So how do you register concern without being shouted down or threatened by the left?

Generally speaking I'm not a marcher - not at the drop of a hat anyway. I did attend the march against Mr Blair's illegal war back in the day, but that was a big issue for me.

Another big - and looming - issue for me is the change that the combination of uncontrolled immigration and a lack of integration could bring to our society if we allow things to go on as they currently are.

And my concern is not an Alf Garnet-esque anti foreigner thing - I believe strongly that the UK has benefited hugely from the introduction of new cultures, traditions, cuisine, music, clothing, fashion, people who have come to this country for centuries. These benefits have arisen because incomers have brought some of the best bits of their culture with them, and we have welcomed and celebrated and enjoyed them immensely. And these things have changed our society for the better over the years. They have enriched us as people and the UK as a place, making us more diverse and international in our outlook which is a massively good thing.

But what these former incomers - and I am a second generation Irish migrant myself - did not do, was ignore the established laws and values of the country to which they came. They came to share them: To share the freedoms and opportunities that they were afforded by the UK and in return to share some of the great things that their cultures had to offer, in a friendly, celebratory and law-abiding way.

What we face at the moment is not the same situation at all.

So, I am not anti immigration per sé, but I am concerned about this new - and growing - aspect of our society: It's not 'multi-culturalism' but a growing mono-cultural element that seems to me to have the goal not of fitting in and bringing the best of what its culture has to offer, but of effecting significant changes to what most of us Brits (of all ethnic or historical background) are signed up to and believe in. Changes to our society and values that I don't believe most of us in the UK really want - and in this group, I include many, perhaps most, of the people who are coming here to escape from the squalor, oppression and sheer shitholeness that (let's not duck the issue) Islam has delivered where they used to live.

This latest influx seems to me not to be about adding to our culture and diversity within our existing laws and values, but about changing it in a way that the vast majority of us simply do not want. By all means come here, bring and share your food, history, culture, religion even, but do so in a friendly - and above all law-abiding - way and not in a way which seeks to change our outlook on life and the world.

I know this sounds like pulling up the ladder, but it really isn't. I am vehemently anti Radical Islam (which is an utterly intolerant medieval death cult) but not anti Muslim (although I do sometimes wonder what contribution Islam can make to a modern western society in the 21st Century given its anti western culture, anti sport, anti music, anti fashion, anti women's equality, anti diversity - oh the irony - stance). Yes I have read the Qu'ran (or at least a translation of it, I don't speak 7th Century Arabic) and I have spoken to many Muslims about this issue.

My concern - taking as read an acceptance that all people are free in this country to follow one religion or another - or none at all - is not about religion as such; it is about law, although Islam does try to present itself as the arbiter of laws in Muslim society, so the two things are connected in some ways. And it is about tolerance - allowing others to pursue whatever beliefs or values they have, so long as this does not impinge on other people and remains within the laws of the land.

My concern is about those old British chestnuts of fairness, shared values and an adherence - because it keeps society together - to the rule of law. Laws that have been long in the making and upon which - it is obviously a continuously evolving set of rules - we are pretty much all agreed. These are the laws that make this country what it is and, I would suggest, make it somewhere that many people want to come and live because it offers levels of freedom and opportunity that simply do not exist in the places where many of these people are coming from and indeed trying to escape from.

My concern, therefore, is about some elements of the Islamic section of our society for whom our existing laws do not seem to apply - or at least are not being enforced, with potentially very dangerous consequences. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about the Radical Islam area of our growing Muslim communities here, but usually the more general day-to-day communities. This is why I am concerned: The ones who want to cut our heads off are highly dangerous, we can (just about) all agree on this. But whilst extreme and high profile, we are perhaps facing a greater danger from the low-profile law-breaking and insidious creeping lawlessness that is arising in our ordinary - one might say 'moderate' - Muslim communities - and which is being ignored by our 'authorities'.

This is why I'm concerned and why I'd like to demonstrate and highlight the issue in a way which might just make the government I vote and pay for, wake up to concerns which are held by a great many people in this country - perhaps even the majority of people in this country; but they (we) are being prevented from expressing these concerns by our increasingly vocal left wing rent-a-mob brigade who are not interested in even listening to these concerns, or allowing them to be voiced, much less engaging in any kind of civilised debate on our future as a nation.

FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985. There are thousands of reported cases (reported, usually because hospital treatment is required) in the UK each year and yet there has not yet been a single successful prosecution for the practice in this country. In 31 years. How can that be?

Child brides are illegal in the UK, but the issue is growing and is largely ignored by the authorities. Polygamy is illegal in the UK - same response. The terrible issue of grooming white trash underage girls which has taken place in every major urban conurbation in the country over the past decade and more, has been largely ignored by the authorities and the main stream media (MSM) for fear, it seems, of offending the Muslim community. Electoral fraud and the take-over of schools by Muslim governors who want to introduce an Islamic curriculum, Honour killings, the introduction of Shar'ia law in parts of the country. The establishment of 'no-go areas' in parts of some of our biggest cities.

And these are factual issues: We have not yet had much experience of the ill-treatment of women by Muslim migrants in Germany and Sweden; we have not yet had the government directive that British women should change the way they dress or behave so as not to provoke people who have just arrived on our shores in order to partake in our generosity. What a fucking ridiculous situation that is by the way.

These are all clear issues which are in breech of UK law and yet are being largely ignored by the authorities. So just think about my stance for a moment if you'd be so kind: I am not suggesting that we need to introduce new laws or change the way we treat people so as to make life harder for our Muslim neighbours. I am not suggesting any course of action that would be inherently unfair to them. All I am advocating is that the laws which exist, which were here long before many of these people arrived and with which we all generally agree and adhere, should be applied evenly and consistently to all sections of our society and to all communities therein.  Only by doing so can we build an equitable society in which everyone behaves and can live and work together. You can't have a fair British society in which one section can break the law with impunity, that's just not right and (therefore) not acceptable to the British psyche.

You may not be bothered about any of this, but I am: Everything I've listed above is illegal in the UK and goes against both the spirit and the letter of UK laws. Not my laws or opinions, but the laws of our land. But most either continue to be ignored (going unprosecuted) or have been ignored for many years and are only now starting to be addressed in response to public opinion.

Surely you must see that if the laws of our land are not upheld, firmly and consistently, it will undermine our society and give rise to conflict and turmoil on our streets. Brits are very slow to anger, slow to rile, but when they've had enough, they tend to act decisively and thoroughly. I think our government should actually act to uphold these laws and make sure that the poison that is created when people are allowed to get away with this shit is quickly and clearly removed from our society, so that we all know where we stand and there is no room for any ambiguity.

