coldel

Less said about UKIP supporters the better quite frankly! Most governments are swayed and listen to businesses and I doubt that many businesses in EU countries would be pleased if their governments made it hard for them to trade with the UK. We are worth too much to them...whether we are worth more to them than they are to us is immaterial really. The fact is we're important to them so why would they put that at risk? The import/export figures can be manipulated any way you like but again, as I said in my post: Of course, there is even a possibility that a vote out decision would spark serious debate across Europe and lead to a number of nations questioning their membership. This in turn could lead to the monumental reforms that I believe are necessary to make the EU what it should be. That's just speculation though and shouldn't really sway anyones decision... Either way, it makes for an interesting few months...because even a close vote to remain (which is likely) could spark some of the questions mentioned above! I think somewhere you are reading it wrong, UK exports to Germany and France alone are near our total exports to the US - then you have to add in the other 25 EU countries we export to. https://www.uktradei.../Pages/OTS.aspx The EU is and has been for some time our largest trading partner with around 45% of exports going to the EU, for the US to be a bigger export market it would literally have to be our only other trading partner and exclude BRIC, India, Oceanic countries etc. We are an important part of the EU I believe because of our financial services industry, that contributes hugely to our export business. Services are growing whilst physical goods shrink.

Yes the free movement issue isn't a big thing for me, but certainly for many a UKIP supporter it is the main reason to vote Leave. Although we can point to varying models, we are unique in that we are not an outside country organising a deal with the EU, we are part of the EU leaving and wanting to renegotiate. Although there is no place for grudges in business, I would imagine there could be a bit of 'well you left, don't expect any favours from us' and as mentioned we export more to the EU than they export to us - we have to play our cards right (and I do not trust the current government enough to go in with enough balls to do it).

It depends really on how the deals, markets etc react and what happens next. If we slip into a recession then it will affect everyone in the country for sure.

We buy more from the EU than we sell to them, its in their interest to maintain the status quo. https://www.uktradei.../Pages/OTS.aspx Our top export market isnt even in the EU, its America who we dont even have a trade deal with: http://www.telegraph...-the-eu-debate/ Although we buy more than we export to the EU, we are a much smaller as a percent. So from memory something like 45% of our exports go to the EU (around 15% to the US) but I have read it somewhere but its something like 15% of the EU export market is to the UK - we rely on them more than they rely on us.

I don't think I've read that. There's certainly been plenty of speculation about what kind of trade deals we'd get. The most likely outcome seems to be something like Norway, which basically means free trade but have to abide by the rules of the EU, so like I said nothing much would change. It wouldn't make sense for the EU to refuse any kind of trade deal. If you read the planning document by the Leave campaign you can see them leaning on the Canadian model not the Norway one tariff free on some markets but not in other like Finance. Interestingly though is that they are 'advising' the government on what to do, in actual fact the government could do anything it wants to do in terms of a trade model. Given our locality to Europe (unlike Canada) it is very likely I would think that movement of people would be in it.

Yes fair enough got that wrong on immigration counts...got a little carried away arguing all the points, of which I think many are very valid.

Maybe, although the European Court of Justice (which isnt the EU) has backed the UK with its view on 'right to reside' and not paying non working EU immigrants benefits - although that really is a small win financially as just something like 10% of all immigrants claim out of work benefits. But it shows the UK can challenge and win against the EU utilising the European Courts. That said, if we exit, we will likely have this as a major concession thrown at us in any trade deals. We might get a tariff free approach as adopted by Canada but have to take the EU freedom of movement and benefits as a requirement. This is a grey area it might or might not happen, what is certain is that voting out does not guarantee that we can control this area, if it is included in the subsequent trade deals.

As I said, low skilled immigration is not a single issue - nearly 40% are skilled. So yes my argument still stands, the reason to be motivated is the same as everyone else's. If that % was 95/5 then I would agree with you, but clearly its not. I also didn't say lets welcome migrants and to sort out lazy people - why you put that in a quote I am not sure as clearly I said nothing of the sort which is in plain view above. I said I am not so concerned about immigrants as I am about people that were born here and choose not to work. People born here clearly have the advantage, they speak the native language fluently, they have residential status etc. That already puts them in a better position for a job if thats the point. There are people I understand that apply every week and struggle because of geographic issues i.e. jobs to number of people, and there I can see an issue. However plenty sit and do nothing in London and Essex for example where work is certainly more gettable. You cannot paint a single picture that immigration makes it more difficult for all currently out of work lower skilled people. And it is not a single issue for them as per my reason above.

But you are inferring that lazy people are low skilled, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. If they were not, then they wouldn't have a concern about low skilled immigration because they wouldn't compete. Immigration has been a constant for decades, the level we are at now we were at back in the 70s. This is not some new phenomena that the Leave campaign would have you believe. People back in the 70s got jobs in low skilled areas, so why not now? The job I am in now, is highly qualified, so yes I am not in that position. But I do know that I was the only British born person in the final interviews, also within my team of 12, half are British born. These are all at least degree educated people doing what would be deemed 'higher skilled' work competing 1:1 with immigrants. The idea that immigration is a thing that low skilled people have to deal with exclusively is quite frankly rubbish. So in answer to your question, the reason they should be motivated is the same as every other person in this country - that you look to achieve something and do it off your own back. Immigration is not a single issue for those at the bottom of the pay scale - if we all took that attitude the country would fall over.

