No that whole post was responding to the nonsense posted by DrRingDing. I just quoted part of your post as an example of a reason why someone might vote for remain.Immediately following part of one of my earlier posts from this morning ...
Was that addressed at me? It looked like it was. Do explain ...
They may not have that uppermost in mind - but that is undoubtedly the outcome of remaining.
Indeed - and many will be voting to remain as a result of the high level of scaremongering tactics employed by Cameron and Co. without even examining the plausibility of such claims.
That is as it may be, but you don't see massive movements in France & Germany to exit the EU, rather they are getting stuck in to make it how they want it. Something I think we should be doing also.
So what? They are two of the founding members - and exacted a heavy price from Heath when they 'allowed' the UK . In addition, France in particular, but also Germany, unlike ourselves, do very well out of the CAP - which even now consumes something like 40% of the EU budget.
Well perhaps instead of bleating 'outright lies', you could be more precise, and inform everyone what these lies are?
We certainly won't rectify that through leaving.
Indeed William........I guess that must be obvious from my comments. Leaving will undoubtedly 'rectify that' as far as the UK are concerned though - which I believe is far more important. ;0)Stevlin : I take it you're a Brexiter?
Apologies for mis-'naming' you Weltweit!! ;0)
I don't think we are likely to be able to negotiate access to the single market post exit without having to abide by the rules and more significantly, paying for access. Even taking into account that France and Germany will still want to access the UK market.
I would have thought that fairly clear Andy - we currently borrow about £1 billion per month ,(net), to pay our EU membership fee/EU subsidy , yet cannot afford certain drugs......so out of the EU, if we can afford to subsidise them each year, we could continue to borrow it to fund those drugs instead.
Well around 50 or so countries have in fact arranged just that......and as the EU sells more to the UK than vice versa, it would clearly hurt them more than the UK. In any event, the average global trade tariff is far lower now that it was in 1973 - which to a certain extent has actually 'devalued' free trade agreements. But, although we access the single market, it cannot really be considered 'free' , as we have to pay a subsidy for that privilege----as well as handing over British sole fishing territorial rights to the EU, and ceding some of our sovereignty, ( EU law has primacy over UK Parliament law), to an unelected politburo, and irresponsibly ceding control of our borders.
I'd say yes. Its the bollocks case.
This is silly argument, we leave the EU but still have the same amount to spend - so we can spend it on stuff like cancer drugs(who wouldn't want that?) instead of the useless EU...
Unfortunately, I believe that there is a strong possibility that the Bremainers will will the referendum. I consider the leave campaign to be extremely sensible, based on what the situation IS now. The future of the EU is undoubtedly the USSE - common currency, lack of borders, Parliament etc....
OK clever clogs - now tell us why the argument is 'silly'. We are IN the EU, which means we CANNOT spend the 'same amount' AND buy those cancer drugs - but not everybody supports Brexit do they?
it went silly when you added numbers. (and has been going down hill since)
It's a false equivalent to say the reason we don't buy them is because we have to pay for membership of the EU.