I think such a course of action would be good for everyone - including Muslims who are, one assumes, trying to make a better life for themselves than the one they left and ought, therefore to welcome being able to jettison some of the medieval practices they're fleeing from.

And I'd love to be able to register my concerns via the medium of a peaceful, respectful march somewhere.

The trouble is that the liberal, caring left, don't seem to want to allow this to happen anytime soon. They don't want to engage, or acknowledge that there is any kind of problem at all, they just want to shout me down, call me 'racist' (Islam is not a race by the way) or 'far right wing' (which I am not) and threaten violence against me.

How can this possibly be a good thing for our society? Shutting down free speech and the right to register one's concerns? It is a right that is exercised long and loud by the left on a regular basis but if one dares to take a different stance. a different view, one should be prevented from being heard? That's just fascism and its growth is creating a double whammy of danger, alongside (and protecting) the Islamic lawlessness that is threatening the very cohesion of our society. 

Maybe it's time the police enforced the laws of our land - including the right of people to hold opposing views to the so-called Liberals, and the right to make those views known in a peaceful manner without being threatened with violence? Just a thought..

Thanks for reading.

Has #Brexit got a prayer?

Our father which art in Brussels

Juncker be thy name

If thy Kingdom come

Thy will be done in England

As it is in Brussels.

Give us this day our daily directive

And forgive us our democracy

As we pay for you to use democracy against us

And lead us not into freedom

But deliver migrants to us in Calais

For thine is the takeover

Of our power and our glory

Forever and ever

Unless we Vote Leave.

Amen. :)

Thanks for reading.

Why on earth would Labour supporters vote to 'Remain'?

A vote to remain in the EU will mean victory for Dave.

It will mean the acceptance, in due course, of the EU-US TTIP deal which will place employment power in the hands of multinational corporations, undermining workers' rights and allowing corporations to sue democratically elected national governments if their policies are seen as damaging corporate profits.

It (TTIP) will almost certainly mean the privatisation of the NHS.

A vote for Brexit (if successful) on the other hand will see Dave being kicked out of office and turmoil in the Tory party followed, quite possibly, by a split and a general election in the Autumn of this year. An election which, having supported Dave in the referendum, Labour will find it very difficult to provide a credible or distinctive alternative to the 'New' Tory management (post Brexit).

In any case it will mean the end of Dave, George, Theresa and Jeremy, it will mean effectively keeping the NHS in public ownership and it will mean that employment rights will be protected and controlled/decided by people in the UK.

The rule of the nation state will prevail and we will regain control of our borders, reducing immigration which is currently undermining wage levels and putting massive pressure on public infrastructure including the NHS and our education system. Immigration is hitting Labour voters hardest and yet they support 'Remain'?

Madness, apathy or just a poor grasp of reality? Whatever it is Labour voters could well be voting against themselves in the referendum. I suppose having voted Labour forever and seen absolutely no uplift in the areas in which they live, this is the habit of a lifetime.

Thanks for reading.

So, how are you defining 'better off' Stronger In?

If the EU - and in particular the single currency Eurozone (EZ) - was a thriving, dynamic, go ahead  global driving force and powerful, successful economic engine then one would have great difficulty arguing that we would not be much better off being a member of the club. In that scenario we would be hanging on to the coat-tails of this powerhouse and being inexorably pulled towards success and prosperity to the benefit of everyone in the UK.

Sadly, however, this is a long way from being the case and nor can one make the case that the EZ is simply enduring a short and temporary period of economic difficulty. The EZ as a whole has been bumping along either side of the line that marks recession since well before the 2007 crash and the current overall growth figure is 0.3% across the group - with, surprise surprise, Germany doing best with a growth figure of 2.4%. Recent minor recoveries in Spain, France and Italy are stalling and industrial and political unrest in those countries is hampering their economies.

Many EZ countries are actually in recession and most are teetering on the brink and because they are  locked in to the Euro which is far to strong for them in terms of its international value, they cannot re-balance their currencies and thereby their economies. This has led to the position where there is no obvious way out for them. The prospect they face is endless recession, growing unemployment and their economic position where they are literally at the mercy of the stronger German industrial machine (which has been buying up companies in southern Europe like it's going out of fashion). This is why youth unemployment in southern Europe, Greece, Spain and Italy in particular, is around 50% and is a cause of growing social unrest and the rise of extreme political parties.

Not a thrusting economic driving force then - more like a millstone around the necks of most European economies. Including (must do given the EZ is our biggest trading partner) the UK, which is why we're growing business, despite the EU, in other parts of the world and our dependence on the EU is shrinking - 75% in 2005, <44% now, projected to be around 25% by 2020.

It's worth remembering, at this point, that the Euro was supposed to be about sharing economic prosperity more widely around the continent of Europe, bringing up the more traditionally weak economies to the levels of Germany. No credible economist would suggest that this has been successful and nor would they state that this is likely to happen anytime soon.

So we're not hanging on to the coat-tails of a thriving EU, indeed the opposite is true: This great global trading bloc, with its 500 million people across a geographical land-mass stretching from Iceland to Russia... and do you know who its biggest customer - it's biggest global trading partner is? It is a small island with a population of just 60million, situated just off the north-west coast of France. And it's called the UK.

There was a trade imbalance, in favour of the EU, of £106.4 billion for 2015 - that means the 60 million UK population buys £106.4 billion more goods and services from the 440 million people in the rest of Europe than they buy from us. And that obviously means that we create/sustain £106.4 billion worth of more jobs and income for the EU than it does for us.

Do we need to trade with the EU? Yes of course we do, but it needs to trade with us far more. Is anyone suggesting that this trade will stop if we were to leave the EU? No of course not - even if the 'remains' like to suggest that tariffs will be imposed if we do leave.

But really, at a time when the term 'economic illiteracy' has been banded about by Mr Osborne, how likely is the EZ to impose tariffs on its biggest customer - a trading partner without which it would certainly slide into a deeper recession than it has ever known before? Anyone suggesting that it would be in the interests of the EU to impose tariffs on the UK post Brexit is truly economically stupid. And the suggestion that they would impose a punishment pour encourager les autres is completely missing the point. It could impose such a punishment on countries that have a trade deficit in their own favour compared to the EU (which is pretty much everyone else in the club) since they would have no choice but to accept this in order to maintain their trading position, but we clearly are not in this position. Damaging the UK's trading position would do much more harm to the EZ than it would to the UK and it is simply not going to happen.

