Since joining the EU we have opposed 73 new laws. Those 73 have all passed, if you think we have any say in our laws then you can't be looking at the facts.

I'm voting out, it's no longer a trade agreement. It's a dictatorship as when have you ever had the opportunity its to elect one of the 4 presidents of the EU?

Thanks Steve, and ofcourse you are welcome to vote whichever you think is right....but 73 laws IS THAT ALL!! I was under the impression from davemonkey that that all our laws had been 'transcribed' down to us from the eu. I thought for a moment dave had been reading exodus and the story of the burning bush as he made it sound, almost biblically, that most of our laws were being handed down to us despite me saying that in my recent experience of jury service, corporate articles of assoc and conveyancing that i noticed no legal impact from the eu. He called me ignorent - fair enough but can you please let me know what just 2 of these laws were? (No googling now!)...and did they have a significant negative effect? The reality ofcourse in a democracy is that there will be laws passed that we dont agree with, ask any member of the labour party in the last 6 years. We may even be frustrated by interventions from lobby groups (funded by large corps) or the house of lords which are both unelected.
But we have to balance these frustrations with the realities that we WILL notice. Just in the last 2 days the heads of the BofE and IMF have warned of severe economic consequences in the event of brexit, and i would guarantee that the resulting higher inflation, unemployment, borrowing costs, tax rises and reduced opportunities will be noticed by almost everyone. Infact in the event of brexit i think you will find a lot of those affected will be heading for Dover, attaching themselves to the undercarriage of lorries and escaping illegally to France to give them and their kids a better chance in life!

Yet it was I that "slap dashed" it, I suspect you know that (though I now realise the utter futility of arguing with you). Odd that you criticise the "quality" of the presentation, yet have difficulty criticising the actual figures. Like I say, I'm not overly bothered about name-calling - it is you that seems to take issue with it.

As for EU funding for those vocal critics of leaving the EU. You are ironically saying that highlighting non-disclosure of financial interest in a body you make very public statements on is "manipulative". Really. Is that really manipulative? Or is it highlighting the unfortunate correlation?

When the NUS tell students "if we leave the EU, you will not be able to go and study in Europe ever again" (in itself utter rubbish), do you not thing the public should be aware they say so being the recipients (to date) of £600,000?

Just what planet do you live on, Kermit?

Very plausibly, these "organisations" are pro-Remain for other reasons ("what was it about the large taxpayer-funded grants that attracted you to the EU?", but if you are not declaring your financial interests in the very body you seek to defend, it completely undermines your argument. I doubt you see it, though. I genuinely do. I'm sure to you, it's totally fair that (more) UK taxpayer money is being used as sweeteners in a political campaign.

Finally, to suggest I am required to have existed since Roman times to be able to comment on the parallels between the decline of the Roman Empire and the EU is, frankly, laughable. Yet this is the logical reasoning you posit. I'll just leave this analogy here and leave those to decide if it warrants consideration.

It is entirely possible for me to have gained experience, via exposure to the EU (and indeed working within other countries outside of the EU) to identify that it is not how the rest of the world works, and with extremely good reason.

Finally: I do not need to "justify" in ANY way, my knowledge and experience to you. You are not the arbiter of what passes as sufficient to engage in debate. That is literally the textbook definition of ad hominem.

Boris being a bellend:

[Link]

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

I agree with this as well. Similar to the Barack Obama intervention 'threatening' the back of the queue/line, i think it takes credibility from the speaker. I do however think the eu has been an instrument that has helped peace in Europe but implying we are going into a war is over the top....more blundering from the leaders on both sides, which i have no doubt will continue

To be fair, the comparison was made, albeit in an entirely different context to what the idiot public would conclude without even reading, thanks in part to media sensationalism.