortgage but would vote for house prices to come down by 18%.

 

and wages will rise too. but that is 'not always a good thing'

 

 

Edited 22 May, 2016 by Batman

[TopGun]

So Penny Mordaunt looked spectacularly uninformed on Andrew Marr today.

[Batman]

So Penny Mordaunt looked spectacularly uninformed on Andrew Marr today.

 

just like the other chap. which you dont seem to have mentioned.