The UK has stronger growth than any EZ economy and has created more jobs in the past five years than the whole of the EZ combined. We are not the sick man of Europe economically; Europe and the EZ is the sick man of Europe and we would hold most of the strong cards in any future trade negotiations with the EU. That's just simple economic fact. And what's more we would not be dealing based on the Canadian or Norwegian or Swiss model - we would be making our own deal for the UK based on our uniquely strong position at the centre of European trade.

So there is no threat to our continuing trade relationship with the EU. Outside the club we will continue to be its biggest customer and we will continue to have free, unfettered access to the European market. And that is a key factor in terms of overseas investment in the UK: Are other countries and trading blocs likely to want to invest in a country that has a strong economy, strong financial services, a strong committment to international law (and record of adhering to, rather than flouting those laws), a relatively uncorrupted commercial system in place, is reliable and trustworthy, and which speaks the international business language of English? Or the hotch-potch of economies, regimes, standards and levels of corruption as well as different languages that make up the EU?

It is, quite simply a 'no brainer'.

And are they more likely to want to invest in the UK with a single, simple partnership agreement requiring just the UK to negotiate and approve, and which gives them full access to the European market, or with a group of 27 or 28 countries all of whom have different vested interests and any of whom can throw a spanner in the works of trade negotiations? Romania is currently blocking an EU-wide trade deal with Canada for example - how is that good for the rest of the so-called community?

And outside the EU club we would be able to create our own trade deals with emerging markets around the world without recourse to the EU. Nations and places with whom we already have a much better historical relationship than the EU does. Like India, Canada, Australia, the USA, China, many parts of Africa. And we would be operating on the basis of our famed dynamism and positivity towards global trade instead of the protectionist EU approach which currently sees African farmers being prevented from trading their way into the first world by EU tariffs and trade barriers.

So, in conclusion, there's no real, credible risk to UK trade from Brexit and every reason to believe that we would be much better off pursuing our own trade deals on behalf of the UK rather than trying to take the whole EU bloc with us from inside the EU.

'Better off 'IN' Really?

Keep telling us the big lie if you want to, but that is exactly what it is and I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that those advocating that we 'remain' are doing so mainly for their own vested interests rather than in the interests of the wider nation and its people. Corporations for whom complicated EU red tape makes competition much less likely to arise. Organisation and individuals like Mandelson & Pantsdown who are being bribed by the EU to be advocates. Big banks who benefit from EU protection against risk which means they can gamble as much as they like with other people's money and still reap the rewards. MPs, former MPs and members of our 'establishment' who are in the pay of the EU in one way or another. I include the BBC in this, as well as people like Mandelson whose EU pension is reliant on his promoting the EU at every opportunity. Just remember that next time you see him spouting his pro-EU nonesense.

It's time we woke up to all this and recognised that we are a great trading nation, a great global force for trade and for good and that being subsumed into the lethargic, bumbling, failing EU is not beneficial to us in any way. This great nation has always shaped its own destiny and it's time we did again. Time we believed in our people and stopped relying on the EU to do it for us - because it's clear that they can't deliver as much success for the UK as we can ourselves, even if they wanted to - which they so obviously do not.

Thanks for reading.

How are you defining 'Stronger' Stronger in?

How are you defining 'Safer' Stronger In? 

 

So, how are you defining 'Safer' Stronger In?

 It's quite difficult, on the face of it, to see how taking the external doors off your house is likely to make you and your family safer or better protected but this seems to be the claim of the remains.

It is true that we are not part of the EU's Schengen Agreement which means no border controls within the EU area but we are signed up to the free movement of people which means we cannot stop EU citizens from coming to the UK to live, work use the Health Service, our education system, claim benefits etc. - even if they have a criminal record and are unskilled.

The Remains say that we do control our borders because we're not part of Schengen - if that is the case, why is net immigration to the UK still at the level of several hundred thousand a year rather than the tens of thousands that was the stated target in the government's most recent election manifesto? It is simply not a claim that stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

 So safer then? In France half of that country's armed forces are now being deployed on the streets because of the threat of terrorism - a threat which has come about because the EU cannot control its own external borders, particularly with the Middle East and Turkey from where millions of illegal migrants are swarming into Greece, Italy, Spain etc.

Among these illegals there are also some refugees, but although there are perfectly acceptable laws already in place to differentiate the two very different statuses, it has now become impossible to differentiate them because of the lack of border control and it seems as if the EU is about to dismiss the Dublin agreement on refugees which states that refugees must seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. This will have massive rammifications for the whole of Europe and will mean that the influx will continue unabated. Indeed it is causing conflict between member states already with the erection of walls on border crossings designed to stop the influx, and a rise in conflict and rhetoric between a number of European countries.

And just as there are refugees mixed in with the illegal migrants, there are also terrorists. That's not speculation but a known and proven fact. There are now terrorist cells in every European country including the UK as a direct result of the EU's weak response to the migrant crisis, and one of the main clusters of terrorists is in the Molenbeek area of Brussels - the erstwhile capital of the EU. Safer?

The theory is - given this background that we now have to live with and which has been largely caused by the EU - that we are safer because we (EU countries) share intelligence and work together against terrosism. But this is far from the actualité. We have seen the keystone cops in Belgium, sending dozens of heavily armed special forces personnel to arrest three terrorists in a flat in Molenbeek - two of whom escaped. The lack of cooperation between intelligence agencies, hampered by different languages and a reluctance to share information, is actually helping not hindering the terrorists.

The quality of intelligence is sketchy at best and is certainly nowhere near as good as we enjoy (if that is the right word) in the UK, where we are, as part of the 'Five Eyes' network, along with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, part of the world's best and most effective anti-terrorist network, which has nothing to do with the EU.

And these migrants, whose behaviour is now causing Germany and Sweden in particular to change their long established way of life, with gender segregated trains and advice to women not to go out alone at night in cities or wear anything that might be construed as provocative, are being allowed to settle in Europe (despite being illegals). They will gain citizenship in due course and will then be able to come to the UK unhindered. If we remain in the EU.

How does this make us safer? How does the bahaviour and attitudes of these migrants - anti-gay, anti alcohol, anti women - make us either safer or freer in our own communities?

One of the original purposes of the EU was to create a peaceful European Community based on trade and trust, that would stop smaller countries being bullied by larger ones and would tie Germany into a European 'family' following on from the two unpleasantnesses of the last century. This objective has singularly failed: Germany now dominates the EU and EU policies have directly led to unemployment on a massive scale in southern Europe which has, in turn, led to a rise in extremism, a growth of extremist parties and civil unrest on the streets.

It has also created a situation in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece in particular where young people have very little prospect of employment, careers or a prosperous future. That is hardly likely to make us all safer.

