For a German your English is very good.

Whilst your post regarding some of the fastest growing economies being in the commonwealth is an interesting headline.
Most of these places are "developing" economies and of course they have faster growth than the more developed Euro nations.
It's utter nonsense to suggest that we can suddenly replace our trade partners with the likes of Burma, Mozambique, Tanzania etc
Of the fastest growing economies in the world, at the moment, only China and India are "big" players.
Many people suggest that Africa will be the next big market to open up and the large conglomerates are already "helping" some of these nations, you know, giving them cash to buy favour (typical hallmarks of capitalism), even the Chinese are investing there, so they can get ahead and have first shout for cheaper raw materials.

What I would like someone in favour of exiting the Eurozone to do, is to first of all explain what our, relationship is likely to be with our present trading partners in Europe and be honest about the costs of setting up trade agreements with them and then be equally honest about the benefits of setting up unilateral deals with say India & China.

The tariffs that are currently applied to these nation's, which were set up to protect Europe from these countries "dumping" cheap product over here are not perfect by any means but, it would be naive in the extreme to think that Britain could lose (or reduce) these tariffs and supply freely to our nearest large market (Europe).
Can you really see that being allowed to happen ?

It could possibly allow us to trade further a field but, is this really a winning situation.

Danke

It's small minded and "I'm all right jack attitude" (generally a racist scum bag) when the little guys stick up for his or her standard of living. This of course is through the eyes of the perceived morally and intellectual superiors. When a high earning government employee (or some kind of client of the state) does it it's a noble battle in protection of services against Evil Tory cuts. The reality is both cases people are just trying to protect their own pocket. The only difference is the latter think it has the right to tell the former what is good for them. Sneers and snobbery are the words that come to mind.

So population growth through immigration is official Government policy?

Branson is just another one of the global business and financial elite, what's is the interest for them most certainly isn't in the interest of the average Brit. I only hope the voters can put that connection in their heads on election day.

A political idealogical battle is been played out between continuing Globalisation and reducing the effectiveness of national Democracy. So far it's one way and if it goes too far it will end in tears. Without the right to hold to account your politicians they have no reason what so ever to do what is best for the people. The EU will treat the the UK people as nothing more than a tax farm to redistribute. Three major crisis are playing out at the moment and imo we have yet to see no way near the worst of the effects. The Southern EU debt crisis ( to a lesser effect our down debt problems), biggest mass migration of people in history and the quest to make Turkey a member of the EU. What these showdowns play out the people I want representing me are people that I can hold to account. Who can hold an unelected suite in Brussels to account? these politicians have no real check and balances on themselves. It's all about democracy for me and I think a lot of voters under-valuing our democracy.

I think that the government has been quite happy to see a certain level of population increase and yes, this help our GDP to increase.
However, it also puts a strain on infrastructure and services (especially at a time when there have been severe austerity cuts but, no, I don't think that it has been deliberate government policy.

Without whom there would be no jobs for working class heroes to nobly toil at whilst being downtrodden and abused...

You've actually hit the nail on the head regarding globalisation. The problem is that it's happening and it's going to happen even more. I personally hate some aspects of globalisation but I can't pick and choose between the bits I like and those I don't like and trying to stop it is like Canute trying to hold back the tide (he knew he couldn't do it). Migration is another facet of globalisation. Again, we won't be able to stop it (without ever more draconian measures and militaristic security - not the kind of country I want to live in). The EU cocked up badly with the refugee issue but Britain on its own won't be able to stop people entering the country any more than it can now. The world's changed and Britain's changed - we can't go back to the old days before the EU, safe, familiar and comfy as it may seem from 2016 (it wasn't by the way) - and, in my opinion, you don't solve global issues like trade, the environment, terrorism, animal welfare, migration etc on your own. You can only solve them by having influence and you have influence by being in the EU, at the heart of it, helping to decide the direction it goes in. The EU isn't undemocratic. It's ponderous and bureaucratic and needs changing in many respects but it's not undemocratic. And, as regards Turkey - they simply will not get in the EU any time soon and they will NEVER get in if just one member state vetoes the decision. Turkey is not an issue.

A bit of a misrepresentation of Branson's achievements I think. Democratic accountability must be a bad thing in your world.

Who votes the EU commission into power who sets the agenda and whose interest do they act? I certainly don't remember giving them a mandate. I understand that Cyprus and Greece would veto Turkeys but whats to stop the EU giving them associate membership with full benefits? Nothing at all without the democratic means to remove them. They have no need to consider what the vast majority of the continent want, democracy is an hurdle to these bureaucrats. Without democracy all you have is violence as a means of political expression and with a treat of that come a oppressive form of government. 1984 comes to mind.

The Commission is unelected but it doesn't make laws. Elected MEPs consider the Commission,s recommendations and vote accordingly. Turkey has to satisfy something like 30 conditions for entry. So far, after 10 years negotiation, they've satisfied precisely one! It's not going to happen soon. And, do you think the UK would vote to admit Turkey?

It's government policy to encourage Turkeys membership.

Largely from European migrants?
Maybe from skilled migrants who could afford private new builds but open your eyes to see what "talent" is being let in!
I don't owe my living to low skilled migration.They are too high maintenance ,we have enough with our own low skilled population.

You are quite right about social housing though and availability.

I just don't buy the dog-whistle soundbites about big business and the financial elite; I agree that there are issues around fair taxation and sharp practices that need to be addressed, but without entrepreneurs and wealth creators like Branson, the economy would collapse.

Ironically, we're in a stronger position to do that stuff as part of the EU - the French finance authority for example, just raided Google's offices for tax compliance offences.