EU Referendum

[b][size=16px]Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?[/size][/b] The referendum is just days away, on the [i]23rd of June[/i]. I'm interested to see whether the D12 community's votes will resemble those of the entire UK. [b]Please post which option you would vote for[/b] (even if you are too young or not registered to vote in the UK), [b]with your opinion backed up by the 3 reasons[/b] which had the greatest influence on your decision. Be prepared for some good-natured debate as well! Please also post whether you are a UK citizen or not. I'll try and keep track of the results here.

UK citizen of 50 years. We have been part of the Common Market (EEC) since way before Europe decided to try to make a United States of Europe (EU), we prospered in the common market because we are they're biggest buyer of domestic goods and also due to our Empire (commonwealth). We have an industrious history and we have led the modern world in invention and innovation. Europe need us more than any other nation and WILL NOT impose tariffs on our trade, or they know that it will be at their peril ! The only people who want us to stay in the EU are those that stand to gain from it and believe what you want, but this is all about MONEY, nothing else!! Barack Obama came across the Pond to support the Stay In campaign.... really, an American interfering in UK politics? Now why would he want to do that? Oh yes! the TTIP negotiations, these are where Transnational Companies can buy up big business and banking in Europe or particularly in any country that is part of the EU aaaand one of the biggest most lucrative markets is, guess which country? Yes, UK... so of course he wants us to Stay In. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html The UK pays the EU £350M + per week as our contribution to the central fund.... I hear you say, "that's only part of the figures and we get some back", correct, we get some back, but it only goes to BIG Business and Government and we still lose a massive amount for no proven economic benefit: https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ The EU is governed by Unelected bodies and yet they get to make laws that take precedence over our own National Laws, which mostly dictate to us how much we should pay them, how many immigrants we have to provide homes & welfare for, how many foreign workers we have to employ, how we are not allowed to extradite immigrants who commit serious crimes and that we MUST pay child benefit for the children of non UK residents working in our country even though the children are not even in our country... I could go on for hours on this dictating from the EU. The bottom line is, this is nothing short of [b]money laundering[/b] at the highest level! UK adopted VAT (Value Added Tax) in 1973 as a means of grabbing more money from workers who already paid Income Tax on their earnings, purely to have more money to launder in Europe. The UK has to send over £350M (350 Million Pounds) per week, then let Europe keep £150M and get back £200M from which not one penny goes back to the workers who paid it, it all goes to Big Businesses and Government. [spoiler=VAT facts]Value Added Tax (VAT) is a charge levied on goods and services within the European Union (EU). Every member state had to introduce a form of this tax when they joined the EU (Britain introduced it on accession in 1973) and are obliged to send a proportion of all VAT receipts collected straight to the EU to finance its budget. Additionally, EU rules state that UK VAT rates cannot be lowered below an EU harmonised standard rate of 15% or adjusted on specific goods without approval of the Commission. Ref: http://forbritain.org/euvat.pdf[/spoiler] Here's a reality check to the propagandists, NONE of the 1000's of customers that I and all the other local small businesses have talked to want to REMAIN, they ALL want to LEAVE, this is because they have free thinking minds and know if someone is fiercely guarding something which they should remain impartial to, there is an ulterior motive and that usually equates to a lot of easy money!