Perhaps the Stronger In people have some different and novel definition of the term 'safer'? One which does actually mean that relying on an intelligence system that is obviously not fit for purpose and which sees our having no control over the numbers coming in to the UK, is a safer option for the UK than controlling our own borders and relying on our own world-class security services rather than the keystone cops?

If so I'm all ears.

Thanks for reading.

How are you defining 'Better Off' Stronger IN?

How are you defining 'Stronger' Stronger In?

So how are you defining 'Stronger' Stronger IN?

As I understand it, the theory is that being part of a bigger gang makes one more powerful, gives one more influence and impact, makes one's voice more likely to be heard.

The problem with this theory is that if one joins a big gang whose views, plans, policies and vision do not match one's own, one is actually more likely to be relegated to the sidelines and ignored than to have one's voice heard and influence brought to bear.

As far as the UK's membership of the EU is concerned, these theories have actually become reality: To the point where Dave has found himself having to try to get a legally binding opt-out of future EU plans for 'ever closer union' because we fundamentally disagree with that publicly-stated direction.

So essentially Dave is campaigning for us to 'remain' in a gang whose aims and very raison d'être we fundamentally disagree with. And looking at this scenario from the other end of the telescope, this means, quite clearly, that the EU fundamentally disagrees with the UK on its future direction.

So we are putting forward our views in clear and direct opposition to the views of 27 other nation state members of the EU within a system that requires unanimity of agreement if our measures are to be adopted and our concerns have any influence at all.

Perhaps even more tellingly, 19 of the 28 are members of the Eurozone (i.e. have adopted the Euro as their single currency) and so have a vested interest - and a majority should it ever come to a vote - in promoting measures that are positive for the single currency - something that Dave is adamant we will never join. You don't have to be Henry Kissinger to realise that this is not a recipe for greater UK influence but instead a recipe for the consistent and continuing position wherein the UK and its views and concerns are completely ignored by the EU.

It is why none - not a single one - of the amendments to 72 EU laws we have put forward in the past 30 years has been adopted. And this situation is not likely to change anytime soon - look at the refusal of the EU to allow Dave to secure any meaningful reforms during his fruitless renegotiations earlier this year.

So whilst we are the second biggest net contributor to the EU and the Eurozone's biggest customer on the planet, our level of influence is negligible at best. And we're not just politely ignored, we're consistently sneered at by the unelected Eurocrats in Brussels, even though we pay for their massively over-inflated and totally unjustifiable gold plated salaries and pension pots, while they pass laws that we must adopt, without having any kind of democratic representation or ability to kick them out when we don't agree with what they're doing.

So the world's 5th largest economy, Europe's second largest economy, a member of the G7, the G20, founder member of the UN and NATO, the OECD, the World Trade Organisation, centre of the Commonwealth, finds itself, thanks to our EU membership, unable to make its own domestic laws, control its own borders or make its own trade deals outside the EU.

That's not 'stronger' that's pretty close to abject capitulation; almost 'surrender' to the EU, while we also get to pick up a large part of the bill for what is effectively a German-sponsored EU take-over of Europe. A take-over which is, incidentally, proving disastrous for almost every other nation in the EU except Germany. Who knew?

How the hell did we get to this - and why are Dave and our UK establishment trying to persuade us (using our own money FFS) to stay in this undemocratic and corrupt organisation with which we do not agree, rather than standing up for the interests of the country they're supposed to represent?

It's time we got out of the EU, got back to being Great Britain; able to control our own interests and, at the same time, get rid of these 'progressives' in our establishment who want us to be a small regional, bit-part player in the EU instead of one of the world's great nations.

Being 'IN' the EU does not make us 'Stronger', it makes us weaker and less influential on the world stage than we have been at any other time in our history.

#Brexit

Thanks for reading.

How are you defining 'Safer' Stronger In?

How are you defining 'Better Off' Stronger In? 

Dave's pro-EU leaflet - how does it stack up?

 

OK Dave's leaflet - we've paid £9m in order to be told what to think by Dave and his Remains, might be worth taking a look and assessing how watertight this is? The Remains are, after all, forever describing Brexit as a 'leap in the dark', so let's see how much of this is credible fact or simply fear-mongering speculation.

Left column: is entirely accurate and true. Please do not forget this, it is critical to our future and to the prosperity and sovereign governance of our great nation state.

Middle column: The EU has not been reformed in any way shape or form. So 'Special status' is an entirely moot point. What has changed following Dave's endless and fruitless renegotiations is that we now have a non-legally binding opt-out of the EU's continued goal of ever closer union - which means the creation of the single federal state of Europe - a single state with its own political governance, it's own currency, flag, anthem, army and fiscal systems. This has not changed in any way whatsoever and if we are to 'Remain' inside the EU beyond its (the EU's) target date for 'Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union' as described in the 5 Presidents Report, 'by 2025 at the latest' we will have to either give up the pound and accept the Euro, or remain forever outside of the main EU, with little or no influence over its policies or decisions, but we will be governed by EU laws, so we'll have no influence and no means of making our own decisions on issues that effect UK citizens. Pretty much as we are now, only much worse because those inside the Eurozone (single currency bloc) will always outvote the UK on fiscal matters in the future for reasons of vested interests.

Third column: yes we know. We can't understand why, but we do at least know where Dave stands on the issue - with unelected foreigners in the EU rather than the British people.

To be more accurate, it is your chance to hand-over the ability to decide on your own future to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels who you didn't elect, can't get rid of and are people who have almost certainly never heard of the place where you live, much less understand your concerns and issues and whose laws are, by definition, more about people elsewhere in Europe than they will ever be about the UK and you. Alternatively, it is about kicking out these people who govern in their own interests and instead vote for the UK to take back control over its own destiny by standing on its own two feet as a major world player - which is where we belong.

