His resignation (all lies and faux concern from a sociopath) looked very very similar to Heinrich Himmler dressing as a private and trying to arrange a deal for himself by surrendering to the allies. If we stayed in...He would be fecked, so he is jumping on Boris' coat tails planning on being back to crush everyone that isn't one of ..'them' (ie everyone ..just start with the weakest and most vulnerable members of society to get everyone used to it ..a tried and tested method)
If you believe all the liars, that have yanked your chain year after year, whatever your political allegiances, you will no doubt vote to stay in as it's the safe thing to do. The establishment will get what they want, in the knowledge they can continue to screw you and you'll be quite happy to keep on taking it up the a***. Oh ****, I forgot there not lying this time! Out, you might say from me.
How do you expect someone to tell you what will happen if you leave, it has never been done before, if you are enjoying things the way they are do not vote for change simples
If we had a parliament that spread wealth and investment equally per head throughout the UK then I would be less bothered about whether we stayed in or out. However, regardless of political party, UK governments have continually neglected investing in certain areas of the country compared to the rest of the UK (not my figures but official government ones from ONS). Much of this shortfall is re-invested in those neglected areas by funds from the EU. While the government would save the money from contributions to the EU, history suggests that this extra money would continue to be predominantly invested in the South-East and Greater Manchester. In my mind, there is little doubt that we would be worse off economically in the short term if we left. We would still need to pay a contribution towards the European trade zone if we wanted to be part of the trade deal (in the same way that Norway does) and yet trade on very slightly less beneficial terms. The United States have a well publicised policy of avoiding trade deals with individual countries, and instead focussing on trade deals with economic blocks. I am sure they would make an exception with us (as one of their biggest trading partners), but the terms would likely be skewed very much in America's favour - we would need them far more than they would need us. In terms of immigration, we already have secure borders. We are not part of the Shengen agreement, and anybody entering the UK must show a passport on entering. Leaving the EU would not affect how many people came to the UK illegally. As far as the people who are generally seen as 'problem' immigrants as far as many are concerned (ie muslims) then the vast majority of these people immigrate from countries outside of the EU. Before Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU we were warned that we could expect two million immigrants in a flood of immigration as soon as the change occurred (1st January 2007). Ten years later there are an estimated 65,000 Bulgarians and an estimated 120,000 Romanians. These figures include students who are here temporarily to study. We are now hearing the same warnings about Turkey, even though no agreement has been reached for Turkey to join the EU, and the mechanics of how they would do so not even broached. This country receives an overall economic benefit from immigration as the vast majority seek to work hard and improve their lives. There are those who seek to exploit our (increasing less) generous welfare state, but they are a small minority. There is an issue of infrastructure verses the size of our population. To lay this solely at the door of immigration is a red herring though. We, as a country, have failed to invest in the infrastructure we need for a sustained period (estimates suggest we have need of half a trillion pounds of investment in infrastructure to maintain the country's infrastructure). The infrastructure deficit is a real deficit that would exist regardless of immigration. The percentage of that deficit caused by immigration is miniscule.
You watch the demographic changes in Germany mate over the next few decades. If - no, when the Turks should the EU the Islamification of Germany, which is already showing signs, will be kicked well into over drive. The massive birth rates and immigration will assure this and once it has happened - there is no ****ing turning back. Without Germans as the majority in their own cities, there is no Germany. We are talking of a country allowing an enormous wave of humanity, the majority not fleeing war with a miltary on 250,000. What the hell happenens when civil anarchy occurs? Should Germans just sit back and watch their culture be bulldozed away? Yes, sit back and die - it is the progressive thing to do. The following isn't a rant againt the EU but the treacherous elements in our own government. Now, many of you are lucky in the North east as it hasn't been as culturally enriched as we have in the parts of the Midlands. So, for example, the Muslim population of Britain has doubled in size at the end of every decade since the 1960s. So by 2025, we could be looking at 6 million of them in the UK. In 2001 Birmingham was 21% Muslim - it must be nearly 30% now. We enjoy more mosques, Halal butcher, religious schools which preach complete and utter hatred for the Kafir and 'community centres'. Isn't it so delightful?
If you believe in a a dismantled UK utterly dominated by London, then vote Brexit. I really can't see any good arguments (at least for those regions outside the south-east) for leaving the E.U. The E.U requires major restructuring and reforming and the UK should be playing a major role in its modernisation.
Have to agree to these comments living down in the Midlands. If we have to ask the EU about Tampon Tax reductions then now is the time to get out. God help us when nearly 80m Turks are admitted. In the words of the Moody Blues, GO NOW.