Non UK citizen. The brexit doesn't affect me that much and my English level is not good enough to have a political discussion, so I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing. I'm not an expert in politics/economics and I don't know too much about the UK (being a risk expert is enough for me :p). However, I would like to share some thoughts and probably talk nonsense (like 99% of the people in this discussions I guess :p). Overall, I believe that a Brexit would harm the EU and would harm UK much more. Basically, I think that being like a big country is an advantage. Being part of the EU helps international trading by reducing customs duties and bureaucratic costs. Furthermore, each region can specialise in something that they are good at, increasing the productivity. On the other hand, big companies with great fixed costs that wouldn't be profitable if they only sold in a single country, can be profitable in a market with 500.000.000 customers. A commun market also produces bigger competition among companies which should result in more innovation and streamlining. Finally, although this is arguable, I believe that free movement of people is a good thing. I don't share aeronautic's thoughts and one of the paragraphs that he wrote seems specially inaquarate (again, I'm not an expert or anything so I won't say that everything is false). [quote] The EU is governed by Unelected bodies and yet they get to make laws that take precedence over our own National Laws, which mostly dictate to us how much we should pay them, how many immigrants we have to provide homes & welfare for, how many foreign workers we have to employ, how we are not allowed to extradite immigrants who commit serious crimes and that we MUST pay child benefit for the children of non UK residents working in our country even though the children are not even in our country... I could go on for hours on this dictating from the EU[/quote] By parts: [quote]how many inmigrants we have to provide homes & welfare for[/quote] I don't think the EU forces you to provide homes & welfare to inmigrants, unless you are referring to the refugees situation, any source? [quote]How many foreign workers we have to employ[/quote] If you have to employ a certain percentage of workers of some race, sex, ethnic group, country,... it will probably be a "UK thing". I doubt the EU tells you how many foreign workers you have to employ, any source? [quote]how we are not allowed to extradite inmigrants who commit serious crimes[/quote] If you have a problem to extradite a criminal from a certain country, it is a problem between UK and that country. If country "A" agrees to country "B" to extradite a criminal, I don't think the European Union has anything to say about it. If anything, the European Union makes extraditions easier since, once a criminal has an european arrest warrant, any country member of the EU must extradite him, regardless if he agrees or not. [quote]Must pay child benefit for the children of non UK residents working in our country[/quote] Don't know anything about this but, again, I doubt the EU dictates who should receive child benefit (I think that most EU countries do not pay child benefit in respect of children living outside of their territory). In any case, it can make sense that if someone works and and pay taxes in the UK, he is able to receive the child benefit.

its a tough one...Ive always been pro EU, but am getting tired of the beaucracy , the graft, the waste (did anyone say the farming subsidizes structure),the snobbish elitist hellbent way they refuse to take ordinary peoples concerns into account, the complete inability to act coherently on important issues such as ukraine/russia issue or the immigration wave, and so on. To be honest i dont think the UK would suffer greatly from withdrawing from the EU, and it might serve as an important wake up call for EU enthusiastic politicians. Nevertheless i would still like the UK to remain in the EU: 1. I still believe in the EU project. I see no reason why everything has to be top-down from Brussels. There were some talks about UK having a special arrangement if they stay, allowing for autonomous decisionmaking on various subject (child benefit to other Eu countries f.ex.) . My country (Denmark) have always had a special arrangement, where we are able to discard lawmaking from Brussels in a way basically no other member can. So the special arrangements can work (as we are indeed members), and I think the possibility for more autonomy for the individual countries can be a valid way to satisfy both the national and supra-national agenda. 2. The EU can act with a substantial influence on the world scene. Im not talking war here (even if thats also included), but rather as a coercive force, as reflected in the various partnership agreements we have with non-EU countries. I think our political ambitions towards a non-member can be far easier achieved through a more or less unanimous EU, than through a diverse mix of individual nations. The same thing goes for international agendas such as the climate change discussions (it doesnt matter whether you think its important or not, its an example), where the EU have been a primus motor in establishing an agreement. Simply put the EU has a lot of weight to throw around, if we can agree on the goals together. 3. The Musketeer Oath (yes i made that one up). The financial crisis hit hard indeed; but this was not per se the fault of the EU (unless you wanna start an argument over the whole neo-liberal economic agenda, which EU indeed also have). Actually i think the EUs handling of Greece and Italy, and the whole propping up of EUs central bank prevented a far worse situation, no matter how messy and unwillingly said actions were undertaken. That goes to show how its possible to better handle dire situations, by partners invested in the same project IMO. I realize this can be hotly contested, but I personally think that Merkel and the EU actually did good in this one particular setting. 4. The economical aspect. U can find a lot of economist, debaters, politicians, factory workers and so on with each their own opinon about this. So I will boil it down to this: I think the EU as a whole benefits from the Common Market, but i acknowledge that this point is messy to sort out. Certainly some parts of the social strata gains more, and some are actually worse off IMO. These were some thoughts, and it actually felt nice to sort of rethink the whole EU scheme in a positive way, because I too have felt that it was more shite than good some times, and the nay -sayers argument, are beginning to influence me.. In short I would say stay UK, but it is said with some hesitation.