Yes the EU is the UK's biggest customer although the 44% figure is a shrinking one and it does include UK goods that are exported via Rotterdam, Europe's biggest international port, so they do not all go to the Eurozone. The figure is expected to fall to 26% by the mid 2020s at current rates, and would almost certainly fall much more quickly if we were to Brexit. However no-one other than the most blinkered of scaremongers is suggesting that Brexit would result in our being denied access to the European market. The fact, glaring in its omission from the above document, is that while the EU is the UK's biggest market, the UK is also the EU's biggest market/biggest customer on the planet and that in 2015 there was a trade deficit of £89 billion in favour of the EU. That means that we buy more goods, create/sustain more jobs in the EU than it does in the UK - to the tune of a growing £89 billion a year. Simply put, the EU, most of whose members are teetering on the brink of yet another recession, cannot afford not to trade with the UK on the basis of the current open trade agreements which are in place. Any kind of barriers to UK exports would be matched by the UK and that would send the EU spiralling into recession. And this nonsense about us being strong in the service sector but not industrially so that sector is under threat is utter rubbish. As if a British negotiator would allow the service sector to be singled out for EU tariffs compared to other sectors. It is not going to happen. In the short term, Brexit would result in nothing changing: existing trade deals would remain in place until we decided to enter renegotiations - and one would hope that we'd have a negotiator with some balls (for a change) who would ensure that our position of strength would be reflected in the outcome of a new deal. The timing of the start of those negotiations is entirely up to the UK - it would not start on June 24th following a Brexit vote. So it is vanishingly unlikely that our access to the European marketplace will be hindered in any way by Brexit, which therefore means no negative impact on UK jobs or investment and I would suggest that dealing with a single, English-speaking, financially sound, legally correct democracy with full access to the EU will be significantly more attractive to investors than trying to deal with the bureaucratic, financially unsigned-off, corrupt monolith that is the EU and many of its dodgy, non-English-speaking member states. If you were a major international investor which of these scenarios would you prefer?

Indeed. Not dependent on our EU membership, and not under threat from Brexit as previously explained. This is a non-issue - and it is perhaps the strongest argument that Dave and his Remains have. That tells you quite a lot doesn't it?

Left column: Pressure on the pound? This is unknowable. I would expect that Brexit would actually see a strengthening of the pound as uncertainty was eliminated and financial speculators recognised the value of Sterling and the UK's ability to make its own decisions and be an expansionist trading partner with the whole world rather than relying on the EU to make our deals for us. And what shape would Brexit leave the EU in, economically and financially? The departure of its second biggest net contributor? I think the money men would be getting out of the EU pending its imminent collapse following Brexit. A stronger pound would not necessarily be a great thing for the UK, but it would certainly not result in the scaremongering outcomes described above. The fact that the EU is so unstable and financially and economically dodgy (lurching from one IMF-supported criss to another - remember Greece? it's about to come back again), speaks for itself and I think, supports my view of where the strengths and weaknesses of the two currencies would stand following Brexit. We would not lose full access to the market as previously explained.

Centre column: There is no evidence that travel between the EU and the UK would be any more difficult following Brexit. Yes there would be border controls, but that would be a small price to pay for the increased security it affords. There is no evidence that air fares would increase. Roaming charges? For £35million a day (net) contribution? Really. Is anyone going to vote to relinquish sovereignty so they can make a cheaper call overseas? I doubt it and there's no reason why these lower costs shouldn't be delivered post Brexit.

Right column: We currently pay massively more to provide 'free' healthcare to EU citizens visiting the UK than we receive from the EU. So there's aboslutely no reason why this shouldn't be negotiated and continue post Brexit. By the same token, we have to have health insurance when we travel in the EU and have to pay for treatment, but this doesn't seem to happen in the UK. This just doesn't stack up.

'Would risk', 'some'? World food prices are currently around 15% lower than those paid in the EU. The EU is a protectionist marketplace which prevents African countries from trading their way into the first world and keeps European prices higher than they would be otherwise. It is therefore a massive stretch to suggest that household prices would go up - and by the sound of the wording here, even the Remains don't really believe it either. They had 16 pages to make their point and devoted a whole page to this? What does that tell you about the strength of their argument?

Left column: Years of uncertainty? Neither the EU nor the UK can afford 'years of uncertainty' in terms of trading arrangements - and as previously explained existing deals would remain in place until we decided - possibly several years down the line - to negotiate a new deal. It is likely that this new deal would be virtually done even before those negotiations began and that an agreement, based on our membership of EFTA (Euriopean Free Trade Agreement), the WTO (World Trade organisation) etc., would ensure a swift transition to a new - and in the interests of both sides - open and tariff-free trade deal, not on the basis of Canada or Norway, but the UK in its own right and negotiated on the basis that the EU needs trade with us more than we need trade with it. And the trade deal would be the holy grail as far as the UK is concerned: Any ongoing uncertainty in other aspects of our relationship with the EU would be much more about the EU shoring up its own existence than anything we'd really be bothered about. Even Dave has tried to get a legally binding opt-out to the EU's 'ever closer union' mantra so why would we give a damn about any uncertainties caused to the EU by Brexit, so long as the trade deal was in place?

Middle column: This debunked 8% and 44% thing again. The key issue is the deficit in the EU's favour. They simply cannot afford not to trade with us and German industrialists will make sure that Frau Merkel agrees a good deal with the UK in the event of Brexit, because their businesses depend on that happening. 'Significant access' - what does that mean? Weasel words. Of course we have to meet EU standards if we export goods to the EU - that is the case now and will not change. We also have to meet Canadian and US and Chinese standards in order to export to thsoe countries - no change there, this is not an issue at all. Countries outside of Europe don't have to pay in to the EU in order to trade with EU countries and nor do they have to have Europeans living and working (with free access) in their countries - that's just a stupid comment.

Right column: There cannot be a limited access deal because the EU cannot afford to limit our access to its marketplace - for whatever goods or services are on the agenda. The EU can probably survive without doing a deal with Canada, it cannot without doing a free and fair deal with its biggest customer.

'Could'? But almost certainly would not. This is not a deterrent to voting to leave - we will be negotiating from a position of strength and when Dave has gone on June 24th, I'd hope we'd have a negotiator with some backbone to secure a good deal for the UK.

Left column: 'The right to check everyone'? More weasel words - we don't actually do this though do we?. We cannot refuse access to the UK to EU citizens - and that doesn't just mean Poles and Romainians but also potentially Ukrainians and Turks if idiotic current EU policies come into force. This also means that economic migrants, once settled in Germany, France or wherever and processed to the point where they secure EU citizenship, will have exactly the same access to the UK. And the deal which makes the UK less of a draw for EU citizens can only be enacted by the EU in special circumstance which they decide upon - it is not something that is controlled by the UK. How stupid is that? Is Dave really saying we 'do' control our borders? Why then are immigration figures in the hundreds of thousands & not the tens of thousands we were promised?
Middle column: 'Government will have greater powers'? But hasn't at the moment. Might as well say 'hopes to have'. This is meaningless and carries no weight whatsoever. And so what about Norway's deal - we'd be negotiating our own deal for goodness' sake.
Right column: We've all read the comments from leading security experts on how our EU membership does not make us more secure. We have seen the keystone cops in Belgium and the problems of different languages and the guarding - rather than sharing - of information that hampers the EU's security activity. We also know that the EU currently spends more money on propaganda and spin than it does on security and that the UK's membership of the 'Five Eyes' network including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The USA & the UK is actually the world's best anti-terror and intelligence-sharing network bar none. Our membership of the EU actually led to our being unable to get rid of terrorists like Abu Hamsa - this final point is just plain wrong. It also means that people can be extraditedf from the UK to stand trial in other EU countries where the standards of justice are nowhere near what they are here. And whilst the UK just nods through these requests for extradition, obeying the rules, Germany itself decides whether to pursue an extradition request, Holland doesn't recognise requests which do not corresponde to crimes in Holland and France ignores all requests without penalty from the EU. As usual we obey the rules and the French and others just ignore what it suits them to ignore.

