Dr D

Because the markets don't like uncertainty. That's not something governments control, it just how the global economy works. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It just means the markets would react and take their time to adjust.

In fairness, I think they meant a shock to the global economy. Which it would be! I don't think they meant 'surprise'!!!!

No. We will still be in the echr. Its a completely different debate. I really think the whole EU things boils down to money. Everything else is a smokescreen. Unless I am missing something. Will we be better off financially? I really am torn on this one.

Why do think the courts will behave differently? I really can't see how EU withdrawal will affect any of issues you highlighted other than social security entitlements for workers coming from the EU? Our courts will continue to rule based on the echr, hra and all the UN treaties. Yes, will we be able to control migration from within the EU and perhaps parliament will repeal some directives? But everything else seems financial!

I got a firstick. It's great. Netflix and Amazon prime. Got rid of sky.

You see rodp, here's the thing I have been thinking about. EU withdrawal won't sort all of your concerns at all because the echr will still be here!

There is an ongoing attempt to get the EU to ratfiy the European convention on human rights to link the EU strongly with the council of Europe. It hasn't happened yet but I think it will eventually. At present the only human rights treaty that will be affected through eu withdarawl will be the charter of fundamental rights. This treaty is enforceable both in our own courts and the European court of justice. It has proven to be useful tool for British citizens, particularly becasue it allows us to challenge decisions that affect a whole load of social and economic issues in a way that the echr does not. Also our courts can give you direct compensation if your rights are violated under the charter. Their powers under both the echr and the human right act are in many ways not so strong. So, in terms of our own individual interests, the EU human rights framework arguably is a good thing. Of course, people may be willing to give this up to support a withdrawal. We might have less protection as individuals following a withdrawal so it is something I guess worth thinking about before we put a x in whatever box.

Failing to adhere to EU directives and regulations is directly enforceable in our domestic courts and at EU court of justice. The latter has the power to impose sanctions against member states including suspension from the european council. In the event of brexit the court of justice would continue to have authority up until the point of exit. Which would probably take the full two years. Rights vested through the tranpostion of EU law would remain in force, but after an exit future UK parliaments could choose to repeal them. The Vienna convention which sets out the laws of treaties internationally is absolutely clear on this latter point. The only real question is how much would the UK still have to maintain compliance with EU laws in order to trade? Despite what we are being told about regaining our sovereignty the issue is not that simple. This is the situation Norway has found itself. In the event of brexit we would be like Norway only in reverse. I still haven't made my mind up. Even the sovereignty question is as clear a mud.

I am in the middle of building at the min. You should get change from 5k for that I would think.

You have all been fooled!!! It is Sesia Apiformis. The hornet moth. Clever disguise though.

for me, if this was the only economic analysis I relied upon it would be one tick off the list towards voting OUT.

Very informative.thanks for sharing that.

And that's why, if the OUT camp doesn't start making the financial case clearly I reckon many voters will wobble at the ballot box and the UK will end up staying in. It will be Scotland all over again. The fact is the IN camp only need to stick to the line of 'better the devil you know'. After all the governing party, voted in by the people are called 'Conservative' for a reason. The people are generally conservative, and someone who is conservative isn't to fond of radical change.

Rodp. I didn't say money is the be all and end all. You did. I asked a question. Since I haven't made my mind up, why don't you just answer it and then I might head towards OUT. But I am afraid your apparently uncalculated view of 'don't panic, we will be OK!' Just doesn't cut it. And whilst I haven't made my mind up, the thought of the whole country being worse off would not enthuse me. Because, I know who would suffer most in that scenario. It wouldn't be Cameron et al. It would me, my children, the poor, the sick, the old. I have no confidence in the bright new tomorrow view, that seems to think the conservatives would engage in some redistribution programme of our national wealth. I want the figures, because whether you want bury your head in sand or not, the fact is money will determine if an OUT is a 'Great Britain' or a basket case.

'The money is a small part of it'. Really? I would have thought the money, particularly given all the future gazing is a massive part of it. If you are firmly in the no camp then surely you have calculated that the UK is going to be financially better off. Or at the very least, no worse off? If not then surely you are ignorant and just sticking a finger in the wind?

Here are some of the things I want answered by both the yes and no camps. Whoever makes the effort to answer, rather than spouting off the same old platitudes will have my vote. 1. Will we regain full control of our fishing rights in territorial waters? 2. What will be the financial impact when CAP is removed from farmers. 3. What will be the impact on the only land border with Europe and our closest trading partner in Ireland (in this regard I think we should all look to the Western extremity of Europe as much as worrying what happens across the English channel) 4. What will happen at the channel tunnel and Calais.? (I am not too worried about the whole migrant tide argument. I don't think it would be in the French national interest to let undocumented migrants flood into the tunnel. Such a laissez faire approach to the movement of people would damage France as much as the UK. This is scare mongering from the IN camp). But i still would like to here the plans from each side. 5. What would happen to the European arrest warrant? 6. What would the big banks in London's financial district do. (This is very important as the engine of our economy). 7. What will Scotland do, if England wants to leave and carries the vote? (The knock on effect is extremely worrying? More so than the whole migrant debate). I certainly do not want to be part of a UK that is outside the EU only for the country itself to then fall apart. 8. Will the central UK government ensure that those parts of the UK that have benefitted from the EU are not worse off in a new UK financial distribution that replaces the barnett formula? I am thinking rural and devolution nations. 9. What is the view of our main trading partners outside Europe? I am not interested in what their governments think, but I am interested in what their major companies are thinking. My list is building. But I think this will do for now. Answer on a post card please😁😁

You might think this, but it is not necessarily true. Turn out on single issue referendums throughout the world are usually much higher than elections. Look at the two most recent UK referendum votes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Both were over 80% turnout. It's all to play for and that's what worrying the politicians. I haven't decided yet.

Don't know about squirrels, but I seen one tackling a hen pheasant yesterday and plenty of times I have had them hit decoys.

First, it is a principle not an opinion. And because you happen to not agree with it does not make it limp other than in your opinion! Particularly since it was those who witnessed, led and fought in wars made the laws that underpin them. Second, I don't think anyone is so stupid as to think that the objective is to gallantly lose. Third, I am also sure we all know that it is preferable to keep people alive. But thanks for the relevation.

Maybe, but thats we should remember them. We are better than those who carry out war crimes. And those who were willing to pay the ultimate price to prove that and keep us safe are probably better than most of us.

Living by the principles is why those buried in the ground are hero's.

Super video. Looks like you up pretty high on the plateau.

Now that sounds like a top afternoon. Well done you. Hope you get a few more days like that.

You know, I find these sorts of views disturbing. They come up every time there is a debate around subjects like this on PW. The corrolary is Thrumpism, US style. The rules of war are important. They are there to protect civilians and combatants. The fact others don't abide by them doesn't mean we shouldn't. The Geneva conventions are important because in the end those who don't abide can be held to account. From Nuremberg to Cambodia to the horn of Africa to Bosnia. Time again, those who don't abide by the rules have been brought to book. Just not often in enough. I am proud to live in country that respects international humanitarian law and expects our troops to behave according to the highest standards!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207 One step closer. The North Koreans launch a long range rocket.