How will you vote in the EU referendum-Leave or Stay?

[BritBrit]

How will you be voting? Can admin add a poll?

"I have backed up my comments and they have been concurred by another contribor"

So have I, just my sources are far superior and don't use the flawed information that yours do.

How many long diatribes can you write? All of it the same, your pseudo intellectual rubbiush designed to make your nasty opinions seems reasonsable.

I note this time you haven't made the "I want my daughters to be able to dress how they like."

You raise "eurocrats" rulling us, which represents a complete misunderstanding of the way the EU works. Your discuission of the "bail in" system and talking about savers demonstrates that you don't really understand it, I could explain it to you but I think you should read up on it yourself.

When you discuss the "euro being to strong" for economies, you are woefully over simplifying an extremely complex situation. What actually was the problem with a lot of these countries was the low interest rates for the years preceeding 2008.

BTW when you discuss groups saying that we should join the euro, the treasury didn't, they advised against it, but that doesn't fit with your narative so you leave it out. For you the treasury have to been politically infulenced and pro euro, its the only way you can discredit them.

The vested interests? Of course businesses have vested interests in the UK economy that they will look to defend, yet you and your cronies keep painting it like they have some nefarious intentions. As repeated before, when so many organisations, with so many different objectives come out in favour of something it bears more weight.

You call vested interest because you can't find that much support for your cause, even when the "city grandees" turned out (and yes someone did link to it) it ended up being hedge funders who don't want EU regulation, which doesn't bear the same weight as the 100 executives of FTSE 250 companies, the CBI, the SSMT, NFU etc etc.

Like I said, that just a fraction of the organisations that have come out in support for remaining or warned that an exit would be painful.

Dan is living the dream Lurked. he wants you to make him redundant. he's really looking forward to it. I'm inclined to believe someone who is part of the EU organisation and who is brave enough o describe its flaws and failures that those who would rather glorify it at arms length.

But he doesn't describe the flaws accurately. You posted a link the other day to an article Dan Hannan had written claiming the EU had led a coup & imposed technocrats on Italy/Greece? "Coup" means an illegal seizure of government.

The fact that the technocrats had been appointed by politicians meant it wasn't imposed against the will of the elected representatives, illegal or unconstitutional. That was buried in the article so he contradicted himself. Scaremongering hyperbole, or what?

Its why I have no time for Daniel Hannan, he willfully misuses the information all the time, yet even when this is proved, the links to him from the brexit side still come.

Yet all of my sources of info are "vested interest" because some of the organisations at some point have recived a bit of EU funding. Laughable.

a bit of EU funding

Yes, just a bit

Ah Buttered.

Nice to see you back.

Not surprised to see your first contribution is yet another personal attack on me.

Keep it up - let the good folk see just how vile some of the REMAIN side are.

The problem with asking Springing to start another thread is that she is completely unwilling to engage with the other side of the debate. We already had a thread by Springing which eventually got 1,000 posts.

Lol - i was unwilling to engage yet mu thread got to 1000 posts n good proportion of which were posted by me. You can read my posts - they are the ones that exist between the abuse and deleted threads of the REAMIN side.

I can't remember how many times Springing told me I was wrong about everything, but it made me feel quite worried about the fact that I've spent a small fortune doing a master's degree in this subject. I was almost tempted to ask her to come and sit my exams for me...

Here we go again - in the absence of any valid argument for staying in Buttered decides to play me instead of the issue. Buttered told me I was wrong - therefore I must be right.
Again Buttered - your'e contradicting yourself - you say I am wrong but my remarks have worried you. Can't have it both ways. As for getting me to pay your fees to preach EU law - dream on. I am already paying the university fees of a research scientist - a much more worthy cause than your study will ever be.

Joking aside, I don't have the stamina for this any more, and I need to actually do well in these exams so that if the worst happens and we vote to leave, I can get the hell out of here and hopefully find a decent job in the country my boyfriend is from.

