# Long Awaited POLL



## cabby

Just a simple poll as requested. vote either in or out please. If you are not sure ask Gemmy.>

cabby


----------



## GEMMY

Before you vote:


"Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels? "


tony


----------



## Pollydoodle

Thank you Cabby


----------



## Penquin

Or more advice is available from Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and of course, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith and others of similar mentality.......

They are ones with massive crystal balls as regards the future.... and of course, they are always right aren't they?

Nigel Farage

Boris Johnson

Michael Gove

Iain Duncan-Smith

from a variety of sources, there are MANY more that could have been added......

Dave


----------



## GEMMY

Penquin said:


> Or more advice is available from Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and of course, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith and others of similar mentality.......
> 
> They are ones with massive crystal balls as regards the future.... and of course, they are always right aren't they?
> 
> Nigel Farage
> 
> Boris Johnson
> 
> Michael Gove
> 
> Iain Duncan-Smith
> 
> from a variety of sources, there are MANY more that could have been added......
> 
> Dave


You forgot T B Liar and Mandelson, now they were ALWAYS right, n'est pas ?

tony


----------



## Penquin

GEMMY said:


> You forgot T B Liar and Mandelson, now they were ALWAYS right, n'est pas ?
> 
> tony


I wish I COULD forget T B Liar and Milly Molly but sadly they are as responsible for so many problems that it is impossible to ignore their antics.....

I was simply concentrating on the fools in the spotlight at the present......

and there are many of them, sorry I should have called them MP's or MEP's rather than fools - they cannot be regarded as total fools as they have somehow persuaded us all to pay their exorbitant salary and even more outrageous expenses claims.... at a rate that no-one else could possibly generate......

If the Trade Descriptions Act applied to Politicians we would all be MUCH better off and MUCH better informed and they would not risk being summonsed for their less than truthful descriptions in such things as Manifesto.......

and yes, I do have a very poor view of ALL politicians of all persuasions EXCEPT perhaps Martin Bell who seemed totally honest - avery rare, in not unique, attribute in politicians at all levels....

Dave


----------



## bijgouder

Undecided!


----------



## barryd

Penquin said:


> I wish I COULD forget T B Liar and Milly Molly but sadly they are as responsible for so many problems that it is impossible to ignore their antics.....
> 
> I was simply concentrating on the fools in the spotlight at the present......
> 
> and there are many of them, sorry I should have called them MP's or MEP's rather than fools - they cannot be regarded as total fools as they have somehow persuaded us all to pay their exorbitant salary and even more *outrageous expenses claims.... at a rate that no-one else could possibly generate......*
> 
> If the Trade Descriptions Act applied to Politicians we would all be MUCH better off and MUCH better informed and they would not risk being summonsed for their less than truthful descriptions in such things as Manifesto.......
> 
> and yes, I do have a very poor view of ALL politicians of all persuasions EXCEPT perhaps Martin Bell who seemed totally honest - avery rare, in not unique, attribute in politicians at all levels....
> 
> Dave


Oh I dunno. In my last job they were pretty legendary.  I done a £16K bar bill in one night once. I bet even Boris or Cameron couldnt top that.


----------



## chasper

That was expensive Leffe Barry!


----------



## ChrisandJohn

In

Is this it? Does it mean I've voted?


Chris


----------



## HurricaneSmith

Not yet.

Just above cabby's first post there are two boxes 'In' and 'Out', simply click your preference.




.


----------



## cabby

Well so far, 38 votes, 11 posts, 155 views.

cabby


----------



## peribro

cabby said:


> Well so far, 38 votes, 11 posts, 155 views.


Does that mean there are a 117 don't knows?


----------



## cabby

No idea.:laugh::laugh:

cabby


----------



## BrianJP

GEMMY said:


> Before you vote:
> 
> "Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels? "
> 
> tony


Trouble is after 40 years in the EU it actually isn't as simple as that


----------



## Penquin

That figure also includes all those (myself included) who have looked back several times to see how things are going.....

I have probably popped in 6 or 7 times since the poll started so all those EXCEPT the first will not entitle me to another vote, I exercised that early on and am simply interested in how the voting is progressing.

I tend to look in when, if I refresh Active Topics, this thread is marked as containing unread posts, I then click on the latest post and see what has happened and what words of wisdom have just been added.

I doubt that I am alone in such behaviour so that will probably account for many of those who apparently have viewed, but not expressed an opinion.

Dave


----------



## GEMMY

BrianJP said:


> Trouble is after 40 years in the EU it actually isn't as simple as that


It was simple to begin with, it has now morphed into a giant undemocratic political monster with trade merely a by-product :frown2:
Hence a servile position

tony


----------



## Penquin

GEMMY said:


> It was simple to begin with, it has now morphed into a giant undemocratic political monster with trade merely a by-product :frown2:
> Hence a servile position
> 
> tony


Sorry, I do not think the Common Market or EC or EA has EVER been simple.....

before we joined there was considerable disagreement and self-service being operated by member countries - that continues to the present day, only there are now more of them doing that (including the UK).

Originally De Gaulle and his repeated "Non" was because he KNEW the CAP was fundamentally to support inefficient French farmers - and that has not changed, neither has the CAP been reviewed - because France has still vetoed any such discussion.

Spain has taken a similar stance over the CFP - since the Spanish fishing fleet is so much larger than others, and they will not accept any major shifts in how it functions to support Spanish registered boats.

Greece? Enough said.....

The "New" members have joined partially for trade access but more importantly for the subsidies they will receive under various parts of the various treaties - but Cornwall has similarly benefited from such subsidies - although the UK Government s now trying to reclaim them from the bodies in receipt for various trivial reasons - like the organisation did not get the matched funding from the UK Government and therefore should return to the UK Government the money that was received from Europe......

But such ridiculous things can and will only be changed from inside and frankly Cameron was pushed into high speed negotiations which have not addressed the fundamental flaws - that I agree with.

But such flaws will NEVER be tackled from outside - there is no mechanism for such to happen as Norway says repeatedly.

The EC needs massive changes and needs these rapidly - so the diversions of a Brexit vote have hampered, not helped, such changes even being debated......

Stay in, keep talking and keep pointing out the errors and keep blocking changes that take the EU further down the wrong route.

Britain has got Europe out of trouble twice in the last 100 years - this is a different battle but the outcome will be the same, we ALL move forward together.

Dave


----------



## barryd

This is what the Germans think about us leaving.


----------



## GEMMY

Over the last several years since retirement, I've taken a great deal of interest in politics. It is absolutely astounding how the Eu has grown with everyone joining with their Oliver Twist hands outstretched, year after year I travelled to my place in Spain and remarked 'I've paid for this new road' :frown2: more and more joined, the final straw was Greece who employed PwC to fiddle their books. Today even a little article that Meps used a 15 million account to taste Belgian beer and visit the xmas markets. I've had enough, it's not going to even attempt a reform, it's merely going to get worse and worse................I want OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


tony


----------



## peribro

BrianJP said:


> Trouble is after 40 years in the EU it actually isn't as simple as that


Apparently there are large numbers of people throughout the world who are addicted to servitude.:wink2:


----------



## GEMMY

barryd said:


> This is what the Germans think about us leaving.


Well that arsehole can pay our 15 £billion fee.:wink2:

that merely aids brexit LOL

They never can do humour :wink2:

tony


----------



## cabby

Have to agree that they have not a clue regards understanding humour, especially ours.:wink2::wink2:

cabby


----------



## cabby

There is not such a big gap at the moment, which has surprised me. Have you voted, if not why not.

cabby


----------



## GMJ

cabby said:


> Have to agree that they have not a clue regards understanding humour, especially ours.:wink2::wink2:
> 
> cabby


"They" are probably not alone there Cabby...

Graham :grin2:


----------



## GMJ

cabby said:


> There is not such a big gap at the moment, which has surprised me. Have you voted, if not why not.
> 
> cabby


Yes...good isn't it. Hopefully closing all the time too

I voted: to stay in:smile2:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## cabby

Well I guessed that,:surprise::surprise: 

cabby


----------



## LaMB

Well I haven't voted because I am still very much an undecided. There seem to be very good arguments for both options, but as usual it is difficult to filter out the truth from the spin. It now appears that we voted to join because Ted Heath withheld vital information from the electorate, who (if anyone) is telling the truth now. That also assumes that anyone does actually know how much being a member is costing us, how much we get back in subsidies and where all the money goes and/or what problems we may encounter by being outside of the Union. My first instinct is that all politicians are liars with ulterior motives for everything they do, the newspapers etc all provide biased reporting so where do we go to get the facts? I'm hoping that by June I might be better informed. If not, and I suspect in common hundreds of thousands of the electorate, the decision might be made on a whim at the very last moment.


----------



## siggie

LaMB said:


> It now appears that we voted to join because Ted Heath withheld vital information from the electorate, who (if anyone) is telling the truth now.


A common mistake that many people make.

We never voted to JOIN, we had no choice, the politicians took us in. What we did have, or at least those that are old enough to have had a vote back then did, was vote in a referendum whether you wanted to STAY in the EEC. None of us have ever had a vote on being a member of the EU until now!


----------



## peribro

siggie said:


> We never voted to JOIN, we had no choice, the politicians took us in. What we did have, or at least those that are old enough to have had a vote back then did, was vote in a referendum whether you wanted to STAY in the EEC. None of us have ever had a vote on being a member of the EU until now!


