The deal is nothing really. The only reason he went for it was as a sop to the right wing of his party and to try and stop a defection to UKIP of some of his more nuttier MP's and party as a whole.

It was a mistake to even try it if he believes we are better off in the EU. Most of the arguments against the EU are either false (such as Dally's view we will be billions £ better off if we leave), made up (low wages are a result of EU migrants), or exaggerated (we are overrun with EU migrants often confused with asylum seekers from outside the EU).

All he has done is convince people the issues are far greater than they are in reality and can only be dealt with by getting a special deal for the UK or leaving the EU. The fact the deal doesn't look that substantial (if you agree with his aims or not) has just given the BREXIT people a lot of ammo. If they can convince people it is a rubbish deal the implication is we must not stay in the EU at all.

I think a far more important issue is - precisely where do Boris Johnson's [iloyalties[/i lie? The guy was obviously tapped on the shoulder to be future PM years ago. But who did the tapping is another question.

IMO, it ties in closely with an astonishing admission I stumbled across reading an article written in 1976 about shady South American politics. Does anyone remember that minor ruckus which kicked off when the Daily Mail attacked Milliband Snr.?

Does anyone remember precisely WHY the Mail attacked Milliband?

This is not a trick question, BTW. But I don't think the Mail was being entirely honest, either.

An inane post. The fact that others pay for access to the dingle market is irrelevant. It is not set in stone. We are in a much stronger negotiating position and would be free to negotiate our own terms. The Germans are pragmatic and it would be in their interests to allow that and so it would probably happen. Even if it did not it would not matter much in the long-term. If our exports to the EU were subject to tariffs we would still be better if long-term because the EU is a failing and dime would say failed duper state. If we stay in it will drag us down. We will have no bargaining power if the electorate say yes as our politicians will have no threat to back up their demands.

If you feel that we could not negotiate as mentioned above, that implies that the EU is incapable of reform in the medium term at least. Again, that is one its major problems and for economic security we therefore need to get out.

Like all the in crowd all you come up with is short-term scaremongering. This is a long-term issue of the UK future destiny. Even if there were a short-term blip in the long-term it is my view that we would be much more prosperous over time.

In any event like all forced together blocs it will eventually collapse through people power and probably knowing Europe in bloodshed - ironically the thing it was originally set up to prevent. The writing is already on the wall with the migrant crisis and the economic cries acting as a catalyst. One more shock - like a major bank collapse or similar could tip it over. Likewise, in the unlikely event we vote out the thing may disintegrate - others will demand referenda.

And you call my post inane? Of course it is relevant what others pay to access the single market. We now have concrete proof you are totally deluded.

This argument that we are in a much stronger negotiating position is just plain stupidity on your part. Where have you dreamt that one up? Have you just missed the saga of Cameron trying to negotiate a deal and coming away with naff all? Yet you are suggesting once we are out having spurned the EU they will roll out the red carpet and just let us benefit from the single market for free? You don't think for a minute that would not simply break the EU up overnight?



I have seen you spout some nonsense on here before but that takes the biscuit. No it won't happen. There is no reason for it to. We have to ask them for access to 400 million consumers. They in return get access to 65 million. We have no clout to demand anything except what they put on the table.



You aren't talking about negotiation but us dictating to them what we will pay (or not) for access the market. If they won't jump to our tune getting out doesn't solve anything as we are in exactly the same position.



It is not short term scaremongering. It's common sense. And in case yo missed it we haven't had a full on war between any members of EU since 1945, so it worked on that score as well. It's nationalism (and the Le Pen faction in France) that is far more dangerous in that regard.

Dave O: The "rules" are not set in stone. To decide they are is ridiculous and if you believe everything is then that supports the case for Brexit. They ARE in fact negotiable. The fact that Germany has such a big balance of payments surplus with us makes the 400 million v 65 million point redundant. You must remember we are the 5th biggest economy in the world and so they will wish to trade with us. Lord Lawson takes this view and as he says even if we cannot negotiate better terms and have to accept tariffs - so what? In the long-term we could deal with that, just as we did before we joined the EU. We would find our way in the world - as the UK is just about the most creative and innovative place on the globe.

