EU referendum opinion poll.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I'm self employed. If I employed someone and we were painting an outside of a house I wouldn't be allowed to use a ladder unless I could prove that it was impossible to use scaffold. It's that kind of silly rule that creates unnecessary expense. Ladders aren't dangerous if they're used properly. Now I don't know if that a European directive but it's fecking annoying.

 

The working time directive says that under 18s can't do overtime, why? If a 17 year old lad is saving up for a car or a holiday with the lads why shouldn't he be allowed?

I expect the rules with scaffolding came in due to people not using ladders properly... You're a victim of poor working practices before that. Remember that back in the day building site workers didn't need to wear high viz or protective equipment.

The rules on working hours are there to prevent exploration / help ensure the best development of younger people. Under 18's are not considered an adult yet, hence no doubt the reason they can't opt out.

You need to understand these rules are not there to be deliberately obstructive - they're there to protect against bad and unfair practice and they at least mean there's minimum standards for all trades people that do the same line of work as you so it's not as if they're just picking on you.

And say if we do come out of the EU - we'd end up creating our own set of rules, meaning you'd need to sit down with these new guidelines and work out what has changed / what hasn't, amend any working practices as required, etc, etc, etc - so more red tape and cost to your business?

And thus, this increased Soverignity may actually be a bad thing for your business!

[Carl the Llama]

Are you being obtuse? I said that it was a political project meant to create a united States of Europe. I don't doubt they wanted it to work but they knew it couldn't and went ahead in hope rather than expectation.

I'm not, I'm asking you to qualify your statement that:

The same geniuses that created the Euro, knowing it wouldn't work but implemented it any way, tell you that not supporting the EU makes you xenophobic or racist or nationalistic and you just swallow it whole.

 

Or would you be happy to admit that it's a sweeping generalisation aimed at nobody in particular based on your strong anti-EU feelings and not on certain facts known to you which you are willing to share?

[Carl the Llama]

Still waiting on the quoted posts which make it clear that their authors don't care about democracy too if you'd be so kind Webbo.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Typical.

And yet the UK has obtained the position where an employee can opt out. Soverignity intact.

And can you not see the reasonable stance of restricting the amount of time an employer can ask an employee to work and having standard agreements in terms of holidays / maternity leave etc.

If you take away self interest for a moment and consider how the rules impact the majority - do you not consider they are fair, just and aim to provide benefits for both employee (the right to time off, work / life balance) and employer (helping maintain a refreshed / productive workforce, reducing related stress related illness) alike? That they are not designed to be deliberately obstructive?

[Webbo]

I expect the rules with scaffolding came in due to people not using ladders properly... You're a victim of poor working practices before that. Remember that back in the day building site workers didn't need to wear high viz or protective equipment.

The rules on working hours are there to prevent exploration / help ensure the best development of younger people. Under 18's are not considered an adult yet, hence no doubt the reason they can't opt out.

You need to understand these rules are not there to be deliberately obstructive - they're there to protect against bad and unfair practice and they at least mean there's minimum standards for all trades people that do the same line of work as you so it's not as if they're just picking on you.

And say if we do come out of the EU - we'd end up creating our own set of rules, meaning you'd need to sit down with these new guidelines and work out what has changed / what hasn't, amend any working practices as required, etc, etc, etc - so more red tape and cost to your business?

And thus, this increased Soverignity may actually be a bad thing for your business!

You've had to wear safety gear on site for as long as I can remember and that was way before the working time directive. I'm not a child and I'm not suicidal either, I'm not going to anything to risk my own safety or anyone else's. Whether these rules are meant to be obstructive or not the fact is they are. They all add to costs which have to be added to the price which can mean less work for me. They're not doing me any favours.

 

If we did come out of the EU we'd have the existing rules as a starting place and they would be amended gradually, assuming that we decided to do that, which we might not. If we want these rules in the future there's nothing stopping us from making them for ourselves.

[Webbo]

I'm not, I'm asking you to qualify your statement that:

Or would you be happy to admit that it's a sweeping generalisation aimed at nobody in particular based on your strong anti-EU feelings and not on certain facts known to you which you are willing to share?

I was a grown up at the time, I remember the debate. Plenty of people said it couldn't work and they have been proven right and we had the same accusations of xenophobia, racism ,little Englandism,.

[Webbo]

And yet the UK has obtained the position where an employee can opt out. Soverignity intact.

