I don't know, I can't say I've given it a great deal of thought. But as posted above, I struggle to see how a USE could be achieved without further opportunities to say no.

We are only having this referendum to settle Tory infighting.

When have we ever been consulted on any other decisions?

This might be our last chance to effect the future of Britain and indeed Europe.

I wager the leaflets you are delivering are the same as the one just pushed through my door! It says "Not sure which way to vote on June 23?"

If so you should be ashamed of yourself. It is chock full of untrue assertions, or put in simple terms, lies! Just reading them made my blood boil. It appeals only to the xenophobic among us, and repeats 3 times the now totally discredited "£350 million a week" claim.

My hope is that ordinary, decent people (who I believe comprise the often silent majority of our fellow citizens) will see this for what it is. Blatant propaganda, Farage style, and it will have the reverse effect of that which is intended.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

We won't be cut adrift like a plague ship. People will still want to sell us stuff and we are still part of NATO and the United Nations.

Being in the EU hinders us when negotiating with the rest of the World and means that any decisions are made for the good of Europe (that usualy means Germany and France) not Britain.

That last bit will be exacerbated if we leave, then? I happen to think mutual benefit is the way to go. Britain will benefit from other countries economies improving too, we can sell more stuff to others if they have money to spend. So being part of a collective negotiation would seem to help that, don't you think?

My definition of xenophobia matches that to be found in the OED:-

" Dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries"

Which is precisely what I meant when I used it. The ONLY way we will be able to reduce our need for immigration is if our economy declines, and so does the number of jobs. Leaving may well achieve that, but at what cost? If our economy doesn't decline so far (which I think unlikely) then we will still need immigration. Immigrants arrive for work. No work, no immigrants. More work, more immigrants. They would just come anyway, but from a wider spectrum than at present.

So to be prejudiced against EU migration is indeed to be xenophobic.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Switzerland aren't in teh EU and yet they have a much higher percentage of immigrants than the UK. It's a total fallacy thinking that leaving the EU will stem immigration. Also, don't forget the 1.5 million British citizens that live in other EU countries. WHat about them? If they have to return, that will put massive pressure on all the services you listed.

Not as prosperous as it should be and doing worse than the other trading zones. Peace has little to do with the EU despite the guff you hear from the Remains.

If you reverse the net migration figure of 336,000 what do you get?

This figure ranges from 77,000 in 1994 to an average of 200,000 each year since 2004.

Although these figures also indicate that the majority are from outside the EU.

The key figure is that we have 3m EU citizens while 1m Brits live elsewhere in the EU which is +3%

Edited by johnfirewall (22 Jun 2016 4.38pm)

Interesting. How prosperous do you think it should be? And why do you think it's not?

Personally, I think politics, finance and defence are so mixed up in skullduggery that given the previous generations of conflict and the actions of Russia and others, that the EU is the least worse option that stops relatively large economic powers using more of their firepower against each other.