Britain leaving the E.U.

Well you obviously only travel in those western countries most aligned by history and position. If you consider that the previous Soviet Bloc countries and those due to be added to the list i.e. Turkey etc etc have a similar culture to ours then would suggest you test your 'culture meter' for anomalies.

Look john. It's very simple really. I don't really care regards the economic losses or gains as these will alter radically with world trading and circumstances way beyond Europe's, or anyone else's, control. So the 'economic argument is out for me. Sovereignty - that for me is a must. I wouldn't even be prepared to accept laws or rules sent across from Brussels in the first place. Westminster just about makes it and then with reservations let me tell you. So for me it's 'who rules' and what or how I might influence them. If my countrymen vote in place a labour government and I don't like it at least that has been done by my people and not others in some far off land of nod I know nothing about.

Big is rarely beautiful and always ALWAYS gets above itself - usually with dire consequence for the rest of the world. I like the UK. T'will do me.

The brexit 'debate' continues, with unbelievable statistics and ludicrous arguments, the shambles of our politics and administration spread before us like the contents of a binbag opened by seagulls.

Alors! Tu n' ouvre pas. Ferme le sac. Immediatment. Or words to that effect.

I care not for the ramblings of liars and idiots.I have never been a lover of social engineering and as with the USSR and others the crass efforts of the dreamers to mould and control will falter and crash burning taking all who participate with them. They can have the USofE and put it where the monkey hides its nuts. I'm out with the rest.  If we loose to the bagatelle builders so be it. I won't have to live with the consequences for a lifetime - 'cause I haven't got one left.      

Listening to the brexit debate on the transistor radio, sitting in a deckchair on the beach, eating icecream and watching the migrants arriving in paddleboats. Ah, summer is here.

If you listen to them lunatics for long enough you will become one. A bit like pulling faces and the wind blowing. My old lady was never wrong (God she was cow at times) - 'them theer Germans are alright as long as they's comfortable. But let the buggers get distraught and watch out -'. I don't think the European experiment needs to worry too much if we come out but I reckon France and the others will need to watch their backs as the Hun euro gobbles them up. Not for me all this 'let's be buddies together' - there's some who don't know how to be buddies unless they are the top dogs - us included. And therefore we shouldn't pretend or get mixed up in it if at all possible.

That's me -. Rather die on mi feet than live on mi knees. Northerner you see -. I blame the old lady. Did I tell you she could be a right cow at times?

The German Chancellor tells us we should stay inside the E.U.  It will be best for us. Even if we did leave, we would never get over the barbed wire. With German industry and population expanding they will eventually need more livingspace. They will probably be able to organise that within europe. The French government will probably co-operate, although some of their people of the countryside may think differently.
Our leader, David Cameron looked rather stressed when he returned from his attempt to negotiate, but if he doesn't want to talk about that episode, it's understandable. The Labour leader hasn't much to say now about the E.U., probably rather complicated for him. What goes on in the E.U. doesn't bear thinking about too much. Perhaps the less we know about it, the happier we will be.
Europe, on our doorstep is to an extent, our problem, but it's a strange diminished logic from there, to say that europe should be our masters.
As for imigration, the hot topic, if we want immigrants to help our economy and so on, there is a world of potential immigrants, and perhaps our immigants would be happier here if they felt they were wanted and invited rather than because they have right of entry under the EU rules.

I concur whole heartedly with your sentiments on immigrants and being 'wanted' rather than 'tolerated' because of the 'law'. If such were the case there would be little excuse for the far right to cause chaos on our streets. Although given such propensities they wouldn't need much encouragement come to think of it.
The danger of Germany and 'lebensraum' has never, apart from a short period between 1945 - 55, gone away. Much wants more in their case and it stems from an inbred knowledge of eugenics and superiority and that might is right. The politics are never far from the front. War is politics by other means - - as is - - money. The richer man can, according to the Germans, purchase his way to the top. Unfortunately we too have that trait, albeit tempered by a more moralistic attitude to social behaviour. I see this characteristic of the German temperament as the biggest danger to our position on this continent and we should either 'give in' and call an armistice or 'dump the dead sheep' and go our own way (whilst keeping a careful watch on our back).
The 'leave' campaign seems to have got off the ground and done better these last few weeks - but I'm not sure enough people in this country care enough to consider this coming vote as that important. I seriously don't think they understand its ramifications or consider that it will affect them. People -huh. I do like them but I couldn't ever eat a whole one!

The arguments of the 'remain' lobby cite the failure of sucessive British governments to finance the regions fairly, to uphold workers rights, to deal with safety and environmental pollution, and so on. Going on that track record, remainers feel that only an external force such as the E.U. can force UK governments to behave responsibly, by over-ruling the UK government where necessary, for the sake of ordinary people.

