After reading all of these posts and being inspired to research a lot more about this issue, I've now changed my mind on the E.U.

I think an exit is probably favorable.

However, that would mean every decision about the U.K. and it's citizens would be made by our current government of cold blooded millionaires aristocrats. I don't know whats worse !!!

We'll end up like North Korea :eek:

Nervous comedy aside, this is a 'In a nut shell' in / out summary.

UK and the EU: Better off out or in? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642

So perhaps being free for Europe would be a good thing. But its hard to imagine it's going to be anything else than a painful and expensive divorce as confusion and uncertainty in the market and economy cause havoc. Id expect some kind of recession while the pieces of chessboard are reset.

Oprah, I said Oprah :helpsmilie:

Don't do it Ted!

It's a lot easier to argue for throwing all of the toys out of the pram and flouncing off than it is for maintaining the arrangements, procedures and agreements we currently have. The BBC link does a passable job of summarising the pros and cons but the whole article is laced with ambiguities and guesses - the economy (for example) will be up 1.6% (outs) or down 9.5% (ins) if we leave. No one knows. If we do leave and then have to renegotiate trade arrangements or any other agreements just hope there isn't a latter day DeGaulle on the other side of the table.

God knows the EU isn't perfect but it is and we are not only part of it, we have to take our share of responsibility for the way it is.

Whatever this nation decides, it will be HUGE gamble with endless consequences.

You actually believe the BBC ? No less a propaganda machine than RT.

DeGaulle was the best friend Britain ever had in Europe. He was honest enough to say we didn't fit their plan. No trade deal disguise there.

Andy

Now there's a dilemma: to bite or not to bite, that is the question. Tell you what, post up some links to an accepted, authoritative and neutral assessment of the pro's and con's of the debate and I'll read it / them with an open mind. After all that's all Ted was asking for in the first place and here we are on, what is it, page twelve?

Failing that, explain to me, line by line, what it is that my gullible gene has been taken in by on that BBC report. If I am too stupid to see the bias or untruths in it at least you'll have saved me from that pitfall. While you're doing that I'll just be talking to the bloke from Microsoft who's just phoned to say they've discovered a problem with my computer and wants to fix it .... :rofl:

DeGaulle was one of those who adhered to the concept of some sort of European Union (back then the EEC but the idea of some sort of Union already existed since the early days of the thing) paid by Germany and rulled politically by France. The presence of the UK in such contraption would go strongly against French interests. Historically, the UK always favoured an equilibrium of forces in the continent. Whenever the German states and later Germany were stronger the UK would favour France and vice-versa. This policy was strongly against DeGaulle's intentions.

It really is a large can of worms you've opened up here Ted!

I'm sat on the fence still, I can see good and bad sides to both sides of the debate.

The media, taking sides and embellishing views to coerce the population? Surely not....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No news provider in the world is unbiased some how. The BBC is very Royalist etc. It's paid for by the licence payer who is an audience that needs to be kept happy with what they see.

One has to read news from as many sources as possible and evaluate to their best ability what they believe to be reliable. The more sources the better. My mum is an old women and she reads the Daily Mail. She thinks that's what really goes on in the world and is scared of immigrants because it tells her too. I think it's a vile hatred spreading right wing rag. But I still read it every day.

Know thy enemy :)

Sensible way of looking at it Ted.

I've gone the other way over the last few years, and I don't really follow any of the media. Most was just scaremongering at best, most was bad news.
I'm of the opinion that if you fill your life with too much negativity that some of its got to rub off on you, so I'd rather make my own mind up and react accordingly.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As others have mentioned I don't take much notice of the media, especially MSM.
A skim read of the BBC article indicates to me that it is more or less balanced in that it gives a pros and cons view for each major consideration - the latter have been pretty much covered in here also.

Notably, the two most prosperous countries in the world (according to this think tank, which itself has plenty of journos on its books) are highlighted in the BBC article:
Norway is the Most Prosperous Country in the World

ps
Statistics in the Legatum article are taken with a dose of scepticism, as is normal for me.

Al Jazeera, at present anyway, makes a better job of covering world news.
But it too can have agendas, being based in Qatar.

Strangely, The USA channel of Al Jaz is closing down in April this year, just as the Presidential elections are under way.

I was in a WH Smith branch (a High St newsagents for anyone not from the UK still reading this "debate") yesterday and saw they had a whole shelf of own brand publications about the royals.There was one for each of the main players, complete with suitably regal looking portrait picture on the front cover. What made me smile though was that they'd put them on the top shelf not far from the porno mags, an irony that must have been lost on the store manager.

We probably wave the royals the way Americans wave the stars and stripes - it's a way of giving the population something to gather around / identify with, the feeling that there's something above the money grubbing sleaze that is politics. A kind of national version of good cop / bad cop.

I've been trying for some time to work out whether the Daily Mail is cause or effect. Whether it's leading the charge or just the mouthpiece of people who've "come to that conclusion all by themselves". I'll probably never find out until one of the papers does an article on it :rofl: - and not even then as I don't buy any of them any more.

Do people buy newspapers to broaden their minds or confirm their prejudices? I used to be an avid reader up until about 10yrs ago but something changed and I still haven't worked out whether it was me or them. Whether the internet forced them into niche areas or whether out of on-line, tv, radio, papers etc something had to give and it was the papers. Now my cynicism knows no bounds, particularly with the Mail's partner in crime, the Daily Express. Their "health miracle of the day" headlines are about as blatant an attempt to sell newspapers to the old, infirm and ill as it's possible to get short of employing Indian computer virus salesmen to do it for you.

Here's a candidate, and the comments to this blog post add a few more:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/01...-correction-3/

The Greeks must be tired of eating stale bread.

Not on my UK TV.
Talking of TV, UK kids are online more hours per day than they watch TV (says the BBC) - smart kids I say, who know not to waste their time.

Reading into the prosperity index a little further, specifically the table that shows most countries and the basis for how the table was constructed:
http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking

It turns out that a small country in the far east is the most prosperous country in the world, measured solely in economic terms, and it is an ex-British colony.

Namely, Singapore.