To quote from Wkipedia :

_*"The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation which aimed to bring about economic integration between its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009 the EC's institutions were absorbed into the EU's wider framework and the community ceased to exist."
*_
What we are in now is not what we voted for in 1975 and it has been an abuse of democracy by successive governments not to have put this to the electorate before now. Of course had it been then we would most probably have voted "No" but now of course there is much scaremongering about why we have to stay.


----------



## cabby

No one yet has told me why we should stay in, or why we should leave.
Until there some facts available, not from the media, How can one decide.
As said already us old 'uns can remember pre 1975 and Ted Heath, prior to decimalisation. All countries had their own currency it was part of the fun of travelling to feel like a millionaire with hundreds of bank notes in your pocket, inside for English, left for French and right for Italian.
However there were restrictions on travel allowances in and out of the UK.That have long gone thank goodness.
The attitude recently has shown up deep rooted feelings that a lot of Europeans feel about us, not pretty when seen either, we will always be considered as those British.
Some figures tell me that we export more to non EU countries, is this a fact. How about imports.

So exactly what is the advantage to us to stay in.Maybe another subsidy for politicians to spend unwisely.

cabby


----------



## cabby

So we have had 70 votes so far, not many considering all the chattering that went on in other posts, or are we down to just under 100 members this year.
Perhaps I made an error in not including a Don't know vote.

cabby


----------



## 113016

Although I voted to leave, I was 100% for leaving, fed up with Brussels ruling us, but as time goes on, I am becoming more open minded and will continue to listen to both sides of the debate:surprise:


----------



## Glandwr

cabby said:


> So we have had 70 votes so far, not many considering all the chattering that went on in other posts, or are we down to just under 100 members this year.
> Perhaps I made an error in not including a Don't know vote.
> 
> cabby


The pollsters tell us that 1 in 5 voters have not yet made up their minds.

Dick


----------



## sallylillian

cabby said:


> So we have had 70 votes so far, not many considering all the chattering that went on in other posts, or are we down to just under 100 members this year.
> Perhaps I made an error in not including a Don't know vote.
> 
> cabby


I do not think so, if you had "on the fence" you would get a lot of those so it does not give a fair indication. I have a friend doing his own straw poll and he has loads of dithering friends. Your poll was a clean black and white one, like it will be in June. Although its only 70 I believe it is indicative of the mood.


----------



## GMJ

I'm not sure that the motorhoming fraternity quite matches the wider demographic of the country either :grin2:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## barryd

It looks like the ins are gaining ground on here now as well. I think it was 35% in 65% out last week. 

Now nearly 42% to 58%

Its the undecided that will swing it in favour of staying in I believe in the general public. I suspect there will be much more evidence for staying in promoted over the coming weeks by Cameron and the in team and the clear message will be the grave doubt of voters being worse off financially if we leave and people will vote for what hits their pockets less which is an IN vote.


----------



## cabby

You say this barryd, but where is the proof of this statement you have made.Just how will we be better off financially if we stay in, rather than pull out.

cabby


----------



## mgdavid

cabby said:


> You say this barryd, but where is the proof of this statement you have made.Just how will we be better off financially if we stay in, rather than pull out.
> cabby


Think you missed Barry's point; he's predicting that's what will happen.
In part I agree with him. There will be a lot of scaremongering statements put out by the politicos that we'll be worse off if we quit, most people won't question it but will vote for what looks like being best financially for them personally.
Unless one of the tabloids comes out with a 'VOTE LEAVE' headline on the morning of the poll in which case people will foloow that, as has been demonstarted in the past.

On a more general note, if you wish to make an informed decision, then inform yourself! It does take some time and effort, but the answers to most questions are all in the public domain and researchable on the net. Just ask google the right questions, choose your words carefully. 
As an example I'll quote the Q above about what proportion of our exports are to EU countries or the ROW.


----------



## barryd

Nobody has a crystal ball and hard facts of what will happen either IN or OUT are impossible to state. The internet is awash with opinions though as said by David and the information is out there but you have to try and sieve out the biased garbage from the informative and impartial.

This report is quite interesting (and worrying if we leave). http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKCN0VL0ZB

One thing for sure is the biggest reason OUTERs are voting out is immigration and as has been said many times now by myself and the "Inners" I am not convinced we will have more control over Immigration if we leave as we may well be forced to join Schengen and have no mainland border control any more on the EU Mainland. Be careful what you wish for.

I think its pretty certain though that our economy will suffer and goods imported will cost more. So inflation may go up as will interest rates, the pound will weaken and your food and goods will cost more. So once voters realise or believe that they will vote to stay in. I could be wrong as could all the economists and experts but do you want to take that chance only to find out we still dont really have that much control anyway?


----------



## GMJ

We are by nature a conservative (Note: small c) nation which will also impact the more radical step of leaving.

Graham :smile2:


----------



## cabby

I always considered that the main reason for joining was to allow more freedom of movement of people and goods for commerce, which has been is brilliant.

However there is that underlying current that wants to make it into a Federation and all be the same.But really, none of the main parties really want this. 
The same laws to apply in the UK as in France.NON!!

The stupid rules that come out of Brussels regarding the size and shape of fruit and vegetables and other things.They might suit the Mainland Europeans, but don't kid yourself,we are not considered as anything but those English.

I did not object too strongly over metrification, only the rip off shops, but am sorry I cannot now offer you a penny for your thoughts.:wink2::wink2:

I have enjoyed the ease of traveling abroad in the motorhome, but the reception we get at many places does tell me that we are still those foreigners from UK.
Before you ask, no my French is awful, as is my Spanish and german, but I smile a lot and speak softly, using my skills of playing charades and being a Cabby.:grin2:We have had a lot of fun with many nationalities, but a beer or wine goes a long way to help solve many problems. Have had to make TEA for some as well.

May I say Bravo to all those who have settled mainly in France, for managing to cope with the red tape brigade.I wonder how many forests have been used by them.
I nearly became one of you back in 1975.

cabby


----------



## barryd

cabby said:


> I always considered that the main reason for joining was to allow more freedom of movement of people and goods for commerce, which has been is brilliant.
> 
> However there is that underlying current that wants to make it into a Federation and all be the same.But really, none of the main parties really want this.
> The same laws to apply in the UK as in France.NON!!
> 
> The stupid rules that come out of Brussels regarding the size and shape of fruit and vegetables and other things.They might suit the Mainland Europeans, but don't kid yourself,we are not considered as anything but those English.
> 
> I did not object too strongly over metrification, only the rip off shops, but am sorry I cannot now offer you a penny for your thoughts.:wink2::wink2:
> 
> I have enjoyed the ease of traveling abroad in the motorhome, but the reception we get at many places does tell me that we are still those foreigners from UK.
> Before you ask, no my French is awful, as is my Spanish and german, but I smile a lot and speak softly, using my skills of playing charades and being a Cabby.:grin2:We have had a lot of fun with many nationalities, but a beer or wine goes a long way to help solve many problems. Have had to make TEA for some as well.
> 
> May I say Bravo to all those who have settled mainly in France, for managing to cope with the red tape brigade.I wonder how many forests have been used by them.
> I nearly became one of you back in 1975.
> 
> cabby


I think the rules about funny shaped vegetables being made by the EU are a myth cabby. Its imposed by the UK supermarkets. Have you noticed that all our fruit and veg in supermarkets always looks perfect but tastes rubbish? Its all about presentation here. Go buy some fresh veg off a market in Greece or France even and it looks dodgy but tastes like it used to here decades ago.

Do you not also think that mainland Europeans would form a better opinion of us if we stopped whinging about Europe, changing the rules to suit ourselves and stopped giving off the impression that we are somehow better than them?

I suspect in or out more damage will have been done to our reputation within Europe by all this.


----------



## siggie

Go buy some fresh veg off a market in England or Scotland even and it looks dodgy but tastes like it used to here decades ago.


----------



## cabby

Some supermarkets have seen the light under the bushel and now sell what they term as Wonky Veg.
We also have a green grocer who buys from local farms.We know how fresh the eggs are, as he always moans that he did not get enough for his customers, after 3 days.

cabby.

I think that my main objection is the MEP's, why do we need so many of them and their over staffed departments.Why does it seem they are unaccountable.


----------



## erneboy

I was chatting to a German last night. He told me that as far as he could see some English people wanted to leave the EU so that they could negotiate from outside to have, in almost every respect, the same relationship with the EU they'd previously had as members.


----------



## GMJ

I have to say that without exception we have been treated nicely at all the sites we have stayed at abroad and by all the people we have met. I try and speak the local languages as much as possible: my French is passable but the other languages start well and then turn into the equivalent of 'Allo 'Allo I guess.

Having a whacking great dragon and the word 'Cymru' on the back of the MH breaks the ice...as do the Welsh number plates. Columbia was the best/worst guess we had at one place :grin2: 

I have my Polish and Czech phrasebooks for the summer so that'll be fun :surprise:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## barryd

erneboy said:


> I was chatting to a German last night. He told me that as far as he could see some English people wanted to leave the EU so that they could negotiate from outside to have, in almost every respect, the same relationship with the EU they'd previously had as members.


This is what we will have to do but it will come at a cost and we will have no say in what terms are beset upon us.

The clear and underlying reason most want out is down to immigration and the hope that we will somehow be able to stop johnny foreigner coming here and maybe kick a few out. Its a big price to pay for something that we may not be able to enforce anyway and a problem that actually could get worse if we leave.