Thatcher used to talk about the need to encourage those "risk-takers" (entrepreneurs) and it seems our PM and defeatist people like you think it is too risky to pull out of a failing super-state that we don't even want to be a part of! If that's what has become of this nation there is no hope for the UK's future.

You also forget that if (probably when) we vote yes then it will be revenge time for a decade or two to come - no British politician will have a leg to stand on in Brussels' negotiations because the people will have been deemed to have spoken. On the other hand, if we vote out it is likely that the EU will face an existential crisis and there may well be no one to worry about paying for single market access.

We haven't had a full war with Japan since 1945. So, what is your point?

It's just pure scaremongering from the 'In' campaign.

But until the “Out” lot explain what they think their future plans entail, it is scary stuff.

The “In” lot can’t “Pooh,pooh” the alternatives, because so far it’s all so sketchy.

Just because Henley Boris wants out, should we all tick the box?

Lord Owen, Lord Lawson, Boris, Gove, etc. seems like the more thoughtful and intelligent of our politicians want out. Most of those advocating in are yes men / women with a warped sense of loyalty to Calamity Cameron. The sort of people who have spent the rest of their careers pretending to be anti-EU. So the dishonest slime balls want in and the eveything / nothing to lose want out. Doesn't that help you?

Yes it does .

David Owen – Stabbed the Labour party in the back.

Nigel Lawson – Stabbed Thatcher in the back.

Boris Johnson – Stabbed Cameron in the back.

Your generalisation that nearly all the Conservative Politicians who want to stay in the E.U. are dishonest is utterly ludicrous.

This debate is strangely reminiscent of the Scottish independence debate.

Let's hope it isn't as divisive and violent then.

Britain does not and never has needed the EU. We are a great nation that pioneered the industrial revolution and parliamentary democracy, that set the benchmark for standards of liberty, that is a world leader in technological and scientific advancement, and that has, and always has had, a global outlook. We have no need or derive any benefit for surrendering our legal traditions, democracy or national sovereignty to an undemocratic, economically failing, demographically declining, insular and protectionist political union. The whole concept of Britain being in the EU is laughable and barely worth discussing. Indeed even the Remain camp have failed to put forward a single facts-based argument for remaining within this dying organisation, instead they resort to gross manipulation of statistics and ever-increasingly ludicrous disaster scenarios (no more wine or cheese, ISIS will bomb us every day, 3 million unemployed, alone in the world, king kong will destroy London etc etc). However for those who aren't Eurofanatics or unwavering in their belief in Britain the facts are as followsEconomy