And can you not see the reasonable stance of restricting the amount of time an employer can ask an employee to work and having standard agreements in terms of holidays / maternity leave etc.

If you take away self interest for a moment and consider how the rules impact the majority - do you not consider they are fair, just and aim to provide benefits for both employee (the right to time off, work / life balance) and employer (helping maintain a refreshed / productive workforce, reducing related stress related illness) alike? That they are not designed to be deliberately obstructive?

You know before we had rights before the working time directive as well? Believe it or not employers, on the whole, tended to treat their employees fairly even before Europe came to the rescue.

[Carl the Llama]

Reading my own posts back they do come across very confrontational and that's not my aim here Webbo, I just want you to understand that we're all on kind of the same side here, it's just a difference in opinion on what's best for that side.  Nobody's trying to deliberately undermine democracy or personal freedoms but you seem to be under the impression that's what's going on here and I'm trying to highlight how far off the mark that is.

 

The only mention of Little England and Xenophobia in this thread came from me, once each, and I feel that in both cases I can justify their usage in response to the language you chose to employ in the posts they were addressing, certainly in the latter's case anyway, the former is more debatable and I'm sure you can do a good job of doing so.  Neither one was an aspersion cast across the entire leave movement so let's stop using my 2 instances of word usage as ammo against a large body of people with different opinions on Europe to you.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

You've had to wear safety gear on site for as long as I can remember and that was way before the working time directive. I'm not a child and I'm not suicidal either, I'm not going to anything to risk my own safety or anyone else's. Whether these rules are meant to be obstructive or not the fact is they are. They all add to costs which have to be added to the price which can mean less work for me. They're not doing me any favours.

 

If we did come out of the EU we'd have the existing rules as a starting place and they would be amended gradually, assuming that we decided to do that, which we might not. If we want these rules in the future there's nothing stopping us from making them for ourselves.

You don't know any of that for sure - no one has presented a picture of exactly how the UK would be on the outside of the EU, the out camps all have differing versions.

There is talk of a British bill of rights, but that would be a whole new bill, which yes may take a lot of its stuff from EU law, but the key here - you'd have to employ a Solicitor to go through the two sets of legislation for you I expect and one trained in both UK and EU law, so not likely to be cheap, thus meaning extra cost to your business.

And yes, these existing rules will have added to your costs, but they are already factored into your business model now and any rival who wishes to setup a similar business also has to meet these expectations / costs, thus preventing shadey businesses from undercutting you by doing inappropriate things - they at least aim to create a level playing field and by complying you're protecting yourself against something even more costly to your livelihood - a malpractice suit.

Naturally I accept you wouldn't set out to deliberately risk yours or someone's else's safety...but in far to many cases, ignorance has caused the unfortunate to happen. Even you would have to admit, the building trade isn't packed full of the smartest of people so having clear rules about these things is only sensible otherwise god knows what some people would get up to onsite!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

You've had to wear safety gear on site for as long as I can remember and that was way before the working time directive. I'm not a child and I'm not suicidal either, I'm not going to anything to risk my own safety or anyone else's. Whether these rules are meant to be obstructive or not the fact is they are. They all add to costs which have to be added to the price which can mean less work for me. They're not doing me any favours.

 

If we did come out of the EU we'd have the existing rules as a starting place and they would be amended gradually, assuming that we decided to do that, which we might not. If we want these rules in the future there's nothing stopping us from making them for ourselves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment#Legislation_in_the_European_Union

Some reading on PPE - passed in 1989

[Webbo]

I haven't always been anti Europe. I used to hate the Euro sceptics when they used to make trouble for John Major. I desperately wanted Cameron to get a good deal for the UK and create a looser EU, which wouldn't just be good for us but for the rest of the EU too. Instead he asked for virtually nothing and they couldn't even meet him half way. When Scotland had their referendum we tried to win them over, to persuade them we understood their concerns and we'd do what we could to keep them. Europe have treated our concerns with contempt. They don't deserve our continued membership.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

You know before we had rights before the working time directive as well? Believe it or not employers, on the whole, tended to treat their employees fairly even before Europe came to the rescue.

That's long gone mate, trust me - just look at the bastards at sports direct, but it's happening all over.

That is why I'm hugely dubious of this soverginty issue being portrayed, as I can only see this leading to less not more rights for people... And I don't believe small businesses like yours will necessarily benefit from that either, it will be the big businesses that would stand to gain much, much, more.

