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....

Following my post on the subject, I still feel staying in is tantamount to staying on a burning ship, half way sank into the water with imminent death awaiting all on board except for the captain and the crew. As a general rule whatever the government line is or whatever David Cameron insists that you do – do the opposite. There is absolutely no benefit in staying in EU, Britain was deceived into going in … in the first place by it’s leaders, just like all the other nations who joined the union. Now, the opposition to staying in the EU say that we lose our democracy if we stay in. We do not have a democracy in or out, Cameron increased our borrowing by 170 Billion to help bomb Syria to dust whilst trying to cut 40 billion from our national health service. The austerity will continue in or out of EU and we will never pay back our debt to the central bankers (we are not supposed to) – The macro game plan is perpetual debt for every country in The World. Why Even pay our debt I ask? … We are never going to pay it back … After all, we are paying interest on money that never even existed in the first place. My call is that Britain will indeed stay in the EU – if they can get our vote in their desired direction then fine, if we choose to vote exit … my hunch is that they will fix the vote in the favour of staying in . YES ! They will fix the vote count. Andre Minassian

I'm sure there will be some sort of manipulation , if you look at reports from Brussels there is no let up on their programme going forward , which suggests to me they are pretty dam sure we will stay come hell or high water . Personally i thought they would have toned down their assault on their objectives if it's so important to them we stay . The only thing can help may be apathy on the remain side , and all out determination on the outers side on the day . I feel a lot of protesting after .

If the €urobore song contest is anything to go by, the result is already in, they just haven't bothered to tell the public.

So while I’m not starting, not firing the starting gun on the referendum campaign, what I have done in recent weeks is just to debunk some of the duff arguments that people put around. So last week I talked about what I think is a very duff argument put about by the Out campaign, which is that it would be easy for Britain to leave Europe and simply sign up to a deal like Norway. I think that would be a bad idea. When you look at the detail of the deal that Norway has, it is not a good deal. They pay more per head into the European Union than we do, they take more migration than we do, and yet they don’t have a seat at the table to determine what the rules are. So that is a bad deal. So the people who definitely want to leave, they need to come up with a better argument than ‘let’s have a position like Norway’.

So today I also want to debunk an argument that is sometimes put around by those who say ‘stay in Europe come what may’. Some people seem to say that really Britain couldn’t survive, couldn’t do okay outside the European Union. I don’t think that is true. Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We have got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We are a top ten manufacturer, growing steadily strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here, look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating a path to our door to come to see what’s happening with this great country’s economy.

The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU; of course it could. The argument is, ‘How are we going to be best off?’ That is the argument that I think we are going to be making together after this successful negotiation. When it comes to the crucial issues, our prosperity, our national security, of course we could try to look after those things outside the EU, but how do we make ourselves more prosperous and more secure? That’s what the argument should be about, and that’s what I will throw myself into once I’ve completed this negotiation.

And I hope that British business will back me in this negotiation because, frankly, the status quo isn’t good enough for Britain. We need to fix these challenges, fix these problems. That’s what the negotiation is about and then we can throw ourselves headlong into keeping Britain in a reformed Europe. But as we do so, no duff arguments, no pretending that Britain couldn’t survive outside the EU, of course we could. The fifth largest economy in the world, the great economy that is getting stronger and better.

So let’s argue from that position of strength. All campaigns should be about how do we make Britain more prosperous, more secure. It was… [Inaudible]. I don’t have any emotional attachment to the institutions of the European Union, but I have a very strong emotional and practical attachment to asking the simple question for Britain, how do we have more influence to the world, how do we have more prosperity, how do we have more jobs, how do we do the best for the country we love? To me, that’s what it’s all about. Thank you.


The above was an extract from a speech made by David Cameron at the CBI's annual conference on 9th November 2015. (full speech on u tube)

Memory Loss Davey, how much did it take to change your mind...

You can always rely on the eurovision song contest to make a political
point, in this case Ukraine winning it with a political morose song,
which has an haunting rendition of the deportation of the Tartars from Crimea by Josef Stallin.

It all fits in with the EU's desire to have the Ukraine join up.

I actually thought the UK would either win or get into the top three,
not because the song was any good(but neither was the Ukraine entry,
and see what they achieved) but to make it appear that the eu
was all lovey dovey with the UK.

I can't stand it , one of the most bizzare waste of times i have ever seen .

Granny,

Do you ever feel out of touch?

