Watched the first ten minutes; really interesting, despite some questionable and obviously biased positioning. I've bookmarked it for later. :thumbup1:

Lies told to Norway before they rejected EU membership
 

Lies told to Norway before they rejected EU membership





https://youtu.be/i-UbT0g9A8c


The campaign to get Britain out of the European Union has taken a three-point lead over the "Remain" campaign, polling firm TNS said on Tuesday, the first time it has found the "Out" campaign ahead since February.

Forty-one-percent of respondents wanted Britain out of the EU, up five percentage points from a May 3 poll, while those wanting to remain in the bloc fell one point to 38 percent.


Well done Mark Carney, Balls, Osborne & Cable Mick O'Leary et al. Can we have more "Project Fear" from you plz

Remain 55% - 37% Brexit

IPSOS MORI 18.05.16

An outside opinion
 

I'm relatively new to HUBB, so I should probably confess two (or three) things about myself first:

1. As I recently broke a few bones in an accident, I currently got way too much time, which is probably why I read through way too many comments here - no offense!:innocent:

2. I am German by birth and citizenship (living snd working in the UK for some 5 years now), so I'm not unbiased to all of this but can perhaps contribute to somewhat of an outside view on this.

3. I am an economist and, having previously worked in finance, am currently doing a PhD in international monetary economics. So I can say a few things about the economic arguments being made.

I can understand the emotional case people make for Brexit in the UK to a certain degree. Britain has a very proud tradition of the oldest parliament in the world among with the pioneers of free markets and human rights, and it has defended this continent against evil in some of its darkest times, which was appreciated by the turn of history with the loss of an empire. Given all that, advise coming from the other side of the channel is understandably not always appreciated.

But then there is the reality of international policy in a globalising world: We don't live in a colonial world any more and and we face a whole bunch of problems that require international cooperation. And for that we need to move to a new understanding of governance, one based on international cooperation. Where we negotiate international treaties that are then defining our understanding on how we work and live together, trade, travel; how we protect ourselves from abuse, fraud, our consumers from malpractice etc. Since these treaties are being negotiated, one will have to commit to compromises and, yes, it implies a loss of sovereignty.

Then there is the economics of it. The biggest case seems to be made about migration. Europe seems to be overrun by refugees, in constant crisis and as a consequence everyone seems to want to the UK. First, let's establish that there is a difference between a refugee and an economic migrant and that Europe is by no means overrun by refugees, but rather behaving like a giant ***** in the light of crises in our direct neighbourhood, that we have in many cases at least contributed to. Let's also establish that roughly as many Brits live on the continent as vice versa. But more importantly, that immigration is a good thing! And yes, even in low wage segment.

A paper on the economic effects of the balkan refugee wave on the Danish labour market was published this year! Interestingly, since it used panel data one could "follow" specific cohorts of sample individuals and in away track the careers of people. It turned out that, yes, migration did increase competitive pressure in the lower wage segments. But, because the Danish labour market is very flexible, people reacted to this pressure simply by moving occupations to more productive jobs. This led to an increase in wages and employment throughout the whole labour market spectrum. Other research is usually inconclusive or shows insignificant effects for low-wage migration. But I don't know of any recent reputable paper that shows unambiguously significant negative effects of migration. So what matters isn't migration but the labour market structure.

Then, there seems an odd conviction of the British that the continent would be economically dragging along. As a matter of fact recent figures suggest that the UK is actually growing below average in the EU, that average income, taking living costs into account, is about average, that overall welfare as measured by the HDI is about average. Yes, the Euroarea is a bit of a pain but given the crises it was confronted with it is doing alright - there were crucial reforms to banking supervision, and, although not complete, a banking union is almost standing. The banking sector has consolidated (not just in Europe) and public finances in most countries have improved. But, yes, there still is a long way to go. But then, we were hit by quite some crises, and the UK has a quite a bit of a public deficit as well I believe. So no exception here.

Now, trade. Well, it's actually quite simple. The EU is a customs union. If you leave it you gotta pay tariffs. Thinking that you just simply adopted a no tariff free-trade regime sounds nice, but is also incredibly naive. Do you really think the government would simply scrap all tariffs? Come on! Think Tata, to name just one example. But also examples of tariffs or embargo's used as tools for foreign policy? Surely, the EU's protectionist policies were often horrendous - especially agricultural subsidies. But that has lost more and more in significance. In fact the often dreaded common agricultural subsidies took more than 70% of the EU budget in 1982. Now it's just about a third. When it comes to trade, don't fool yourselves. Yes, Germans will still be selling cars, and French food to the UK but it'll be more expensive and hence less. But more importantly, they'll be all too keen locking up their service sectors and that'll be a real blow to finance in the UK.

