millions then

Another well-reasoned perspective from the remain camp!

If we leave, he'll be gone in days. So it won't be up to him.

It genuinely frustrates me that those in the remain camp are branding those in the out as xenophobic, ignorant and racist, when they don't know their personal reasons for leaving. There are some who mainly focus on immigration (members of EDL and the like), but saying all those who vote out are racist is like saying all immigrants are terrorists.

I will be voting out, not just because of immigration as I couldn't care less if I lived next door to Dave from Essex or Tomaz from Warsaw, but because of the state of the EU, and I can't see things getting any better if we remain.

That depends on what sort of foreigners you want to stop.

There are 4 groups of immigrants

Europeans the main ones are about 800k poles and 350k Irish.

Irish immigrants will come here whether we are part of the EU or not.

The poles are extremely hard working unlike many of the whiny English going on about immigrants.
Most of them are young, so,e with children and are necessary to keep nritains aging population with someone to pay taxes for their pensions.


The next group are asylum seekers do you think we should not allow them to come here?

The next group are those from the old commonwealth ' families,ily embers of those here. There is little we can do about that as they are entitled under British law to do that if they comply with requirements.

This group would be likely to increase if we leave the Euro as we would according to brexiteers be trading more with this countries is India and Pakistan.

THE LAST GROUP ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO Britain has the right to deport. The only problem is that the resources such as immigration and police are so short staffed that they are not dealt with.

So I am interested in what group of immigrants you are worried about.

Is that not an argument to be in it to reform it rather than be outside and try to wrap ourselves up in a bubble and pretend that global warming, world poverty, terrorism and refugee crisis are all going to stop in some bubble wrapped Britain.

So you are ok with Britains population growing by over a third of a million a year by immigration alone ? , and possibly increasing on that figure ?

The EU isn't going to stop or slow down global warming on its own , so irrelevant

World poverty is again a world problem irrelevant of our EU membership

Terrorism isn't an EU issue

The refugee crisis isn't going away until the countries Involved are liberated from both ISIS and corrupt governing bodies

None of your points are relevant

I seriously have not heard anybody on the remain side come up with one reasonable and reasoned reason to stay. Lots of hysteria, lot's of name-calling but that's all. The Leave side have at least made a case.

That's plain silly. Whether we are in or out of a political union is wholly irrelevant to those things. They will happen. On terrorism and refuges owe would be better placed. On poverty we already give more aid than other EU countries. On global warming we can choose our response and the EU there's. Can't see any real difference there.

Similar to the millions that voted for the Nazis in 1930s Germany, unfortunately.

The worst thing Dave could have done is state he would get a renegotiation , then get pretty much nothing , that basically shows how much influence and power we have within the EU

So reform from within ? , no chance

At the moment we are within the EU bubble , that's the idea of getting out

Out of order there I'm afraid

Not at all. Both are insular, backwards-thinking arguments based entirely on bluster, blaming foreigners for domestic problems, cultivating a negative rhetoric and fear of outsiders, an 'us vs them' mentality and misplaced ideas of patriotism. The people who voted for the Nazis weren't bad people, they were just idiots who were easily influenced and bought into the bluster which struck a chord at the time. Just the same as Trump supporters in the USA. Sadly many people are not intelligent enough not to want scapegoats.

That's the net migration figure. Roughly half of which is migration from outside the EU.

Britains population is growing by roughly the same amount (1/3rd million) through the birth rate.

If we left the EU and stopped ALL immigration from EU nations (which is unlikely) then we'd only stop roughly 160/170k net immigrants and only deal with roughly a quarter of the problem.

I'd far rather we build alliances in the EU to put restrictions on those countries that shouldn't have been allowed in with full EU membership. Plenty of other countries struggle with this issue and it's better to be in there to solve it rather than leave and not be able to do anything about it, as Norway are finding now.

I would have really liked to amend the title of this thread, with an added addendum of a vote thing. Unfortunately I didn’t have the will to figure it out.

I digress, how come neither side haven’t wheeled out a famous celebrity or two?

Personally it wouldn’t matter who came on the telly, nobody could sway my vote, but I’m sure there’s millions of low intelligence voters who could still be persuaded by a celebrity endorsement.

Here’s a few who could pull some in.