But we cannot refuse acess to EU citizens. A nation that does not have absolute control over who comes in, who lives and works there is not a nation state. EU rules mean we have to refuse entry to a highly skilled person from a Commonwealth country in favour of an unskilled - even criminal - person from an EU country. How mad is that? And without being able to control numbers how can we possibly plan to provide the infrastructure - schools, healthcare, housing, transport infrastructure required to meet the needs of the population? Taking the doors off your house does not make you safer in any way and that's what our membership of the EU effectively means for the UK. Visa-free travel for Ukraine and for 75million Turkish Muslims will not be of benefit to the UK anytime soon.

Left column: Indeed, 28 disperate and diverse countries and economies, 19 of which share the Euro which has been an unmitigated disaster for most of them - all except Germany in fact which has enjoyed boom times because of the exchange rate advantage its membership of the EZ affords it compared to what it would now be facing if it still had the Deutchsmark. Far from existing to protect smaller countries from being bullied by bigger countries in the wake of WW2, the EU has made economic basket cases out of most member states including Spain, Italy, Greece, Eire, Portugal and France for the benefit of Germany. And we've helped to pay for this economic take-over just 70 years after the last unpleasantness. How mad is that? We have no special status other than being an outsider to the project in perpetuity. And this makes us stronger in does it? You can't have it both ways, you cannot possibly be more influential within a club if you have an opt-out to its aims and ambitions and are therefore, by definition excluded from its plans and future processes. And if you think there will ever be another referendum on the EU - even if fundamental transfers of poewer occur in the future, you are dreaming. Any future transfers will be designed to be able to be nodded through in Brussels without any need for a referendum. After all they won't want to have to ignore a referendum again like they have done in Holland just this week. Democrasy?
Middle column: After Brexit we would still keep full access to the single market as previously explained - they cannot afford to impose trade restrictions on the UK without decimating their own economies. So job creation and economic security simply does not arise. And Barclays has today concluded that if the UK leaves it will be a disaster for the EU, but not for the UK. That the pound is likely to syrengthen and the UK become a haven for investment while the EU collapses under the weight of its own corruption and incompetence. More here. The right to live work and study abroad will not be changed by Brexit, it would just be a matter of filling out a few different forms. Once again the quality of UK universities and our economy means that no foreign country will dare put restrictions on these areas because they would be harming themselves more than they would be harming us.
Right column: The UK will not be a strong independent nation if it remains in the EU. That is not just speculation that is fact. It is whast the EU plans. What it wants to achieve with its 5 Presidents programme. It is publicly explicit. The only way the UK can remain as a strong independent nation is to leave the EU. The EU does not magnify our ability to get our own way, quite the opposite. Since the EU has rejected almost every ammendment and policy suggestion we have ever put forward, the EU actually restricts our influence on the world. The fifth largest economy on the planet completely hamstrung by the EU. Now that is the reality. The UN and the USA tackled the Iran nuclear issue not the EU. Oh, and climate change? Oh perleese. The biggest scam in global history - didn't you just know that the EU would be at the very centre of this nonsense - a ridiculous King Knut-esque belief that man can control the climate and in return can milk green energy taxes out of people who can least afford them. Green taxes are a major reason why industry is leaving the UK because of crazy energy prices. And as usual while we obey the rules, countries like France and Germany simply ignore them when they could be damaging to their economies. When will we learn? Actually if we leave we don't need to learn, we can just get out of the whole mess.

Erm no, NATO brings security and peace; our own armed forces and intelligence services bring security and peace. What the EU brings is conflict between nations, 50% unemployment rates among young people in southern Europe and the rise of extreme parties and civil unrest. The EU has brought in uncontrolled migrants and terrorists into Europe and its policy in this area, made on the hoof by Frau Merkel is causing several countries to change the way people live - with German women (for example) told not to go out alone or to wear what they want for fear of it causing offense or, worse, causing them to be attacked by some of the animals that have been allowed in. Who signed up for that by the way? The EU and its immigration policy has in fact become the biggest threat to economic stability and peace in Europe - when there are perfectly sound laws already in place to have headed off this crisis. These have been ignored on a whim by Merkel and the rest has been about playing catch up. There's even talk now about binning the Dublin Agreement on refugees because things are now so out of control. Thanks entirely to the EU.

Left column: Have you noticed how the government and the establishment, from the CBI to the IMF, to Messrs Blair, Mandelson, Kinnock, Clegg are all in favour of our staying in the EU? Why? Because they have no interest in what's best for the people of the UK, just what's best for their own careers or pension arrangements. Looking at those saying we should Remain In the EU should, if you have a brain and the ability to think carefully about the issue, tell you all you need to know - that Brexit is the best way forward for the UK. 'Uncertainty'? Staying in is not a 'certain' situation - look at the changes that have occurred since the last referendum 40 years ago. However staing in does mean that we will be part of the 'completion of economic and monetary union' - which means part of a single European state. If we remain part of it there is no alternative to this conclusion. And we will be tying ourselves in to a disastrous economic bloc - the only failing trading bloc on the planet, undemocratic, dictatorial, a political project that is no longer just about free trade, and a project that is about taking away what makes Europe the wonderful place (its diversity of history, culture, cuisine etc) and making the whole place Germany. No-one wants that - I'd suggest not even the bloody Germans themselves. Staying in means more of the same - the same economic doldrums, the same corruption the same failing economies and centralising governance by failed former Luxembourg politicians whose power has completely gone to their heads and who are much more concerned about their own salaries and solid gold pension funds than they are about the countries they supposedly represent. It's time we got rid of the lot - and the EU is terrified we'll leave, partly because they will almost certainly fail without the UK, but aso because a prosperous UK outside the EU will give all the other members the excuse to get out themselves. That is why Dave is - and the EU are - spending so much money trying to brainwash you into voting to Remain. But it's not about your future, it's about theirs. It's time we kicked them all out.