No disrespect intended to the outers but it is showing as the clear main reason for an Out vote.


----------



## 113016

Don't know about that Barry, we buy a lot more from them, than they buy from us, so they need us more than we need them!
We certainly don't need to go with the begging bowl, we could be a proud nation again, and have self respect and belief that we can do it.
We need a we can attitude, rather than we can't!
I think, if we do leave, a few more won't be far behind, as it is not working.
It could work, but would probably need federalism, same taxes, in other words, become one Country, but that would be many years away as each Country at the moment wants to protect it's own.


----------



## emmbeedee

barryd said:


> I am not convinced we will have more control over Immigration if we leave as we may well be forced to join Schengen .
> ...and your food and goods will cost more.


Barry, where do you get all these scare stories from? We know you're a comedian at heart but these are becoming a bit tiresome now.
How, exactly, will they force us to join Shengen? They couldn't force us to join when we were in so how do you imagine they'll force us to join after we've left? Perhaps you think they'll send in the EU army to force us to join? (Oh, sorry, they don't have one). 
In any case, Shengen is already broken, probably fatally, by the current migrant crisis. The Turkey deal looks like another EU success to you I suppose, with your Europhile specs on?
As for our food becoming dearer, don't you know that the EU is a dear food club? One of it's primary objectives when it was set up was to support the inefficient French farmers by keeping food prices high. I have seen an estimate that this EU policy costs every UK family £400 per year on average.
As you said earlier on, no-one knows what will happen if we leave, but continually spreading scare stories may well encourage the "Don't Knows" to vote "Out".


----------



## erneboy

Grath said:


> ........................................ so they need us more than we need them!


I'm not convinced of that. I think we are rather partial to buying cars, vans and trucks made by companies like BMW, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Seat, Citroen etc.
If we left it seems certain that we'd end up paying more for them, doesn't it? Or would there still be free trade, no barriers or tariffs, as now.

Many of the products we export are made in the UK by foreign firms. Will they stay if we vote to leave the EU? All of them? What proportion? Who can tell?

They like the access to our markets but i think they'll still have that because we'll want them to. How would we get on without all those continental things I've mentioned above. If it wasn't for foreign vehicles we'd all be on foot these days. What of white goods? Mostly imported too I think.

Maybe Europeans will want access to our financial markets and services, or maybe they'll develop their own in some European centre.

I don't think they need us more than we need them at all.


----------



## 113016

erneboy said:


> I'm not convinced of that. I think we are rather partial to buying cars, vans and trucks made by companies like BMW, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Seat, Citroen etc.
> If we left it seems certain that we'd end up paying more for them, doesn't it? Or would there still be free trade, no barriers or tariffs, as now.
> 
> Many of the products we export are made in the UK by foreign firms. Will they stay if we vote to leave the EU? All of them? What proportion? Who can tell?
> 
> They like the access to our markets but i think they'll still have that because we'll want them to. How would we get on without all those continental things I've mentioned above.
> 
> Maybe Europeans will want access to our financial markets and services, or maybe they'll develop their own in some European centre.
> 
> I don't think they need us more than we need them at all.


Do you really think they will impose tariffs which make the cars they build more expensive for us to buy. If they did that, they would be cutting off their nose.
They need our custom and money!


----------



## erneboy

My point is that I don't know. But it seems very unlikely to me that we could come out and then carry on as before.


----------



## Telbell

There were indeed rules governing size shape and colour of our fruit and veg which emanated from the eu but these were relaxed in 2008/9

However there is still a plethora of regulations regarding OUR fruit and veg which we have to comply with.

Time we decided on our own laws, controlled our own borders, and undertook our own global trade deals


----------



## 113016

erneboy said:


> My point is that I don't know. But it seems very unlikely to me that we could come out and then carry on as before.


The same for the white goods, they do want our custom, money talks!
I don't know as well Alan, noobody does, and I certainly would not expect things to carry on as before, lots will change.
But before we were in the Union, we traded without all of the stupid imposed silly laws and rules.
Maybe we could return to manufacturing, I doubt we could as we don't seem to have the staying power and investment in the workforce, but thats another story!
For me, it's not just the immigrants, it's the rule enforcement! can I roll over accept this, loose self respect so that I have an easier life? I don't know!
I would like to hold my head up high, and be proud to be British


----------



## barryd

emmbeedee said:


> Barry, where do you get all these scare stories from? We know you're a comedian at heart but these are becoming a bit tiresome now.
> How, exactly, will they force us to join Shengen? They couldn't force us to join when we were in so how do you imagine they'll force us to join after we've left? Perhaps you think they'll send in the EU army to force us to join? (Oh, sorry, they don't have one).
> In any case, Shengen is already broken, probably fatally, by the current migrant crisis. The Turkey deal looks like another EU success to you I suppose, with your Europhile specs on?
> As for our food becoming dearer, don't you know that the EU is a dear food club? One of it's primary objectives when it was set up was to support the inefficient French farmers by keeping food prices high. I have seen an estimate that this EU policy costs every UK family £400 per year on average.
> As you said earlier on, no-one knows what will happen if we leave, but continually spreading scare stories may well encourage the "Don't Knows" to vote "Out".


Look at Norway, they had to join and provide free movement and pay into the EU in order to get access to the single market. Do you think we will be any different? Sorry if my opposing view to what I think will be the biggest disaster in British history is tiresome. Your right, I do like to have a joke and banter so it clearly takes something of great importance to drag me into serious debate. I would indeed be rather watching Rogers Videos on FC about exploding cats or talking dogs but I feel quite strongly about this.

The French have already stated we can bugger off with our French side border controls so the migrant problem may well move to Dover.

I think people are in for a shock if they think the EU wont jump at the chance to stick it to us if we leave. The damage is probably already done to be honest.



Grath said:


> *Do you really think they will impose tariffs which make the cars they build more expensive for us to buy*. If they did that, they would be cutting off their nose.
> They need our custom and money!


Yep I do and everything else as well. They can set the tarrifs, rules etc and we will have no say. Where else are we going to buy their cars and other stuff from? We will just have to accept whatever the new trade conditions and duties are.


----------



## erneboy

I know that they want our custom Graham. They have plenty of things that we want very much, as I said.

What I was querying was whether we have anything much they'd care overly much about and couldn't just as well get inside the EU, because if we need their stuff more that they need ours then any deals will be done on their terms.


----------



## siggie

barryd said:


> The French have already stated we can bugger off with our French side border controls so the migrant problem may well move to Dover.


Please explain what migrant problem you are talking of.


----------



## cabby

If we started making things again would they be expensive if we used English steel rather than Chinese. White goods imported, would this include all those dodgy Whirlpool and other tumble driers.

cabby


----------



## Penquin

Grath said:


> Do you really think they will impose tariffs which make the cars they build more expensive for us to buy. If they did that, they would be cutting off their nose.
> They need our custom and money!


Surely the imposition of tariffs means that those in the EU will have to pay more for goods made in the UK than in the rest of the EU....

I suspect as regards cars, they will not be completed in the UK, but will be exported as partially complete (one nut missing or something) so that the price for them is of only a part car and the tariffs much lower than for a complete one, the "final assembly" will take place in the EU and no longer in the UK.... :frown2:

Goods manufactured in the EU will not be subject to the same tariff so will appear cheaper in the UK than in the EU....... but overall I am not convinced the situation will remain like that for long - companies may well decide to move - one of the main reasons they ARE located in the UK is that UK labour laws makes it very much easier to get rid of excess staff - the protection for the staff within the UK is much less.

BUT, NO-ONE *KNOWS *WHAT WILL HAPPEN *AFTER EITHER RESULT*.

It may well be that the *"INS"* accounts *ARE *scare-mongering, or an understatement of the effects, or the *"OUTS"* are scare-mongering or under-estimating the serious nature of the outcomes and the supposed benefits.

Most likely is that BOTH sides are exaggerating and the outcome will not be as bad as either side fears whether it is an In or Out result.....

No-one know, many people may well express their *OPINION* - whether it is Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Duncan-Smith, Obama, Hollande or anyone else, at present it is *ONLY OPINIONS.*

The decision is which opinion seems more likely to the average person?

And on such a precarious thought the future of the UK, the EU and every one of us depends.......

At least with WW1 or WW2 or the Falklands, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq the opposition was a known commodity - *we are fighting OPINIONS. * :nerd::surprise:

Why oh, why did Cameron ever agree to deliver such a thing on such flimsy evidence?

A. To try and protect his very delicate position - but is that working? I think not......

Dave


----------



## mgdavid

barryd said:


> .....
> The French have already stated we can bugger off with our French side border controls so the migrant problem may well move to Dover.
> ........


sorry Barry - more rubbish!
The French have not said that; the bipartite agreement & treaty that enables them to have their border control in Dover, and us to have ours in Calais is made completely outside any EU legislation. Completely.
UK leaving the EU can have, and will have, *absolutely* NO effect on this treaty.
Thre French could of course give us 6 months' notice of termination of the treaty (presumably on some trumped up reason) but won't because they will be too concerned that we would simply stick a hefty import tariff on Citroens, Renaults, Peugeots etc if they try any nonsense on.
They may be French but they are not stupid.


