lol

Think what you like, i couldn't give a jot for most of the silly arguments of the brexit camp, i know the EU is anti democratic. The system stinks and i don't want to be part of that.
Besides if we do vote out it will see a ripple effect through Europe, all the empty threats will see this gigantic sham crumble.

I love free movement, i love quite a lot that Europe has done for us but when I'm not happy, there is nothing i can do about it...NOTHING.

We have 2 options, in or out, that's it, so if that is all i have then i vote out.
Ideally i wish there was an option 'complete reform and accountability IN' but it won't happen and so unfortunately i am out.

What exactly is it you're not happy about? I'm sure as hell not happy with virtually anything the current UK government is doing but there's nothing I can do about it, I live in a staunch Labour constituency meaning my vote is pretty much redundant in the grand scheme of things. Plus over half of this country's legislative officials (House of Lords) are entirely unelected and unaccountable and they are paid huge amounts of taxpayers money every day just for showing up. The idea that the EU is any more undemocratic than the British government is a total myth IMO.

So because you think our system is crap (i agree btw) then it's ok to stay in an equally defunct system?

Come out of the EU, then we can work on our system, i agree that every vote should count...although if that was the case then UKIP and Conservative would be prominent in the government right now.
The house of lords is also a disgusting institution, and we should be looking to abolishing it outright.

I think Scotland after being given the vote to go independent, should be extended to Wales should they wish to be independent, i think Ireland should be given a vote as to go completely independent, stay in the UK or join Ireland.

I believe in small government btw, always have.

Sorry you asked what I wasn't happy about, I'm not happy that if the political discourse changes in the future then i am powerless to change, we as a nation are powerless to change. I'm sorry but even an illusion of democracy is better than the certainty of a dictatorship.

But surely this referendum has shown that we are more than capable of leaving at any time? As a nation we are protected from 'ever closer union' and again, the EU is not our central government. It's a political union. There is not any type of realistic situation where some sort of centralized body would be able to impose themselves over the UK or any other European nation, people in France and Germany wouldn't take it any more than we would. There isn't some malevolent force at work here despite the narrative that the EU is some dark, shadowy empire trying to slyly establish world domination. They have some legislative power in that they set regulations for minimum standards of trading and to ensure fair competition within the single market. Some of these regulations and the method in which they are formulated needs to be reformed, for sure. But the only way we would ever be subject to any type of European dictatorship would be if someone formed an army, took over and invaded the country, and if that was the case then EU membership would be the least of our problems.

Quote ="Doom&Gloom Merchant"As a group they're net contributors, I'm not sure how I could have said that any simpler. Think about it Dally. Joe Bloggs ( ) from Poland arrives in the UK at 20. He's cost the government £0 in education, he's fit, healthy and ready to work, his cost to the NHS minimal, he gets a job, pays rent and pays tax. Lower paid jobs or not, they put more into the system than they take out of it. www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... er-done-us www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... itish-jobs https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/ Despite what your Bible the Daily Mail has indoctrinated you to think, these people are not the financial burden that elements of the media want us to think they are.'" Think about it. He gets married and has kids. They go to school, his wife has new-natal care, he receives tax credits, child benefit, etc, why is he really different to the 13.8 million families who receive more than they put in?

Quote ="Doom&Gloom Merchant"As a group they're net contributors, I'm not sure how I could have said that any simpler. Think about it Dally. Joe Bloggs ( ) from Poland arrives in the UK at 20. He's cost the government £0 in education, he's fit, healthy and ready to work, his cost to the NHS minimal, he gets a job, pays rent and pays tax. Lower paid jobs or not, they put more into the system than they take out of it. www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... er-done-us www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... itish-jobs https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/ Despite what your Bible the Daily Mail has indoctrinated you to think, these people are not the financial burden that elements of the media want us to think they are.'" Think about it. He gets married and has kids. They go to school, his wife has new-natal care, he receives tax credits, child benefit, etc, why is he really different to the 13.8 million families who receive more than they put in?

An Apple auto correct.

My thoughts as well , shut it down and start again and yes let's get it right this time , but that isn't an option

Already murmurs that if we pull out France could quite easily be voting themselves in a few years

Why won't the England players be voting in the referendum?

Cos none of them know how to put a cross in the box

Not read the whole thread but if you haven't please check out John Oliver's piece on Brexit! Real talk!

I urge you all not too.

If you could all vote OUT it would be much appreciated as I'm moving back to the uk soon and a out vote would be very advantageous to the Aus dollar to pound exchange rate.

Go to that well know video sharing site and search for 'Professor Michael Dougan on the EU referendum'.