You assume lazy people are low wage and low skilled then? Assumptions aside, if we do believe low wages are such an issue, thats why the minimum wage was brought in. If immigrants are working for cash in hand for lower than that then thats a failing of the state to legislate and control it, thats not an immigration issue (as people born and bred here were doing the same as well before the minimum wage). You cannot create a government policy on immigration on the back of people taking cash in hand. The problem I see for what you might deem the 'lazy' is that they believe they are worth so much more, but do nothing to prove that. I was between jobs a couple of years back and whilst applying for jobs went and volunteered in local schools to help out in classrooms for free - I actually got a job out of it. Not saying I personally am wonderful which I am certainly not, but there is work, you just need to dig deep and go get it.

I have an aunt and uncle, he worked until he was 25 then got a back injury that prevented him ever working again. They are retired now with a house paid for by the state, they own an immaculate Harley Davidson bikes which they go out on biking tours. Having grown up watching those two - I am very much in the least worried about immigrants coming here and getting some of our own people off their lazy backsides. But then again, no one is allowed to say that about 'our' people.

Because hes been happy to distance himself from politics/elections and how we chose to live our lives until this point, and its only now that something may impact him in Luxemberg that hes suddenly interested in UK affairs? I'm sorry if this is not accurate but its how it comes over from reading the posts here on the forum which is all i can form an opinion on. My point being that the Leave campaign have leaned on immigration (and many people on FB have mentioned it overtly) as a reason to leave - because they believe in the power of those born here - why is it because RS hasnt been here for last decade his right to decide on the UK when also being born here doesn't apply? Its basically making a hypocrisy of the immigration argument, that they say being born here gives you the right - when in fact what its really about, is paying in. So my argument above, those born here and never paid in we take their vote away right? And those that were born in the UK lived in the UK and worked every day of their lives here, retired and moved to Spain ten years ago, they don't get a say?

British born not paying in and never have done, have their vote removed then I presume.

Exactly. The point that seems to have been made time and again albeit subtly is that those not 'born' here should not be let in. So those born here have more rights than those who do not. So why is RS not entitled to a say given he was born here?

I think this has been a great thread (not because I started it!) in terms of hearing points of view - been kept on the whole very good natured. Interesting to hear how some people are voting one way or another on a single principle vs others who like myself are weighing up the pros and cons.

Its definitely moving in favour of Leave, there is an undecided percentage of around 10% which the stay campaign will need to soak up most of to have a chance (undecideds often stick with the status quo) - it really depends on who actually does bother to turn out on the day that could actually swing it one way or the next. I am still voting In, I have yet to see a strong enough argument to exit where the benefits outweigh the risk. Although the stay campaign have made a complete ar$e of their campaign, the Leave campaigns 'plan' is pretty poor and something I could have written in 30 minutes about 3 months ago - they seem to be relying on the anti immigration feeling in the country rather than focusing on convincing people who have a genuine interest in all aspects of the country.

Slovakia will be looking for a win, which will open the game up a bit more than Wales where they put 8 men in two banks of 4 across the edge of the box. Bit more open game will give our full backs a chance to get stuff in behind for Vardy (surely has to get the nod)

I have started a few footy threads in the past, and been abused for it I think they finally played their stronger form players rather than Roys mates in the second half and did the job, Wales parked the bus and were playing for a draw all the way through. There tends not to be any easy games in tournaments, we should have beaten Russia and probably would have done had Roy been a bit more active with his subs. Hopefully they will qualify, but France and Germany look strong and an outside bet would be the Italians.

Immigration aside, what things do you mean?

Plenty of facts: We do not send £350m to the EU each week The money we send to the EU accounts for around 1% of our GDP 40% of our trade is with the EU (cant remember exact number but there or thereabouts) We are on the winning side in 88% of votes on EU legislation when it is put to a vote The Human Rights Act is not the same as the European Court of Human Rights - one is an act one is a body, the ECHR will always be there and be available to appeal to in or out I could go on, and on, and on. There are hundreds more facts which nobody seems to want to engage with but seem quite happy to mis-quote as a reason for leaving. All the above is true, it just requires people to engage with it, which many are not (and I am not saying that of people here generally on FB I see a lot of people getting it wrong).

I'm actually re-classifying people - people that start any comment with 'Ive heard that...' are lazy and have no inclination to find out the facts, people that mention '£350m per week would buy..." clearly have tried a bit but not very hard to look into it and are voting out before they have listened to anything, others that quote celebs or spurious business people as a reason for voting one way or the other are clearly bonkers! What I have found from both sides en mass is a blatant lack of willingness to engage with the facts that are real and at hand. This has become so much a debate about 'well I saw this Syrian hit a woman the other day' as a basis for voting out presuming that we can somehow just shut up shop its become pretty pointless trying to debate the issues.

So in effect you gets all the benefits but because you do not understand how the EU works and subsequently believe you cannot affect it you are voting out, I think?

I know, the amount of stuff rehashed on Facebook by people that read the Mirror etc is astonishing, blindly believing anything they see on social media or in the tabloids. People literally putting no thought into this at all, when its actually a more important vote than last years general election in my view. What I think joe public struggle mostly with is that sums like £200m a week to the EU sound to them like a lot of money, which of course it is, but in the context of trade and macro economics its small change. Its this coupled with a lack of understanding of the real size of immigration benefits payments (something like 95% of benefits payments go to native UK people) when they read headline stories about 'this guy comes here and claims' as being representative of every person of that origin that is causing a lot of Leave voting.

Lovely. ITBs sound utterly epic. Although looking on the Jenvey site the DE kit does not fit under a 350z bonnet so would need some clever modifications there if this is the case for the HR.

My Skyline was also more expensive to insure than the 350z, they are generally a lot more desirable I suspect from a 'theft' point of view than the Zed. My Zed insurance was about £280 aged 40, Skyline was up around the £500 mark. Try asking for Dan at A-Plan (Sorry Nick to post here, just some advice for the guy, I have my Celica GT4 with you guys currently!) who ultimately insured me on mine.