The one indisputable FACT in this referendum debate

The EU hasn't listened, so why it would now is beyond me.

What I have never got my head around, is why many left-wing posters who dont like elite/establishment etc etc can love the EU.

If we are being factual Pogs, Mutti Merkel isn't - she has no children. Just sayin.

The EU have been saying about no easy line for the UK ever since the referendum was announced. The UK cannot really expect to be given better conditions to remain than the rest of the countries in the EU - we already do have some preferential treatment with not needing to join the Euro etc. as with all things it is easier to go in hard and relax a bit than the other way round.
I think it makes no difference to the views of the people convinced about leaving whatever is said - Farage has been doing a great job for years (and Cameron a bad one) and so they all just say 'scaremongering' but at the same time think it is OK to peddle lies and to continue with them no matter what.
If the vote is for out and these things do turn out to be scaremongering - I shall look heavenwards and expect to see the sun obliterated by pigs flying!

As said, chalk and cheese. Switzerland has nothing to lose, no instability to worry about, etc, etc. It was able to secure trade deals with the EU without joining- but again, this was a the cost of

- free movement of people from EU
- large fees paid to the EU without any say
- same rules and regs re safety, products, etc

On a much smaller scale, Switzerland is made up of 3 very distinct cultural groups, with different languages, different origins, different history - and very different attitudes. Romandie, the French part is much more pro Europe than the German part- the German part is the majority- so in a direct democracy, always wins! Basel generally votes with the French speakers, and Zurich often too. The rest is by a huge majority still very rural and not very open to the outside world.

As said, totally different situation- no risks for them as is the case for the UK. But do remember that Switzerland has a higher % of immigrants than the UK- and cannot stop free movement within EU. It is also a favourite place for asylum seekers from all over the world.

pogs yes in answer to your post about voting in.

Then I asked petra if she was talking to me

'My neighbour has just told me that a Labour MP (she couldn't remember the name) has said that it is the poorly educated people who will vote to leave. Somehow I don't think he has done the Remainers any favours with that sort of statement grin'
...that's the comment that I was referring to; I don't know which Labour MP said it. I assume it's what has sparked other comments.

Oh dear, I've just seen that I spelt Switzerland wrong. Just goes to show how thick I am. You'd think I would know better the amount of times I've driven through the country.

Eh?

Sorry? Is that to me or someone else?

Are you addressing me on the correct thread Whitewave?

I do not follow the couple of posts I have made to your post to me in person.

So, have I got this right: those of us who want to leave the club are thick, but Switerland, who don't want to join the club are ok? Please feel free to educate me as I don't have an 'ology'

No Pogs you vote for all sorts of reasons- it is a balance. Some of us find that "in"is the way to go with enthusiasm, others with scepticism. Others "out" with same more or less enthusiasm.

I am voting remain with a great deal of scepticism. But after a great deal of reading/courses etc. I am convinced at this stage that remain is correct, and it will not necessarily be for the reasons other people give.

I am still reading and doing courses and will continue to do so up until the day I vote. It is the most important vote I have ever taken part in.

It isn't just my country at stake but our European friends and their project of spreading democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Why do you think Turkey are finding it so difficult to enter?

In my view we remain and use what we have learned during this exercise to push for reform. They will listen, they have to with the right wing populism becoming so alarmingly widespread.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Threats now...

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"

She certainly has, she is in favour of Brexit!

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

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

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.

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.

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?