So you have run out of arguments why we should leave the EU and are resorting to character assassinations.

Nice little 25% profit to be had with the bookies looking at the above link

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

No, but it would be wise to take in his words above before deciding.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

My vote says you are totally 100% wrong here. You haven't got your finger on all the pulses you know.

Edited by Kermit8 (17 May 2016 1.35pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Lloyd’s chairman John Nelson today came down firmly on the ‘remain’ side of the EU referendum debate, warning there would be ‘no regulatory nirvana’ if Britain opted for Brexit.

Speaking today at the Lloyd’s of London AGM, Nelson said: “I feel I must respond to some of the assertions being made by the leave campaign in terms of Brexit consequences. It is irresponsible of politicians to pretend that the benefits of a single market can be replicated outside of the EU. In our case, if we were to leave the EU, we would have no right of access to the EU markets without signing up to EU regulations - and indeed incur the financial consequences of contributions to the EU – as happens to other countries within Europe who are outside the EU.

“As regards negotiating bilateral trade agreements to replace the umbrella the EU provides with many countries, it is unrealistic (or in the words of John Major: “fantasy”) to expect the UK to be able to put itself in the same position as the EU trading bloc with these countries. Again, these agreements (of which there would need to be many) would take many years to negotiate.

“Many of these assertions are being made by those, who have little up to date working knowledge of trade relationships and agreements – something which our team at Lloyd’s are involved in globally, every day of the week. And for those that say we would have less regulation if we came out of the European Union, I say there will be no regulatory nirvana. As I have said, if we wanted to maintain our trade with the EU, we would have to comply with EU regulation in any event, and I see no sign that the UK regulators themselves want to deregulate – in fact, regrettably, I see signs of the opposite.”

I used to be immortal

The Bank of England is having daily talks with banks in a bid to protect the financial system in the event the UK votes to leave the EU.

Deputy governor Andrew Bailey, soon to be FCA chief executive, told a regulation conference all lenders were preparing contingency plans, according to The Times.

Bailey said: “All the banks are looking at this very actively.”

He added: “We have not seen any evidence of sterling funding issues at all. Generally the challenge for banks these days is to get a return on funding rather than finding funding.”

Yesterday, ratings agency Fitch warned the pound could drop in value by a third on a leave vote. In addition, house prices could slump by a quarter, putting intense pressure on lenders’ balance sheets, it said.

Bailey also defended the central bank’s decision to comment publically about Brexit, saying “we would be failing in our job if we didn’t”.

He added the City had “no god-given right” to remain a global banking centre and that its standing would be under threat if the UK exited the EU.

Last month governor Mark Carney said a Brexit vote was “the most significant near-term domestic risks to financial stability”.

I used to be immortal

I'll rise above the insults then Danny, but ofcourse it is my subjective opinion when i talk of the far right in european politics targetting the disenfranchised to point out the failings in the system. Its what the far left and right always do - you asked me what about disabled veteranz and ofcourse i want to see them looked after properly but what the far right would like you to think is that its all the fault of muslims or migrants why veterans arent looked after properly...ITS NOT! Its the fault of successive governments not spending enough money on it....which at end of the day is decided by the electorate....i think though if you asked the electorate should every soldier who has ever done a tour of afghanistan or iraq get a house and large allowance for life they would probably vote against if they were being honest because the tax bill would be too high, so using these emotive examples is almost absurd...i.e. if you care about blind puppies then donate £1000 if not "your a heartless b@stard, who would rather give luxury holidays to migrant"...i.e. its just not a viable argument
What is viable however is that the treasury, IMF, World Bank, OECD, most (ie. Above 90%) economists, 4 prime ministers (including Cameron), head of MI6 and many many more say we will be safer, more prosperous and have a much stronger economy should we remain. If the economy is stronger we will have more money, that could, if the government deems it right, be given to ex veteran causes. Less tax revenue = less money for vets and other public services...so if you care as much as you say, then you should vote remain. I know that this is still 'devoid of enough content' and you may again resort to insults but i really think it is you not I, who is simply ignoring the facts that are being presented in this campaign.