Regulation. Yes, there is silly regulation coming from Brussels. But guess what, you'll find that everywhere and Brussels bureaucracy is actually relatively small considering the size of the single market. Most of it actually considers norms and consumer protection. I actually appreciate that electrical appliances need to be tested before they can be sold and that food needs to be labeled. Also, the EN norms I think were quite useful. Yes, indeed, you can go on measuring things in stones, pounds, yards and inches, but sorry... it isn't very practicable. Can you give me one good reason why we should have different power plugs? Emission controls I believe are a good thing as well. Or the ban of certain pesticides or animal protection regulations when it comes to a lot of farming ect. But more importantly, you'll have to meet all these regulations anyway, if you want to trade with the EU.

Well, then, is the EU democratic? Yes, of course it is! All legislation that comes from Brussels has to go through the European parliament and the European Council. Actually, the Lisbon Treaty crucially strengthens the parliament and enabled it to draft own legislation to become the main legislative chamber. The EU Commission is elected by the parliament in the same way every government is and was clearly running campaigns with candidates for the presidency. When just less then half of the population is casting a vote but a clear majority is complaining about a lack of democracy, well whose fault is this then? It seems to me, that the reason people perceive the EU as undemocratic is because national decisions can be overruled. Well, but then a majority of Europeans was against it. That's democracy!

Jurisdiction: The European Charter of Human rights was essentially following a blueprint of an understanding of universal human rights drafted British lawyers after WWII. It enshrined the right to a fair trial, privacy, freedom of speech among other things. It's exercised at the European Courts of Justice in Strasbourg. The UK appoints one of the judges and one advocate general for it. Theresa May has recently criticised it for its rulings on anti terrorism laws and its enforcement on the right for privacy. But frankly, the way the UK government dealt with these rights was at times appalling and people should be more concerned about this. Today I actually saw a discussion on this on the BBC: A "constitutional expert" in defence of Brexit argued against the ECJ because it weren't British judges ruling there. What a condescending thing to say!

But frankly what I found quite surprising is to find so much Euroscepticism on this platform. Of all the people, you are the ones benefitting from it. You travel a lot across Europe and clearly benefit from open borders. You only need one currency in Europe and wouldn't have to deal with a multitude of exchange rates. And I bet many of you got holiday homes in Europe or even live abroad. Not to mention cheap airfares. So, you can't be serious when you want to vote for a lot of hassle to come just for a bit of national pride!

Cheers and apologies that this ended up so massive (as said: too much time)!

Wayne

Quite a good debate, but a bit long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTJ...ature=youtu.be

Wayne

I'm not saying that the UK won't be able to protect itself or cope with any of these things but merely that there is an advantage to be had from cooperation. Take trade sanctions against Iran for example: It was just after the EU has embargoed Iranian oil export that diplomatic breakthroughs were achieved. Take the refugee crisis: Cooperation failed and what did it lead to? A dodgy deal with Turkey. But also security: Extradition treaties were a nightmare before the common arrest warrant. And even now there should be far more and not less cooperation in policing. Needless to say how important cooperation and common regulation is in finance.

It would be a valid point, if this was a problem. But it isn't. Yes, there will be people who exploit the system. But you'll find the same for Brits. And the majority is paying into the system and has a job. Fiscally it's a very simple thing: more people pay in than receive benefits (including all kinds of indirect benefits) so it's a win. But when we talk about benefit fraud, why don't we just come up with the simple solution of working on a European social charter? Jeremy Corbyn seems to be thinking along these lines lately. Although I frequently disagree with him, I think he's got a point there. Also, the EU is letting you do quite a bit about benefit tourism: Remember, there will be a benefits ban for 4 years.

You are nowhere near the point of overpopulation in the UK. Yes, the population density is very high. But that's manly because about a fifth of the population lives in the Southeast not because there isn't enough space. Yet London has hugely benefitted from migration. Just compare it to a few decades ago when the population was in decline. And sorry, but the facts just clearly speak in favour of it. The empirical evidence is quite overwhelming.

