BREXIT: the full movie. Why England MUST vote to leave the EU.

The moment I saw how Greece was treated, I realized the tip of the scam...

The EU gives a lot of protection to ordinary people that would be lost if we left.
This is a main reason why many billionaires are pushing this brexit nonsense.
They want to scrap the European human rights act and make the workers even poorer than they already are.

a reply to: Substracto

I saw a homemade doco years ago about how the IMF financially 'gangstered' Jamaica into submission, just as they did to Greece, ruining the country. Now the IMF are out in force 'demanding' the British vote to stay IN.

It amounts to the stealthy coup. They force countries in a position of having to except their loans, and then ratchet up the demands for continuing to loan money to the now dependent country.

No different to the way a loan shark operates, or a drug dealer new to an area who starts by providing free, then cheap product. Once the user is hooked the price rises quickly and the supplier now 'owns' the user.

originally posted by: Dr X
The EU gives a lot of protection to ordinary people that would be lost if we left.
This is a main reason why many billionaires are pushing this brexit nonsense.
They want to scrap the European human rights act and make the workers even poorer than they already are.

It's not a black & white issues. Then it would be to easy for the masses to choose to leave. They need to sweeten the arsenic if they want us to swallow.

I had a strange dream a year ago

People were yelling FU*K the UN giving the bird to cameras. I was one of them hillarious as i'm not the get out and protest kinda person. But you know, dreams are just that, dreams.

The UN is highly Corrupt with a capitol C.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm debating facts pure and simple, you play the man and not the ball every time, just as you are now.

I presented the fact that the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none.

Argue the facts, not the man.

Trouble is you're playing the ball in your previous response to me with comments such as 'your mate Cameron and his weasel Osborne'. That really is a textbook example.

Having said that, I agree with what you've put above, can't argue that "the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none."

But if you really think there are no benefits to being in the UK, you don't have to vote to leave, surely?

originally posted by: Substracto
The moment I saw how Greece was treated, I realized the tip of the scam...

How was Greece treated? The amount of cash thrown at Greece by the EU is crazy. If anything, Greece should have been allowed to return to the third world. Greece is now the main receiver of EU money, that is to say, the UK tax-payer is now funding Greek folly.

a reply to: paraphi

Greece should've been allowed to fail and rebuild their own economy via the democratic process. Instead they took the bait of a generous offer from the IMF and are now servant to the IMF's every demand over how the the Greek's run their own country.

This is a far worse outcome than temporary recession, because it may well be a permanent transfer of sovereignty that's impossible to back out of peacefully.

It's seems plain to most (i gather) that the banks should've been allowed to fail. Why? Because otherwise they seem doomed to repeat the same mistake - more so because they now believe they will always be bailed out by the tax payer. Isn't the same thing true for a country?

As you said the tax payers of Europe now fund Greece and so as long as Greece are the IMF's bitch and keep doing what they're told, then they get the cash. So why change...

If only the IMF's goal was to reform Greece so that it can one day be self sufficient, but i think that as long as they have the European tax payer footing the bill they would prefer to keep Greece et al as their bitches, rather than independent.

a reply to: Ove38

if that's the case then why did Obama encourage the UK to stay in the EU

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm debating facts pure and simple, you play the man and not the ball every time, just as you are now.

I presented the fact that the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none.

Argue the facts, not the man.

Trouble is you're playing the ball in your previous response to me with comments such as 'your mate Cameron and his weasel Osborne'. That really is a textbook example.

Having said that, I agree with what you've put above, can't argue that "the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none."

But if you really think there are no benefits to being in the UK, you don't have to vote to leave, surely?

I assume you mean being in the E.U, rather than the U.K?

Why pay the minimum of £175million per week to be a member of a club where you cannot measure the economic benefits of being a member?

That's why both the Bremain and Brexit campaigns should not venture into this territory.

For me it has and always will be the undemocratic way in which the commissioners (law makers) are appointed. They are assigned by the Prime Minister of the day and we have no say in who is being appointed. It's a gravy train for career politicians, very mediocre politicians at that.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm debating facts pure and simple, you play the man and not the ball every time, just as you are now.

I presented the fact that the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none.

Argue the facts, not the man.

Trouble is you're playing the ball in your previous response to me with comments such as 'your mate Cameron and his weasel Osborne'. That really is a textbook example.

Having said that, I agree with what you've put above, can't argue that "the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none."

But if you really think there are no benefits to being in the UK, you don't have to vote to leave, surely?

I assume you mean being in the E.U, rather than the U.K?

Why pay the minimum of £175million per week to be a member of a club where you cannot measure the economic benefits of being a member?