Aw, has trying to defend the indefensible worn you out? Have some Snowflake

But it does worry me that other people might be reading these threads and deciding to vote for Brexit on the basis of what Springing has said, purely because her excessively long posts and unwillingness to actually debate have made all the opposition give up to save their own sanity.

Contradictions again Buttered - you tell me I post rubbish and then claim it persuades people to Leave!!. It's your own memory you should be questioning Buttered as you evidently fail to remember all those long interchanges we have had over weeks and multiple threads.

But in Buttered's world's the only views that count are heres. Remember that folks when she urges you to surrender to the EU.

I won't miss you Buttered. I prefer discussing with people who raise real issues instead of just moaning about me.

Springing, yes. A good proportion of those posts were by you, posting the same old drivel ad infinitum and refusing to actually engage with any of the points made by anyone on the remain side. It wasn't a debate, it was a tug of war.

Really? PWC get EU funding? The CBI? The IFS? The studies at the LSE, were they funded by the EU?

You can't critique an organisation because it recieves a small amount of funding from one source, yet lots from others too. If its fully paid for by the EU yes, if the organisation has at some point recieved some EU funding.

I'll give you an example, the BBC is often said to have an EU bias because it gets EU funidng.

The most recent was £2 million ( over 3 years), but even then £2 million in one year makes up 0.05% of the BBC's budget, I really don't think they are going to have an obvious bias toward the EU for such a small amount. The same goes for the LSE, Oxford University, UCL, the IFS etc.

a much more worthy cause than your study will ever be.

That's a bit spiteful for someone who's in the same breath complaining about personal attacks on them, Springing.

I have to agree, you're NOT really engaging with the debate. Instead you post using many emotive terms like 'freedom' and 'slavery', not to mention 'gulags'.

And as we all know appeals to emotion demonstrate a flawed argument :)

Thanks, OnlyLovers.

She completely missed my point anyway, which was that if she really does know so much more about EU law than I do, despite the fact that I'm about to finish a master's degree in the subject, then perhaps she should do my exams for me and get me a better grade. I was being sarcastic, but...whoosh.

There's plenty of scaremongering hyperbole on the "remain" side, of course.

It could take 10 years for a US-UK trade deal to be made... but this is unlikely. We don't have a trade deal with the US at the moment anyway. Obama says Britain would be at the back of the queue... yet Ted Cruz says Britain would be at the front of the queue.

Osborne claims households would be worse off by £4300 and that the economy will be "permanently" damaged. But the algebra in his dodgy dossier is, of course, disingenous. The government have deliberately confused GDP per household with household income. GDP is completely different from a family's income. They haven't considered the savings from losing red tape after a Brexit, or the contributions to the EU we'd no longer have to make, and they've used the household numbers of 2015, not a projected number for 2030.

Even the European courts are trying not to scare Britain away, because losing one of its main contributors wouldn't be in its own interests. European human rights cases against the British Government have fallen by two thirds since the referendum have announced.

Regarding Springing's posts, I think debate is good and healthy. But that's not what she's doing. She's posting long diatribes which are full of factual inaccuracies and refusing to acknowledge anyone who points out the obvious flaws in her arguments.

There you go for the 3rd time this morning Buttered - playing me instead of the issue.

You must have really missed me when I had a break over the weekend.

These 'diatribes' that I post - remember your own hugely long diatribe predicting food shortages a fall in the pound and Armageddon. That post of your was many pages long. And you accuse me of inaccuracies

And my posts are long because you keep demanding that everything I post must-be-evidenced-based-by-an-EU-funded-report-or-the Guardian - that kind of adds to the length.

What I have not done throughout is to heap persona abuse after personal abuse on you in the manner that you have to me. I have not sneered at your posts in the same way you have sneered at anything that contradicts your own blinkered view.

You have a lot, financially and personally vested in us staying in the EU. I have just as much vested in us getting out.

If you want to continue the abuse of your fellow posters - carry on. But remember that this is a public forum and you do yourself no favours, as anyone reading this is not going to think that you as a supporter of the REMAIN are displaying a particularly pleasant side of yourself.

