(April 20, 2016 at 6:23 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Actually Scotland has a different legal system to England and Wales. It also has its own dialects in places, and an entirely different language in the highlands. I don't see why 300 years is that much different to 50 years. North Italy is still poor because of Hannibal rampaging around it. These effects continue for many generations.

1. They have a limited self government. The UK (as an entity) still has the end say on taxes, the vast majority of laws, defence, international relations, social security etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_a...ed_matters

2. 300 years is quite different to 50. Scotland as a country has been joined to England for much longer than the UK has been involved in this politico economic project of the EU, and that has a fairly big impact on a wide variety of things, not limited to that mentioned in the above. This wouldn't necessarily mean more impact if the two seperated, but it would indicate it in my opinion.

3. Lel at North Italy still being poor due to Hannibal.

4. Don't pretend there is this massive cultural divide between Scotland and England, and that the extent of which is even remotely similar to the UK and a lot of different EU countries, or even similar for example to a country that will likely soon be part of the EU, Turkey. The Scots share very much the same culture as the English. We hate each other's guts but we all like going out on the piss up the local pub come Friday and Saturday night. And yeah, let's pretend the Scots speak their own language. It's not much more than a handful of forgotten hillbillies who use their own language as their main in Scotland, if that.

(April 21, 2016 at 5:46 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(April 20, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Why?  Can't you people stop beating the drums?

I think the biggest mistake the EU made was expanding to include countries that were not ready.

Why? It just isn't realistic and the EU is a sinking ship.

Greece is a relatively early addition to the original EU and, if they weren't in it they would still be overwhelmed with refugees simply because of geography.  But the rush to include eastern europe seems more political than economic to me... kind of a 'fuck you' to Russia.

(April 21, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Greece is a relatively early addition to the original EU and, if they weren't in it they would still be overwhelmed with refugees simply because of geography.  But the rush to include eastern europe seems more political than economic to me... kind of a 'fuck you' to Russia.

Ofcourse it's political. The whole thing is political lol

(April 19, 2016 at 4:46 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 4:30 pm)robvalue Wrote: I admit I don't know enough about it to make a fully informed decision. I think it's incredibly complicated.

Don't take this personally but this infuriates me. I've heard a lot of people say exactly this. And these people will almost certainly vote to stay because of the doomsayers and fearmongerers. 

It's not that complicated. It's a yes or no question. Do you want the UK to be a part of a European political union? 

Well, we're already part of it and let's have a look how it's gone. Several countries have gone bust in the EU for a start. We have a migrant crisis which we can't control in large part because there is no border control. We have terrorists using this crisis to get around as freely as they like and threaten our security (which will be scoffed at, but Nigel Farage was laughed at when he said this would happen in April 2014, in front of the EU parliament, look at what has happened in Paris and Brussels). We are paying ever increasing amounts to EU parliament every month. In 2015 the UK's net contribution is estimated to be £8.5 Billion (note that is net, as in this is money we're out of pocket on, and not money we expect to get back). It's also estimated the EU have their fingers in around 50% of our legislation and laws (so just on principle alone, unelected officials have a say in half of our laws), some estimates are even higher depending on what source you use.

I could go on.

But just look at the current state of the EU and ask, do you want more of this? Or do you want out?

Either option has uncertainty. That's the thing about the future, nobody knows what it holds. The same economists that predict doom if the UK leaves are probably the same ones that warned us all about the global financial crisis. Not. 

In 5 years, if the UK leaves, I'm sure we might encounter some financial difficulty. We've got pretty good at dealing with that haven't we. But in 20 years, will the UK be better off, or worse off if we leave? Let's say we stay, who's to say that the whole EU won't collapse and then we're a part of that? Like I said, countries have already gone bankrupt under the EU's watch, a watch that was supposed to guarantee us more financial stability. 

And let's not forget about the countries expecting EU membership in the coming years? Turkey. Albania. Serbia. Bosnia. Are these countries that are going to solidify the economic union or weaken it?


The reality is, nobody knows what the future really holds. This vote comes down to gut instinct IMO. And for me, I'll be voting to leave on balance of what we can already see with the EU.

The problems you speak of mostly stem from the right wing laissez faire policies implemented in the last thirty years. Consideing that the brexiters want those policies on steroids, voting to leave is a horrible idea.

What the EU needs is a return to its cooperatist social democrat roots. It needs to get rid of rhe euro (the EU doesn't have the political apparatus or centralised state to make it work, plus it was conceived and operates as a wrwcking ball to workers rights and state regulation), severely restrict the offshore tax havens (such as the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxemburg), massively beef up corporate regulation, and draw up a proper programme for long term federalisation. In effect it needs to abandon the hard right economic and political orthodoxies and become an organisation which works for the people of europe, not a select few companies.

I hope we stay in just long enough for me to freely move to Europe with the EU open-borders (and never look back)

After that, do what you want Brits.



Yes I'm selfish.

One things for certain, the American government shouldn't even be commenting on the brexit It's none of their business.

(April 22, 2016 at 6:04 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: In effect it needs to abandon the hard right economic and political orthodoxies and become an organisation which works for the people of europe, not a select few companies.

Even if I agreed, it's not gonna happen.

(April 22, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: One things for certain, the American government shouldn't even be commenting on the brexit It's none of their business.

Sick of our country being the US's little bitch.

Barack Obama can go fuck himself.

Rule Britannia!

Ol' Pig Fucker Cameron's begged him to get involved because the stay campaign has about as much charisma as a concrete dildo. 

The irony of a US president advising us to stay a part of a project that strips us of our sovereignty is an absolute joke. Maybe if the US opened it's borders to Mexico and let the Canadians dictate its laws, they could patronise us about staying in the EU. As it is, Americans would never sign up to such a ludicrous political project if it involved their country.

(April 22, 2016 at 1:52 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: One things for certain, the American government shouldn't even be commenting on the brexit It's none of their business.

Sick of our country being the US's little bitch.

Barack Obama can go fuck himself.

Rule Britannia!

Ol' Pig Fucker Cameron's begged him to get involved because the stay campaign has about as much charisma as a concrete dildo. 

The irony of a US president advising us to stay a part of a project that strips us of our sovereignty is an absolute joke. Maybe if the US opened it's borders to Mexico and let the Canadians dictate its laws, they could patronise us about staying in the EU. As it is, Americans would never sign up to such a ludicrous political project if it involved their country.

Couldn't agree more.  

(April 22, 2016 at 1:52 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Ol' Pig Fucker Cameron's begged him to get involved because the stay campaign has about as much charisma as a concrete dildo. 

You seem to miss the irony there. Where do you think, the UK would turn to, if for no other reasons than to get some trade goodies if it were to leave the EU?

Special relationship and all that.