Indeed it is. The choice is whether that future is decided by ourselves and our representatives - people we can elect and, more importantly kick out if they don't act in our interests - or by people who quite simply - and quite clearly - do not have our interests at heart. It really is that simple. Who would you rather have deciding your future - people who are on your side or people who are not? How anyone can advocate handing over the powers of decision-making - decisions upon which our future prosperity will be based - to unelected Eurocrats in Brussels is quite beyond me. We know we don't want what the EU wants - even Dave, the biggest europhile of them all has tried to get a legally binding opt-out for goodness' sake - we know they ignore and sneer at us whenever we want to make changes; we know they issue bills out of the blue to the UK for doing well economically; we know that the EU has been an economic disaster, why on earth would we want to stay in that environment?

Protecting jobs? No. No pressure on jobs whatsoever from Brexit, quite the opposite as the UK becomes a haven for investors when we're outside the EU (according to Barclays today) and the ability to negotiate on our own behalf, trade deals with the rest of the world, including countries with whom we already have great relationships (that the EU doesn't have).
Stronger economy? No. Leaving will have zero detrimental effect on trade between the UK and the EU (because they - the EU - simply cannot afford for it to be damaged). The EU's economy has been dawdling, bumping along on the brink of recession for decades - it is not the holy grail by any means - we have much more opportunity via trade with growing trade blocs and economies around the world - as the trusted UK rather than the shambolic EU. Particularly if we have leaders who believe in the qualities of the people of this country instead of talking us down all the time like Dave and his Remains are doing.
Providing security? Only someone who has zero understanding of recent events, zero understanding of the threat that uncontrolled, illigal immiration as a vehicle for terrorists and zero understanding of the rise of extremist parties around Europe in response to Angela's follies economically and in terms of migration, could possibly suggest that the EU enhances our security. The EU is becoming the biggest threat to European security and its policies are causing member countries to close their borders and to build walls between each other. How's that cooperation and partnership thing going?

We have very little - almost nothing - to lose by leaving the EU and a great deal to gain in terms of our sovereignty, our status as a global nation state and the ability to be governed in our own interests. The EU is not a modern solution but a 60-year old anacronism that is past its sell-by date. It has delivered almost no benefits to the UL in 40 years of membership and it's time we left them to get on with it - their own plans for the future are not ones that even Dave supports so why he wants us to stay in the club is just crazy.

It's time to believe in ourselves, to believe in this great nation and to take control of our own destiny. I believe Brexit is best for the UK and also that the failure of the EU (which would almost certainly happen if we leave) would also be a fantastic outcokme for most other members of the EU, particularly those in southern Europe, and would give their young people hopefor a future that they do not currently enjoy.

You see I really do believe that voting for Brexit could very well bring about the UK saving Europe once again. From the same threat? That's up to you to decide.

Thanks for reading.

Project Fear - what Dave is basically saying is he is a crap negotiator

 As Dave used to be fond of saying: 'We can't go on like this'. We can't continue to allow this utter bollocks to be put forward as a credible argument for 'Remain'.

It just doesn't stack up in the real world and while Dave is clearly trying his best to pull the wool over our eyes, he can't be allowed to spout this utter rubbish unchallenged.

If you look at all of this nonesense, what he is essentially saying is that he would not be able to negotiate a decent, proper and beneficial deal on our behalf in the event of a Brexit vote by the good people of the UK.

That is a pretty damning assessment of his qualities as a politician or as someone who ought to have the interests of the UK at heart. What he is essentially saying is that we'd be powerless under his leadership, to negotiate a good deal in the event of a vote to leave.

I think, if one understands and accepts this position (which I do), that it becomes crystal clear that he wasn't the right man for the job of renegotiating our membership in the first place and will certainly not be the right person to put

forward our interests in the future.

Not a single airline has suggested that Brexit would mean a reduction in the routes they currently fly. These are commercial organisations who, by definition, operate on an international basis, not on the basis of a mickey mouse protectionist local marketplace.

Beef? Telecoms? Automotive? Noone is saying these markets are under threat from Brexit. Is Dave really suggesting that the EU, far from being a facilitator of 'free trade' is actually the controller of who can and cannot trade in Europe?

If so that goes way beyond its remit and against everything that 'free trade' stands for. And in any case, outside the cloying red tape of the EU we would retain (regain) our place at the top table of the World Trade Organisation and the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) as a matter of course (because the EU cannot afford not to have its biggest customer as a trading partner - it really is a simple as that).

Dave also seems to be suggesting that leaving the EU would be tantamount to leaving 'Europe' as a continent and eliminating our ability to trade with our nearest neighbours. That is just plain silly and ridiculous. Trade, by definition, is a

two-way street.

In the event of Brexit we would continue in the immediat term, to trade with the EU and the Eurozone on exactly the same basis as we do today, because there is an existing trade agreement in place which would continue to be in force until a new one was negotiated. And remember that as the EU's biggest customer and a trading partner that takes £89billion a year more in goods from the EU than we export to the EU, we would inevitably be negotiating from a position of strength.

 If the EU imposes tariffs on UK exports we would obviously respond in kind - and that would do far more damage to the EU which is currently teetering on the brink of yet another recession, than it would to the UK, although the damage on both sides would be significant and unwelcome - and therefore vanishingly unlikely to come about.

'In the hope of renegotiating a new agreement'. A forlorn hope if one listens to Dave and the Remain camp. Why? Why on earth would the world's 5th largest economy and the EU's biggest customer not be able to negiotiate a new trade deal that is to the benefit of both parties in the event of Brexit. Unless we had a moron as our head of negotiations?

And why cite Canada as an example of the future

deal we might strike? With all due respect to Canada, we are not Canada, we have a much more rounded economy and much more to offer in terms of custom and products than Canada - or Norway or Switzerland - has to offer. We would not be doing a "Canadian' deal. We would be doing a UK deal, taking account of everything - including financial services - that we have to offer.

And to talk about British steel as if its current problems are lessened because we are in the EU, is just plain Blair-esque 'tell the big lie' bollocks. It is shameful that a UK Prime Minister would stoop so low as to try to portray this as a genuine factor, when it is plain to see that our EU membership is part of the problem, not part of the solution, particularly in the realm of the EU-driven energy prices that are hamsrtinging UK industry at tis time.

'Economic and political self harm'? Well I've dealt with the economic issue - there isn't one. There is no way we would not enjoy free trade with the Eurozone and the rest of our friends and trading partners in Europe in the event of Brexit. They simply cannot afford for that to happen. But Dave mentions 'political self harm'. Political? The only mention in the piece and yet he and all commentators now agree that the EU is no longer a trade organisation, but a political project. A project whose goal is the creation of a single European state. A sinle place with a single government, currency, army, flag, anthem, political system, tax regime, working directives, retirement age etc.

