How’s this for an idea?

The government should commission an independent body from outside the EU – an Australian or Canadian university, for example – to undertake an analysis of the pros and cons of EU membership for a) UK industry b) the UK financial sector and c) the ordinary voter.

The results of this analysis can then be issued to everyone eligible to vote in a referendum so that they can at least base their decision on the facts and not on scare stories from politicians and the media.

As I said above, it’s far too important a decision for people to play silly buggres.

Funnily enough, I can’t find mention of that Daily Express story on any of the major newspaper websites, not even the Daily Telegraph.

Oh, I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.

The problem is that your average punter on the street sees the issues filtered through the interpretation of individuals and organisations with an agenda and vested interests.

I’m sure you’d agree that a decision on a matter of this importance should be informed by objective fact, rather than the biases of those who stand to profit from the outcome – whichever way it goes.

But here’s a question for you: If and when a referendum does take place, how do you think that the UKIP and the eurosceptic Conservative MPs would react to a decision in favour of staying in the EU? Would they accept it as the will of the people, or would they carry on much as before?

I’m not getting involved in a slanging match, John.

If puttng words into people’s mouths and silly personal stuff is all you’ve got left, that speaks for itself.

If the EU works, as you imply it does, all the members including Britain would be happy, prosperous, free from debt and without a care in the world. So, what are we all concerned about ?

The USA has a national debt that is so large as to be an almost theoretical amount, so I think the linkage of debt with EU membership is a little more tenuous than you seem to think.

And where did I say that the EU works?

I’m not easily puzzled but your argument perplexes me. You make a link between Saudi Arabia being a rich country and also ‘a fundamentalist, absolute monarchy’.

It’s simple enough.

You suggested that the current prosperity of Switzerland is due to that country being outside tihe EU, with the fairly clear implication that the UK would.become as prosperous were we to leave the EU.

To highlight the folly and over-simplification inherent in that argument, I pointed out that Saudi Arabia is also a very wealthy country so – by your reasoning – emulating them would result in our becoming a much richer nation.

I agree that it’s a daft argument, but you started it. 🙂

I have no problem whatsoever with the use of deadly force as a last resort, when it is the only available means of preventing imminent death or serious injury to innocents.

It becomes a problem when it is routinely used as a first resort or to enact a political or religious prejudice, though.

That’s what the bad guys do, isn’t it?

That’s an advert for a firm of lawyers, mate. :confused:

Nothing new about allowing people to choose to use religious courts for civil matters, mate.

Are you familiar with Beth Din? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm