I think it's more than obvious that it was an example of the bulls*** and exaggeration from both campaigns.

Optimistic as ever

Excuse me ??? :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/08/cameron-brexit-will-increase-risk-of-europe-descending-into-war/

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Well yes, technically one could argue that the UK outside of the EU is more likely to be involved in a European war, but realistically the chances are a slight theoretical increase on the potentially possible, but incredibly improbable, and about as close to zero you can get.

And because the UK has been involved in European wars, it cannot be 0. In fact its probably less likely than me winning the lottery, twice.

Its this kind of political hyperbole that should be classed as maleficence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

All that does fella is confirm what i said. I was talking about further down the line, decades, and so was Cameron and not almost immediately after Brexit which what was implied by some Brexiteers as having been said.

Do you not see that there might be clashes over fishing rights, resources, border incursions, etc, which could set things off sometime in the future if it turns out to be a every country for themselves scenario like it was in the not too distant past again?

No EU? Then i'll bet a pound to a penny that some old member states will shed blood before the year 2050.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Its incredibly unlikely, given the economic dependency the UK and Europe have, and even then you still have NATO which realistically prevents any European nation starting a conflict with another NATO member (as it would draw in all of NATO).

Given enough time and change of course anything could happen, but then why assume that being in the EU now and foreseeable future would make a difference in that kind of time frame.

Some old member states were shedding blood even whilst members of EU, we were one of them.

However the primary reason why the UK would not engage in a war with its European counterparts, is that its not cost effective. Post WWII wars between equal technological nations have become non-existant, simply because even without nuclear capability it would be utterly devastating to both countries, and thus would reduce the global status position and European position of both nations.

Countries fight wars, because either they've no choice and protect their interests, or to increase their interests. A war with say France, would render both the UK and France, third world status powers within a few days, result in utter devastation of both countries infrastructures, economic ruin and terrible casualties on both sides.

The UK, outside of the EU, is even less likely to become enaged in conflict with EU member states, because of the impact of sanctions that those states would levy on it.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Realistically, that would only really be applicable to the feudal era and early empire. Both WWI and WWII for example, weren't free for all's at all, but were more about different allies lining up on different sides.

In WWI the British entered the war directly to support the French.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]