[size=12px]Citizen of the Netherlands, 24 years old.[/size] I love the idea of how the EU started. A couple of countries trieing to work togther, rather than unnescessarily taxing all export and import (twice). The problem is that it's not just a couple of countries working together anymore. It now is a goverment on it's own, trying to look like the US, trying to become a power of it's own. Instead of countries talking together, it's now countries together forcing all the countries to do things they do not nescessarily want. It's gone too far in that direction. A Brexit wouldn't be a very, well, [i]rash [/i]solution to the problem. But a solution it is. And to be honest, I have little faith in other 'solutions'.

Can I point out that "leaving the EU" does not mean leaving European Free Trade, the UK will still be welcomed by EU member states, because of our buying power, resources, banking, commonwealth and many other market qualities. Have a quick read of this and you'll be able to see why it was imperative for mainland Europe to have a United Europe, but please bear in mind that in the 20th century, the UK was never the reason or cause for war or instability in Europe and yet was the only European country that was willing & able to stand up to tyranny & historical feuding and bring future peace to the continent. [url=http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/common-market-founded]The Foundation of the Common Market[/url] After WWII, we did not need an agreement to eradicate the risk of war being incited by the UK, we were a safe bet, proven twice within 30 years. We did not need free trade or free movement of goods in Europe to survive, we had our commonwealth and had many other allies happy to trade with us without tariffs or limits. As time passed and we started dissolving our empire, we saw benefits in sharing the wealth and opportunity of our growing neighbours (which I think we earned the right to, no matter what, even though it was opposed twice by... Grrr... Charles de Gaulle due to our ties with USA) and they also saw the benefits from the increased economic boost of having the UK as part of their free trade agreements. It's easy to forget how essential that the original EEC was for stability on the Continent and all too easy for them to feel a bit superior since economic growth has established itself. It should however be remembered that we have and will continue to, add growth and security to the community and be a supportive ally to our closest neighbours whether we are part of the Union or not. EU member states are not really impartial or unbiased when remarking on the UK's decisions on this matter because it is only in their best interest if the UK stays as a member of the EU, therefore it should only be a UK debate with regard to what is in the UK's best interest. If we were discussing the EU and its benefits of free trade to European mainland countries then I say it's a good idea in principle and creates a peaceful (ish) stability to a historically volatile world region, but it is completely infantile in its existence and needs to find a better way to unite Europe, which suits all of the differing historical cultures and keeps diversity intact whilst promoting peaceful economically bound unity. I say, the UK is a strong world economy and we should go back to being a self governing island within the continent of Europe and should show other EU states that we can freely trade with each other without being under one Governing Body and without the need for a Single Currency. It will never be like the United States of America anyway, since each country seeks to preserve its own historic identity and language and [b]rightly so[/b], the countries in question here are not settling new lands, they are long established differing cultures and I for one would like each of them to preserve that culture and even revert back to their own currencies and unique historic cultures rather than being amalgamated into one nation. However, I fear that (not including UK) some historic feuds might well re-emerge if the EEC or EU was to be disbanded, so perhaps it is only really safe for the UK alone to withdraw for now! [spoiler=For Albert Einstein] I like to talk in layman terms, but here is a refined definition and explanation just for you. [quote]how many immigrants we have to provide homes & welfare for[/quote] By being part of the EU we have to accept asylum seekers by quota even though they may not have originally been seeking asylum or refuge in the UK. We do not have the ability to house them or support them, but we have ridiculously generous welfare system in place for our native citizens that is a lure to most asylum seekers arriving in Europe making it a lucrative decision to claim asylum in the UK whether out of real necessity or not! [quote]How many foreign workers we have to employ[/quote] By being part of the EU we have to accept economic migrants by quota even though we can't provide sufficient employment for our native citizens since the demise of our production! [quote]how we are not allowed to extradite immigrants who commit serious crimes[/quote] It is not that we are not allowed to extradite them, it's that because we are not using our own law to execute the decisions & procedures, we are bound to act within the EAW and this has too many loopholes that allow the criminals to evade extradition and remain free and able to commit further crimes and this is due to the double jeopardy principle - a suspect will not be returned to the country that issued the EAW if he or she has already been tried for the same offence abroad. A refusal can be justified if an EU state's amnesty covers the offence in question. A refusal can also be justified under a statute of limitations - that is, if a time limit has passed for prosecution. And a state can reject an EAW if under its laws the suspect is a minor, below the age of criminal responsibility. An EAW can also be rejected if legal authorities consider that extradition would violate the suspect's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Concern that an EAW was motivated by prejudice on grounds of race, religion, politics or another factor can also be grounds to block extradition, under European law. The EAW is not supposed to be a tool for collusion in discrimination. [quote]Must pay child benefit for the children of non UK residents working in our country[/quote] Again it's about; if we weren't in the EU, our laws for such financial matters would be different, but here's where the law had to be made to suit the EU, taken directly from our Government Website. It states that you have to pay National Insurance from employment or self employment as you'd expect, but then adds "or get one of these benefits" and also states that your children don't have to reside in the UK as long as they are in one of the European States! https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-move-to-uk You may qualify if you’re from the EEA or Switzerland and your child lives in an EEA country or Switzerland. You or your partner must pay UK National Insurance (if you’re employed or self-employed) [b][u]or get one of these benefits:[/u][/b] contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) State Pension widow’s benefits bereavement benefits Incapacity Benefit Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Severe Disablement Allowance Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP)[/spoiler]