[Webbo]

And yes, these existing rules will have added to your costs, but they are already factored into your business model now and any rival who wishes to setup a similar business also has to meet these expectations / costs, thus preventing shadey businesses from undercutting you by doing inappropriate things - they at least aim to create a level playing field and by complying you're protecting yourself against something even more costly to your livelihood - a malpractice suit.

 

I have to hire scaffold, a big business has their own giving them an advantage. All these regulations favour big business over start ups and smaller firms that's why so many corporations are in favour of membership.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I have to hire scaffold, a big business has their own giving them an advantage. All these regulations favour big business over start ups and smaller firms that's why so many corporations are in favour of membership.

But this problem is more down to your personal situation - it's not fair to contribute that issue to the EU because it's put a reasonable rule in place to protect the health and safety interests of workers. And let's face it, even if we come out - that situation is unlikely to change for you under a UK bill of rights or whatever is put in place.

Anyway, I think we should let this go for now it is a Friday night after all. I sense I have at least got you thinking, which was my only real aim as I imagine "you turn if you want to, this Webbo is not for turning!"

[Thracian]

You miss my point again Webbo.

IF the deal was the government providing support / a discount for tenants to fund the purchase of a new privately built property, the overall cost to the government would have been the same, but with the added benefit of stimulating housing development (property developers would be encouraged to build homes within reach of this active market), whilst maintaining the housing stock within the government portfolio.

I agree from a people prospective the ability to buy the house you currently live in is more attractive because you wouldn't have to move, but as I've highlighted their would have been much greater benefits to a responsible government looking at a longer term picture by offering the discount towards new housing as opposed to the existing stock - it's simple economics;

A.) provide a discount towards a new home, but retain property - therefore retain income / stock levels

B.) provide discount to buy the existing council house - therefore the government is receiving a reduced cash price for its asset and reduces its own stock levels at the same time.

If as a person you were able to take advantage of the governments generosity then of course you did fantastically well and would be all for the policy - but that decision has ultimately been to the great cost of further generations given the level of social housing stock just isn't there any more.

You seem passionate and sincere but the immigration issue is much deeper than you make out and will become far greater still if - as some have mentioned - efforts are made to enrol Turkey as a member in five years or so.

Secondly the social housing aspect is also more complicated. The houses sold would have been deteriorating and would all have needed substantial maintenance or even replacement - sometimes at a time of cuts and financial shortfalls.

It's the case now. Much of the housing stock is in an appalling state. The movement of people aspect you mention has caused immense problems and it's not just as simple as saying they're effectively "self-employed" or should simply be better managed.

The problem with rights is their effect and it seems to me that very little consideration has been given to those effects.

Many people I speak with accept a certain level of immigration from whatever source but want much stricter criteria and the numbers to be reduced to a level that's not only sustainable but not creating problems for the existing population. The current situation is causing endless problems.

As for employment law perhaps it would be nice to hear from the many people whose small business have gone to the wall because of European directives, like almost all the local butchers for example.

As for employment laws it's my belief there are so many fiddles going on it's ridiculous.

People with false qualifications and then there's the gangmasters supplying foreign workers for the likes of fruit farms and then taking a cut from those same workers thus ensuring they are paid less than the mimimum wage but do get the work and so stay reasonably happy. How can that be fair to native workers?

It's a toss up whether there's more corruption within EU nations than inside FIFA.

https://www.rt.com/news/eu-corruption-widespread-report-600/

And don't think the BBC is offering our citizens an unbiased referendum through its reporting. They might try to give that impression but given the way their bread's buttered....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html

I also came on this quite by random and offer the link quite simply as a means of providing a list of (claimed) benefits for leaving the EU (whether you agree with them or not).

I'm sure the BBC will present at least that many reasons to stay - or even millions of them! .

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Thracian - on the immigration issue, i can see the EU having some movement on this in the very near future given the migrant crisis, that will focus countries like Germany and France alongside us if we remain that there is a need to do something here - it's just a case of finding common agreement what that would be.

Is EU law the sole cause for local businesses going to the wall? Have butchers for example not been massively impacted by the rise of supermarkets and the change in people's life patterns. Other small businesses - have they not been effected by the Internet revolution, etc, etc? The issue small business will have with any change is their size, it makes them more scepitble, but putting things down to just the EU - get on, if a business had to change that much wouldn't it make you question the practices it was adhering to?

