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....

Haystack "There are plenty of people who like Cameron"

That's pushing the sycophantisy to far..

Its like claiming Labour supporters vote for Labour because of Foot,
Kinnock, Corbyn...

If Labour had an eight legged, five eyed hunch back as leader, they'd
vote for it..The same as a Tory..They vote for the party and who their
parents/grandparents voted for, or their(belief) standing on the social scale.

As to some people liking Nigel Farage, Yes I am one of those people.

He tells the truth, obviously some people don't like hearing the truth, its
been said the truth hurts!

cameron is the prime minister but his persona and dealings is that of
a snake oil salesman and carpetbagger, who has no compunction in reneging
on any promises or policy's..

Fasil was a pain in the butt. Asking a question and not letting in a response. Persistent breaking up of Gove. He needs to taken aside and told a few home truths about techniques.

Yes, he was trying to be the next Paxman but didn't give time for an answer. He should sit down with Paxman and learn how to give a hard hitting interview without hectoring.
To be fair to him, he was trying to appear even handed but some of his questions were juvenile such as could Gove guarantee nobody would lose their job on Brexit. Gove was never flustered by his tactics and came over very well.

Janet Daley has summed the debate up well-
In spite of – or maybe because of – being relentlessly barracked and harassed by Faisal Islam, Mr Gove won the room. He repeatedly got spontaneous applause from the audience. In fact, he seemed to gain in confidence as he went on, looking amused rather than defensive even when Islam absurdly likened him to Mr Trump.

Despite being so clearly more successful in dealing with audience questions than Mr Cameron had been, he never took the opportunity to gloat. This was an argument, the Gove delivery implied, about ideas not personalities.

This in itself gave the lie to one query which suggested that the Leave campaign was all about political ambition. He definitively denied that he had any leadership ambitions.

So what does this mean for the Tory civil war? That there is no visible evidence of vindictiveness on the Leave side – which leaves Remainers in danger of looking nasty on their own.

Leaves more room for Theresa Cruella May, Boris the Brush and Georgie Boy and the scraps at the bottom of the tory barrel.

A comment from across the pond:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/03/germany-is-defying-700-years-of-history/?tid=pm_business_pop_b

Perhaps some have forgotten Gove's achievements.

Some have the necessary requirements to make "loyal" members of UKIP.

TV debate shows public doesn’t trust David Cameron
In the first live TV debate in the run up to the referendum, David Cameron faced some tough questioning from voters, who ridiculed his scaremongering tactics and exposed the fact that he can’t explain if, or when, he would fulfill his key promise to voters to cut net migration to below 100,000. He refused to accept that Britain has lost control of its borders and brushed aside concerns about the numbers of people coming into the country.
He fared no better when challenged about his attitude to Turkey, with one audience member accusing him of ‘waffling’ on the subject, yet he still vehemently supports its forthcoming membership of the EU and is happy for his Government to pay £1 billion to help it to do so. As can be seen in this video, he wants to pave the road from Ankara to Brussels.
David Cameron avoided giving straight answers to any questions around migration, scaremongering or how much control we’ve handed to the EU, and instead only claimed that we have to be in the EU to trade with Europe, which is simply untrue. He fixed the format of the debate so it would work in his favour, however by the end of the evening it was clear that the voting public just don’t trust him on the EU.

http://heatst.com/uk/five-presidents-eus-jean-claude-juncker-drunk-in-public-slaps-leaders/

Gove won hands down, easily more believable than Cameroon.

Fasil did exactly the same to Cameron, but he handled it better. He was quite clear about Turkey saying that they could not join for decades at the earliest. The £1 billion figure is a made up number by the leave campaign. Gove did better with the public section as they were a very weak bunch.

Faisal, but no matter since the rest is made up and incorrect. What guarantee can Cameron give that Turkey wont join for decades? He wont be around that much longer himself.
As for the public, in your mind the first lot were stupid and rude, while the second were weak and quiet. Perhaps the first lot were fed up with Cameron's tactics, while the second were perhaps more convinced that Gove was at least genuine.
Seems to me that you were quite put out by the favourable response to Gove, Hays. Surprising for a professed Brexiteer.

Gove was very weak on the economic questions.

http://news.sky.com/story/1706655/how-did-michael-gove-score-in-eu-debate

http://news.sky.com/story/1706088/how-did-cameron-score-in-the-eu-debate

As was Cameron on immigration, security, military and sovereignty.

It is for the Government to resolve the possible economic questions given that it will have at least two years to ratify or renegotiate current trade deals, as well as forge new ones.
We all know the markets are very fickle and the usual suspects will make a lot of money either way. Remember who created the financial crisis. How many paid with their heads? It will be a storm in a tea cup as far as the UK is concerned but much more serious for the EU, since the remaining in-mates will see that there is a way out. If the EU had any sense, it would be proposing real change now but, like lemmings, they would rather jump off a cliff.

45% of our exports go to the EU.

Yet the €uro's still export far more to us, so who loses the most?


But it's a stupid argument anyway...no one is going to put up trade barriers, it makes no sense for either side.

After two years we would have to trade under WTO rules if there was not already a trade agreement by then. Any trade agreement has to be voted on by a qualified majority of the member states. There are quite a few countries who plan on voting against any deal as they do not export goods to us and would like their goods to be sold more in the EU. A trade agreement could take many years to pass. In the meantime we would be trading under WTO rules with approx 10% tariffs.

The UK trade deficit with the EU in the first 3 months of 2016 was almost £24 Billion, or if you like over 30 Billion Euros. In 3 months.
So who has the most to lose?
The current trade agreements will stay in place until renegotiated.

At present we are looking at two fighters. Ugly faces before the fight and kissing each other afterwards.

Is it more likely that the deficit with the EU will increase if UK opts out of the EU?

What were the reasons for Heath wanting join and Maggie etc. for staying?

The democracy argument is a red herring.

The immigration factor will be changed very little by getting out.