1 – The Queen (I know, but what do you do

)

2 - Jeremy Kyle (If they can be @rsed to get off the sofa)

3 – Simon Cowell (See above)

4 – Michael Parkinson (Another one for the oldies, but more “Northern”)

Please feel free to add.

Before I go, I must harp back to the oldies, I’m talking eighty plus. Do they really deserve a vote, or is it one last “#uck You” from a generation of global conflict?

If we're taking the word "vote" to mean any kind of substantive process then the people who voted in the Nazis were the 1% - banking elites, industrial conglomerates - plus outside finance (mainly from the US & UK) - who sought first to protect their assets from the very real threat of appropriation by the Left (as happened in Russia on Herbert Hoover's watch) and then finally to enrich themselves by smashing labour unions, conscripting forced labour etc.

The media would have us believe the Nazis were swept into power by the popular vote when this couldn't be further from the truth. In reality they (just) managed to squeeze a toe-hold in elections and then expertly employed the Four Bs (Bullets, Blackmail, Bribery & Broads) to consolidate their position.

But NONE of this would have been possible without huge financial injections by Henry Ford, JP Morgan, Du Pont, I.G. Farben etc.

Whilst I applaud your willingness to embrace the word "negotiation" I'm afraid you are just a bit too late. It's a bit like stopping to reconsider whether it's a good idea to purchase an ocean liner after the champagne bottle has been broken on its bow, the blocks have been kicked out and it's rumbling down the ramp.

Part of the problem is the [ilanguage of the debate[/i itself (as defined by the media) which sets limits on its scope.

"Brexit" sounds so ... [iinnocuous[/i. But then I guess it needs to be because "Brescape" ... or plain old "RUN!" might just give the game away.

When will people finally wake up and realise that there's a WAR coming? And when it does do you seriously think people are going to care one way or another about "negotiation"?

Where is the anti-capitalist, socialist revolutionary that is Russell Brand? Maybe he's too busy decorating his Henley mansion so he can move in a few families of Syrian refugees?

I usually take what you say with a pinch of salt but I'm with you on this. It's coming.

These guys have been gearing up for some heavy duty chaos and destruction in the Middle East ever since 9/11. You can hardly sail a dozen miles anywhere in the Mediterranean without seeing serious amounts of military hardware.

We've got special forces embedded from Greece & Cyprus, through Turkey, Lebanon and right back across almost to the North West coast of Africa. The US AFRICOM budget is through the roof.

The entire region is on the verge of exploding. All it'll take is some "terrorist outrage" to emerge and they'll drop the hammer.

When that happens the "Migrant Crisis" you think we are suffering now will seem trivial.

Major wars are always preceded by a noticeable inertia which history teaches us is the devil's work to stop.

What happened to nuclear deterrent or mutually assured destruction?

It still holds. This is the paradox because whilst the traditional concept of warfare (carried out between states and practised by standing armies ) died at Hiroshima - the doctrine of "counter-insurgency warfare" (where instead of targeting soldiers you murder civilians) took over.

If there's ONE statistic everyone should know about wars it is the civilian body count.

Prior to WWI it was almost non-existent. Then, in that conflict, it jumped to around 10-15% with poison gas, artillery barrages etc.. By the time WWII arrived with area bombing and such it was up at around 30%. When Vietnam arrived counter-insurgency warfare was being rolled out on a massive scale. There the civilian body count was up at around 70% (and probably higher given that we don't know the full figures of people massacred by US death squads under the rubric of "The Phoenix Program"icon_wink.gif.

Today the civilian death toll in wars is around 95%. Now, the military can talk all they like about "precision munitions", "smart bombs" and such. Accident or design - the result is the same: genocide.

A good documentary worth watching which highlights this very point is Jeremy Scahill's [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/Dirty Wars[/url. Primarily it's about US extra-judicial assassination programs (drone strikes) but at the very end they explicitly admit that the US (and other NATO nations) have run "thousands" of missions involving special forces "kill teams" who basically fly into villages in places such as Afghanistan and wipe out the population.

Now, you can make a case for hitting what are known as "High Value Targets" - genuine troublemakers. But that wouldn't amount to much more than a few dozen missions.

It's little wonder the US has so many issues with gun violence. How do you rehabilitate someone who has spent two or three tours as part of a death squad? The answer is - you can't.

Can somebody please sort this out , this is a thread supposedly about Britains referendum on Eu membership , not loony tunes mark2