This adds up to a 'remain' vote being a 'vote of no confidence' in UK governments.

I don't disagree with your analogy of the 'remain' camps regional philosophy. There has been since the 60's a propensity of national government to ignore the regions especially by the Tory administrations who conclude that a typical non-voting Tory area can be left aside to fester whilst the bulk of the available monies are spread where it would do them the most good. Labour administrations, which have been less frequent on balance, then haven't the funds or the time to do otherwise and since the sea-change of the 'Blair' years have tended to keep the middle class areas mainly in their sights thus leaving, again, the most deprived areas to manage.
However - this past few years have seen a levelling out of the voting masses, as shown by the Scottish vote and the last General Election losses by Labour in their heartlands. The message has been very clear for those that wish to see. All voters are getting quite disgruntled at the lack of 'real' politics, the lack of 'real' choice and the growing corruptions that have been uncovered and considered normal behaviour these days.
I would like to think that a win for the 'leave' would rattle out the Tory party and that come the next General Election, hopefully sparked by a vote of no-confidence, the voters would bring in a contentious coalition capable of working for ALL the regions and get rid of these consensus politics for good. Shooting themselves in the foot does ring true if you consider their comments seriously - but how many people are bright enough or care enough to realise that.

People may be as bright and caring as ever, but thought processes are perhaps shorter term, less broad in scope. In a 'selfie' society, people may focus on a narrower spectrum of 'selfie' things that concern them.

Conversations about Brexit tend to revolve around "I read on the internet that...". The way websites and search engines work now is to identify subjects and interests, and channel the user in that ever-narrower direction. Peoples thoughts and brain connections are inevitably changed by that narrowing tendency over time. Political spin and the media, being pragmatic, follow suit and reinforce.

Apparently many are baffled now by which way to vote. There is a wide array of unconvincing 'facts' and flawed arguments available to consider. We remarkably have heard very little from Europeans on the subject of europe, but then they have their own languages. Europeans were going to use Esperanto as a common language. Haven't heard of that for a while.

Nothing good comes from thinking short term. Only the rats and the con men profit by that method. The quick kill. If you don't consider the broader aspects and to where they may lead you cannot in truth have properly considered the problem and thus are inclined to come to a different decision which to all intents and purpose may satisfy then but which you are very likely to rue in the future. I suppose it's the 'look before you leap' adage in a nutshell.

Politics are usually the last thing on people's minds and it's therefore not surprising that we may have a lack of interest and a knee-jerk decision on the outcome of this referendum. A close call may promote a chaotic government and calls for another in a couple of years time. One way or another Cameron has lit a fuse. And I don't think he will be able to put it out - even should he want to.

Consensus politics are on the wane. The next few decades could produce something which nobody wants. I wonder if they will learn from our history. I doubt it.

There's a blanket press over any real politics coming from Europe and on the disarray taking place in many European countries in order to try and keep us 'on side'. The other side of the English Channel should always be viewed with a critical eye - we are not - Europeans.

The Farage-Cameron debate was fairly mild. Mr. Cameron explained that we, as a country, are caught in a quicksand of events, if we struggle we sink faster, and that sovereignty is a phantasmagorical miasma.

Apparently the man representing the UK in the EU is, the Baron of Oareford in the county of Somerset.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who is prepared to transfer the making of British law and social decisions to be ratified/agreed by someone in another country before they can be utilised and enacted is nothing less than a traitor. I have no wish to be a province of some nondescript so called super state. That's not what I inherited and was not what my parents wished for me. I can of course determine my own way in life as is my wont but what I cannot do is vote away the freedoms of others even on a majority. I don't have that right. And I have never heard of your man in Somerset - nor do I wish to. Just another pig-trougher on the train of gravy.

P.S. Will be away 3 days and thus not in touch on here. Ciao.

The remainders appear to be unruffled by cries of 'treason'. Undecided voters may be swayed towards remain by the offer of a free packet of chocolate covered peanuts. If such tactics work and remain win the vote, anyone after the referendum who says "It's a free country", may risk being served with a euro-extradite-arrest-warrant, or at least stared at a bit strange.

And so they should be.
There has been extensive coverage of this particular referendum, far more so than the one in '75', and with a far bigger range of dissection. Anyone who votes and takes the vote as a serious business should have been made aware of the consequences of 'a province' or 'a country'. Those that don't care one way or the other shouldn't be allowed to vote at all - it's a negation of responsibility both for themselves and their children.

I for one would be overjoyed with a Federal States od Europe, (similar to the United States of America) with properly applied subsidiarity.

Unfortunately I cannot vote for this option.

But that wouldn't be the reality would it johnb. A Federated States of Europe could never be 'like the USA'. Practically all the citizens of that Federation consider themselves to be 'American' as a principal. Tell me - how many French, or for that matter German (regardless of all the rest), consider themselves to be European as a principal and secondly to being German or French - and answer honestly - ?//?//?