Thanks for the clarifications, aeronautic. It makes more sense now but there are still some things that I would like point out and some things that I would like to ask (I'd like to emphasize that I'm not an expert in this topic and English is not my native language so excuse me if I have misunderstood you somewhere). [quote=aeronautic] [quote=Albert Einstein] how many immigrants we have to provide homes & welfare for [/quote] By being part of the EU we have to accept asylum seekers by quota even though they may not have originally been seeking asylum or refuge in the UK. We do not have the ability to house them or support them, but we have ridiculously generous welfare system in place for our native citizens that is a lure to most asylum seekers arriving in Europe making it a lucrative decision to claim asylum in the UK whether out of real necessity or not! [/quote] I thought that you might be talking about asylum seekers, I got a bit confused because I believe that that asylum seekers are not considered inmigrants. In any case, this is a controversial topic and anyone has a different opinion, so I won't discuss if you think that you shouldn't accept so many asylum seekers. However, I think that you might be overestimating how many asylum seekers you are accepting. This table shows the positive decisions on asylum aplications in 2015 (source: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-press-releases/-/3-20042016-AP) http://imgur.com/ooDNeZH As you can see, you don't receive so many asylum seekers in comparison with other countries. Using the population of the EU (around 500 000 000) and UK (around 64 700 000) we obtain than in the EU there are 0.67 asylum seekers for every 1000 people while, in the UK, there are 0.28 (less than the average). Again, I understand if you think that these are too many, just wanted to point out that you are receiving less than other countries. [quote=aeronautic] [quote=Albert Einstein] How many foreign workers we have to employ [/quote] By being part of the EU we have to accept economic migrants by quota even though we can't provide sufficient employment for our native citizens since the demise of our production! [/quote] I think I understand what you say, but you are not forced to provide employ to inmigrants, are you? Because thats what your initial comment seemed to say [quote=aeronautic] [quote=Albert Einstein] how we are not allowed to extradite immigrants who commit serious crimes [/quote] It is not that we are not allowed to extradite them, it's that because we are not using our own law to execute the decisions & procedures, we are bound to act within the EAW and this has too many loopholes that allow the criminals to evade extradition and remain free and able to commit further crimes and this is due to the double jeopardy principle - a suspect will not be returned to the country that issued the EAW if he or she has already been tried for the same offence abroad. A refusal can be justified if an EU state's amnesty covers the offence in question. A refusal can also be justified under a statute of limitations - that is, if a time limit has passed for prosecution. And a state can reject an EAW if under its laws the suspect is a minor, below the age of criminal responsibility. An EAW can also be rejected if legal authorities consider that extradition would violate the suspect's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Concern that an EAW was motivated by prejudice on grounds of race, religion, politics or another factor can also be grounds to block extradition, under European law. The EAW is not supposed to be a tool for collusion in discrimination. [/quote] You might be right here, I'm quite ignorant in this topic (actually I'm an ignorant in everything apart from physics and risk :)). I'm still curious, could you link me to any case where a criminal wanted by the UK has avoided extradition thanks to some kind of EU mechanism? [quote=aeronautic] [quote=Albert Einstein] Must pay child benefit for the children of non UK residents working in our country [/quote] Again it's about; if we weren't in the EU, our laws for such financial matters would be different, but here's where the law had to be made to suit the EU, taken directly from our Government Website. It states that you have to pay National Insurance from employment or self employment as you'd expect, but then adds "or get one of these benefits" and also states that your children don't have to reside in the UK as long as they are in one of the European States! https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-move-to-uk You may qualify if you’re from the EEA or Switzerland and your child lives in an EEA country or Switzerland. You or your partner must pay UK National Insurance (if you’re employed or self-employed) or get one of these benefits... [/quote] This issue is even more complicated for me, so this is pure guess (as many other things I say :)), tell me if I'm wrong in anything. UK could changed the law so that if your child doesn't live in the UK you don't receive the child benefit (as in other EU countries). What the EU says is that, if an UK citizen (resident or non resident) receives the child benefit, then a non UK citizen from the EU (I don't think the EU has anything to say about Switzerland) in the same situation (i.e you or your partner pay UK National Insurance, or get one of those benefits...) should also receive the child benefit. I think it makes sense that if someone works and pay the same taxes, he should receive the same benefits regardless if he is a UK citizen or not, but I guess this topic can be complicated. I don't think there are many cases of non UK residents people working in the UK receiving the child benefit. My guess (again) is that your biggest issue is with inmigrants working and living in the UK whose children live outside the UK. I don't think it is a big issue but, again, if I'm not mistaken, you could change the child benefit so that the child must live in the UK.

