The one indisputable FACT in this referendum debate

Now, that's a difficult one isn't it. Whose opinion do I most trust/respect. lord [there's something of the night about him] Howard [Leave]or Kenneth Clarke [Remain]; possibly the most respected politician in the country on both sides of the house.

practical you don't need to post all your comments on two or more threads - that won't persuade anyone I'm afraid

PS Is that the same Michael Howard who was referred to by his colleague Anne Widdecombe as "having something of the night about him"?

In the main it is the illegal immigration which is the problem and that will still be very difficult to control - people have all sorts of ways of getting into the country or overstaying their visas etc. so that is not necessarily a true fact.
Depending on the deal they manage to agree with the EU will depend on whether or not any money needs to be paid. The only way we could cut a deal not paying a fee is to accept tariffs as most unlikely the remaining members will agree to give the UK a better deal than they themselves get. So maybe not quite so true either.

We do control our borders outside of Europe and had 300000 non European immigrants last year and I assume? Asylum seekers are not counted as immigrants?

Also we will not be able to trade freely with Europe without some free movement of people

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI
...I doubt if this link will work either....

Stats are stats- just facts, figures- they don't carry a judgement in themselves.

But if you look at the stats for Trump supporters- would you deny that there are clear indications of who votes for whom/what?

If we were out of the EU and Ireland remained in, we would either-

- have to accept that any EU citizen could go freely to Ireland and then walk across the border without checks and from there into the rest of the UK - or-

- have to re-erect an armed border between Ireland and NI - or -

- demand that everyone, INCLUDING BRITISH CITIZENS, show a passport whenever they travel from NI to Scotland, England or Wales (ie from one part of the UK to another)

The first option means free movement and either of the last two could lead to the break up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That might suit the IRA but is that what we really want???

I am for remaining; my cousin is for leaving. We are both decent, thoughtful people. We need to respect the opinions of others and try to reach the best decision for the country. There is far too much prejudice on both sides about which people are for in and which are for out.

varian sorry I didn't know you had been made a moderator over what anyone could post and where.
I know it won't make any difference on 2 threads (not more)but thought it should be on this thread after I had put it on the other. I will await your permission next time ( as if )

Practical

When threads are running on the same topic there are many posters who have noticeably posted the same post on more than one , two, three etc posts!

What a utterly disgraceful poster by Brexit. They really need to pay attention to some produced by the Nazis and be ashamed.

Does the fact that Michael Howard once had a comment made about him that almost became a sound bite somehow devalue his opinion? Or am I putting a wrong interpretation on the remarks?

The 'something of the night' comment about Howard was meant to be amusing, I think he had Romanian grandparents ( Dracula etc.) It had no bearing on his political abilities.Just saying.

People throw remarks around about politicians all the time. Strange thing is that that one did stick . And it was 'one of his own' that said it I believe.

At least,the person who said it meant it to be amusing ( in Parliament) it may be seen as a bit racist now eh?

Anne Widdicombe - she didn't like him - good judgement

She certainly has, she is in favour of Brexit!

Article in The Times
"The Europeans are explicit that if we go the rest of the EU will close ranks against us. The survival of the union is more important then selling BMWs to us........They have to make clear to all other Nationalist parties in other countries in the EU like Le Penn etc.that there will be harsh consequences if a country leaves. There is no chance of any preferential treatment"

Threats now...

They have to say that though, don't they?The EU ( remember it's all different countries with their own problems) are putting out this message as a frightener.They really fear their own people demanding a referendum.Everybody has an agenda, and it's not always obvious.

So have I got this right.

We must vote to stay 'IN' because of the fear the 'club' we belong to is so filled with dislike it will make our lives hell.

Question is that a 'club' we want to be associated with?.

Surely it would a benefit for both the UK and The European Union to display some sort of accord/ intelligent thinking and political will to keep 'all' of our countries functioning to enhance trade and benefit 'all'.

I have said before I despair at the lengths politicians will go to , to what, save face, show power, certainly not to show democracy nor the desire to constructively work for the people. The Greeks can tell you all about that!

Yes rose they are worried about the union failing. So to show the Nationalists that when a country leaves they can get good terms doesn't make sense. If I was Merkel I can see the sense in that.

Why can't Mutti Merkel , by the way she might not be in power in 2017 , who knows?, show another way of progressive politics.

With the Euro currency countries requiring 'further intigration' than those outside of the Euro is there no blasted politician who has progressive thinking.