----------



## erneboy

Haven't you seen the news about UK productivity over the last few days? I think massive change would be needed for the UK to become important as a manufacturer of low cost, low tech items again. Don't forget that in out heyday we had captive markets for all we could produce and we could name the prices they'd pay. The success of the UK as a manufacturing nation back then had little enough to do with how competitive we were, mostly we didn't need to be.


----------



## erneboy

If we put tariffs on Citroens etc. we'd start a trade war. Not a good idea.

Didn't one French Minister say last week that UK border controls could be removed with ease? I think he did.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...iticians-amid-new-Calais-migrants-crisis.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/illegal-immigrants-could-quadruple-france-4555820


----------



## Penquin

mgdavid said:


> sorry Barry - more rubbish!
> The French have not said that;


Oh, so this article is another item of complete fiction is it?

France's economy minister, Emmanuel Macron

Or are you saying he is not talking on behalf of the French?

_France's economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, told the Financial Times that the Le Touquet agreement - a bilateral relationship between the UK and France - *would* be threatened by a British withdrawal from the EU._

My highlighting of the precise word "Would" not "could" or "might" but WOULD, which when I learned such things means a definite intention....

or as the Macmillan Dictionary puts it;

_used for talking about something that was going to happen after a particular point in the past_

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/would

so maybe, just maybe barryd is NOT the one that is posting "more rubbish!"

Dave


----------



## 113016

I have no idea what is going to happen, BUT I will not vote STAY IN for FEAR or blackmail!:serious:
I can understand, those of us who live abroad voting in, as it will effect you much more and I do feel sorry for you if the vote goes to leave. 
For me as a M/Her, who uses his M/H more or less !00% in Europe, it will make it more difficult, and I think I am more aware than most, (or some) as when I was Trucking, the French DID VICTIMISE the UK Drivers, we were running the Gauntlet:surprise:
It would be so easy for me to vote stay in, and short term, and for me, I do think that would be the right thing to do. BUT for our Country and for my offsprings, things could be better if we vote out. Notice I said could, as we just dont know, but if we don't do it, we never will know, will we?
Sometimes. I think, I couldn't give a ****, either way, as I will survive, and still enjoy my life, BUT we are British, and I have self respect (left a couple of jobs on principle alone) then again as I get older, is it worth it?
I think of science fiction films, when there is a World leader, and to be honest, in the end for Europe in the short term (probably a few decades) that will happen and for the world, in the end, Yes it must, but now Europe ruling British, it is a hard pill to swallow!


----------



## barryd

siggie said:


> Please explain what migrant problem you are talking of.


Well I dont think there is a significant Migrant problem but after listening to various rants on here for God knows how long you would think there was a million of them trying to get into the UK. It is the main reason that most of the outers state their reasons for wanting out. That IS a fact. All the polls show immigration as the key issue.

And yep, the French have said as much that they will kick our border controls into touch. Add to that the fact that we may end up having to agree to free movement in order to trade I dont see how we will be better off in terms of closing or borders.

We will still have a duty of care to asylum seekers but just less control of them arriving on our shores.


----------



## 113016

Barry, sorry, I don't agree. as many stay in posts are trying to scare us:frown2:
We are British, Bull Dogs, and we will survive, maybe get the B in british and the G in great britain
Surely, they need us as much as we need them, just maybe, they need us more, as we buy more!
You know, I love mainland Europe, much more than here, but I cannot accept they rule us
I love the Europeans, much more than I like Brits, I get on well with Europeans, 
They just need to get rid of all the stupid rules, regulations and hand outs.
Free trade YES Both ways, but dictatorial rules from Europe, NO


----------



## siggie

barryd said:


> Well I dont think there is a significant Migrant problem but after listening to various rants on here for God knows how long you would think there was a million of them trying to get into the UK. It is the main reason that most of the outers state their reasons for wanting out. That IS a fact. All the polls show immigration as the key issue.
> 
> And yep, the French have said as much that they will kick our border controls into touch. Add to that the fact that we may end up having to agree to free movement in order to trade I dont see how we will be better off in terms of closing or borders.
> 
> We will still have a duty of care to asylum seekers but just less control of them arriving on our shores.


Nice waffle and skirting around the question but you didn't actualy answer the question.

You clearly said...


> The French have already stated we can bugger off with our French side border controls so the migrant problem may well move to Dover


Please explain what problem will move from Calais to Dover.


----------



## barryd

siggie said:


> Nice waffle and skirting around the question but you didn't actualy answer the question.
> 
> You clearly said...
> Please explain what problem will move from Calais to Dover.


I thought I did answer the question, lets see if I can try again.

One of the main rants by Outers on here is the dreaded fear of Migrants and Asylum seekers getting across from Calais to the UK. In fact the majority arrive by other means but never the less some see it as a big issue.

When (not if) the French remove our border controls, how hard do you think they will try to prevent the migrants getting to the UK?

Maybe you dont see the camps and migrants at Calais and now Dunkirk as a problem so perhaps there is nothing to worry about then.

Also to Grath. You talk about Europe like we are not part of it and some foreigners make all the decisions. We have MEP's you know. We are at the moment still part of the club. I admire your patriotism for all things British and the Brits but sadly I dont share it. We are nothing special.


----------



## cabby

Sorry to hear that is how you feel barryd.Would it cheer you up if I said that everyone is special in their own way. Maybe not, ok. But at least we now know why you need to stay in.
How depressing to not think of oneself as special, sorry to go on Barry, but you have worried me with that comment. 


cabby


----------



## erneboy

We are ordinary people just the same as the people in every other country.

Edit: I was answering Grath but it seems I've answered Cabby too.


----------



## 113016

Quote Barry 
Also to Grath. You talk about Europe like we are not part of it and some foreigners make all the decisions. We have MEP's you know. We are at the moment still part of the club. I admire your patriotism for all things British and the Brits but sadly I dont share it. We are nothing special.

Barry we are not something special, but we are citizens of a Country, Great Britain, and we should be proud to be. the trouble is, the Yobo elliment has made us ashamed and our past unionised workforce has lost us respect. Butbthat is in the past!
I have spoken to many Europeans, as you, no doubt have, and many, Dutch and Belgiums are sick to death with the Europen thing and wish they could get out.
We have the chance, and should consider it, very carefully, bith sides, in and out, listen to the facts, not the scaremongering


----------



## 113016

Just a thought, but regarding M/Hing.
We have free motorways, but look at Europe, tolls, Go Boxes or similar everywhere. Every year more and more!
Where is the level playing field? They all look after their own
How is that a united Europe!
There are many more examples!


----------



## siggie

barryd said:


> Maybe you dont see the camps and migrants at Calais and now Dunkirk as a problem so perhaps there is nothing to worry about then.


It isn't about what I or any others see or do not see as a problem, I asked you what problem you saw and brought up.

But now you have given the answer we all knew you were hinting at, the migrant camps.

So now please tell us how moving the border controls from Calais to Dover will move the problem, that you have now defined as the migrant camps, likewise from Calais to Dover.


----------



## Glandwr

I know that it will be laughed out of court by many outers but I fervently believe that humanity faces huge dangers and that the way to tackle them is together. That the larger the grouping we belong to the more chance we have of riding these dangers. A group of 28 countries tied together in a democratic way (which the EU is) is more likely to act for the greater good than 28 countries all acting selfishly. A recipe for anarchy at best, war at worst. Even more so when we have one of the 3 loudest voices in that grouping.

I have talked to the young, both in the UK and in Europe who think the same, are overwhelmingly in the remain camp and consider themselves European.

I despair to see the argument reduced to pounds, shillings and pence or largely imagined petty sovereignty arguments by the outers. 

Dick


----------



## barryd

siggie said:


> It isn't about what I or any others see or do not see as a problem, I asked you what problem you saw and brought up.
> 
> But now you have given the answer we all knew you were hinting at, the migrant camps.
> 
> So now please tell us how moving the border controls from Calais to Dover will move the problem, that you have now defined as the migrant camps, likewise from Calais to Dover.


Because at the moment we can check and enforce strict border control in France where asylum seekers cannot claim asylum in Britain. Once that is gone it will be all to easy for asylum seekers to get to the UK where they then WILL claim asylum or just disappear illegally into the UK.

Dont just take my word for it.

Rob Whiteman, former chief executive of the UK border agency said.

_* "The bilateral treaty takes a lot of work on the French side to maintain and I think it is almost certain that if we did leave the EU the treaty would come to an end. It is not a foregone conclusion but I think it is fair for the Prime Minister to claim that the French would almost certainly bring it to an end. 
*_

_* "There's been lots of up-sides for the UK since the treaty was negotiated in 2003, not much up-side for the French. The reason we wanted the treaty is that if you are found in a concealed vehicle, you're a clandestine, once you've set foot on British soil you can claim asylum whereas if you are found concealed in a vehicle on French soil you can't claim asylum for Britain so before that treaty was put in place, asylum claims were running at 80,000 a year in the UK. They are now running at about 30,000 a year. So we would probably see another 50,000 asylum claims a year. *_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html


----------



## barryd

One more thing to add. There was mention earlier of Europe breaking up and we just being the first of many. Is it not just possible though that the EU will do its utmost to prove to the rest of the members that Britain made a big mistake and look what happened to them. Be sure, it will be a messy divorce with no winners.


----------



## Glandwr

barryd said:


> One more thing to add. There was mention earlier of Europe breaking up and we just being the first of many. Is it not just possible though that the EU will do its utmost to prove to the rest of the members that Britain made a big mistake and look what happened to them. Be sure, it will be a messy divorce with no winners.


