It will bring down David Cameron

daphnedill thank you for the clear and factual argument you advanced in your post of 17.32. However, you must know as well as I do that the nay-sayers will never let the facts get in the way of propaganda. But don't let that stop you!

I feel the same about the yay-sayers, anno...

I agree, anno.
Obie, the out campaign are allowed as much evidence as they want.
Civil servants are not allowed to not give information to either side if asked for it.

The head of the civil service, Sir Jeremy Heywood, has said in a letter that civil servants shouldn’t assist ministers who want to leave the EU by providing them with briefings or speeches on the topic. But they can check facts for these ministers when requested to.

Elizabeth Truss said on the programme that the government is producing an economic analysis of the different options available in the EU referendum. David Dimbleby’s question was about whether this analysis could be trusted, in light of restrictions to civil servants’ ability to assist ministers campaigning to leave.

"Civil servants are bound by rules requiring them to be politically impartial. The rules say this means serving the government of the day, not letting your own political beliefs get in the way and not getting involved in party politics. The government’s official position is that the UK should stay in the EU. So civil servants will be serving the government to help it achieve this aim.

At the same time, civil servants are required to “accurately present the options and facts” and the rules explicitly state that civil servants must not ignore “inconvenient facts”.

Government statistics are overseen by an independent body to help make sure people can trust them. It’s not clear that anyone independent will be involved in producing the government’s economic analysis of remaining in or leaving the EU. We’ve asked the Prime Minister’s office."

They are just not allowed to give them speeches or or briefings, which are different from not being allowed access.
Your op is misleading.
Quote from fullfact.

European Union Directives.
daphnedill.

You state in your post . "The EU has little practical influence and we can refuse to follow EU Directives"

A Directive is a LEGAL ACT of the European Union, which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result.

"Legal Basis Article 288.

To exercise the Unions competencies, the Institutions SHALL adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. IT SHALL BE BINDING IN IT'S ENTIREITY and applicable to ALL Member States.

A Directive SHALL BE BINDING , as to the result achieved , upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form or methods.

A Decision SHALL BE BINDING in it's ENTIREITY upon those to whom it is addressed.

Recommendations shall have no binding force."

The Council can delegate LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to the Commission and, depending on the area and the appropriate legislative procedure, both Institutions can SEEK TO MAKE LAWS.

The European Union has enormous influence over the UK. You are correct , we would have to apply by their regulations to trade with those 27 EU countries in the EU. We could trade with other countries outside the EU on our own terms however. Instead of both arms behind outback we could only have one. It is a very difficult call to make whether we stay In or Out but dismissing the EU as not having influence over us is simply not true.

The US has said it might not trade with us outside the EU.

Canada now has a treaty with the EU.
Australia and New Zealand do more trade with Asia than the EU.

We export 40% of our goods to the EU through the treaty. That's a lot of renegotiation.

The US can't prevent individual US firms from trading with us - that would be sanctions or an embargo, completely unacceptable unless they are reacting to an atrocity. It is up to exporters whether they wish to trade, and they will do so according to their view of the differences they find if the UK leaves the EU.

That is along the same lines that I was thinking Elegran.
I couldnt find anything that says that two countries, unless under serious conditions, dont trade with each other.
Even politicians can say a load of rubbish.

I can't even find any reference to a politician saying it.

Me neither.

What do you mean 'even politicians'? As though they are a universal source of truth!

Nothing whatsoever against France dd - i didn't say i was - and perhaps we should be more like them
(French ancestry on both sides of my family.)

Are people allowed to state a view point without providing a pageful of justification which could have the adverse effect of making other posters yawn and say tltr?

No matter what political views we hold, the behaviour of the conservative party towards Jeremy Corbyn during the week was a disgrace. We talk about respect, manners etc, what a terrible example of Flashman type antics led by David Cameron.

He started it.

(Corbyn)

How did Corbyn start it, jingle?
Corbyn was asking questions about the NHS.
Perhaps you ought to check out who said what on Hansard before making such a ridiculous statement.

If we leave the EU we will be subject to the same trading restrictions and tariffs with the US as any other single country, such as India and China. Not good. There will be no 'special relationship' where trading is concerned.

He was the first to tell DC to ask his mum.

surprisingly the BBC website is a bloody sight easier to check it out on the Hansard If that wasn't a ridiculous, and pompous, suggestion, I don't know what is!

Wrong Jingle, Corbyn did not once refer to Camerons mother

than Hansard. Not 'the'

jd do you spend a lot of time reading up on the official records of what was said in Westminster?

Best you read the BBC website Jingle, you will see you are wrong

Ok. They started it. The labour lot. It as a labour MP.

Def wasn't all Dave's fault.

w

It was very funny, but TBH, I think Corbyn won.

Give up, jingle. You've lost on this one.
I did actually watch PMQs with my grandson.
I directed you to Hansard because it is usually correct and unbiased, unlike news reports.
I get emails from www.theyworkforyou.com to direct me to areas discussed that I am interested in, like the EU, Saudi Arabia, NHS, etc.
Then I know what has actually been said.
Nothing pompous about it. I like to be accurate, unlike some others on here.