It's very easy to blame things because of "the EU" but I've no doubt there are areas where the EU will have benefited you without you even knowing it - be it consumer protection, workers rights, or whatever - but we're not hearing of those. Even if it's just something as simple of being able to get off a plane in another European country and easily go to your next designation.

I would admit, the EU is not perfect (but what government is - is the UK government any better?) but if its general goals and stated aims are to believed there should be nothing to fear from it, in fact just the opposite when we see the capitalist elite looking to take every inch it can get from the oppressed majority.

I guess you do need to lean to the socialist side to accept the EU and its ideas - which is probably why labour came round and the Tories became split by it, but it can only ever work as a losely socialist project, a right wing style Europe is not worth thinking of.

[Thracian]

Twenty minutes ago I chanced on a Christian website.

I have much spiritual faith, but as regulars on here will perhaps recollect, I no longer subscribe to any man-made religion and what I'm about to say only served to emphasise why.

But it wouldn't have mattered what religion or faith I believed in.

Because what I came upon was film more horrifically obscene (and not in a sexual sense) than it's comfortable to ever imagine emanating from a human being

No I wouldn't dream of linking to it on here because it's so appalling and the moderators would quite rightly ditch the link in an instant.

But I will say this.

Anyone seeing the film and continuing to ignore the risks of open door immigration needs to examine their thought processes - and that includes every decent adherrent to any faith, any believer in goodness at all.

The wonder to me is that anyone could hate so badly as to effect such evil. What is so wrong with people? What makes minds harbour such blackness?

[Carl the Llama]

I haven't always been anti Europe. I used to hate the Euro sceptics when they used to make trouble for John Major. I desperately wanted Cameron to get a good deal for the UK and create a looser EU, which wouldn't just be good for us but for the rest of the EU too. Instead he asked for virtually nothing and they couldn't even meet him half way. When Scotland had their referendum we tried to win them over, to persuade them we understood their concerns and we'd do what we could to keep them. Europe have treated our concerns with contempt. They don't deserve our continued membership.

That's weird I could have sworn he asked for some things and got most of them with a bit of necessary compromise thrown in.  Why does it matter what they agreed on anyway - didn't you hear the whole thing's going straight in the bin if we stay?

 

 

Anyone seeing the film and continuing to ignore the risks of open door immigration needs to examine their thought processes - and that includes every decent adherrent to any faith, any believer in goodness at all.

It's a bloody good thing we don't have that then.  I can understand that half this country's forgotten what an open border actually is though since they mostly won't have ever been through one.  Or were you talking about the risks at England's northern and western borders?

[Buce]

Where have all the asylum seekers gone? 130,000 have 'disappeared'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35667858

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Anyone seeing the film and continuing to ignore the risks of open door immigration needs to examine their thought processes - and that includes every decent adherrent to any faith, any believer in goodness at all.

The wonder to me is that anyone could hate so badly as to effect such evil. What is so wrong with people? What makes minds harbour such blackness?

So we combat hate and evil by maintaining a degree of separatism? Would these evil effects be overcome by placing an arbitory limit on numbers?

We know this world contains hate, it's impossible not to given the amount of people on this planet, but the good of this world will not prosper by assuming everyone who doesn't resemble a likeness to our reflection is out to get us, because the vast majority aren't.

A much bigger danger is if the hatters infiltrate our own minds than our boarders.

[Thracian]

Thracian - on the immigration issue, i can see the EU having some movement on this in the very near future given the migrant crisis, that will focus countries like Germany and France alongside us if we remain that there is a need to do something here - it's just a case of finding common agreement what that would be.

Is EU law the sole cause for local businesses going to the wall? Have butchers for example not been massively impacted by the rise of supermarkets and the change in people's life patterns. Other small businesses - have they not been effected by the Internet revolution, etc, etc? The issue small business will have with any change is their size, it makes them more scepitble, but putting things down to just the EU - get on, if a business had to change that much wouldn't it make you question the practices it was adhering to?

It's very easy to blame things because of "the EU" but I've no doubt there are areas where the EU will have benefited you without you even knowing it - be it consumer protection, workers rights, or whatever - but we're not hearing of those. Even if it's just something as simple of being able to get off a plane in another European country and easily go to your next designation.

I would admit, the EU is not perfect (but what government is - is the UK government any better?) but if its general goals and stated aims are to believed there should be nothing to fear from it, in fact just the opposite when we see the capitalist elite looking to take every inch it can get from the oppressed majority.

