I suspect if we did leave then this would push the Conservative Party (and Government) even further to the right as the swivel eyed mob would be firmly in charge. The likes of IDS and Liam Fox would be in positions of real power.

If anyone thinks we would then just keep the “good bits” of the EU like worker’s rights, environmental legislation etc you’re deluded.

That kind of stuff is seen as “red tape” and would be cut.

For that reason I’m saying Remain.

Doesn't matter one bit if you vote to stay in or out.....
Will anyone but 'goverment officials' be counting the votes?
There could be 90% to 10% out vote and we will still be staying in......
The worlds 'ELITE' wont allow us to leave anyway.
Every election is a fix and politicians only ever do what is best for them.
Still going to be voting OUT though .

Absolutely spot on.
The River Mersey has salmon in it and the Manchester Ship Canal is used for open water swimming. In my youth, they were both open sewers. The change is a direct result of the EU limits on pollution discharge. It's not exactly hard to imagine industry lobbyists getting the law changed on the grounds the cost of it hurts their profits and sold by the right wing press as essential for business.
The fact Owen Patterson is vociferously pro-Brexit should be enough warning to anyone.

Or it could cut the legs out from under the far right. No cause, no reason to exist. Frankly the idea of a Tory party led by IDS, Gove, Fox et al fills me with joy. Totally unelectable.
I don't think it's deluded to believe we can keep in place many of the rights gained over the last 20 years. A large part of the argument against the human rights act is that judgments appear to be "imposed" by other countries.

Ironic that if the British people had voted for the most left wing Labour Leader in modern times we would not be debating wasting billions on Trident, there would be no undemocratic house of Lords, we wouldn't have had the last 8 years of economic chaos with the banks (because they would all have been nationalized) and we wouldn't be in the EU.

In yours and my view perhaps but we’re never going to vote for them anyway. A sizeable amount of people with right wing views find them very electable. Similarly the opposition is becoming equally polarised. It’s Hobson’s choice for anyone else and with the Right currently in power and dominating the political “mainstream” and holding most of the media behind them they won’t be gone in a hurry.



A Brexit would be seen as a mandate by Euro-sceptics to do what they want. There’s a heck of a lot of mileage in “rolling back the excesses of the EU”. If a “leave” vote goes through in June there’s another 4 years for them to do just that.

It's surprising how little you can do in 4 years, especially as the Whitehall workload will be very high sorting out all the other "paperwork". MP's will have to come in at weekends and work over summer to get through everything (hey, 7 day a week government - there's a thought?). I just don't see it, if they prioritize binning human rights, workers rights and environmental legislation it will be very badly received. I don't think it's anywhere near a priority to do that. You simply can't say "f*** the environment" anymore and be in politics.
Europe has to change, a No vote is the best way I can see to make it do that. If we all say yes then it carries on as it is and the eurocrats slap themselves on the back and carry on with their social experiment.

The debate continues.

What do you mean "why?" Do you really not understand the fact that in order to access the single market nations have to pay towards the running of it? Do you think the other EU nations are going to pay the cost of running it and let us join for free? If you do then you are as I said, deluded.

I presume by the rest of your comment you mean if the EU wants a contribution from us to help run the single market you think we should charge them for access to ours? If so you haven't quite worked this out have you? There would be no "ours" we would (again) be part of the single market which is free trade zone so the idea we could then charge them for accessing "our" market is just idiotic. You can't impose tariffs in a free trade zone! The idea we can just slap a charge on the rest of the EU who trade with us is nonsensical and as equally deluded as your stance that if we quit we save all the contributions.

By the way the total cost of UK Government expenditure is about £750 billion a year. We pay about £8 billion to the EU. That is the gross amount, not the net amount after we get money back in terms of grants etc. So for what will eventually be less then 1% of government expenditure you want to quit the EU on the daft assumption this £8 billion is all going to go away when what will actually happen is we will remain one of the EU's biggest financial contributors (look at Norway) won't get any EU grants and won't have a say in the rules and regulations we have to comply with. Brilliant!

And after all that we then have to start negotiating free-trade agreements with all the major economies outside of the EU. You think that will cost nothing to set up and run? Do you think we will get as favourable a set of terms standing alone as we do as part of the EU?

They can in the USA. Fracking being a prime example. Why do you think that kind of thing won't happen here?

The Tory party with a slender majority of 19 is already acting as if it rules rather than governs. It thinks itself above the law and if it does anything found to be illegal simply seeks to change the law.

Well Cameron allegedly said to “cut the green crap” and it’s done him no harm. Changes to planning legislation mean it’s easier than ever to build in the face of local objection. If 4 years isn’t enough you can bet they’ll be using it as a main plank of their election campaign of 2020 to “reap the benefits of Brexit”.

The public are easily bought off or persuaded it’s in their interest. Look at austerity measures over the past 6 years. Most of those bothering to vote bought into it. The right wing media will spin changes to workers’ rights or environmental legislation in the same way that they’ve spun cuts to disability benefits or legal aid. These things will be dubbed as “too costly,” “a hindrance to business,” “a legacy of EU socialism imposed on plucky England,” and getting rid of them will make the country “more competitive” and will “create wealth”. I should become a Tory spin doctor. '"

Does Boris come on this site?

hat level of short-term thinking on such a key, long-term issue is, frankly, ridiculous.

Is it? Fracking will go ahead or not with or without the EU. Cameron already, with the help of a few other EU countries, put paid to any legislation to blanket ban it back in 2014. Local poilitical pressure is the only effective limitation. That won't change if we are out of or in the EU.

His deal was agreed in principle a long time ago. Limiting benefits for EU migrants for a 7 year period (in line with what other EU countries already effectively had when they first admitted the East European countries), not being forced into the Euro (never happening anyway in reality - easy give away), right to opt out of any further political union (had that already), some waffle about non-Eurozone countries being better protected - only got a delay on that one not an outright veto - so effectively nothing.
Not really game changing for me. The purpose of the summit that seemed to last an eternity, seemed more about what a lot of the little boys at the table could squeeze out for themselves by being awkward.

There is a lot of cynicism in British politics but maybe this will be a catalyst to get people more actively involved and voting. I sense that at a local level it's much harder for British politicians to sell BS to us, industry lobbying is harder, we don't like it. So they do it all in Brussels where we can't see what's going on. Corbyn's election and his steady support with the public despite some major issues with his own party suggests that maybe if we ditch the distraction that is Europe we can re-engage public interest and increase accountability. I don't think having governments that run 3-4 terms is really healthy, but we get that (I think) because the fear of changing anything outways the possibilities if we change. I prefer to be optamisitic about change.

Am I to presume by that, the U.K. leaving the E.U. will cause them to realise the folly of their actions & totally re-structure their whole political ethos?

If that was to happen, all well & good, unfortunately we’ll no longer be part of it to reap the benefits.

I meant fracking as a prime example in the USA where you[i can[/i "simply say "f*** the environment" anymore and be in politics."

You were suggesting you can't just do that, so it didn't matter if we were in or the out of the OU because it would be unacceptable to "f*** the environment". Now you are arguing that Cameron has in fact "f*** the environment" with his legislation on fracking. He' still in politics!

So that is your original point shot down in flames by yourself!

That is, if he can do that with fracking (with or without the EU's help) he can do it over other environmental legislation that [iis[/i imposed by the EU (if we leave).

Your example just proves what you said originally that essentially it would be politically unacceptable to "f*** the environment" so we are safe, is nonsense.

We need legislation to protect it and Cameron and Co will rip up any EU legislation that does so at the first chance they get. They won't be spending time re-implementing it into UK law for our benefit that is for sure.