1). Britain is the EU's largest market. We have an annual trading deficit of £9bn so it is in the best interests of Europe to continue trading with us (indeed the Lisbon Treaty requires members to negotiate a free trade agreement with any departing member). It beggars belief to assume that the Germans will stop selling us cars, the Greeks will stop selling us olives, the French will stop selling us cheese etc. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Brexit will result in any significant job losses or economic disruption.
2). Britain makes an annual net contribution of £8bn to the EU and this is growing thanks to David Cameron's successful negotiation of an EU budget freeze whilst agreeing to increase Britain's contribution. We pay roughly double what we receive so every region, farmer, charity, university etc that currently receives funds from the EU could receive double the level of funding if we left the EU (alternatively the money saved could be used to increase spending on the NHS, education etc.
3). A cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Treasury whilst Gordon Brown was chancellor (and which was never published due to its preliminary findings which we only found out about thanks to a whistleblower leaking in to the press) found that GDP would be 8% higher if we had never joined the EU.
4). Only 10% of UK businesses are involved in trade with Europe yet 100% of UK businesses must comply with its legislation. The annual cost to the UK of complying with EU regulation is estimated to be £167 bn. The burden of complying with regulation is the number 1 reason given for the failure of small businesses to survive by their owners. Indeed this is one of the main reasons why big business supports membership as they can afford the costs of compliance whilst small companies cannot, thus it reduces market competition and encourages the emergence of monopolies (other reasons are it makes it easier for them to lobby as they simply go to the EU commission to get favourable measures passed rather than approaching 28 member states and they get substantial grants from the EU).
5). The impact on the EU on ordinary households is a net cost of £933 per annum.
6). The majority of British exports are not to Europe. Exports to the EU are currently 44% of our total and this is falling as the EU economy continues to stagnate as a result of the never-ending Eurocrisis. Brexit would allow us to eliminate the tariffs currently in place to discriminate against the growing economies of the world and establish free trade agreements with the likes of India, China, USA, Brazil etc. Indeed in a 2005 Heads of Commonwealth a Commonwealth free trade area was proposed which the majority of members supported and the minority that opposed refused to veto. However the idea was vetoed by Tony Blair, knowing that as an EU member we would not be able to participate. We therefore missed the opportunity to trade freely with the fastest economically and demographically growing bloc in the world, a bloc that will seen overtake the EU in terms of GDP.
7). Membership of the EU has decimated our fishing & farming industries.

Global Influence

1). Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. We have the sixth most powerful military force and are one of only 7 nations with nuclear weapons. We are also one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The idea that we need to be within the EU to have influence in the world is laughable.
2). As a member of the EU we no longer have a seat at the World Trade Organisation. Instead we have 1/28th of a seat. Therefore we have lost our ability to have a say in important matters of global trade. Ominously the EU has plans to have a seat at the UN Security Council as a replacement for the current seats as national members that Britain and France currently enjoys.
3). Within the EU we have very little influence. Since joining we have opposed 72 measures proposed by the Council and have been overruled each time. When David Cameron was desperate to secure some meagre concessions to help him win the referendum he was given next to nothing by the EU. Within the EU Commission very few of the bureaucrats are Britain, within the Council Britain only has 1/28th of the total voting power and within the Parliament only 9.7% of the MEPs are British. Overall therefore we have next to no influence in the EU.
4). Some Leavers advocate a Swiss or Norwegian style association with the EU. Remain counter that those countries have no influence over EU legislation but must adopt them in full, thus Britain would be worse off than it currently is. Firstly this is incorrect in that Britain's demographic and economic importance is far greater than either of those countries so we would invariable be able to secure a much better deal. Secondly actually they only adopt 21% of EU rules and their EU contribution is far lower than ours, indeed if their deals were so disadvantageous as Remain claim then why do opinion polls consistently show very little public support for full EU membership?

Sovereignty

1). Between 55%-84% of our laws (depending on whether you believe the House of Commons library, independent think-tanks, EU officials or the German government) are made by unlected bodies in Brussels. We have no power to elect or remove these law makers.
2). Membership of the EU means that we have no control of our borders when it comes to EU migrants. This increases the pressure on UK governments to bar non-EU citizens from migrating into this country as they must respond to continued public hostility to mass migration by focusing on the whole area it can actually control. This means we have the absurd situation whereby we ban Indian doctors, Chinese engineers etc from entering this country to fill skills shortages whilst allowing unskilled Europeans to enter. Not only is this economic nonsense but there is also an underlying racism that white Europeans can come freely whilst it is very difficult for Africans / Asians to come here.
3). The European Arrest Warrant and various measures to do with policing that Theresa May opted into allows UK citizens to be arrested in this country by foreign police for alleged acts that aren't even crimes in the UK. They can then be transported to foreign countries for trial, during which they do not enjoy the same protections of habeus corpus, presumption of innocent until proven guilty or trial by jury that they can enjoy in this country. There have been numerous cases of people arrested under the EAW and taken to France, Greece and Hungary where they have been detained for months without any charges being presented. Clearly cross-border cooperation is necessary to fight crime but bi-lateral extradition treaties, as we have with many non-EU countries (e.g. the UK), are sufficient to ensure criminals accused of genuine crimes for which the prosecuting country can present clear evidence of guilt are a far better method than the EAW.
4). The EU plans to harmonise members' legal systems. Given that our legal system is unique it is likely to mean abolishing common law and replacing it with that used on the Continent. We can therefore wave goodbye to habeus corpus, trial by jury and presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