And I'm not saying that it is. But Greece was also confronted with a set of austerity policies combined with a reform agenda, that would frankly let Thatcherism appear as a walk in the park. Look, no one would deny that Greece was messing up big time, or Germany for that matter. But there is no point in being vindictive about it. We need to get on with it. And the Greek have actually achieved more than they are often credited for. Well and Italy still has a deficit, yes. But the stubborn focus on deficits is a bit narrow anyway. They also went through some crucial labour market reform. Spain has consolidated its banking sector drastically and now sees good growth, and a fall in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. France is now finally tackling its overly rigid labour market. And most importantly, your not a member of the Euro area anyway, and will never have to be - you got a permanent opt out. So let's be fair on this.

Let's just clarify something about the WTO: It is an organisation to settle trade disputes. The EU is a member of it. As a member of the EU Britain has all benefits of of WTO membership as well. BUT added to that it benefits from no tariffs among member states. We can do this because we agreed an a common set of rules and regulations. Its called the single market, and even the Brexit camp doesn't deny that you won't have access to it any more. And that should worry you. When you look at steel tariffs by the way, you will find that the EU tariffs have led to more than a 90% drop of imports. Sure, one can levy 3-400% tariffs like the Americans do. But what's the point, if you locked out imports already? But then, didn't Brexiters pledge not to tariff anything anymore? Well...

I'm glad you mention Switzerland by the way, because I'm a frequent reader of the NZZ, a leading Swiss daily. So I follow the debate over there closely. And they can't be clearer about the warnings the sent! Following the referendum on migration, the Bundesrat is now struggling to implement legislation that is in line with the so-called bi-laterals. This is a set of rules the Swiss had to sign in order to gain access to the single market. So, just like Norway, Switzerland is effectively an EU member but can't decide on any policies. And with the recent they might've cut themselves out of the single market which is actually hitting their economy already.

Look, nobody is messing with your beloved adaptors and you can go on driving on the left and measure things in cans of thunder and bottles of sunshine. But don't you think there should at least be a minimum of common norms for things to make life a bit easier? Take a printer for example. Would you like a world in which you would have to buy different sheets of paper depending on where the printer was produced at just because one couldn't find agreement on a common letter size? And sorry, the metric system is just better. It just is! But keep your imperials. Nobody really cares in Europe.

Yes, imagine that? And you know why? Because there are other's national decisions as well. And you can have the decency to respect that! There are policies that are affecting all of Europe (trade). Decisions on this will have to be legitimised by all of Europe as well then. That's what the EU parliament is for. And guess what? Everyone had a vote in that. You may have voted for somebody else than the current commission (I hope you voted at all; and by the way: I have voted for that commission), but a majority in Europe disagreed with you then and you will have to accept that. Those are the rules of the game and that isn't any different in the UK. Funnily enough you could make the same argument against any UK government: "They're not doing what I want, I haven't voted for them, they're overruling Yorkshires council of elders... how dare they? Undemocratic!". But that's a bit childish, don't you think?

Well, the Greenwald thing was quite bad and I think you should be more concerned about your governments attitude towards privacy and press freedom in many instances (also: think Leveson), but I invite you to review some of their most prominent cases. All on wikipedia. But more to the point, this is just about living up to your own standards. British lawyers drafted the thing. And they are a panel of judges, representing all EU countries (two of them British) by the way. Sounds fair to me.

You might as well say scrap the justice system altogether. Its fantastically expensive and why having checks and balances? People will just do the right think. Seriously, don't be that naive.

This is a bit like the "What have they ever done for us"-sketch from Monty Python, don't you think?

I mean, hey, in the end of the day it's your decision and a lot of us might actually go back to where they came from. But if you think it solves any of the domestic problems that the Brexiters want to make you believe it does, you're mistaken. Nothing will be solved but a lot destroyed, so not too sure about that.

Also, I'm just giving you my opinion. So chillax! :thumbup1:

EDITED BY TIM CULLIS TO REMOVE EXCESSIVE QUOTATION

Welcome to the forum and our country. I hope our NHS is treating your broken bones to your satisfaction. In reading your viewpoint I find some of your position to be contradictory; how does restricting our country to the protective confines of the EU and its' customs union correspond with the concept of globalisation?