The OP asked to state where you are a citizen of. I am a citizen of Europe, though I was born in the UK. Perhaps, as such, I am biased. I am biased because I have enjoyed the freedom of movement, to live, work and study across several EU nations. I’m biased because the EU has allowed me to take advantage of health care, education and employment opportunities in other EU countries. I am biased because I have personally experienced the economic changes which have improved the lives of millions across Europe. I am biased because the EU makes me safer. It has imposed standards to make my climbing equipment safe. It has safeguarded the quality of the air I breath, of the water I drink, of the food I eat. It has made my mobile phone bills cheaper. It has driven equal pay legislation, holiday entitlement, the right to overtime pay. It has allowed me to work in a smoke-free environment. I’m an outdoorsman, and so I appreciate the EU having the strongest wildlife protection in the world. These are but a fraction of the things which, to misquote Monty Python, Europe has done for us. I am biased because the EU has been the foundation of peace after centuries of bloodshed. Because it has assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships. I am biased because I’m not comfortable with the bigotry and racism of the anti-european far right which is pushing for the break up of Europe. Whether the FN in France, the Freedom Party in Austria, UKIP and the BNP in the UK, Golden Dawn in Greece or all the other such despicable movements. Those who watch from across the pond might be able to sympathise now they have Trump around – the rhetoric of building walls to keep undesirables out is, after all, at the heart of the issue. In Europe we know about walls. We remember. We also remember about keeping those who are different from us away. We're not like to forget anytime soon. There are many political issues which are subtle, with both sides having plenty of rational arguments. This is not such a scenario. It is a question of factual reality vs sentiments, and rather ugly sentiments at that. I have yet to hear an argument in favour of the UK leaving the EU which makes sense. A rational argument that goes beyond the small mindedness of little Englanders looking out for their own at the detriment of others. A rational argument that doesn’t smack of nationalism. That goes beyond pettiness, bigotry and racism. Just to be clear, I don’t mean to say I’m not disillusioned with Europe. Who amongst us who loves Europe can help but be furious at the many shortcomings of our union. Who can help but despair at the squandered potential, at the lost opportunities. I am a fierce critic of the European Union. I expect better, I want better. The European Union faces major challenges. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £8bn out of total government expenditure of £754bn is good value. We must decide whether we want to play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a global future. I leave you with the thoughts of, dare I say it, a Frenchman: [quote= Montesquieu ][i] If I knew something useful to me and harmful to my family, I should put it out of my mind. If I knew something useful to my family and not to my country, I should try to forget it. If I knew something useful to my country and harmful to Europe, or useful to Europe and harmful to the human race, I should consider it a crime. for I am a citizen of humanity first and by necessity, and a citizen of France second, and only by accident.[/i] [/quote]