For such to happen would take 500 years of a peaceful evolution. Not going to happen.

It's a 'dream'. A dream of fanatics. Well meaning perhaps but fanatical all the same. Social engineering on a ludicrous scale. Too quick a mix leads to too quick a shambles. You cannot put legislation in place of evolution - IT DOESN'T WORK.

On the subject of things that don't work, not only does the E.U. itself not work as most would like, but closer to home, our own governments have never been any good at being in the E.U.

All things considered, a useful solution might be for those who wish to remain in the EU to go and live there, and those that wish to leave, stay here?

Splendid solution. The French would welcome another 10 million Englishmen with open arms would they not? As for the Germans - dearie me.

However I don't go in for forced 'brotherly love'. Whatever the decision we shall all accept the outcomes and move forward (or backwards) as the future dictates. We are (within certain constraints) masters of our own destiny. Our decisions will form our futures. The main thing is to participate and whilst that may be unwillingly (depending on how one votes) not to effect obstacles to that end.

If we who think we should 'leave' lose the battle it would be quite appropriate for us to vote in at the next general election a government who would change that. That's democracy. If not and we continue to be part of this Super State we should then work towards changing it to more suit our purposes. If we so love our independence and our democratic ways it should be attained peacefully as good democrats.

Many things in British political life can be understood by studying the hairstyles of politicians. Gordon Browns recent hairstyle for his remain speech was alarming. His scalp massaged with essential oils, grey hair turned to silver with hi-tech reflective shampoo, great care taken using very sharp scissors on the back and sides to give a smooth yet chunky 'vigorous and reliable' effect, the front back-combed, gently brushed down, individual hair lengths carefully calculated and fixed with a mist-spray. A remarkable amount of spin-psychology and hairdressing talent has been put into it.

What does it mean? I am a bit puzzled by what it could portend. If anything.

Is that the George Brown who relaxed the immigration controls even further in 2003? Surely not the same one who rifled the pension funds to keep to his targets in 2007. Perhaps you are mistaking him for the chap who sat astride the banking collapse in 2008 and then borrowed billions to support them at our expense? Are we talking the same George Brown who assured the nation all was well just before Leman's hit the dust and tried to get Barclay's to bail out the American casino players. Barclay's of course saw him coming and said 'get lost Georgie', we are taking to the hills whilst the dust settles - and they did.

If so - I don't talk about loud-mouth bigots or small minded Scots or theatrical players of a bygone age - and most certainly not about effigies of the 20th century.

It's probably the same chap, It's someone who used to be on telly, however, that's not important. The credit and applause must go to the makeup and hairdressing team who did such a remarkable job. Apparently it's the same team that worked on such well known film productions as 'Raise the Titanic', 'Night of the Walking Dead' and 'Zombie Apologist'.

Whether this cosmetic makeover has been organised by a faction of the Labour party, or is a retirement hobby, is an open question. Seems fairly harmless so far, as long as it doesn't go on to plumped up lips with botox and other 'enhancements' used in celebrity construction. The name change from Gordon to George may be a good move, possibly appealing to a younger and more hipster audience.

To be honest I never bother to look at the fripperies perpetrated by others on the human form as nothing can detract from the realities of ageing or misadventures without it being very apparent. I can confirm my mistake of George for Gordon as being Freudian in my present resentment for one called George who as opposed to being a person we should all be trusting having been put into a position of great 'trust' has shown that trust we placed to have been grossly and callously trashed by 'George'.
It is understandable that he should give the 'honest and true' position he thinks the country should be going but his past weeks comments show the lie that he is an honest person and indeed quite the contrary. There's 'slanting' the truth and there's demolishing it. Georgy Porgy is truly a pig of the lowest orders and no longer deserves his position in any form in any government of this country. Theirs politics and theirs 'politics'. And there's not only crossing the line there's also 'obliterating' it.

We shouldn't over-estimate democracy. It's only a system to pour oil on the troubled waters of the ongoing and otherwise scantily clad struggle for power. Within a democratic political system are some people at all levels using whatever scams and tricks they can get away with.

I couldn't agree more. However - and here's the rub - the alternatives to a middle of the road democratic system, all of which have been tried, can only result in the total obliteration of the species at worst or back to the caves at best. Therefore - sanity dictates a certain level of decency one must have from one's selected leaders in order to keep the rest at some level of acceptance of the system. To go beyond those levels does a disservice to all the rest who are trying to keep the 'lid' on what would otherwise be a bloody mess. Mr G. Osborne has gone beyond the limits where he now resorts to threatening his electorate that not to do as he dictates will result in his 'having' to punish his detractors - ? What! Who the F**k does he think he is? And where does he get off -?