That controlled immigration can be economically beneficial is beyond dispute. This is what we seek in an independent UK. However, your position on immigration is hopelessly naive; EU ideologues see those people who identify themselves as British, Greek, German, French etc., instead of "European" as the chief obstacle to accelerating the single state project. They will want to inflate the population with as many people, both intra Europe and from outside Europe as possible because those people don't carry what they see as outdated cultural baggage, and as beneficiaries of open border Europe they can be relied upon to vote for more of it. It is dangerous gerrymandering. This is most clearly visible by the tear gassing, baton wielding EU border forces and their newly erected barbed wire fences we see on the news. The Schengen system of passport free travel is now effectively dead.


The future trade policy is up for grabs. In my view we have no need of any trade agreement with the EU or anyone else. We simply trade under WTO rules. Simple. Your tariffs only contribute to your further economic decline. Goods (including BMW's) will be available at world prices, not at “EU protective cartel” prices. In short, prices will fall, rapidly and steeply.


The blow to the finance and banking in the UK is already under way. The City will still face a hard time if we remain in the EU as the UK did not achieve a veto to protect it from greater control by the eurozone and from decisions of the European Court of Justice. In recent years, there has been increased tension between the eurozone and non-eurozone members, with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) having to decide on areas of contention.


There has been a trend in which the UK has witnessed a declining ability to influence the regulatory environment for the financial sector, in areas such as the bank bonus tax, the financial transactions tax and the ban on short selling. In view of this, in early 2015, there was a concerted political effort to ensure the ECJ decided in favour of the EU on the issue of allowing euro clearing to take place outside of the eurozone and in London. While this was a significant victory, remaining in the EU does not resolve the issue. In the future it is likely that the eurozone will centralise further, ensuring that the ECJ will have to decide again in the future on areas of contention. Protecting the City was
considered one of the most important aspects of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, but the legal opinion is that water tight protection was not achieved.


Regulation? As a German and an economist you will know that your country's Wirtschaftswunder was largely thanks to Ludwig Erhard and his quasi ordoliberal theory. It's emphasis on liberal deregulation is what drove Germany to its' current economic heights. What a shame therefore, that the EU and its' re-regulation will bring all that to an end. Don't take us with you.


That the EU is democratic is plainly and so obviously untrue as to not be worthy of further comment.


Of course there are some conveniences to the freedom of movement but I have no problem travelling to Switzerland as I just did, or Norway where I wish to go this summer. As for cheap air fares, low cost airlines are my profession; When Stelios, a wealthy, well connected Greek wished to start an airline where did he choose to do so? London. When Tony Ryan finally put his shoulder to the wheel one last time which city pair did he start with? London was one… Each airline, when first attempting expansion into Europe faced concerted and systematic obstruction from local, national and EU regulators and vested interests. Ironically, they are now both strong advocates of “remain” perhaps because their business models depend on the wholesale shipment of PAX from poorer EU countries to richer EU countries. I'm sure Gdansk is a worthy place, not on my bucket list though. The EU now seeks the re-regulation of the airline market through taxation, working directives and a thousand minor regulations Air France, Lufty et al can lobby the corrupt EU commission with. Don't even get me started on Alitalia!!!




Good luck with your Phd. You will find that an English Phd is more rigorous than a German Phd and in defending your thesis or dissertation you will come under more rigorous examination than I have provided here. In that and in your arguments for remain I would humbly give you some advice:-

...contradictions can't exist in nature you should therefore check you premises. "You will find that one of them is wrong."

All of the above though, is utterly irrelevant; as a scholar you will understand the concept of a moral inversion. For me this is what the EU is. A corrupt cross-section of the culturally prominent and politically connected that loudly damns all the values and virtues that being British embodies; reason, independence, self-interest, and pride in productive achievement and more besides. In this referendum, to pursue their doctrine the EU and their advocates are seeking in us, the sanction of the victim, a sanction they need from us in order to destroy us. It is their only power over us. Don't give it to them. Vote leave.

I somehow sense this it not really a welcome, is it?

Yes it does. As the German insurance system would yours. And also, as it should since I was and still paying into the pot. So I don't feel the urge to be exceptionally grateful, in case you insinuated that.


This seems to be a term used in public debate to suggest being in favour of migration when all one actually just wants to close borders and cap migration. It suggests that there is need to control, steer and eventually cap migration when this is empirically simply wrong! I know it is counter intuitive but the evidence suggests that precisely uncontrolled migration has positive employment and income effects.

How can we say this? Well, first because of the group of migrants we looked at - refugees, surely the kind of group an immigration control system would reject.

