[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's wrong because of the date stamp? I don't see why that matters. They seem to use the weekend date for their publication, no idea why.

The Economist is pro-EU yes but no-one else on here is publishing neutral sources. The Economist is hardly a sensationalist magazine is it.



Why would they? As the article states all 27 European nations have to agree, they may all want to put in provisions, and not all of them have trade deficits with the UK. We are dependent on services more than a lot of them are so well and what happens if we end up with a Canada deal that doesn't include them? That would be harmful to the economy.

I wasn't aware I did only that and the Torygraph. Oops Telegraph


You can't dismiss every concern as scaremongering and every source as a 'rag'.

---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

No its good to have some opposing pov's with a basis in reality thanks Damien.

The services issue does disturb me too, we are unevenly balanced in that regard, and as our non services infrastructure isn't anything like it was pre- Common Market, it is something to consider.

Services as in banks already have branches and/or headquarters in most EU countries. Why would that change? They've all made contingency plans as no doubt have the Bank of England in case there is a Brexit.

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

What do you actually mean by 'tighten up our border and immigration controls'?

We are not in the Schengen Agreement, and check the passport of everyone who enters this country - if we have intelligence, we will not let suspected terrorists in/arrest them; if we don't have any intelligence on them, how do we know they are a threat?

What would you actually have the Border Agency do, in addition to what they do now?

It's already been spelt out not just by me. We would not be obliged to let every Tom, Dick or Harry in just because they are in the EU. If we took that stand now the EU would be up in arms.

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Is there any point to this thread? Everyone seems set in their views and is convincing no one ....

Maybe best to go out and campaign on the streets if you feel that strongly, whatever your view.

We would not be on this thread if we didn't 'feel that strongly' about it. Don't worry, I can't walk but campaign all over the net.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

That I must agree with but immigration is foremost on peoples minds and it is being used as a lever by Brexit. Don't forget whichever side has to appeal to the masses if they wish to win and play on their fears.

I'm all for Brexit but not just on the issue of immigration. I'm a firm believer that it is the people of this country who should decide their own future without interference from Europe via their own elected government.

Yes- we have elected MEP's but they are a minority in the EU parliament and always will be they may be able to speak for Britain but can and do get overruled and outvoted by the other 27 countries unless they do backdoor deals with other nation states to get their backing.

This backdoor dealing may be giving away more of our sovreign rights but we will never know as it's all done behind closed doors. "Back me on this, I'll back you on that." I'd rather have Arthur Daley doing the deals thankyou. At least I knew he was a shady geezer.

Last paragraph. Of course you'll know. Vote leave and get our sovereignty back and you'll see just how much we have lost.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I agree but that would be true even if we were out of Europe though. Schengen is a stupid idea.

Totally agree. I saw a map of it on the news earlier in green. We seem to be the only ones not in Schengen. See my problem is this. You're either IN the club or you're not. How would the Committee of your local club feel if you joined but only obeyed the rules and took part in the parts you agreed with. You'd be hauled before said Committee before you could say EU. There is no difference between that scenario and what the UK is doing in the EU.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

The could start by stopping people coming into the UK in the backs of lorries or do they have passports too?

I imagine you, like nearly all of us, don't readily let strangers into our homes. We behave in this way not because they're all crooks, we all know that statistically the reverse is massively true. We do it because we have no idea who they are and we're aware that they may pose a risk. Why would we treat illegal migrants any differently? Why would them being 'unknown' be a reason for not having any concerns about their motives and intentions? To my mind, we ought to be far more careful about those who come here illegally for the very reason that they are unknown and have already broken the law by doing so.

That still, of course, leaves those who can obtain convincing forged documents or come here using bona fide documents but with ulterior motives but surely that fact isn't a reason for not closing off other routes for them to get in.

Clearly whatever border controls are in place in the UK aren't sufficient. Now of course that has nothing directly to do with Schengen and is an issue for HMG to tackle but I reckon there'd be far fewer migrants in Calais if there'd been checks at every border crossing between Calais and their points of entry into the EU. The unwillingness of the EU to accept what's patently obvious and change a flawed policy causing serious problems is great cause for concern IMHO and adds to the reasons we should get out.

Well another 20 got in this week and that was the 2nd lot in a few days. I rest the borders case.