So you would swap London which has always been the centre of governance for England for centuaries for Brussels or Berlin? Be in no doubt that should this country vote to remain in the EU that we will be voting for an end to the UK as a sovereign nation, a yes vote to remain will be a green light for the federal project to hit high gear, the EU will move to dismantle any independence we have left and subsume the UK into its goal of a single federal state, there will be no restructuring and no going back, the EU has at its heart a socialist political bureaucracy that puts the single state project above all other considerations. How about trade, lot of things said about how we will lose out, consider this, European car manufacturers sales in the UK in 2014 Audi 158,987, BMW 148,878, Citroen 83,397, Fiat 67,162, Mercedes 124,419, Peugeot 103,566, Renualt 66,334, Seat 53,512, Skoda 75,488, VW 214,828 and Volvo 41,066, that's not all but this lot adds up to 1,137,637, do we really think that the EU should we leave are going to make our trade difficult when they have so much trade with us, there is billions just in cars. The Norway example on trade as noted by MHWR and many others is a complete red herring postulated by the IN side as an example of what we would have to do on trade if we vote to leave, Norway has a population of around 8 million and on GDP, trade, economics, science, technology, art, music, film etc bears no comparison with the UK, the UK is the fifth largest economy in the world way beyond Norway at around the 27th. I could go on but I'm sure JPF will be keen to shoot me down, the reality is that there is far too little actual discussion and too much simplicity, one guy who I was speaking to 3 weeks ago said he was voting to stay in as leaving would lose our ability to move freely around Europe, at 29 years of age he thought that leaving the EU meant that he wouldn't be able to go to Italy to visit relatives any more, I tried to explain that all that it would mean is that you would have to go to passport control at the point of entry to the EU like an American or Australian, he still didn't understand. There needs to be a lot more debate and a lot less nonsense but for me the choice is between a Sovereign state that determines it's own future or a Federal State controlled by a central bureaucracy directed by France and Germany in the main and subservient to the central policies of such a bureaucracy, I am for the Sovereign state.
I've blamed Shola for many things over the years but being the ficki ficki Pied Piper? I just can't bring myself to do it.
Born and bred in Newcastle. I happily admit to being a federalist. I ardently believe our future lies in a greater Newcastle (combining the District Councils of Newcastle, Gateshead, N & S Tyneside) as the nerve centre of a semi-autonomous Northumbria within a federal UK within a federal Europe - forming a powerful trading block with close ties to the Americas and beyond. It may be pie in the sky for now, but that's what I believe in. And in response to my fellow Blackmore fan, I'm afraid the world has moved on and I really don't believe that Westminster has any more goodwill towards us than Brussels, Berlin, the Hague, Madrid, Stockholm, Copenhagen or Rome.
Have to say My gast is flabbered at your thinking I agree the world has moved on but I am entitled to my view that it has not got better
Terrible idea, the more that you give away the more that you will have a centralised authority that makes decisions based upon criteria divorced from the reality of the local populace, the EU is a stagnant trading power as it is subservient to its policy surrounding the maintenance of the Euro at any cost, Greece is still a timebomb as all they have done is shore up and paper over the cracks. It has similarly failed to formulate any coherent response to the migration crisis as it is again Schengen at any cost, this is the reality of the central Federal project, the EU bureaucracy will do anything to avoid policies that are the heart of the project from being changed as they then halt the move towards the full EU state, they are more than willing to allow the tide of migration as the price of keeping Schengen. This year the sheer tide of migration will increase further and will if unchecked offer a real threat to the future of Europe as a whole, when we talk in this country about "Multiculturalism" what we really mean is segregation. We as a country were a Christian based democracy, because of a general move away from religion by a sizable number of the population the level of migration and policies on racism and other aspects of the PC agenda have seen us submit our cultural identity grown over a thousand years of history, we are sleepwalking into a situation where our culture will at some point be dominated by Islamic ideals, the sheer weight of migration heading for the EU and predominently of Islamic origin will result in the same seachange in the cultural and political democraphics of Europe as a whole, the inclusion of Turkey in the club will push the accelerator on this as well, as a country of 75 million is given free access to the EU, the vast majority of whom are muslims.
If Turkey become part of the EU, millions of Turks will flood to Germany and adding to already high levels of muslim immigration, explosive birth rates and low birth rates of the ethnic German population, you will see the latter become a minority in only a few decades. When China invaded Tibet and settled nearly 3 million Chinese to basically breed the Tibetans out most called it genocide. May I ask - what the **** is the difference between that and the situation Germany will find itself in if Mad Mama ****ing Merkel gets her way?
I would never support Turkey being a member of the E.U. Firstly, because 97% of the country is in Asia. Second, because admitting it would be a security nightmare. Third, there have always been concerns, and increasingly so, about its secularism. Fourth, its massive population and relative poverty would be too much for the E.U. Fifth, its historical enmities with E.U member states and its Ottoman-Asian leanings would be destabilising.