How can we say this is not because of any factors that were actually controlling for? This is dealing with a so-called endogeneity problem: The number of refugees coming into a specific region may be determined the local labour market situation which would in turn be affected by that number of refugees coming in. Thus, we cannot empirically distinguish cause and effect. The way we deal with this is by constructing an instrument for labour supply. And that is the Danish refugee dispersion policy. Because coincidentally, it was absolutely random. That means that when precisely looking at an experimental setup when any kind of control does not matter, do we get these positive effects.

And why is that? Precisely because inlanders face competitive pressure! Since when did we start believing competition was something bad? Macro-economically, labour is essentially a factor of production. So allowing for it to be traded freely and internationally (no I'm not referring to slavery but lifting immigration related work restrictions) causes efficiency gains and makes us more prosperous.

So why not do it and just abandon all borders? Well, interestingly estimates suggest that world GDP would indeed rise by some 60% if we did that but the problems are mainly political ones. In other words, we simply couldn't agree on the right terms with many countries (availability of e-passports, problems with criminal records systems and all kinds of diplomatic issues). So we ended up in a system where we unfortunately still need way to many visas to live and travel in other places. But within the EU we could and we should really, really appreciate this.

This is actually the only good point I see on the side of the Brexit campaign, although I am a big-time supporter of that single state. Because, I believe, if you guys don't want to be member of such a project, why force you into it? I thought there were some good points raised on this earlier in the discussion. In the end, Europeans want their state, the UK doesn't want it. So why should it stay in, being on a permanent break on everything?

Well, truth be told, nobody forces the UK into anything. There is a permanent opt out from the Eurozone and now from ever closer union, so it seems quite clear that the UK gets that extra of autonomy and it will keep it. Most integration happens within the Euroarea and the UK won't be affected. But what you talk about is quitting treaties that have previously been agreed and that is jeopardising the relationship between EU and the UK in an unnecessary way.


Please try to understand what trading under WTO rules means! The EU is a member of the WTO, so it does follow its rules. The UK decided to delegate its trade policy to the EU because this way it would simply have a stronger negotiating position in the WTO plus lower tariffs! And the UK has a say in European trade policy! A significant one! WTO rule means less, not more trade! What Patrick Minford is trying to sell you is a lie. His calculations seem pretty outdated to begin with and underlying assumptions are preposterous! Do you really believe the UK would abandon all of its tariffs? Or that China suddenly does a u-turn on steel? And yes, the UK market is important to the EU, but don't fool yourself: a UK government would be taken to town in Europe in renegotiations. The Swiss had to experience and the Norwegians did as well. By the way, reputable research suggests that trading blocks actually increase world trade. And again, Minford is reputable. He is an Economist equivalent to big tobacco, climate change deniers or the NRA!


No, just partly. It was mostly a catch-up of growth following previous destruction. Other countries experienced it as well. But yes, I do believe in de-regulation, and surely it played a central role in our economic success. But I also believe in market failures and that the EU is not responsible for everything it's blamed for.

How is that untrue? You could vote in EU elections couldn't you? And your PM sits in the EC, doesn't he? He even has a veto there. The only thing you can't get over is that some legislation is decided Europe-wide, meaning others have a vote as well when you would just like to force your opinion on it.

Aha. Good to know. What a high quality contribution that is!

EDITED BY TIM CULLIS TO REMOVE EXCESSIVE QUOTATION


Your economics may or may not be valid. They are your views, one amongst many. As the old joke goes:

The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.

Whilst you ignore the existential reasons for rejecting the EU you still dispute its' democratic credentials; I haven't the time to express my personal views on all the ways the EU is undemocratic so I shall relay this concise, short essay.

The EU's law-making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services.

There are four key institutions of the EU: the European Commission, European Parliament, European Council and the Court of Justice of the EU. Each institution supposedly represents separate interests. The Commission represents the EU, the Parliament represents the people, the Council represents the Governments of each Member State and the Court interprets the law. However, these institutions do not do this in practice, as they all represent large multinationals and an integrationist agenda, as the intention is to create a federal United States of Europe. This new country already has a flag, a Parliament, an anthem, Presidents, currency, a legal system, legal status and a navy - to name just a few.

The EU Commission is the guardian of the treaties and enforces EU law. More importantly, this means it is the Government of Europe which has the sole right to propose the laws which increasingly encroach on our lives here in Britain.