That's not speculation it is made explicit by the EU in the 5 Presidents Report which was published in 2014 and is the 'bible' for the EU. Have a read sometime, and tell me how it does not explicitly state that if we remain In the EU we will have to relinquish our use of the pound by 2025 at the very latest?

Let's just finish with a look at what the Remains are saying. The slogan is 'Stronger, Safer, Better Off in a Reformed E'U.

'Stronger' is difficult to define (deliberately, obviously). But it refers to our influence in the world. The suggestion being that we are more influential as a nation because we are in the EU. Well if we were a leading influencer of the EU and its policies that would be an arguable point. But we are not. Of the 55 ammendments to EU laws we have put forward since 1996, none - not a single one - has been adopted.  In order to get oiur views agreed we have to secuure the support of 27 other nations. How likely is that? Well it hasn't happened yet, so maybe you could explain how this will be different in the future? Dave?

In addition, our position as a member of the EU but outside of the single currency means that the 19 Eurozone (currency) members will always have a majority and will always outvote the UK on issues of importance - because they have a vested interest in doing so and also because most of them are so in thrall to Germany, so dependent on their financial largesse, that they can't take a piss without Frau Merkel's say-so. And I include France in this assessment.

'Safer'? When Merkel has imported over a million muslims including tens of thousands of known terrorists into Europe in the past year; where Sweden and Germany are now having to change their laws and ways of life to accommodate a different culture (when did anyone sign up to that), and where we have no control over who eventually comes into the UK. That makes us safer then does it Dave? Living in a house with no doors? Relying on the keystone cops of places like Beligium for our safety? I think not and I think saying so has become utterly rejected by anyone in the know.

'Better Off'? Being tied in to the world's only shrinking trade bloc. A protectionist, inward-foussed bloc that imposes tariffs on Africa that perpetuate its poverty and third world status rather than allowing it to trade its way into the first world? Tied to a state which is an economic basket case, where youth unemployment in southern Europe is around 50% with no prospect of imporvement? Where economic migrants are swamping our workforce, using our benefits system and healthcare system without paying anything in? How can we possibly be better off in this environment - when leaving would not affect our ability to trade with Europe but would free us to trade more efficiently with the rest of the world including many countries with whom we already have excellent relationships?

But the above three elements are actually made utterly redundant by the final - and crucial - part of the slogan: 'In a reformed EU'. Even if one could be persuaded (and believe me it ain't happening anytime soon as far as anyone with a brain is concerned) that we could possibly be 'stronger, safer and better off in a reformed EU' it is not a valid argument for the simple reason that we are not dealing, in any way whatsoever, with a 'reformed' EU.

Dave's negotiations have made miniscule changes to our relationship with the EU. They have not made any changes to the EU, to its direction of travel, to its goals or aspirations or policies. They have not made a single change to accomodate the UK's concerns. None at all - and that should really answer whatever questions you might have about our level of influence on this club.

And why would Dave seek to get a legally binding (it isn't) deal to opt out of the major part of the EU programme (ever closer Union), when he wants us to remain in the club? Why would anyone want to be a member of a club whose policies and rules and objectives one did not agree with - to the extent of trying to get a legal opt-out? That's just utter madness.

OK the fianl par. 'We can choose to shape our world, not be shaped by others'. I'm sorry but this is the exact opposite of the reality. Inside the EU we have laws imposed upon us by people we didn't elect and can't get rid of if we disagree with them.

People who have probably never heard of the place in which you live, much less understand your issues or concerns. This phrase is just the big lie and Dave should not be allowed to get away with it.

'Choose to stay in the biggest suingle market on earth'. No-one is suggesting that we would leave this market, just that we would be independent of the political project that surrounds the EU - not cutting off trade with said market. Another scurroulous lie in Dave's project fear bollocks.

'Economic security'? Tell that to Greece, Italy, Spain, even France, all of whom are turning into economic basket cases under the yoke of the EU - and they're the more successful economies in the group. Our economic strength (unbalanced and imperfect though it undoubtedly is) has been achieved despite the cloying, inflexible, slowly grinding gears of the EU not because of them. Outside it, we would be able to be bright, nible, entrepreneaurial, fast-moving, none of which long-renowned British qualities are possible within the EU - and at the same time we would continue to enjoy our status as a free trading partner with the EU - just not controlled by it.

'Unnecessary leap in the dark'? There is no 'dark', it's all light. It's all on our own terms. It's all positive and leaving the EU would secure a permanent opt out from the ever closer union that Dave has sort of negotiated in his half-arsed not legally binding way. Staying in means that his opt-out is very time-limited and will result, as night follows day, in the further loss of sovereignty including our own currency in due course - and by 2025 at the very latest.

There are no downsides to our leaving the EU. There may be economic bumps in the road ahead, but we will be much more able to get over them as a single strong international nation able to take its own decisions and operate in its own interests rather than in the many and varied and often incompatible ineterests of 27 other nations.

Think of it this way: The UK is much better able to respond to and withstand economic problems on its own than it would be tied to a number of failing, struggling, corrupt and frankly piss-poor economies across the channel. Why should we continue to bail them out when they always ignore our concerns and reject our influence? It'll be a cold day in hell when Italy, or France or Romania helps to pull us out of an eceonomic hole.

Still who knows? Maybe the 75 million Muslim Turks who seem ready to swarm over to help us out when they become EU members will solve all our problems. Good luck if you believe that to be the case.

Staying in means the UK, a proud global nation, being controlled and governed in the future by the EU. It means having no proper borders. It means throwing in our lot with Romania and probably Turkey. It involes providing financial support to an EU which operates almost exclusively in the interests of Germany - our biggest competitor.  Not sure about this? Consider that it took Dave months to negotiate and come back with the square root of sod all in terms of changes to our relationship witht he EU. Yet Merkel could impose an all-new migration deal with Turkey and Greece overnight without any recourse to an EU vote. Go figure.

Staying in means remaining in an EU which has hitherto seen fit to throw the rest of the continent to the wolves when it suits Germany. Just look at Greece.

It would also mean being tied in to a governance position where we have almost no influence on the future. The fifth largst economy on earth, one of the world's great nations and global advancers of trade, prosperity, the rule of law, fairness and peace, reduced to a bit-part player tied in to the rag-bag of nations that make up the EU. - which is iteslef sliding from one major crisis to the next, from immigration to unemployment, terrorism to rising extremism.

We'd be utterly mad to stay in such an organisation. Particularly on the basis of the sort of scaremongering bollocks that Dave continues to spout.

After a Brexit vote we will be able to negotiate a great deal for the UK, with the EU and the rest of the world. And we won't have such a negative - and quite frankly pathetic - negotiator representing us when that happens. 

Thanks for reading.