The one indisputable FACT in this referendum debate

There are out and out lies appearing on this thread.

I appreciate riclorian that you believe this is important

"1: If we were not already a member would we be applying for membership?"

I think this is just a version of the politicians' answer "well we wouldn't be starting from here" when it is obvious we are.

This is where we are; we joined because we thought it would be good for the country. Since we joined we have gone from being the Sick Man of Europe to the sixth (of even fifth according to some) richest country. Just to bring that home I will repeat that this has happened while we have been in the EU.

Yes, there are huge global problems, no the EU isn't perfect but why oh why does any one think we can improve it from the outside. You may say we will not need to improve it as we will not be in it but they will still our largest market. If we have triggered a downturn within the EU will they be able to afford to trade with us to the same extent. Even if they recover quickly will they want to.

Personally I would rather deal with the issues that exist. This question keeps being brought up by the leave side but really it is meaningless.

Boris Johnson is a conman and Brexit is based on lies:

“It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.”

Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph February 2016

GG thanks for the tirade, and advice to read more carefully. I think you will find that this thread was started after your joking remark.

Oh dear, yet again you play the person not the argument. You but forward a proposition Anya; I put forward a counter argument suggesting that a projection of what will happen in the future cannot be a fact. By all means challenge the points of my argument. I can see that, yet again, we have someone who believes that, not only have they a "right" to an opinion - which indeed you do but, having put that argument out for discussion you think you have some sort of "right" not to be contradicted. Unfortunately, you have started a discussion on a open forum and I have every right to put a contradictory view, just as you may then come back and challenge what I say.

But really Anya ... a "tirade". Do we really have to descend to this level. It is unfortunate that a small group of members use derogatory or just plain nasty personal remarks so often as a form of argument. It does, sadly, annoy if not upset people and certainly does not add any information to a deeply important discussion. If you have a point to put forward that counters what I said then do so; I for one would be interested in that. Can I suggest that if you cannot be polite you just leave me alone Anya. I will never accept personal attack and your sort of post just derails the proper and meaningful argument.

Absolutely, whitewave.

Brexit and myth are interchangeable.

Leaving the EU will NOT make any difference to immigration. But it will knacker the economy. We have more control over our borders than those EU and non-EU countries in the Schengen Area and the UK can set its own policies.

So why not stay in the EU and lobby UK government to change immigration policy - which it has the power to do.

Don't listen to the mindless "take back control" marketing twoddle from Brexit - we have control through our own government.

ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm

Iceland has been thinking about rejoining the EU as it hasn't got the trade negotiating power to access markets like China.

UK has no trade negotiating civil servants - We have no expertise in this field at all.

I don't really understand your reasoning. Why would these be the only two questions?

The reality is that the UK IS a member and the question should be whether we would be better off if we left, given that there is no definite alternative plan. We can't turn back the clock. Norway, Switzerland and Canada all see disadvantages of trading with the EU but not being a member.

The EU isn't a profit-making business, so we couldn't buy shares.

As I see it there are only two questions to answer :-
1: If we were not already a member would we be applying for membership ?
2: If it were possible to buy shares in the eu would we ?
Any thoughts ?

Ditto

@Anya

Your last post is irrelevant. I'm presenting facts. I'm sure there's another thread somewhere to criticise experts.

The population of all Merseyside districts (which includes all the estates in Kirby, etc) was 1,670.104 in 1961 and decreased every year until very recently. In 2008, it was 1,347,800.

I know Merseyside well, but I expect the same pattern is evident in other areas.

Dumped in high rise flats in Kirkby and Cantril Farm and communities broken up. Not the best example of housing policy the 'experts' got that seriously wrong DD

thread drift

@Anya

Yes, they did, but many couldn't find work and moved to different areas of the country. I'm one of them.

GG thanks for the tirade, and advice to read more carefully. I think you will find that this thread was started after your joking remark.

Many of inner city dwellers in Liverpool were moved out to places like Kirkby in slum clearance schemes DD.

The way cities are laid out, and where jobs are, and infastructure currently is, makes it feel full.
The roads are crowded, NHS is struggling,school places that parents want are full, etc.

Uncontrolled immigration? No thanks.
And it is the poorest and vulnerable people who suffer most. Which is why Labour can't control the situation. They want to vote Brexit.

I reallt can't be bothered to check every link that people post, but since it is now obvious from a couple of threads recently that the links are chosen specifically for what a person wants to convey, do your own checking is best.

And I am really going to have to say it again. JessM, people are not talking about those sorts of immigrants. Sigh.

Some more indisputable facts:

Some areas, such as Liverpool have been experiencing a population decrease since before WW2.

The population of the Liverpool city council area was 846,101 in 1931 and decreased in every census until 2011, when it increased slightly to 466,415, but is still only just over half the population of 1931.

The UK isn't 'full'. The problem is that wealth and jobs are distributed unequally in many ways, including geographically.

And the migrant population at the last count was roughly 3,000,000. Hardly being swamped.

I agree, Nuttynana. As this is a thread for indisputable facts, here are a couple:

According to the ONS, the population of the UK in 2000 was 58,886.100 (not 50 million as claimed). The last time the population was below 50 million was in 1947, when it was 49,538,700.

The birthrate is falling. The number of teenagers and people in their early 20s is falling, but the number of people over 65 is rising.

Oh come on Practical, your population growth figures are fantasy. The UK has not had a population under 50 million since before 1955 when it was 51 million.

The growth rate of the UK population has been slowing since 2010 and is predicted to keep on slowing down right up to 2050.

And us oldies are living longer - the average age of the population is getting higher.

That why we need immigration.

www.cream-migration.org/index.php

From this organisation, which has lots of facts.

i0.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/160614-UK-revenue-from-migrants.jpg

Do you count this as a fact? This is how much money we get from immigrants working in this country, and it's more than we pay to the EU.

fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-limiting-residence-rights/