Is that it? Is that the extent of the Brexit Armageddon, Jeremiah? Even if these things were true, it is a price well worth paying to be governed by a democratically elected government once again.

Edited by hedgehog50 (31 Mar 2017 8.13pm)

Yeah well your smile is a deluded one.

Blair signed the Amsterdam treaty in 97 which enlarged the EU...Which even Major described as, 'not a triumph but a travesty'.

Then in 2006 Brown signed the Lisbon treaty to complete the enlargement process....All resisted by the Tories. So you are seriously saying those two treaties didn't take us further into the EU.....You obviously don't remember.... You know when Brown broke Mr Blair's promise to hold a referendum on a new treaty. You are seriously deluded Kermy....but I knew that already.

I have already referenced the Tory years....You are talking twenty bloody years ago when Major left office.

Besides Ukip was created precisely because no one at the top was listening....Tory or Labour.

Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Mar 2017 8.31pm)

stirling, The Treaty of Lisbon gave member states the legal right to leave the EU and the procedure to do so. So would you rather Brown hadn't signed it? That and the Amsterdam Treaty were completing processes that were already well underway before Labour got in in '97.

As I said, the Tories are inextricably linked to the history of the UK with the Common Market/EEC/EU at its most fundamental moments and The Left much less so. The Left didn't even want to join The Common Market back in the 70's. They wanted protectionism.

stirling, The Treaty of Lisbon gave member states the legal right to leave the EU and the procedure to do so. So would you rather Brown hadn't signed it? That and the Amsterdam Treaty were completing processes that were already well underway before Labour got in in '97.

As I said, the Tories are inextricably linked to the history of the UK with the Common Market/EEC/EU at its most fundamental moments and The Left much less so. The Left didn't even want to join The Common Market back in the 70's. They wanted protectionism.

This shows how little you understand.

First we don't need to replace 300k a year. Second the World birthrate is actually reducing. Currently Europeans are not having enough kids to replace themselves. Despite that, the world population will continue to grow for a couple of centuries at least. We will be better off having total control of borders because the huge rise in population until then will mean a lot of refugees and migrants looking for somewhere to go. Our very survival as a functioning society might depend on it.

I'm of the opinion it would be better to work with others to sort out the rise in refugees and migrants, be it through climate change , famine or conflict; not build walls.