I used to only watch it when Terry Wogan was commentating with
his hilarious funny jibes at the song contest..

The Fourth Reich is here - without a shot being fired

By
Simon Heffer


15 May 2016 • 7:21am




Chancellor Merkel has ensured her country prospers while others suffer Credit: rex/DROESE/SIPA/REX/Shutterstock



The arsenal of fear must almost be nearly exhausted. Those daring to vote to leave the EU will inflict on Britain collapsing house prices (according to George Osborne and Christine Lagarde of the IMF, who should worry about the EU’s unemployment-soaked economies); a “technical” recession (Mark Carney, a “technical” Irish-Canadian with a long record of error, who for this disgraceful political interference should be kicked back to Ottawa); and, of course, the Third World War (Mr Cameron). It’s clearly a Corporal Jones moment for the Remainers, though any cries of “don’t panic” come far too late: they are manifestly drowning in it.

Anyway, two can play at this game. What must we fear if we stay? Not merely relentless uncontrolled immigration (and the lies told about it), putting such burdens on our schools, hospitals and infrastructure that UK citizens suffer, but the inevitability of our nation’s destiny being increasingly subject to the wishes of foreigners whom we don’t elect. I am not talking about the amorphous idea of “Brussels”: I’m talking about Germany.

Five years ago I wrote a piece referring to the control Angela Merkel exerted over Europe as “the Fourth Reich”. I was accused of a horrible breach of taste. However, when one looks at German power today one realises that, when I wrote, she had hardly even started. The key to German success is this: it participates in a weak currency (whose value would collapse without it) enabling its exports to sell far more cheaply than had it retained the Deutschmark. Therefore, it continues to grow in economic strength relative to its partners – including us – but especially those in the eurozone, notably France and Italy, who would benefit greatly from restoring the Franc and the Lira.



Full article here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/the-fourth-reich-is-here---without-a-shot-being-fired/

I did say at the time she took in Syrians instead of Europeans for their future needs , can't help the rest of Europe can she . Very organised in my eyes .

Run run run for those hills.. before it's to late Muppets!

To even allow a thought like this to cross their minds, the remains must be shitting themselves!



Angela Merkel slams EU referendum as a 'needless risk' but vows to stand by Cameron

ANGELA MERKEL has branded the EU referendum an UNNECESSARY RISK - but will not speak out over fear of fuelling the Brexit campaign.



By Rebecca Perring

PUBLISHED: 15:56, Sun, May 15, 2016



Angela Merkel has vowed to stand by David Cameron


The German Chancellor has privately said Britain leaving the EU would be the “ultimate disaster” and is apparently on standby to join David Cameron’s Remain camp if wanted.

However Remain campaigners have warned this could badly backfire and infuriate them because meddling EU leaders are often seen as acting in their own interests rather than Britain’s.

A source close to Mrs Merkel said next month’s historic EU referendum will “make us sweat until the last moment”.

Mrs Merkel is said to believe the prime minister only agreed to hold a referendum to placate Eurosceptic Tory politicians.



More: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/670496/Angela-Markel-EU-referendum-needless-risk-David-Cameron

I think Merkel is right about it being a disaster for the EU. There are several other EU countries watching to see what happens to the UK should we leave. They may follow suit if we manage fine. That is one of the reasons why the EU will be tough on us when negotiating a new deal.

If they do resort to being awkward then we just revert to WTO terms,
but I doubt very much it'l come to that.

The UK have to just invoke article 50, and the EU have no option but to
negotiate a trade agreement.

Less of the BS, anyone who says different....

WTO terms are not nearly as good as our current terms.

Works both ways Haystack as you well know.

And they have more to lose trade wise.

There's nothing like a Free trade agreement, which would be
to ALL sides benefit.

At the end of the day it's about trade, do we have something that
those other 27 countries want to buy?, do THEY have something we
want to buy? Plus the FREEDOM to trade with the rest of the world...

IT NEEDN'T BE A POLITICAL UNION FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, AND TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE...

Yes, the IMF and 200-plus economists can be wrong
ROGER BOOTLE
Roger Bootle 15 MAY 2016 • 8:34PM

Last week saw yet another warning about the dire economic costs of Brexit, this time from the IMF. This followed similar warnings from the Bank of England, HM Treasury, the OECD, the National Institute, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

There was even a letter signed by 200 economists, highlighting the same dangers. This recalled the 1981 letter signed by 364 economists warning of the threat of recession – published just as the economy was starting to recover.