I guess you do need to lean to the socialist side to accept the EU and its ideas - which is probably why labour came round and the Tories became split by it, but it can only ever work as a losely socialist project, a right wing style Europe is not worth thinking of.

I was brought up in a caravan and on a budget. But at no time in my unpampered life have I ever felt oppressed or envious of anyone among your so-called "capitalist elite".

Opportunity abounds for anyone who wants to take it or is sufficiently motivated to be a decent earner.

The Labour party has never "given" much of consequence to the people except a health service. Not even the right to own their houses.

But they've taken plenty.

Blair's lies about Iraq's so-called WMD's - and the ongoing consequences - have cost thousands of lives, millions of pounds plus despair and destruction across vast swathes of the Middle East which will be felt for decades including among the countless refugees other countries either don't want or would be daft to risk taking.

Even now Labour has a leader who reckons we should leave the EU one minute and stay in it the next amd a party which, having imported so many rape gangs it's hard to keep count, also has councillors who have provenly ignored the abuse of vulnerable young women who should have been better protected.

At least, unlike Corbyn, you seem to know what you want but it's really is hard to see why. Caring for folk I can understand but what stands for Labour today is beyond contempt much of the time.

And no, I didn't heap all the blame on the EU for ending the road for so many long-established small businesses but they sure played their part, and with no "socialist" thought for the 80-year-old pensioners who suddenly had to catch a bus into town to get their meat or whatever at considerable risk to their wellbeing.

As for worker rights I've seen that in action first hand and the massive injustice of it some of the time - injustice that has cost money, jobs, trust and hours of unjustified worry to damned decent people. I've rarely known so much bullshit to be given credence in any court but there's always a consequence and if it doesn't hit the plaintiff it sure hits others who might otherwise have been employed.

As for the immigration issue I'm not convinced there will ever be enough change to alter my vote. Two events today have hardened my view and that view has been steadily strengthening since Blair started the open door immigration even some of his colleagues said was misguided.

Now, there are far more risks to immigration than I ever see benefits and Cameron's talk of Turkey becoming anEU member is just ludicrous.

A much reduced and highly selective level of immigration might be acceptable but I just don't see the EU delivering either on that or free movement..

You mention benefits from the EU like the ease of air travel through Europe. I used to take plane trips like some folk take the underground and it really was a happy class experience all the way.

Now it's a nightmare and I rarely go abroad anymore. Indeed the last time I was so pissed off at a four-hour delay in departure from Manchester I asked em to get my bags back from the cargo hold so my wife and I could go home. They wouldn't let us and we had to continue an experience I've never wanted to repeat.

As for the consumer protections you mention they've helped create an army of professional complainers. I know one personally and she's made an art form of it which is fine for her, but, again, will likely cost a job or two somewhere down the line but it doesn't change her.

Ironically some of the things that should be tackled seem to be conveniently ignored. Again, one imagines a hidden agenda that favours some and not others. I suppose it's just another kind of positive discrimation though, they seem to like that.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

As for the consumer protections you mention they've helped create an army of professional complainers. I know one personally...

I'd say that was yourself judging by the rest of your post!

(I'm sure you'll take this in the spirit that is intended)

But honestly - do look at that post and ask yourself, do I really need to be so negative?

Where's the balance? I'd have more respect for your argument if you could actually recognise some good aspects of the EU but that based on the balance of considerations you'd preference would be for the UK to withdraw.

To me it looks like the minds been made up on a small sample of information and then you've searched for more information that backs up your argument.

[RobHawk]

