Britain leaving the E.U.

The level of debate about the pros and cons, ins and outs of the E.U. is no use to anyone so far, just a jumble of contradictions and misplaced metaphors.

So stop watching and listening to them. You 'know' that when people want your approval they at the very least embellish or lie the facts. You cannot trust politicians to give you the direction you should take. Ergo you have to fall back upon that which to you makes the most sense or in this case :- Where do you want the social control to come from? By whom? And in what form? All the rest is rubbish. Why? Because nobody can tell you what the future will bring with any degree of accuracy. Economics. Demographics. Ergonomics. They are all inexact studies/sciences. - We have yet to acquire the ability to foresee anything with guarantees. I rest my case. And remember - Together we stand. Divided we fall. But only if we are true to begin with.

I thought we might learn something from the 'debate', but not really. Can't see any point in us belonging to europe, it doesn't seem to suit us, we gave it a try.

I have to admit to being dogged when it comes to enterprise. I rarely give up on things until it is either too late or proves impossible. That much can be gleaned from my autobiographies. I have two 'cribs' with the EU. (1) The truth behind our original entry was omitted from the argument leading to, in my opinion, a false premise. And.(2) The past 40 years haven't proven to my mind that it is workable in the forms that it has been moulded which leads me to believe it is 'unworkable' in the longer term. I will be voting 'OUT'. But I think that the vote to remain 'IN' will win out simply because I doubt the young have the guts for change or risk or will actually know the long term ramifications it will bring. As I have said before - Most of my life is behind me. It has little to do with my future and therefore whatever happens I am not going to have to suffer a lifetime of it - mistake or no mistake.

In a disinterested sort of way, I think it would be for the best for the UK to detatch itself from the E.U. But it's down to a vote, people will get what they choose, so that's ok.

Agreed. They say people get the governments they deserve (with or without voting) and each generation must abide by the outcomes. As a sort of 'historian' that is upsetting simply because the game is there for the learning. Unfortunately man is too idle to bother then gets pissed off by the mistakes that are made. Surprise. Surprise. Tch.

One day robots will be clever enough to do the housework, then they will start going out to work and end up taking over the world because no-one could be bothered stopping them.

In every generation there are only a very few who can be 'really' bothered. That's why we end up with our 'Munich's' and 9/11's. We then spend billions and waste millions of lives trying to put things back in 'order'. Man is his own worst enemy. Always was. Always will be. One cannot change 'human' nature nor is it possible to legislate either for or against it. Meanwhile - keep taking the pills lass.

Well it comes as no surprise that the 'government' (who wish to remain so as not to lose their fat cheques) is spending yet more of the money we haven't got on a 'remain' leaflet - some £9 million.
In a referendum this is (yet again) undemocratic unless the same £9 million is granted the 'leave' campaign to outline what they see as the facts of the case. This was expected and comes as no surprise to anyone who knows 'politics'.
The question is - How can an unbiased informative decision be reached by the electorate with such a twisted scenario? We are being steamrolled by the well-off in order for them not to risk their fat pay cheques. A sad day for Britain.

The starting point of the E.U. was "for the healing of nations" after world wars 1 and 2. Britain made years of contribution towards that, but, would it heal itself up better now if it leaves?

Depends to an extent on whether you understand the "healing of nations" as nations re-establishing themselves in better order, or dissolving into a super-state.

I don't doubt the good intentions of the politicians of the time. By way of example of the fear of continental wars was Chamberlain's reluctance to accept the inevitable during the 1930's. Only war (of a limited scale) could have prevented the 2nd WW, a risk he wouldn't take and the consequences of which was WW2. However - I take question with the premise. A clearer understanding of past history would, in both cases,(including the question) have given clearer answers as to the tack to take. In Chamberlain's case (as history provided him) a sooner, clear,definitive action would have been the wise course and in the case of Continental Europe (as history again provided ) a totally vanquished enemy rarely if ever rises again in the same mode and thus does not require preventative shackles on 'all' the combatants. It just wasn't conceivable following the aftermaths of WW2 that Western Europe would settle again into conflict with itself considering the enemy was then seen as the Soviet Union and that NATO had been formed. I strongly suspect (going over the released documents of the Heath governments) that the 'Union' from the government of the day point of view was in order to settle Great Britain's political and economic malaise and to take some of the heat out of the Socialist banner internally and spread it abroad. It's clear from the documents of 1972 that Heath knew we were giving away a large chunk of our sovereignty - they just omitted to say as much at the time. As for 'continental wars leading to world war - that was another of those red herrings meant to provide for our joining. Sad isn't it that our peers feel only for their own pockets and wealth before the people they are supposed to be looking after! Ain't that a fact -!