Such an overwhelming consensus of economists might seem impressive. After all, how could so many different voices come to the same conclusion, yet still be wrong? Easily.

They aren’t umpteen different voices. These people are the victims of group-think.

Moreover, there is a long history of the global economic establishment getting the most important issues of the day profoundly wrong. It did not foresee the fall of communism, the collapse of inflation or the global financial crisis.

Just as in 1931, the economy was in serious recession but there was little that the government could do
And, on UK issues, our own economic establishment has done no better. In 1931, the UK government was obliged to make painful cuts in spending and run a tight monetary policy to stay on the Gold Standard.

When Britain was forced off gold, this was supposed to be a disaster, but in fact it ushered in a period of rapid economic growth, thanks to a weaker exchange rate and lower interest rates. The former Labour cabinet minister, Sidney Webb, said: “No one told us we could do that”.

In fact, someone, namely John Maynard Keynes, had told them. But the overwhelming majority of the establishment stood against him. In 1992, the pound was a member of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

Just as in 1931, the economy was in serious recession but there was little that the government could do.

The Treasury, backed up by most of the economic establishment, and opposed by only a small group of economists (of whom I was one), said that if we left the ERM, inflation would surge, interest rates would rise, and the economy would be damaged.

In the event, we were forced out of the system on 16 September 1992, which was soon dubbed “Black Wednesday”. The result was that inflation fell, interest rates were cut and the economy recovered.

Black Wednesday was soon renamed “Golden Wednesday”. In the late 1990s, it was being debated whether the UK should join the euro.

We were told by the great and the good that if we did not join, much of the City would decamp to Paris and Frankfurt, the Japanese carmakers would up sticks and our economy would be severely damaged.

Why did the proponents of eurozone membership get this so blatantly wrong? After all, they were predominantly decent, honest and intelligent
Meanwhile, in those countries which did join, the economy would surge forward, helped by the end of exchange rate uncertainty and the beginning of complete transparency about prices.

Why did the proponents of eurozone membership get this so blatantly wrong? After all, they were predominantly decent, honest and intelligent.

Nor were they necessarily wrong about the benefits of certainty and transparency. Their problem was that they lacked balance and perspective. The much bigger issues concerned competitiveness, indebtedness and the need for an independent monetary policy.

In the current debate, the EU’s single market is the focus of much attention. Allegedly, if we are not members, we will not have “access” to it.

This word “access” is extremely misleading. And so is its derivative, “full access”. Every country has access to the single market.

To sell into it, non-members normally have to pay EU tariffs, submit their goods for inspection at border controls, together with the associated paperwork, and comply with rules concerning the origin of goods and their components.

There is no doubt that not having to bear these various costs and inconveniences is an advantage. So, if this advantage came without any costs, you would of course want to have it.

But that is precisely the point – it comes with umpteen costs: having to impose EU rules across the whole of your economy; having to pay the EU’s annual membership fee; being unable to negotiate trade deals with other countries around the world; having to impose the EU’s external tariffs on imports into your country; and being obliged to take any number of EU citizens to live and work in your country.

So the issue is about weighing up costs and benefits – and how these might change over time.

But it is more of a judgment call than a totting-up of numbers. In trying to make it, I suggest that you ponder three key questions.

First, if the benefits of the single market are so enormous, then why is it that over recent years countries all around the world have increased their exports into the single market at a faster rate than most single market members?

Second, if the single market is of such overwhelming importance, why are so many of its members in a terrible state? Why is the Greek economy not carried forward on a wave of prosperity unleashed by the absence of form-filling and checking at borders?

Third, if trade deals are so important, why does the UK do such a huge amount of trade with countries that it doesn’t currently have a trade deal with – including America?

Even though I believe that we should leave, I concede that there are some good arguments for remaining in the EU. But the fact that various economic bodies with a less than distinguished record of foreseeing the future warn us against leaving is not one of them.

Roger Bootle is executive chairman of Capital Economics.

Quite simply, the likes of the IMF, CBI, Goldman Sachs, Charities and NGO's Etc, are in hock to the EU one way or another..

Either they are pro EU as in the case of the IMF or they receive money from the EU, as in doing work for that organisation, the same as the Green party who receive funding from the EU...

Always beware of those who promote or defend the EU, there's ALWAYS an ulterior motive..

You reckon Fred and Stan are working for the €U, or are they just a couple of usefull fools?