There are plenty working today at the total breakup of Europe Barry. These guys would love to leave and be free to act like Radovan Karadzic after the break up of Yugoslavia did in 1992 and fan the flames of ethic cleansing. Impossible while they are members of the EU.
http://europe.newsweek.com/rise-eur...ource=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rss

Dick


----------



## emmbeedee

Glandwr said:


> . A group of 28 countries tied together in a democratic way (which the EU is) is more likely to act for the greater good than 28 countries all acting selfishly. Dick


Dick,what are you talking about? The EU, democratic? Don't make me laugh.
The EU has a President, as I'm sure you know. Jean-Claude Juncker, you must have heard of him. But did you vote for him? No, neither did I, or anyone else as far as I know. Cameron objected to his appointment, but of course he was ignored. As usual when we object to anything, we are ignored. 76 times since 1996 I understand, with none of our objections being upheld.
The "inners" claim we will lose influence if we leave, but our influence in the whole corrupt mess is zero IMHO. They want us in, of course, to help pay for all the corruption & to buy their products, but democratic? I'll repeat, don't make me laugh.
The same goes for the Commissioners, who are the real power behind the scene. Again, who elects them? All failed politicians like Kinnock & Mandelson, appointed, not elected. We do have elected MEP's of course, but they have very little real power, mostly just a talking shop.
A bit rich the USA telling us to stay in, I wonder what they would think if they had a set-up like this. An "appointed" President? I don't think so.
Another bone of contention with me, why do we have to subsidise the French, year after year after year? We've been doing so for the last 50 odd years since we joined. Well, because De Gaulle carefully set it up like that all those years ago, (through the CAP), before we joined. The possibility of changing this system is zero, because the French would never agree. If we were subsidising some poor backwards country, fair enough, but France? I don't think so.


----------



## Penquin

I totally agree that the EU should no longer be supporting the very inefficient, small, poorly run local farms that we see around here - such establishments are abhorrent and would shame a third world country but every year they receive subsidies from the CAP, which De Gaulle ensured was set up in such a way that it would be virtually impossible to ever change.....

A few years ago (can't be bothered to find which Treaty it was....) we were told that the French had agreed to start modernising the CAP "not before 2014" and guess what, they will still veto any suggestion that such a thing should happen since the French Government is at the mercy of the many unions none of which will ever cross the picket lines of another.... France has more Unions than any other country and a smaller % of workers who are members of these Unions - less than 8% of the French populace are members ... (7.9% in 2010 c/w the UK 27%).

IMO such things are indefensible as the cost of these tiny farms is horrendously high and one near us keeps cows in a state that would ensure it was closed down by the RSPCA in the UK - full grown cows kept on concrete in 15cm of slurry ad fenced off from moving onto the adjacent grass.......

BUT will that change? PERHAPS if the UK and other countries are likely to break up the present regime - a regime that is corrupt from top to toe - hence why Farage can claim more than £2 million expenses from the EU since he was elected - and of course he is only one of the gravy train.

I do strongly believe that the EU needs to fundamentally change and fervently hope that it will do so, but I don't think the UK alone is sufficient to force such things through - the new Eastern European member countries are using France as a role model and why shouldn't they?

If Germany has had enough then that MIGHT be sufficient impetus for a change, if the UK AND Germany are threatening such action it is much more likely. Merkel is now facing major problems due to immigration being unpopular with the German populace - and that is not surprising with upwards of a million new migrants. Many of the other EU countries have already taken action to prevent such things - so much for EU unity - the closed borders in several others speak volumes.

I do not howver favour a Brexit - that to me would hand it to France on a plate and things would never change, with the UK there they MIGHT if the UK pushes hard WITH Germany and that may well be beginning, except that Cameron has so many problems on his plate that he has no clue which way to turn so he is going round in circles.......

I genuinely believe we are at the start of the break up of Europe over the next 2 - 5 years, Greece will never solve her financial problems, Germany will not accept many more refugees, the UK will never accept ANY refugees via Calais and if the French do what they have said hey will by closinng the Calais checks by the UK Border Force, then Kent will not be a pleasant place to live - the number of wuld be migrants will jump from the current 30,000 to probably nearer 250,000 and once on UK soil - even at the Dover ferryport they can claim asylum and that has to be checked - more expense and undoubted delays in sending them back to India, Pakistan or wherever......

Only if we remain IN the EU can such problems be tackled IMO. Giving up and running away has never been the UK's response to such problems - hence why we got involved in two world wars to try to stop Fascism and similar land grabs......

Stay in and fight the bu88ers at every meeting - do not allow the EU to make further progress - ALL decisions require unanimous votes, so let the UK be the splinter in the hand of corruption.....

Dave


----------



## emmbeedee

Dave, my view is different. We have been trying to change it for the last 50 years, without any success. The only one who achieved anything at all was Maggie, but that was done by "rebates", not treaty change. This meant that when we had the idiot for PM he gave up part of the rebates in return for a vague promise that things would be changed. A wise man might have agreed to give up the rebates only _*after*_ the reform of the CAP, but not our B-liar. He gave them up anyway & I read this has already cost us £10 billion or so & of course no change has taken place. You might have thought that "our Dave" would have raised this on his unedifying tour around Europe with his begging bowl but I never saw it mentioned. The only time it gets mentioned at all is the other countries moaning about us still getting the remaining rebates.
I feel that when we leave it will cause ructions in the remaining countries, particularly Germany who will be left picking up most of the bill. This will quite possibly result in the breakup of the EU in its present form, no bad thing IMHO. Whether anything better can be set up to replace it is doubtful, but no doubt France will be in big trouble. No-one left to pay for their excesses & inefficiencies then, unless they can persuade the Germans to keep paying, unlikely I think given the growing unease in Germany.
Of course there are several other things simmering nicely at the moment, any of which could cause it to implode. Greece, migrants, Turkey, which one will blow up first?


----------



## mgdavid

Penquin said:


> Oh, so this article is another item of complete fiction is it?
> 
> France's economy minister, Emmanuel Macron
> 
> Or are you saying he is not talking on behalf of the French?
> ** YES **
> 
> _.........._Dave


Macron is a loose cannon, pretty much a voice in the wilderness.
Read this (all of it not just the headline):
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-border-treaty-brexit-what-is-france-saying


----------



## peribro

I find it quite depressing that some people seem to have such a low opinion of this country that they believe that we will be helpless to resist any acts that the French and other EU nations may try to take against us. And anyway why on earth would the French or German governments want to make thousands of their own car workers redundant by putting up tariffs that reduce their exports to the UK? And why would the French want to hurt their farmers be preventing them supplying us with produce? As for what Norway has agreed to that is irrelevant. Norway is the 27th largest economy in the world - we are the 5th with an economy seven times that of Norway. 

Regarding immigration, the issue at Calais is not what mostly concerns people - it is the scale of legal immigration, not the few hundreds who get here hiding in lorries.

These continual irrational, unfounded, unsubstantiated scare stories by those who want to remain are I fear causing potential harm to these very same people as a result of the stress and anxiety that is obviously being caused. As someone else has pointed out it may well make many of those who are undecided actually vote for Brexit because of the resentment that these scare tactics are causing.


----------



## barryd

peribro said:


> I find it quite depressing that some people seem to have such a low opinion of this country that they believe that we will be helpless to resist any acts that the French and other EU nations may try to take against us. And anyway why on earth would the French or German governments want to make thousands of their own car workers redundant by putting up tariffs that reduce their exports to the UK? And why would the French want to hurt their farmers be preventing them supplying us with produce? As for what Norway has agreed to that is irrelevant. Norway is the 27th largest economy in the world - we are the 5th with an economy seven times that of Norway.
> 
> Regarding immigration, the issue at Calais is not what mostly concerns people - it is the scale of legal immigration, not the few hundreds who get here hiding in lorries.
> 
> These continual irrational, unfounded, unsubstantiated scare stories by those who want to remain are I fear causing potential harm to these very same people as a result of the stress and anxiety that is obviously being caused. As someone else has pointed out it may well make many of those who are undecided actually vote for Brexit because of the resentment that these scare tactics are causing.


I dont think its necessarily a low opinion of the UK, just a realistic one. If there are goods that we have to purchase from the EU then you can certainly bet they will sting us as much as possible without cutting themselves out of the market. I also think as do many of the experts that they will treat us no better than Norway.

As for legal immigration its been proved time and time again that it actually benefits the UK economy.

And as for the "continual irrational, unfounded, unsubstantiated scare stories by those who want to remain" as you put it they are no more irrational than the reasons and predictions for this rosy future and Nirvana the Out voters are promising but consider this, the massive majority of financial experts and economists are in favour of staying in and nearly all have predicted the economy will suffer as do the majority of businesses.


----------



## GMJ

peribro said:


> Regarding immigration, the issue at Calais is not what mostly concerns people - it is the scale of legal immigration...


Interesting stat in The Observer at the weekend. Of the 100,000 Rumanians who have come here only 2,500 are claiming benefits. Bearing in mind various top ups available for low paid workers (available to all UK workers including us Brits), that's 2.5%. Lower than the rest of the general population.

I also recall reading that Poles are net contributors to the British economy and that since the free gangway in terms of movement of labour was established with Poland our exports have risen by 50% due to migrants returning.