There is a lot of talk about opposing the UK's decision to vote on our future in the EU and some remarks about all of our reasons to leave as ugly sentiment and bigotry, racism, small mindedness, nationalism & pettiness. There's talk about how many great things the EU has done, all of which the UK did anyway, leading the way in safety, cleaner air etc etc I say again, the EEC & EU was formed out of necessity to stop the wars caused by historic feuding in mainland Europe. It's the young way to think that they are right because they have a righteous view, however, a lot of us have lived with pre & post situations and ways of life and have benchmarks to compare how good life in general was before and is now. It is now nothing but corrupt, full of greed and bureaucratic. European mainland people who remark here always end by saying "I am not happy with the EU, it has many failings".... Why do you all think we want out? What a waste of money and time this has all been!

@aeronautic: Thank you for your attempts at describing my post. I'd like to clarify I was born in the UK and live in the UK, even if I have flirted with other European (and a number of non european) countries in my life. One can be both a UK citizen and a citizen of Europe. Also very much fyi only, I happen to be old enough to have lived in a pre-EU world. Having said that, I have no objections if you want to picture me as this young, carefree european, who rides a vespa while eating french cheese and drinking german beer. Or eating german sausages while drinking french wine. I'd also like to clarify I'm not in any way opposed to this vote. Or any other vote. I think it's useful to remark that the european union is imperfect. Much like our current government is imperfect. One can simultaneously be aware of a governement's failings and not be in favour of abolishing government. I don't believe we want out. I believe some people want out. You ask why I think such people want out - I do believe I have answered that abundantly clear. One last comment on your post: you claim the UK led the way on all good things the EU has ever done. I would reply, but I have not the words. I don't want to in any way belitle our many contributions to the European project. But that claim is simply absurd. Perhaps you don't remember the time when Britain was regarded as the 'dirty man of Europe'. When we spewed out the highest levels of acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide across the EU, our beaches and rivers were awash with sewage, and the water we drank could often contain an alarming cocktail of harmful chemicals.

All that I post are my personal views (and those of people I talk to in the real world on a daily basis), not politically educated facts, but real life experiences and observations during the years of 1966 to 2016 @TheMachiavelli, Yes of course I remember Dirty Britain, that was when we were still industrious and providing a lot of export Coal, Copper, Steel etc, it came with a price. However, it was Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson who invented Global Warming (using the global cooling chart turned upside down) to close down the coal industry who were holding our country to ransom with their Unions. This resulted in the loss of a lot of the industries that relied on the coal (something the UK is very rich in) and sparked a world obsession with cleaner air and claims of holes in the Ozone Layer. So, we were instrumental in the world clean up as a bi-product of our modernisation. It was Roy Castle that took court action to create the Anti Smoking laws, due to his claim that his terminal lung cancer was caused from playing his trumpet in smokey workmen clubs (passive smoking). All the other clean up matters of course had to come into force in the UK, since we were no longer willing to put up with any pollution of any kind apart from the untouchable money machines such as Oil Refineries, Power Stations and Motor Vehicles (regardless of the efforts made to eliminate CO2 emissions (which suited the Global Warming fallacy) but not the other harmful toxins emitted). [i]Of course Global Warming had reached such heights of hysteria that there could be no back-tracking when the myth was exposed over time, so it had to be renamed as Climate Change to keep the band wagon rolling![/i] We never needed Europe or any country on Earth to tell us to clean up our country (our part of the planet), it happened instinctively as the next generation grew up in a world [b]without the necessity of polluting industry[/b] (China might also see the need to follow suit in a few decades). The EEC and later the EU only enforced tighter limits and timescales on the spreading obsession of a "cleaner world"! Of course this is in no way a bad thing, something had to be done! When I was a kid we still had coal fires in every house and Smog was prevalent! Don't ask for proof or references, I won't be providing any, this is just what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears!