Terrorism

1). Despite the claims of either camp it is unlikely that either Remaining or Leaving will increase / decrease the risk of terrorism. Most terrorism plots are uncovered through the intelligence sharing of the 5 eyes network (non-EU) so leaving will not reduce our ability to detect plots.

Immigration

1). Studies show that immigration has £NIL effect on GDP capita. Whilst it benefits the rich from having cheap labourers (as Lord Rose of the Remain campaign said his reason for supporting the EU is that reduces salary costs for employers), it makes the poor poorer by depressing wages (the lowest wages have been estimated to be £10.67 per hour if we hadn't had the mass migrations from Eastern Europe rather than minimum wage as currently), increasing competition for social housing and increasing unemployment.



1). Never trust these organisations as impartial sources when it comes to the EU. All receive substantial funding from the EU, with 15 of the 36 FTSE signatories to Cameron's "In" letter receiving a combined £94m in grants and the BBC receiving £4m per year from the EU.



1). The EU has not brought peace to Europe, NATO has. Since WW2 the American superpower has occupied Europe and entwined the majority of nations in the NATO alliance of mutual defence. Seriously which European country would have started a war that would have brought them into conflict with the US?
2). The EU has not brought the UK prosperity. Our prosperity since the 70s is due to the market reforms of Thatcher, not being part of the EU.
3). Social and environmental legislation would have been passed by UK governments, regardless of membership of the EU, as a result of the move away from a manufacturing-based economy, trade union membership and 13 years of Labour government.

Overall the EU is an anachronistic bureaucratic empire that is a relic from the 20th century. It has no place in the 21st century and is highly detrimental to the British ppl and small businesses. Of course the rich and big businesses like it as it destroys competition, undermines social mobility and depresses wages, as well as making it easier for them to lobby for favourable legislation. Inevitably it therefore appeals to Tory, Labour and Lib Dem politicians who invariably act in favour of their wealthy donors. It is therefore a question as to whether we think our politics should be conducted in accordance with the economic interests of the ordinary majority or the wealthy minority? Should we be an independent self-governing democratic nation or a province of a failing empire administered by an unaccountable bureaucracy? Should we honour the sacrifices our ancestors made to resist European domination or should we repudiate their legacy? These are the questions we should contemplate ahead of 23rd June. Anybody who cares about this country and its people should vote Leave.

USA, China and Japan, the 3 single largest economies in the world can't get enough of British goods, especially luxury goods with British heritage and royal warrants, they literally go mad for the stuff. To think leaving the EU will suddenly see the Chinese not want to buy Burberry or the Americans not want to buy Barbour is as you say laughable. The Germans knew what they were doing when they bought the Rolls Royce and Bentley marques.

Aston Martin are creating a new plant in Wales to produce the new DBX. It will create 750-1000 skilled jobs and will see the majority of it's sales in China and USA. It's actually being built to appeal to a younger American market. How many do you think will be sold in Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia and do you really think Aston Martin care?

That is why I, as the employee of a medium sized manufacturing business that exports all over the world (including Japan and China) will be voting to stay in. A straw poll at our senior management's monthly meeting resulted in 1 out, 5 in and one absentee. The MD voted in so, it would appear that my employer has considered to be in the company's best interest to be in the EU.

It does amuse me when UKIPers say we can negotiate new trade agreements with the rest of the world. They seem be to naively assuming that we can secure better terms as a single entity than we can as a part of a trading block of half a billion people.