Oh btw my wife has MS and the last 5 neurologists she has seen have been from other countries: 1 from Sri Lanka and 4 from eastern Europe. We should all be careful when we talk 'broad brush' about migration as we have very serious skills shortages in this country that we seem unable to fill ourselves. The NHS in general relies on migrant labour: in excess of 10% of their whole staff (the largest employer in Europe) are migrants let alone the figure for Dr's which exceeds 25% (only set to get worse too I guess with the current rows regarding the treatment of Junior Dr's)

Just saying :smile2:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## peribro

barryd said:


> ..... the massive majority of financial experts and economists are in favour of staying in and nearly all have predicted the economy will suffer as do the majority of businesses.


I'm not sure that it's a "massive" majority of financial experts and economists - certainly not of the ones I read although I agree a majority of businesses favour the status quo. However that's understandable because Brexit will lead initially to market uncertainties which no business manager would want. If one searches for them then there are quite a number of balanced opinions by experts where they are not trying to out-argue the other side on who can be the most extreme. Her's a recent article in the Guardian and what seems rational views from one of the UK's most respected fund managers.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...oodford-fund-manager-capital-economics-report


----------



## 113016

peribro said:


> I'm not sure that it's a "massive" majority of financial experts and economists - certainly not of the ones I read although I agree a majority of businesses favour the status quo. However that's understandable because Brexit will lead initially to market uncertainties which no business manager would want. If one searches for them then there are quite a number of balanced opinions by experts where they are not trying to out-argue the other side on who can be the most extreme. Her's a recent article in the Guardian and what seems rationale views from one of the UK's most respected fund managers.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...oodford-fund-manager-capital-economics-report


 Another fromthis morning

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35862774


----------



## GMJ

Just for balance (not that I am an avid reader of the Daily Torygraph mind)...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...h-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.html

EU migrants are basically a p1ss in the ocean in terms of costs apparently :smile2:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## barryd

Please dont think this as a cheap shot but given the atrocities (once again) that are unfolding right now in Brussels this morning I hope whether we stay in or not we can work with our European neighbours to stamp out such terrorism and work together to wipe out ISIS and terrorism within Europe. My thoughts are with our fallen neighbours today.


----------



## GEMMY

Whether we are in or out, the continuation and sharing of info. will carry on.


Unless CaMoron indicates that all terrorists will come her if we leave along with a plague of rats and showers of frogs etc etc


tony


----------



## erneboy

GEMMY said:


> ................
> Unless CaMoron indicates that all terrorists will come her if we leave along with a plague of rats and showers of frogs etc etc
> 
> tony


I would equally expect that the leave camp would tell us that'll happen if we stay.

It's certain that both sides are exaggerating. What's uncertain is where hyperbole ends and the real possibilities begin.

It is amusing though watching each side accuse the other of scaremongering, as though they are completely innocent of it and are dealing purely in verifiable facts, when it's perfectly obvious that both are equally guilty.


----------



## peribro

The terrorism attacks in Belgium and the previous ones in France are further evidence I am afraid of what a complete failure borderless controls have been. Like so many of the EU principles, Schengen might seem fine on paper but as soon as one or more members fail to adhere to it (protecting the external EU borders) then things break down - in this case the ability of terrorists and arms to be transported into and across the EU with relative impunity.


----------



## siggie

barryd said:


> Because at the moment we can check and enforce strict border control in France where asylum seekers cannot claim asylum in Britain. Once that is gone it will be all to easy for asylum seekers to get to the UK where they then WILL claim asylum or just disappear illegally into the UK.


So we can enforce strict border controls in Dover. Any illegal, seeking asylum or not, can be sent back to France, after all France is a safe country and asylum seekers should seek asylum in the first safe country the reach. Also, before you say that would be illegal, the EU has just this week set a precedent about sending illegal immigrants back to the country where they crossed the border from!

France and the ferry/tunnel companies could also be subjected to heavy fines from the UK for failing to secure their ports and and preventing the ferries or trains from being borded. After all, a lot of those wanting to stay are adamant that the EU (France in particular) intend to levy sanctions against us if we leave, so we shouldn't feel guilty about fining France for failing to secure it's own ports.

The security fencing that we have supplied to surround the French ports can be brought back and used to secure UK ports, keeping illegals inside the port until checks are complete. I do forsee the procedure for entering the UK will be much slower than now, but it is already slower at airports and I would be happy to take a bit longer coming back into the UK if it was for the purpose of crossing a secure border.

Finally, the 'problem' you brought up, the 'problem' you said would move from Calais to Dover was that of the camps, i.e. The Jungle. Why would that 'problem' move to Dover?

But, as others have said, the problem of illegal immigration is just one part of why people are thinking of voting to leave, and very often, talking to people that have told me they intend to vote to leave, it is not the primary reason for wanting out.


----------



## peribro

erneboy said:


> It is amusing though watching each side accuse the other of scaremongering, as though they are completely innocent of it and are dealing purely in verifiable facts, when it's perfectly obvious that both are equally guilty.


Agreed - that is why it is comforting to read articles and analysis that are written in an impartial and unemotional way - whichever side they eventually lean to.


----------



## erneboy

Yes Peter, that's why I though it worth pointing out that the author of the article Emmbeedee referred to on the other thread is completely bananas.


----------



## GMJ

peribro said:


> The terrorism attacks in Belgium and the previous ones in France are further evidence I am afraid of what a complete failure borderless controls have been...


We have border controls and yet we too have terrorist attacks!

Graham :serious:


----------



## Penquin

siggie said:


> So we can enforce strict border controls in Dover. Any illegal, seeking asylum or not, can be sent back to France,......
> 
> Also, before you say that would be illegal, the EU has just this week set a precedent about sending illegal immigrants back to the country where they crossed the border from!


and that is already being described as illegal....... and is VERY unlikely to work as Turkey dos not want them back, Greece does not want them and the Turks are not renowned for their "kind" treatment of anyone that they disapprove of......



siggie said:


> France and the ferry/tunnel companies could also be subjected to heavy fines from the UK for failing to secure their ports and and preventing the ferries or trains from being borded. After all, a lot of those wanting to stay are adamant that the EU (France in particular) intend to levy sanctions against us if we leave, so we shouldn't feel guilty about fining France for failing to secure it's own ports.


at present the fines are levied on the drivers and the companies owning the lorries, those fines are currently being challenged in the High Court. France NEVER pays the fines levied by the EU after e.g. burning lorry loads of British lamb, do you think they will accept such fines?

Dream on....



siggie said:


> Finally, the 'problem' you brought up, the 'problem' you said would move from Calais to Dover was that of the camps, i.e. The Jungle. Why would that 'problem' move to Dover?


the problem will be that, once France removes the checks, and they will, the number arriving at Dover will totally swamp the UK authorities, it is already being spoken of as the spaces currently used to park lorries on old military bases in Kent (e.g. ex RAF Manston) will be used to house the number of migrants arriving - so GO will be pleased, lots of job opportunities for new "Security" personnel - Group 4 will make even more _*profits / blunders*_ *delete as appropriate



siggie said:


> But, as others have said, the problem of illegal immigration is just one part of why people are thinking of voting to leave, and very often, talking to people that have told me they intend to vote to leave, it is not the primary reason for wanting out.


agreed, for those have actually THOUGHT about the vote and are not jut reacting on a gut reaction after crass statements from the likes of Farage who maintains that Immigration is the key factor and if there is a Brexit we will be able to stop it...... we won't.... many immigrants are essential for such things as the NHS (Doctors from anywhere, nurses from e.g. the Philippines, builders from Poland and Czechoslovakia).....

Thinking is the key factor and for that FACTS would help - facts which are notably lacking from BOTH sides... it is all hyperbole and the sky falling in.....

Dave


----------



## peribro

GMJ said:


> We have border controls and yet we too have terrorist attacks!


Yes indeed although ours have mostly been by "home grown" terrorists or by those who we have knowingly allowed into this country.


----------



## siggie

Penquin said:


> crass statements from the likes of Farage who maintains that Immigration is the key factor and if there is a Brexit we will be able to stop it...... we won't.... many immigrants are essential for such things as the NHS (Doctors from anywhere, nurses from e.g. the Philippines, builders from Poland and Czechoslovakia).....
> 
> Thinking is the key factor and for that FACTS would help - facts which are notably lacking from BOTH sides... it is all hyperbole and the sky falling in.....


Since you like facts please show me where Farage has said anything about STOPPING immigration. All I have seen him quoted as having said is that the UK would be able to CONTROL our own borders, not being told by the EU who we'd MUST allow in.

We already determine who enters the UK from outside the EU and, as you point out, we have many professionals from countries like the Philippines, India, etc, working in the UK. If we need people from Europe then we can issue suitable applicants with visas, just like we do non-EU citizens - that system works very well around the world.


----------



## erneboy

And the guns and explosives? Are they being imported despite our border checks?


----------



## GMJ

peribro said:


> Yes indeed although ours have mostly been by "home grown" terrorists or by those who we have knowingly allowed into this country.


The point being that the influences upon these people know no boundaries therefore negating or obviating any argument concerning border controls. You can't 'border' the Dark Net or indeed the standard internet with any great success, let alone 'underground' information networks.