watch brexit the movie on you tube .... then decide, its informative. im a uk citizen, was born here im voting leave the eu. my three reasons are as follows, i think england should be its own self governing nation and make all its own laws, and not be dictated to by the european court of human rights on immigration issues. my second reason is i believe it will stop the massive influx of eu economic migrants taking jobs that are needed by people that were born here. my third reason is the amount of money england pays to keep the eu going, being parts of bank bail outs, ie (greece), i dont believe any british tax payers money should have been given to the greece pool. i will point out a fact, us money is backed by gold and has for 5000 years been the standard for wealth in the world. years ago they decided to print paper money. they printed way more than the banks held in gold, all across the world. its going to pop, the bubble will burst and there will be a financial crisis with banks like no other. nothing can stop it happening, the governments are just prolonging it all by brainwashing the masses from the truth. In america there was a terror attack 3 days ago, one prevented in cali, many attacks in france and belgium, now a british MP killed on a english street in broad daylight. it's not going to stop it's only going to get worse. theres no real freedom of the press, if there was there would be news reports on itv and bbc when peaceful britain first supporters rally or demo, and they are attacked by groups of baying thugs representing the views of isis and isil, and these thugs were born here. the worlds changed and its waking up now to home grown terror, but it's everywhere.

One of our major problems is muslim immigration....The reason for this may seem logical: We have declining birhtrates, and one way to prop up our society is to invite new comers. Now thats not such a bad idea by itself, but does it have to be them---theres rarely any problems with asians, christian africans, or (to some extent manageable) eastearn europeans. Why do our governments countinue to invite these people in?

I'm going to bow out of this conversation as politely as I'm able to. The British MP was killed by a white, far right, Britain First nutjob who according to several witnesses shouted 'Britain First'. Jo Cox, the MP in question, was a liberal one. A great woman, who had a very internationalist background, who utterly despised the thugs of Britain First (or so people who knew her tell me, I didn't know her personally) and who was actively campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU. It is shameful for anyone to attempt to politicise her death, but if you do, you should be aware of the facts. While I definitely acknowledge there are some of us on the other side of this issue who aren't ignorant racist bigots, there are many who, as some on this thread, believe one of the major issues to be muslim immigration. There is a danger in aligning oneself with such people. Regarding the bias of the media I feel compelled to point out that the most popular media outlets in the UK (those owned by one Rupert Murdoch) happen to be unashamedly for the UK leaving the EU.

What a deplorable thing! To go to that extreme for a far-right political belief... to take a life!! There is no badge that the killer can hide behind here, he/she is a murderer and nothing else! As somebody above said something like, "it is possible to want to change the policies of a government without wanting to remove the government", unfortunately, extremists seem to share one common personality, a lack of compromise or willingness to accept that there are other issues beside theirs that affect others beliefs. We can all get on our soap-box and shout our corner, but to not recognise that others will also stand by their beliefs even though they are not the same as yours is ignorant and bigoted and dangerous to want to physically force them to only believe what you believe! Can I say, no matter what my views on the UK leaving the EU (all economic and political views and only my views here), I am pro European and feel a great attachment to all my neighbouring countries across the Channel. I will always want to trade with them, integrate with them and support them in times of turmoil, I just don't want to be governed by them when we can govern ourselves quite well (once we rid the equation of greed).