I was brought up in a caravan and on a budget. But at no time in my unpampered life have I ever felt oppressed or envious of anyone among your so-called "capitalist elite".Opportunity abounds for anyone who wants to take it or is sufficiently motivated to be a decent earner.The Labour party has never "given" much of consequence to the people except a health service. Not even the right to own their houses.But they've taken plenty.Blair's lies about Iraq's so-called WMD's - and the ongoing consequences - have cost thousands of lives, millions of pounds plus despair and destruction across vast swathes of the Middle East which will be felt for decades including among the countless refugees other countries either don't want or would be daft to risk taking.Even now Labour has a leader who reckons we should leave the EU one minute and stay in it the next amd a party which, having imported so many rape gangs it's hard to keep count, also has councillors who have provenly ignored the abuse of vulnerable young women who should have been better protected.At least, unlike Corbyn, you seem to know what you want but it's really is hard to see why. Caring for folk I can understand but what stands for Labour today is beyond contempt much of the time.And no, I didn't heap all the blame on the EU for ending the road for so many long-established small businesses but they sure played their part, and with no "socialist" thought for the 80-year-old pensioners who suddenly had to catch a bus into town to get their meat or whatever at considerable risk to their wellbeing.As for worker rights I've seen that in action first hand and the massive injustice of it some of the time - injustice that has cost money, jobs, trust and hours of unjustified worry to damned decent people. I've rarely known so much bullshit to be given credence in any court but there's always a consequence and if it doesn't hit the plaintiff it sure hits others who might otherwise have been employed.As for the immigration issue I'm not convinced there will ever be enough change to alter my vote. Two events today have hardened my view and that view has been steadily strengthening since Blair started the open door immigration even some of his colleagues said was misguided.Now, there are far more risks to immigration than I ever see benefits and Cameron's talk of Turkey becoming anEU member is just ludicrous.A much reduced and highly selective level of immigration might be acceptable but I just don't see the EU delivering either on that or free movement..You mention benefits from the EU like the ease of air travel through Europe. I used to take plane trips like some folk take the underground and it really was a happy class experience all the way.Now it's a nightmare and I rarely go abroad anymore. Indeed the last time I was so pissed off at a four-hour delay in departure from Manchester I asked em to get my bags back from the cargo hold so my wife and I could go home. They wouldn't let us and we had to continue an experience I've never wanted to repeat.As for the consumer protections you mention they've helped create an army of professional complainers. I know one personally and she's made an art form of it which is fine for her, but, again, will likely cost a job or two somewhere down the line but it doesn't change her.Ironically some of the things that should be tackled seem to be conveniently ignored. Again, one imagines a hidden agenda that favours some and not others. I suppose it's just another kind of positive discrimation though, they seem to like that.

Jesus thrac - you're brave, my wife would kill me if I tried to leave the airport when going on holiday. Do you know they have bars in airports?

Anyway, Do you not think flight delays are more likely due to increased number of flights as most airports run at maximum capacity, how is it a negative on the EU that more people can and want to travel. The British infrastructure may need improving but that's up the the Uk.

You talk about labour as if we were discussing a general election. This vote has very little to do with party politics, although there are some interesting consequences. Your post is long but with little substance and a lot of personal annoyances, it reads very much like a "things were better in my day and that was before the EU' type post. Obviously you are entitled to opinion but if you can't see that there has been some benefit from being in the EU then it's a pretty blinkered view in my opinion.

[Thracian]

Jesus thrac - you're brave, my wife would kill me if I tried to leave the airport when going on holiday. Do you know they have bars in airports?

Anyway, Do you not think flight delays are more likely due to increased number of flights as most airports run at maximum capacity, how is it a negative on the EU that more people can and want to travel. The British infrastructure may need improving but that's up the the Uk.

You talk about labour as if we were discussing a general election. This vote has very little to do with party politics, although there are some interesting consequences. Your post is long but with little substance and a lot of personal annoyances, it reads very much like a "things were better in my day and that was before the EU' type post. Obviously you are entitled to opinion but if you can't see that there has been some benefit from being in the EU then it's a pretty blinkered view in my opinion.

I was responding to my own experience of specific points made by DJ Barry Hammond. Of course I see some benefits to EU membership and have concerns about what may be lost if we opt out but that adds up to a lot of questionable "ifs" whereas my concerns about staying in weigh greater. I honestly believe the EU will implode over immigration - it's been a colossal cock up and has alredy had consequences that were so unnecessary and predictable.

[Thracian]

I'd say that was yourself judging by the rest of your post!

(I'm sure you'll take this in the spirit that is intended)

But honestly - do look at that post and ask yourself, do I really need to be so negative?

Where's the balance? I'd have more respect for your argument if you could actually recognise some good aspects of the EU but that based on the balance of considerations you'd preference would be for the UK to withdraw.

To me it looks like the minds been made up on a small sample of information and then you've searched for more information that backs up your argument.

I'd say my view reflects the incessant/obsessive interference of the EU and its desire to ride roughshod over everyone in pursuit of its own political rather than common market agenda which is the federalisation of a Europe that isn't made up of "sames" at all - either in economy, potential or philosophy.