That's why both the Bremain and Brexit campaigns should not venture into this territory.

For me it has and always will be the undemocratic way in which the commissioners (law makers) are appointed. They are assigned by the Prime Minister of the day and we have no say in who is being appointed. It's a gravy train for career politicians, very mediocre politicians at that.

I quoted you directly, you refer to the UK, not the EU - I assumed you were looking at moving to France.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm debating facts pure and simple, you play the man and not the ball every time, just as you are now.

I presented the fact that the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none.

Argue the facts, not the man.

Trouble is you're playing the ball in your previous response to me with comments such as 'your mate Cameron and his weasel Osborne'. That really is a textbook example.

Having said that, I agree with what you've put above, can't argue that "the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none."

But if you really think there are no benefits to being in the UK, you don't have to vote to leave, surely?

I assume you mean being in the E.U, rather than the U.K?

Why pay the minimum of £175million per week to be a member of a club where you cannot measure the economic benefits of being a member?

That's why both the Bremain and Brexit campaigns should not venture into this territory.

For me it has and always will be the undemocratic way in which the commissioners (law makers) are appointed. They are assigned by the Prime Minister of the day and we have no say in who is being appointed. It's a gravy train for career politicians, very mediocre politicians at that.

I quoted you directly, you refer to the UK, not the EU - I assumed you were looking at moving to France.

Ah, I see what I did there.

France is a wonderful country.

The people on the other hand......

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm debating facts pure and simple, you play the man and not the ball every time, just as you are now.

I presented the fact that the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none.

Argue the facts, not the man.

Trouble is you're playing the ball in your previous response to me with comments such as 'your mate Cameron and his weasel Osborne'. That really is a textbook example.

Having said that, I agree with what you've put above, can't argue that "the Government have never commissioned a study to determine the economic benefits of being in the U.K, which leads me to believe there are none."

But if you really think there are no benefits to being in the UK, you don't have to vote to leave, surely?

I assume you mean being in the E.U, rather than the U.K?

Why pay the minimum of £175million per week to be a member of a club where you cannot measure the economic benefits of being a member?

That's why both the Bremain and Brexit campaigns should not venture into this territory.

For me it has and always will be the undemocratic way in which the commissioners (law makers) are appointed. They are assigned by the Prime Minister of the day and we have no say in who is being appointed. It's a gravy train for career politicians, very mediocre politicians at that.

I quoted you directly, you refer to the UK, not the EU - I assumed you were looking at moving to France.

Ah, I see what I did there.

France is a wonderful country.

The people on the other hand......

I thought it gave the opportunity for a smidgen of light relief on what was becoming a fairly animated thread, so all is good. I actually met some nice people in France once, they were on holiday from York.

the word sovereignty means nothing to them, look how they even reach the point in trying to interfere in the democractic elections on the countries, pushing even indirectly for a government that accepts their demands or is in line with their politics! *uck that!

originally posted by: Dr X
The EU gives a lot of protection to ordinary people that would be lost if we left.
This is a main reason why many billionaires are pushing this brexit nonsense.
They want to scrap the European human rights act and make the workers even poorer than they already are.

What you mean locks them up and detains them?
www.independent.co.uk...
Limbo

Britain leaving the EU would have dire economical repercussions for the entire global economy. Wont be done.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't want to sound pedantic and I recognise it may seem trivial to many outside these shores but it's not just England - it is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, usually called the United Kingdom or simply the UK, of which England is but one of four constituent countries.

Perhaps you should alter your thread title to reflect that.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: surfer_soul

Also what many don't realize is that the British were hoodwinked into what was then known as the Common wealth in the first place.

Again, a point of order for accuracies sake.

The UK joined what was then called the EEC, commonly known as The Common Market.

The Commonwealth is an organisation of nations the majority of which were former British colonies and part of the British Empire.
With the demise of The Empire many countries wished to share their common links and thus The Commonwealth was formed.

Excellent point. However its also fairly obvious that if the vote leave campaign succeed, it's quite likely that Scotland will push for another referendum to leave the UK and this time succeed.

a reply to: redshoes

Is there any data that even suggests the Scots will vote to Remain in the EU referendum?
Just that two weeks ago on Question Time in Aberdeen, the majority of the audience seemed to support Brexit.

a reply to: Dr X

ECHR and the EU are two separate entities.

I'm out due to immigration , to many and I don't want to be the UNITED STATES OF EUROPE ,

They just want to dilute the countries that's busted our balls for centuries to give them it all on a plate .

I don't care about them , funny how there nearly all men who would make a great army to beat ISLAMIC STATE funny that .

And on a sidenote ,Merkel , how is Germany doing since you invited everyone ?