The Commission is made up of 28 unelected commissioners, who cannot be held to account. Each commissioner has a specific policy area in which to create laws. The Commission has a President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker); unlike the other 27 commissioners he is personally elected by the European Parliament, however his was the only name on the ballot paper, not exactly democratic. The Commission is advised by the Directorate General, which along with the Commission is heavily lobbied. Once the Commission proposes an EU law, this proposal is taken to the Parliament.

Secondly, the Parliament is made up of 751 MEPs who are elected by the people in EU Member States every five years in elections. National parties arrange themselves into European groups of similar parties throughout Europe. It also has a President (currently Martin Schulz) who was voted in by the Parliament, but once again he was the only candidate. Theoretically, the Parliament has the ability to remove the Commission; however the Parliament has never successfully been able to remove it - even when the Commission has been full of corrupt cronies. The Parliament didn't even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia's national bank.

This is not a Parliament in any real sense, as they have no right to propose laws. Instead it is a façade, created to make the EU look democratic, rather than give the public a choice over those who makes their laws. The Parliament does vote and can make amendments on laws proposed by the Commission, but the Commission must accept any of the amendments proposed for the changes to become effective, showing where the power lies.

Additionally, once something becomes an EU law, the Parliament has no ability to propose a change to this law. All the power is given to the Commission. It is clear the public's elected representatives do not matter in the EU. It's a 'club' to push through laws which would be rejected by national Parliaments. Once the Parliament approves an EU proposal, it is sent to the European Council.

The European Council - sometimes called The Council - is the meeting of the Member States. It is called the European Council when the leaders of each Member State are in attendance, and The Council when it's the ministers for the policy area being discussed attending. This is the final hurdle any European proposal has to pass in order to become law. Decision-making at this stage is done almost entirely by Qualified Majority Voting. This means the UK Government can vote against a proposal and as long as it receives enough votes from the other Member States it becomes law in the UK anyway. The UK only has a veto to prevent EU laws impacting the UK in a very minor number of areas. If the European Council/Council approves proposals, they become EU law. They will be in the form of EU regulations or directives. If they are regulations the new EU law applies to all Member States without any of those states having to pass legislation in their own home Parliaments. If they are directives, the national Parliaments are forced to change their national laws within a specific time limit to comply with EU law - whether they want to or not.

Finally, the Court of Justice of the EU is supposed to interpret EU laws to ensure they comply with the EU treaties. Unfortunately, it does not do this. It happily ignores the treaties when it wants to if the EU is pushing its own federalist agenda. This is not a court like we have in this country; it is a kangaroo court wilfully ignoring the rule of law, as it did with the bailouts which should have been deemed illegal. The treaties clearly stated bailouts were illegal, but as the bailouts helped to prop up the failing Eurozone project, the EU court allowed them anyway.

The EU is a highly undemocratic organisation ratcheting more and more power with every passing day. It is impervious to public opinion. The people who matter in the law-making process are unelected and therefore unaccountable. The only way to secure genuine democratic control over our own law makers is to leave.

In choosing to dispute the above you would lead me neatly on to the ultimate error you make; ignoring the “law of identity” :- A is A.

Again I haven't the time to define the philosophy in relation to the EU and nationality so I will quote from the good book - and you may or may not "get it":

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

And to which I would merely add – I Am British! A is A

Look, I guess it's pointless going on about this. If you believe the EU is ruled by the Illuminati, then that's your opinion and I accept that. But I won't exhaust myself in something that frankly has stopped being a debate a long time ago. I actually just wanted to state my opinion and I've done that now.

On the 23rd you'll cast your vote and I'll hope for the best and on the 24th the world will still be turning and we will still be biking.

In that sense,

cheers!

@ Paul Wohlfart
@ Fastship

Outstanding points of view chaps. Simply wonderful to read your highly intellectual comments and arguments.

Don't stop. Keep it coming. I'm learning a lot. :thumbup1:

BUT puhleeze keep it friendly and open-handed. We are all mates in here. Transcending borders. Always our common aim.
bier

Cheers, glad you enjoyed it. No offence taken from or intended to fastship. So for me that's all cool. I just simply don't see a point in discussing articles from the out campaign or logics now. I think we're getting a bit off topic here. I guess I wrote enough to justify my opinion so that everyone can make up their minds on it.

So for now I rather leave it to others to chip in!

I thought Illuminati is what Ducati fit to the front of their bikes for those dark nights. :rofl:

I am chilled Paul, just giving you my input to your points bier

Ride safe

Wayne