Graham :serious:


----------



## cabby

Still only 80 votes, not much of a turn out.Not as if you have to go somewhere in the rain to vote.:grin2::grin2:

cabby


----------



## siggie

GMJ said:


> The point being that the influences upon these people know no boundaries therefore negating or obviating any argument concerning border controls. You can't 'border' the Dark Net or indeed the standard internet with any great success, let alone 'underground' information networks.
> 
> Graham :serious:


Oh, in that case let's get rid of all borders around the world, we obviously don't need them :surprise:


----------



## Penquin

siggie said:


> Oh, in that case let's get rid of all borders around the world, we obviously don't need them :surprise:


Do I detect a slight touch of possible sarcasm in that response? :wink2:

I hope so, since the thought of being in the same border free world as Donald Trump would be REALLY scary IMO..... :surprise:

Dave


----------



## GMJ

siggie said:


> Oh, in that case let's get rid of all borders around the world, we obviously don't need them :surprise:


Rather a crass reply however my argument still stands against those who use border controls as some kind of anti Europe argument. We will still have border controls in our country whether we are in or (God forbid) out of the EU. We benefit as MH'ers from Schengen in that we can bimble across borders to our hearts content. Without Schengen that becomes harder; more so potentially, if we leave the EU.

Borders can stop people but not ideas.

Graham :smile2:


----------



## campsitewriter

cabby said:


> Still only 80 votes, not much of a turn out.Not as if you have to go somewhere in the rain to vote.:grin2::grin2:
> 
> cabby


possibly this old joke sums the in / out argument up

Angela Merkel arrives at Passport Control in Athens airport.
"Nationality?" asks the immigration officer.
"German," she replies.
"Occupation?
"No, just here for a few days.


----------



## siggie

GMJ said:


> Rather a crass reply however my argument still stands against those who use border controls as some kind of anti Europe argument. We will still have border controls in our country whether we are in or (God forbid) out of the EU. We benefit as MH'ers from Schengen in that we can bimble across borders to our hearts content. Without Schengen that becomes harder; more so potentially, if we leave the EU.
> 
> Borders can stop people but not ideas.
> 
> Graham :smile2:


Not crass, just, as Dave spotted, tongue in cheek. Why even bring up the Internet when the current discussion, to which you responded, is about the PHYSICAL security of our borders.

As motorhomers we are not able to just 'bimble' across borders today - Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, and possibly more, have all put border controls in place at their land borders today. Add to that other Schengen countries tightening their borders over the past month or so and it is easy to see that this is just a possible sign of things to come.


----------



## GMJ

siggie said:


> ...Why even bring up the Internet when the current discussion, to which you responded, is about the PHYSICAL security of our borders....


The argument was being made regarding borders being a foil to terrorism. My counter argument was that this would not be the panacea as suggested due to the internet which knows no borders hence my bringing it up...

Keep up at the back :grin2:

Graham :smile2:


----------



## mgdavid

GMJ said:


> The argument was being made regarding borders being a foil to terrorism. My counter argument was that this would not be the panacea as suggested due to the internet which knows no borders hence my bringing it up...
> 
> Keep up at the back :grin2:
> Graham :smile2:


nobody said controlling our borders would be a panacea, they just suggested it would help.
No need to exaggerate.
.


----------



## GMJ

mgdavid said:


> No need to exaggerate.
> .


Thanks...useful input

Cheers

Graham:smile2:


----------



## siggie

GMJ said:


> Keep up at the back :grin2:


Veiled personal attacks do not reflect well on those making them and tend to be used by those that are losing the argument.


----------



## GMJ

siggie said:


> Veiled personal attacks do not reflect well on those making them and tend to be used by those that are losing the argument.


Oh Lordy - its getting like that is it? very philosophical...

How the hell was that a "veiled personal attack"? As was stated by siggie on an earlier post, it was tongue in cheek! Plus didn't you see the :grin2:

Here's another one just in case :grin2:

Graham :grin2::grin2:


----------



## barryd

I think the comment about the internet is very valid. Yes its possible increased security and border controls will make life a little harder for terrorists but beware the enemy within. You can make a pretty good bomb just from going round a few DIY stores. Guns etc maybe harder to come by but lets face it they will always be available for the right price no matter how much you beef up security.

Europe is a pretty vast land mass as well. So unless they start putting walls up everywhere there will always be plenty of places to get across. Our stretch of water perhaps makes life more difficult for importing weapons etc but smuggling still goes on. Extra border security might trap more migrants but not determined terrorists.


----------



## peedee

I was undecided untill a week or so ago but lately decided to vote to stay in. It is not what has been said by either the in or out crowd but simply this:
If we vote to leave we will never get back in under the same terms on the other hand if we vote to stay in and it does really turn pear shaped, parliment can always decide it is time to leave under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. 

I read this on another forum which for me reinforces the above.

1. Nobody can predict with even a smidgeon of accuracy what will be the 
impact on the UK economy of a vote in either direction. The world is an 
uncertain place, and there are too many individuals who can have a 
significant impact on any given out-turn. E.g. Donald Trump, Xi 
Jin-ping, David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Merkel, to name but a 
very few. Therefore there are no economic arguments that will sway me 
one way or the other.

2. Migration is not a real issue. If politicians are honest enough to 
tell it like it is, the balance is pretty well even. It just has to be 
managed properly, and it either will or won't be, whichever way we 
vote. The EU has finally come around to the view that it has to be 
managed, which was obviously from the beginning. (See today's 
announcement of an agreement with Turkey).

3. Sovereignty has no bearing one way or the other. In the world as it 
is today, it is largely an illusion - everybody being dependent on many 
others for much of what happens to them. On the margin some issues 
might be important, but only on the margin. The things people get 
emotional about in arguing about sovereignty are mostly minor ones, e.g. 
bent bananas, and, again, don't significantly affect eventual outcomes.

4. The undertakings Cameron received regarding the Eurozone (We'll 
never join, and they won't gang up on non-members), no Schenghen for 
UK, and "Never closer union for the UK", are about as good as he could 
get, given we stay in, and ought to suffice, provided our future leaders 
properly look out for us (which can't be guaranteed anyhow), 
particularly as other EU members may well be prompted to seek the same 
or similar opt-outs.

5. If one takes the helicopter up to 40,000 feet and looks down, UK 
can't physically separate itself from Europe. In this day and age, a 
22-mile-wide channel just isn't big enough! Freedom of movement is as 
much a benefit for Brits. as for anyone else (if they stop to think 
about it), as long as it is not Schenghen-ised. The issue is 
management, i.e. government/governance, as ever. Given that, any 
Europe-wide issue, crisis, disaster, whatever you will, will inevitably 
drag UK in, whether we are in the EU or not, as it did at least twice 
last century, and many times in the centuries before that, so we might 
as well at least have a seat at the table, and help our neighbours sort 
things out, hopefully before they get too bad.

6. The answer is to be too big to be ignored (like Germany), which is a 
means of getting as much as possible that is advantageous to UK (which 
is what all the others try to do for themselves), and to have a 
government which will not be bullied. As usual, that particular aspect 
is in our own hands. Active and vigorous participation is also a way of 
putting a stop to some of the arrant nonsense that goes on, like not 
getting the accounts signed off. There are many "sanctions" which can 
be invoked from the inside, without having to leave in a huff.

peedee


----------



## Penquin

I think the border between Northern Ireland and the South clearly demonstrates the impossibility of closing a border - there can never be 100% security - hence why Donald Trump wants to build a massive wall separating Mexico form the US - even though that will rapidly be surpassed by tunnels or ladders or even hot air balloons to cross the secure wall.... if it ever gets built.....

The internet is a major risk and that cannot be stopped a the border - ask the Chinese authorities how efficient their schemes are at doing that.......

The North Korean regime is th only one that has succeeded and that is by banning the carriage of mobile phones, laptops, tablets etc. - we have a friend who was invited to visit North Korea to check on their manufacture of optical drops for sterility and safety (she works for a German optical mission when not as a pharmacist and has done long periods in Botswana, Kenya, Ethiopia, China and many other countries) she was told to leave all such electronic equipment at the border but did manage to take a digital camera in with her on the proviso that every picture was approved before she left - which was done with careful checks by the authorities), and does any other country want to take that route to control?

With 3D printing it is now possible to build a weapon out of printed material which will fire normal cartridges;






So, if terrorists want to manufacture weapons in a closed country that would not be impossible, but as a Kalashnikov (AK47) costs less than $50 in some countries why bother?

So the UK answer to security by "snooping" on communications is probably the best form of defence and detection of such acts - if you have nothing to fear does it matter if someone else is aware who you are communicating with?

I have no worries that someone may be registering that I am active on MHF - it is hardly going to upset anyone......

If that is the price of safety, I am willing to pay it, but border controls as they exist to enter the UK are correct and do not cause me any concern, if they were removed that would cause concerns.....

Dave


----------



## emmbeedee

erneboy said:


> Yes Peter, that's why I though it worth pointing out that the author of the article Emmbeedee referred to on the other thread is completely bananas.


In your opinion, Alan.
Did you actually read the referenced article? If you did, what did you disagree with?
In MY opinion, the way in which it was set up stinks & was obviously much to our detriment. Well worth leaving regardless of any short term disruption. Plus, & even more important to me, we would regain democratic control of our future & that of our children. If the "in" vote wins, the future will be in the hands of the "appointed" mob of failed politicians & their mates, with no effective democratic control. I'm surprised you're happy with that situation.