Ted Cruz? Do you know how vanishingly unlikely it is that Ted Cruz will even win the Republican nomination, much less the actual election?

Springing, I did one very long post, which was full of actual information, based on my extensive knowledge of EU law gained through my professional experience and postgraduate study at one of the UK's leading universities. Lots of people said they found it helpful. And yes, higher food prices are a very likely consequence of a weak pound.

Springing, I've tried but I can't see anything in buttered's posts that counts as 'abuse'.

my posts are long because you keep demanding that everything I post must-be-evidenced-based-by-an-EU-funded-report-or-the Guardian - that kind of adds to the length

Evidence is crucial for a useful and informed debate. Without it the discussion descends into opinions and anecdotes, which no one can engage with meaningfully.

I've asked before, but I'll say it again: I would be very interested in seeing some links to back up your point of view. I don't mind at this stage who the studies may have been funded by.

She completely missed my point anyway, which was that if she really does know so much more about EU law than I do, despite the fact that I'm about to finish a master's degree in the subject, then perhaps she should do my exams for me and get me a better grade. I was being sarcastic, but...whoosh.

Here we go- putative Masters waving again.

You might fail that Masters - then you'd have no qualification and no UK EU membership.

Annus horribulus.

You might fail that Masters

Is that really an acceptable thing to say? Or even pointful?

I'm studying part time so did half my modules last year. Right now I'm on course for a distinction. But you have (for once) made a very good point, which is that I should get back to revision instead of wasting all day on here.

Sure, it's unlikely. But he's just one example of a politician who doesn't believe it is the case that the US won't want to work with the UK.

I'm sure there will be a deal with the US. But the balance of power will be very much in their favour - far more so than it is with TTIP.

Evidence is crucial for a useful and informed debate. Without it the discussion descends into opinions and anecdotes, which no one can engage with meaningfully.

I think we need both. After all, people have different priorities and opinions on what the evidence means in practice. One person may think it's a disaster if the economy changes slightly, and that an EU superstate would be fine. Someone else may look at the same possibilities, and come to the opposite conclusion, because democracy and sovereignty are their top priorities.

You post long posts Spring, but you can't find anyone other than Daniel Hannan to back you up.

You make appeals to emotion repeatedly and use lots of hyperbole.

The continual use of project fear, which is then unironically followed by a projection of dystopian future caused by a nefarious EU which has subjugated the UK are actually rather hypocritical.

Everytime someone comes up with data or facts that disprove your points you shout vested interest, or shift the argument.

Springing, I did one very long post, which was full of actual information, based on my extensive knowledge of EU law gained through my professional experience and postgraduate study at one of the UK's leading universities. Lots of people said they found it helpful. And yes, higher food prices are a very likely consequence of a weak pound.

Oh look - another Masters waving post.

Ah - you reduced the threat from 'food rationing and the advice to ask your elderly relatives how bad that was' to 'higher food prices' now.

Never mind Buttered - you've already confirmed that pasta can go up to £4 a bag without it unduly bothering you.

Food prices will actually reduce once we have removed ourselves from the EU and the disastrous Common Agricultural Policy.

If I was studying for a Masters in EU law, I'd be aiming for a Distinction, instead of spending hours on this discussion board complaining about the stupidity of people like me

Springing, the only thing I failed to do in that long post was clearly mark the places where I was being sarcastic, for your benefit. Everyone else understood.

In fact, I said in the actual post that the bit about food rationing was a joke - although intended to highlight the fact that we do have to rely on imported food to a significant extent - and you still missed it. And even though I have reiterated several times now that I was making a joke, you are still working on the basis that I was being deadly serious. Good grief.

A4, sure. But unfortunately there is precious little fact-based evidence in Springing's posts to go along with the emotional content.

Also, terms like 'sovereignty' and 'freedom' are very nebulous (and saying things like 'You either have freedom or your [sic] are enslaved.' does not add to other people's understanding).