Read the above post first then -.   Seems our astute detractors of yesteryear have shown their true (human) frailties yet again and eaten their principles for the sake of histories future. J.C. has cast away the crown of the principled left and grovelled for the crown of the powerful and mighty. I doubt his name sake - J.C -. would have thought of doing the same in the face of his teachings and principles. Better to die standing than to have to live on one's knees. How can anyone have any faith or expect loyalties from such blatant turncoats. Oh - but of course. I forgot. He's a politician. Tch. Silly me. We refer of course to Jeremy Corbyn and Jesus Christ.

Interesting chat from Mr.Obama, and some useful advice on dealing with USA trade ambassadors.

Any trade negotiations in future between USA and UK should start with everyone patting their heads and rubbing their tummies at the same time. Those who cannot perform to be sent home.

The Americans will always deal with us either in with TTIP or out of TTIP, in EU or out EU, always providing there's money to be made which in our case there is. Tomorrow, next year a decade from now whenever. Money talks - and we have a fair enough amount. What we need to get the best deal for ourselves is FULL control of OUR negotiations and not left to the machinations of others. END OF.

As maybe... but the issue is to prevent American protectionism. The USA has always been good at selling to us, not so hot on us selling to them - particularly when it competes with their manufacturing industries.

As presently understood I am not in favour of TTIP. I don't trust my European cousins in these negotiations primarily because of my experience of some Europeans in the past decades I would tend to trust first a wounded grizzly than a French or German negotiator/administrator. I seriously doubt that many of them have either the experience or capability to take on the American negotiators when it comes down to 'business' and the 'long term' strategies and those that have 'have their own agenda'. Sorry John. I smell a rat with all this so-called 'trade' deal. Me no like. Me trust the Chinese better.

Farage or Farrige? Garage or Garrige? Porridge or porage for brexit breakfast?

Answers: Farage. Garage. Potage. I'll drink to that.

Politicians warn us that Brexit could potentially cause panic amongst large zoo animals such as tigers, lions, rhinosaurosorases, and elephants, startled by the change of routine and new freedoms, they could potentially run wild through town centres. It's rather worrying.

Politicians haven't a clue what will happen next week let alone following a Brexit. All future forecasts are without absolutes and cannot be relied upon to base a decision. Any more than which of the runners will win the next Grand national. And why -? Because there are too many unknowns. The crystal-ball gazers know better and have gone on strike. Only fools and trouble-makers would venture forth amongst this can of worms as can be seen by those participating in the lies and fumbled forecasts as they attempt to spread fear and uncertainty amongst those who would be their uncertain and unwilling slaves for the future Super-State known as the USoE. Go with your gut. Stay away from urban Zoo's and un-policed town centres.

I am puzzled by these concepts of 'freedom' and 'sovereignty'.

As a mere wage-slave, I am free to work or starve, the former being preferable. No possible freedoms I can think of will be advanced or withheld differently by either group (in much the same way that life changes but little with a blue or red government).

Likewise sovereignty is not a concept that impinges directly on me. I cannot eat it, wear it, weigh it or use it to keep warm at night.

What is concerning is that those two whom it matters, on both sides, are a remarkably unprepossessing lot. I suggest that those who want control of these things do so for their own ends - in fact anyone who beats the drum for them should be disbarred from any position that influence them for life.

I see those who claim be protecting our freedoms being interested in having control of them for their own ends. I therefore support continued membership as a way of keeping out of the clutches of greedy, self seeking men.

What amazes me johnb is that you don't see those that want federalism and super-state as not greedy, self-serving reprobates. A super-state cannot work properly without discipline and order and everyone adhering to the 'state' line??? Parity in everything in order to keep social control - monetary and fiscal and economic. In other words we all do what is expected of us for the good of all. Where have I heard that before??? The control of all that will come from those who are best placed to influence. What influences? - MONEY and POWER. The less better placed will do as the better placed say - because it's in their economic interests to do so. That's Centralised Power by any other name and I know where that lies in Europe - and it's not for me. You can say that's 'order' and 'social fairness' and that's the way it should all be. But I've heard that one before as well. There's social planning and then - there's social planning. Fair Fortune lad.

I know our system isn't perfect. Far from it. But it is OURS - not somebody else's.

It's forty odd years since we had 'our' system and it was not pretty even with all political parties singing from the 'One World/One Nation' songbook. I don't trust either side of our current political system to act for the best interests of all, so there need to be controls.

And you think outside control by others of a different race and culture to ours is the answer? You trust that before your own? Best of luck with that one then.

Different race? Genetically we are so close you could not tell us apart.

Different culture? I travel extensively in Europe for work and see few large differences - there are bigger differences between classes in England that there are between us and the other European workers.