----------



## barryd

I keep hearing people saying they do not want to be ruled by "Brussels" or "Them" or "Foreign rule" etc etc. I dont understand this. Please tell me if I am wrong but are we not a BIG part of "Them"?

As I understand it there is a European Parliament and a European Commission.

The European Parliament is made up of MEP's from the member states and the European Commission is the EU's executive body. It represents the interests of the European Union as a whole (not the interests of individual countries) and is made up of 1 President, 7 Vice-Presidents and 20 Commissioners. The current president is from Luxembourg and each member has a representative on the commission.

From what I can see from the chart below we have 72 MEP's, the same as France and Italy and only topped by Germany but they represent a lot of people in our case. Thats how I understand it. Why then do people insist or telling me we are being ruled by Brussels? Is there a little room somewhere with some people we don't know about making all the decisions or what? If we have all this representation then surely we are a big voice in Europe and should be a big hitter. It looks to me like we should have some clout and Brussels is just a place for an office.


----------



## Penquin

What does "Influence" mean in that table Barry?

The UK has the second lowest (from a quick glance) and Luxembourg and Malta the highest, the UK is close to Germany but what on earth does it mean? Only France has a slightly lower figure to the UK.....

Is it a fiddle factor or a number whereby the votes are worth only 1/11 of the Maltese or Luxembourg votes ? Curious that Luxembourg with Amazon etc is regarded as of the same level of influence as Malta....

But perhaps there is an explanation that I can understand (please DON'T ask me to go and read something - I am struggling big time and our Border Collie is typing this for me......)

(We'll see if that brings about responses from dog lovers......)

Dave


----------



## GEMMY

The table is 10 years out of date

We currently have over 65 million residents :frown2:and rising

tony

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sou...hp..2.0l5.0.0.0.12215...........0.BAq9tNDJzvc


----------



## barryd

Penquin said:


> What does "Influence" mean in that table Barry?
> 
> The UK has the second lowest (from a quick glance) and Luxembourg and Malta the highest, the UK is close to Germany but what on earth does it mean? Only France has a slightly lower figure to the UK.....
> 
> Is it a fiddle factor or a number whereby the votes are worth only 1/11 of the Maltese or Luxembourg votes ? Curious that Luxembourg with Amazon etc is regarded as of the same level of influence as Malta....
> 
> But perhaps there is an explanation that I can understand (please DON'T ask me to go and read something - I am struggling big time and our Border Collie is typing this for me......)
> 
> (We'll see if that brings about responses from dog lovers......)
> 
> Dave


I dunno Dave. I was hoping someone on here would. Dont read it but maybe someone else can. Link here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament

I presume its to do with the amount of people they represent. Im pretty sure it doesnt mean its the amount of influence we have at the table


----------



## Penquin

barryd said:


> Im pretty sure it doesnt mean its the amount of influence we have at the table


nah, can't be as France has a lower figure than the UK and we all know they are ridiculously influential with their three letter word....

*
NON.*

anyone else help me (and Barry) out? Please, pretty please, pretty please with a cherry on top ?

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Yes, of course I read it, and found it fantastical Emmbeedee. That why I wondered about the author.


----------



## cabby

Can we encourage more members to vote, before we find out that there are no more members.:grin2::grin2:Where are the younger ones hiding.you know the ones who I mean they have just got their bus pass and it has upset them.

cabby


----------



## siggie

cabby said:


> Can we encourage more members to vote, before we find out that there are no more members.:grin2::grin2:Where are the younger ones hiding.you know the ones who I mean they have just got their bus pass and it has upset them.
> 
> cabby


Well I am a long way from getting my bus pass and have already voted - although I am not fully decided yet I voted the way that I am leaning most towards at the moment.


----------



## GEMMY

Our contribution to the Eu for next year increases by 2,625 million£


Money well spent ?


tony


----------



## cabby

Some might well say that, I am not sure about it myself.:wink2::wink2:

cabby


----------



## GEMMY

cabby said:


> Some might well say that, I am not sure about it myself.:wink2::wink2:
> 
> cabby


Watch and hear it for yourself on catch up PmQ'S :wink2:

tony


----------



## cabby

Just a small bump to remind those who have not voted.

cabby


----------



## peribro

The percentage voting intentions on here seem pretty constant now. It will be interesting to see how those currently undecided choose to vote as we get closer to the big day and as some pretty important decisions are made e.g. Tata Steel


----------



## Telbell

The two books, details of which I posted on another thread, are interesting and show just how ambivalent (even antagonistic) successive PM's have been as regards the EU. Even Blair, when campaigning as a young twenty something, was supplying leaflets stating how ill advised it would be to join, or become "ever closer" (but then we know he was two faced about all sorts of things)

a)Europe: in or out:everything you need to know
b)Au Revoir Europe: What if Britain left the EU

Same author (David Charter)

They're not "campaigning" books and non-political, but factual.

(and having read them I'm even more convinced I've hit the right button on the Poll ;-) )


----------



## Glandwr

Well who would have thought it? I suppose that a family of Greek and German origin would want to stay in would'nt they? Govey spitting into his coffe this morning?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...mily-considering-dramatic-brexit-intervention

Dick


----------



## Telbell

Ahem ;-)


----------



## peribro

Glandwr said:


> I suppose that a family of Greek and German origin would want to stay in would'nt they?


Precisely Dick although I would think that their fear of the UK falling apart in the event of Brexit is a main consideration - as the article alludes to:
*"Look what happened at the last referendum we had, on Scotland. We nearly lost Balmoral and the shoots. Nicola Sturgeon could be sat in that castle now - we know she had her eye on it - it was a damn close-run thing."*

Of course the article could be an April Fools joke!!:grin2:


----------



## Glandwr

I seriously don't know why the brexit camp throw in the towel and save the country a bundle of money :laugh:. Lets face it they are going to get slaughtered.

Dick


----------



## erneboy

Fronted by Prince Phillip, that would be fun.


----------



## siggie

peribro said:


> Precisely Dick although I would think that their fear of the UK falling apart in the event of Brexit is a main consideration - as the article alludes to:
> *"Look what happened at the last referendum we had, on Scotland. We nearly lost Balmoral and the shoots. Nicola Sturgeon could be sat in that castle now - we know she had her eye on it - it was a damn close-run thing."*
> 
> Of course the article could be an April Fools joke!!:grin2:


With quotes like that, of course it is.

The Queen OWNS Balmoral, not the state, so they didn't nearly lose it at all :wink2:


----------



## peribro

Get your French cheeses in now whilst the going's good as the Leave campaign is 4% ahead according to an Observer poll today!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/eu-referendum-young-voters-brexit-leave


----------



## barryd

Time for David Cameron to get round the Universities and offer free beer at the polling stations or produce an iPhone vote app! Actually its about time we could vote online. All these pieces of paper in a ballot box is a bit 1970's!


----------



## peribro

My youngest two who are at university will be home by 23rd June and I was debating whether to include them on the electoral roll here as they are in the Remain camp! Anyway it's academic as they seem to spend most of their days in bed so probably won't get up before polling closes - I'll do the right thing therefore and register them!


----------



## Penquin

peribro said:


> Get your French cheeses in now whilst the going's good as the Leave campaign is 4% ahead according to an Observer poll today!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/eu-referendum-young-voters-brexit-leave


and should that make us smile or cry? I would think that the total and abject failure of the "Opinion Polls" before the last General Election shows why they are no value.

The same Polls whose inaccuracy is probably the reason why we have this farce now as Cameron was convinced it was going to be a Coalition again afterwards and therefore the vote that we now have was not expected to survive a Coalition.

I would totally ignore such things - they have absolutely NO basis of accuracy.......

Dave


----------



## coppo

Penquin said:


> and should that make us smile or cry? I would think that the total and abject failure of the "Opinion Polls" before the last General Election shows why they are no value.
> 
> The same Polls whose inaccuracy is probably the reason why we have this farce now as Cameron was convinced it was going to be a Coalition again afterwards and therefore the vote that we now have was not expected to survive a Coalition.
> 
> I would totally ignore such things - they have absolutely NO basis of accuracy.......
> 
> Dave


I couldn't agree more, the polls were a joke running upto the general election.

I said then in the run up on here that the Tories would win and I will say here that we will remain in the EU.

And desperately hope I am wrong.

Most people I have spoken to want to remain in, a mixture of not having enough information, don't know so I'll vote to remain as we are, its ok as it is so I'll vote to stay in.

Paul.


----------



## peribro

Penquin said:


> and should that make us smile or cry? I would think that the total and abject failure of the "Opinion Polls" before the last General Election shows why they are no value.
> 
> The same Polls whose inaccuracy is probably the reason why we have this farce now as Cameron was convinced it was going to be a Coalition again afterwards and therefore the vote that we now have was not expected to survive a Coalition.
> 
> I would totally ignore such things - they have absolutely NO basis of accuracy.......


Sorry Dave, it's all changed since last year. The polling organisations carried out an in depth review of why they got it wrong and, as you are probably aware, they concluded that they hadn't been asking enough of the right sort of people what their voting intentions were.

I think we can therefore now assume that they've got it right - cant't we?!:grin2:


----------



## Penquin

peribro said:


> I think we can therefore now assume that they've got it right - cant't we?!:grin2:


why should we?

There is no science, even pseudoscience in these things, they are all opinions and who knows who they are contacting? They don't.....

So, no to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.....

(the old one's are best >:grin2: )

Dave


----------

