Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

venice is just hot and smelly and too full of tourists in the summer
we last went in april/may though the spring tides can then flood st marks square which makes for some jollity ...... shoes off, roll up the trousers and start wading!

I've been to Venice many times, and the islands of Murano,
Burano and the others are idylic..Love it, in fact if Italy
wasn't in the EU i'd live there..

Another embarrassment for Osborne as he misses by £1.8Bn the borrowing target set only last month.
How can we seriously take his figures projected 15 years forward that each household will be worse off by £4300 after we leave the EU? Claptrap. Of course the objective was to scare the uninformed by giving a headline figure that many would assume was accurate and would certainly affect their households almost immediately.

No different from what most of the "Con" Party/Government have been saying over many many years on a variety of subjects.

So why would anyone be surprised at this attempt?

Unfortunately it cuts both ways. Remember that dope Byrne's letter that there is no money left? I don't remember Brown saying anything about that before the election. No boom and bust under the him, or so he said. No money left, including gold reserves sold at the bottom of the market. What a prat.

Yes while the rest of us have to live with the results of
their incompetence and bad judgement's and personnel ideologies....


"No different from what most of the 'Con' Party/Government have been saying"

Yes that's because Osborne is a Tory, so his claim of getting borrowing
under control has been a Tory policy...A failed one..

And so to spuriously claim that households will be worse off by an
certain amount of money in 14 years in the future, to justisfy staying in
a corrupt, undemocratic entity is a blatant lie...

What you fail to grasp or admit is that "Con" servative policies actioned by whatever Government over the last 36 years at least have led to deep recessions.

Easier and dishonest to try blame someone else.

so any decisions that were poor with hindsight, made by whatever flavour of gov't, you choose to lay at the door of the conservatives
that's interesting logic even for you

Not interesting at all Alf.. just a matter of evidential history.

you really do talk rubbish
how can a poor decision made by a labour gov't be the fault of the conservatives?
try something simple like explaining away the sale of our gold reserves

There's a Burnley man named Stan
Who despite the best efforts we can
Fails to explain
Why Labour has no blame
and continues to claim its Con man

Anon.

Read again and don't be such a nonse.. and then think if you can.

i have and either you don't write what you mean or you don't mean what you write!
therefore kindly elucidate for the benefit of all

No you have not otherwise you would not be asking damn stupid questions and wasting my time.

Once again:

What you fail to grasp or admit is that "Con" servative policies actioned by whatever Government over the last 36 years at least have led to deep recessions.

Easier and dishonest to try blame someone else.

Manuel.

Try self-education.

Then you can set your own pace.

Starter.

Maudling 1962 and the wreckage he left.

Don't bother with his business dealings.

you two, pinky and perky, are truly priceless ....... never mind; you just carry on if it keeps you amused

perhaps bill and ben would be more apposite

Oh belt up bird brain.. and that's an insult to wild life.

Stan evidently wants to go back to the days of Jim Callaghan, the winter of discontent and the double digit inflation. Happy days.

oh that was the conservatives fault as well; didn't you know?