Agree and they should be a far more positive , they need the positive in message as well as the negatives of out. Trouble is politicians have forgotten how to be positive, have forgotten how to do anything other than bash opponents and run on negativityThe future if we do vote out is an unknown though. Both campaigns can postulate on it and argue about it but neither can have any firm basis for their arguments. 'In' can say it will cost billions to organise trade agreements and 'Out' will say it will cost a fraction of that and neither will have any evidence to support their points.
All 'Out' can do is point out the numerous, large problems that the EU has, and I believe it is doing that. The issue I have with their campaigning is a lack of unity and no strong central leader that people across the party spectrum wouldn't feel uncomfortable listening to (Farage can grate).
'In' should be doing the opposite - shouting about all the good that the EU has to offer and why those benefits might be difficult to achieve outside the EU. However, their main tactic has been to point out the risk of leaving and the unknown that awaits, which is bollocks really. The 'Out' campaign accept that leaving would be a risk, but they speculate that it is a risk worth going for. 'In' haven't placed a value on the risk at all, just saying it's potentially bad so we shouldn't do it.
Agree and they should be a far more positive , they need the positive in message as well as the negatives of out. Trouble is politicians have forgotten how to be positive, have forgotten how to do anything other than bash opponents and run on negativity
Hate to tell you but World War I was the end of that Britain , all of those had declined a long time before we joined and joining was in a way an attempt to address those issues which were big issues.Get out any deal will be bad news
Any deal will favour the Germans who over time with the French taken most of the British laws rules etc and changed them to there advantage
If the eu is that good how come that we managed to survive and prosper and be lead the world in inventions etc for 100s of years without it? Look at things that we lead the world in,and since joining in the 70s have nearly all disappeared fishing, coalmimng,shipbuilding,steel manufacturer the list is endless
The euro is just another name for the Deutsche Mark
Hate to tell you but World War I was the end of that Britain , all of those had declined a long time before we joined and joining was in a way an attempt to address those issues which were big issues.
Coal mining had declined in employment from WW1 to before we joined the EEC by 80% the same story exists for most industry. So blaming the EU for Britain's industrial decline is like blaming Merkel for the rise of Adolf, it is blaming something that wasn't even around when the problem arose
Exactly, and who would have thought that a British Prime minister would be reduced to begging and pleadingBut there is no democracy in the EU. Who voted for Angela Merkel to dictate on foreign policy? Who voted for Donald Tusk to lecture us on benefit reforms?
Have you got an example of how people's terms and conditions of trade have been affected by freedom of movement labour?
And please don't try and imply cheap labour in the UK is a result of immigration when it's the government who decides what the minimum wage is. Migration has done a hell of a lot to benefit our economy and saved a number of industries who had vastly under qualified staff. NHS is a prime example of an industry that about ten years ago was starved of a number of qualified staff and benefitted from highly trained Europeans and beyond coming here and working.
Don't get me wrong there are pros and cons to freedom of movement but the benefits far out weigh the cons for me.
My main concern with the EU is centralisation of power in Brussels and non democratically elected EMPs.
When we had the referendum in 1975 they never told us that by 2016 the EU would be a low growth, high unemployment area, with lots of social and racial tensions, borders and fences going up, rich members punishing poor ones with dreadful austerity, and that its share of world trade would be on an irreversible downward path.
Nor did they tell us that in 2016 we'd have much higher real unemployment than in 1975, with millions on poverty wages, short hours and zero hour contracts, and that we'd have allowed nearly two million EU workers into the UK to keep that unemployment high and wages low.
And we weren't told that EU courts would mean that some horrible criminals would be allowed to live in the UK to protect their human rights.
If you are happy at all this, vote to stay in the EU.
I'm voting Leave.
although many migrants will take cash in hand jobs without a minimum wage, thus stopping jobs for other people
True but it doesn't suit the narrative that the Our freedoms was ended when Jack boot wearing Europeans changed all our laws and made us slave to their bureaucracyIf they could have told you those things they would be able to take over from Mystic Meg!.
As for the human rights bit not allowing extradition, thats OUR law, the UK made that law and got it added to the EU!. there are very very few cases where the EU has over ruled UK law on anything, the idea that they are always over ruling us is tabloid bollocks.
Thousands of cases may be taken to the EU by lawyers, those cases get picked up by the tabloids who then never actually say that the case has been thrown out.
Got any stats on that?
i think its been well documented in the press, and here is one from only yesterday in the evening news
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...store-levenshulme-illegal-immigrants-10908825
i think its been well documented in the press, and here is one from only yesterday in the evening news
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...store-levenshulme-illegal-immigrants-10908825
Stay in = Continued free trade, continued free movement in Europe to work or travel, being part of one of the biggest trading blocks on the planet. Have a seat at the European table
Leave = Lots of unknowns. Lots of trade negotiations to try to work that out, will probably pay as much as we do already to be part of the trade group.
Except "Continued free trade" is not free at all, it costs billions a year to be a member, that is an added cost to all goods bought and sold.
Its a nonsense to even try and suggest that we need to be a part of any trade group, the demand for our goods will not go away, in fact without having to pay the EU kickback they will be cheaper to produce.
"Free movement to work or travel" translates into no control over our own borders, why on earth do we need to import labour when we have mass unemployment other than to undermine pay and working conditions ?, an just who ends up paying both in monetary terms an long waiting lists for the increased needs in education,housing, social needs of these un- required "Workers" ( Funny how there appears to be a lot of these not working).
Having a seat at the European table ?, now your having a laugh, besides the simple math that tells you one voice among many counts for very little, the fact that we have never changed anything proves it.
All that can ever happen within the EU is that we get shafted, there stated aim is a single state with monetary union, thats where its going, so the only question is do you want to go with it ?
Firstly we are talking about migrants, not illegal immigrants. Secondly you're blaming migrants for stopping other people getting a job because bosses are breaking the law by employing illegal immigrants. Okay.
That's like trying to ban children because some people are paedophiles.
Does anyone think like me that the EU, European Parliament, European Council etc.... are more than likely as corrupt as FIFA, if not worse?
It doesn't help me think clearly when this is a constant nagging voice at the back of my mind.