If you in doubt go to that well-known video website and see Peter Shore's brief 1975 speech to the Oxford Union. Establishment arguments identical 41 years later but as Peter predicted our trade deficit with Europe has continued to grow from 2.4 billion pounds after a couple of years of membership to 100 billion pounds pa.

By 100b did you mean 20b?

Nothing like a bit of exageration

Kind Regards

King james

Some do, some don't. If we were treating this sort of economic migration as err, well economic migration we'd want the former and not the latter.

The other problem with all these calculations is just how rigourously all the costs get factored in. Some of the cases that show overall net benefits from uncontrolled immigration conveniently assume it doesn't cost anything extra when you add more demand to certain services (at lunch today one of my colleagues remarked how brilliant NHS is because it's free, I was too polite to point out that it's not really free, it all has to be paid for even if it's not immediately obvious).

It was 23.9 billion pounds in the first 3 months of this year alone! Source: The Guardian, beloved of so many on here, quoting ONS stats.Of course we borrow to fund this and impoverish the country at an unsustainable rate. Our national debt is horrific for peace time. Yet our Chancellor thinks this is a marvellous state of affairs! The establishment are taking the p@ss out of stupid people.

As posted elsewhere the case that uncontrolled economic migration brings a net positive benefit is far from proven and becomes less and less convincing the more externalities get priced back into the analysis. But what is your economic argument to support UK taxpayers subsidising those economic migrants who take out more than they put in, given that we have no choice but to accept both productive and unproductive economic migration from the the EU?

Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"As posted elsewhere the case that uncontrolled economic migration brings a net positive benefit is far from proven and becomes less and less convincing the more externalities get priced back into the analysis. But what is your economic argument to support UK taxpayers subsidising those economic migrants who take out more than they put in, given that we have no choice but to accept both productive and unproductive economic migration from the the EU?'" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -ucl-study

Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"As posted elsewhere the case that uncontrolled economic migration brings a net positive benefit is far from proven and becomes less and less convincing the more externalities get priced back into the analysis. But what is your economic argument to support UK taxpayers subsidising those economic migrants who take out more than they put in, given that we have no choice but to accept both productive and unproductive economic migration from the the EU?'" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -ucl-study

As pointed out today by a caller to 5 live , in response to claims that it was lack of investment that was causing issues in the NHS and education , it was that with uncontrolled immigration how was it possible to budget with any sort of accuracy for the future

Essentially pointing out that immigration along with our ability to provide essential services was out of our control

That piece perfectly illustrates the two points I was trying to make. Firstly, these studies are infamous for the costs they leave out, which is why they usually don't gain much traction beyond their PR value. In the "real world" there are many more costs and benefits than taxes and welfare benefits. Secondly, it's not an argument for uncontrolled economic migration, it's an argument for controlled economic migration because this being an economic activity we're looking to maximise economic benefit. I'm all in favour of the ones who give us net benefits (all costs in), I just don't believe that uncontrolled immigration maximises economic benefits to UK.

Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"That piece perfectly illustrates the two points I was trying to make. Firstly, these studies are infamous for the costs they leave out, which is why they usually don't gain much traction beyond their PR value. In the "real world" there are many more costs and benefits than taxes and welfare benefits. Secondly, it's not an argument for uncontrolled economic migration, it's an argument for controlled economic migration because this being an economic activity we're looking to maximise economic benefit. I'm all in favour of the ones who give us net benefits (all costs in), I just don't believe that uncontrolled immigration maximises economic benefits to UK.'" What about this one? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign).

Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"That piece perfectly illustrates the two points I was trying to make. Firstly, these studies are infamous for the costs they leave out, which is why they usually don't gain much traction beyond their PR value. In the "real world" there are many more costs and benefits than taxes and welfare benefits. Secondly, it's not an argument for uncontrolled economic migration, it's an argument for controlled economic migration because this being an economic activity we're looking to maximise economic benefit. I'm all in favour of the ones who give us net benefits (all costs in), I just don't believe that uncontrolled immigration maximises economic benefits to UK.'" What about this one? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign).

Quote ="headhunter"What about this one? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign).'" As I said before this is very misleading, e en if the figures were to be accurate. Most of those migrants from gave been young and recent. As they have kids they will use services more and I would posit that in a high percentage of cases (ie were they are in relatively lower paid jobs) they will be net beneficiaries of the state.

Quote ="headhunter"What about this one? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign).'" As I said before this is very misleading, e en if the figures were to be accurate. Most of those migrants from gave been young and recent. As they have kids they will use services more and I would posit that in a high percentage of cases (ie were they are in relatively lower paid jobs) they will be net beneficiaries of the state.

The figures state that they contribute more per head than the native British population. So maybe the solution is to kick out the Brits and keep the immigrants.

Where would we go ? , all their Doctors and Nurses are over here , maybe they should all stay at home and help improve their own countries ?