MoneySaving Poll: How will you be voting in the EU referendum?
Comments
-
Oh,
Sorry,
I don't get his newsletters.
However, I am pretty sure they would not Lie about things like that?
Would they?
Cough. Despite the fact I am likely to vote "IN" it is very clear that both sides are using childish underhanded tactics to try and win people over.
Martin Lewis has said quite clearly he will not support either side, although the quote of his words was accurate - when backed into a corner he said in his opinion (which I value):
“On balance of probability, it is more likely we’ll have less money in our pockets if we vote to leave”
So if the money in your pocket is your only concern then IN is probably the way to go.
Of course the decision for some/many? is based on more than just that. Today Martin has published his "how to vote" article which I am off to read now (note: it is not which way to vote, but how to decide which way to vote. I have no idea what it says as I've not even opened it yet!)0 -
So I've read it and its refreshingly honest.
My take from it:
No-one knows exctly what will happen either way.
What you decide needs to be based on your attitude to risk in several areas.
Pretty much everyone campaigning either way is saying a load of tosh.
For me the stuff I've read in the past few days raises some important questions about the Brexit camp's plans (or lack of).
Is their plan to leave the single market as well? If so that's something I definitely would be worried about in terms of cost to individuals and businesses. If not it likely negates many of the "arguments" for leaving as we would almost certainly have to retain things like free movement and conform to the EU rules on many things (the Swiss have to) without any ability to affect those rules. Even if we were to leave, if we still wanted trade agreements with the EU we would probably be in the same boat of having to allow free movement and conforming to many EU rules (Norway has to).
So what is the actual benefit? Unless we sail away completely on our own which seems foohardy at best (we're pretty small on our own) leaving, but retaining some ties, seems like it will leave us with most (probably all) of the bad things but with absolutely no say in it.
Oh link to Martin's article in case you've not read it:
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2016/06/05/how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/?_ga=1.109383173.1448987179.14115399990 -
If we vote leave, the Tories will have a bonfire of employment rights and all sorts of safety regulations.0
-
WOW - Its no wonder his POLL is so popular. I have just voted FOR THE THIRD TIME on it. To assist me it even includes a link to VOTE AGAIN.
Well done Martin, Yet another POLL open to abuse.
Thanks for your feedback, however our Tech team assures me that our site poll does not allow more than one vote per IP address to be counted.
However, the 'Vote in this poll' button is available to click all the time so I can understand why you may feel you have been able to vote multiple times in this poll.0 -
It appears as a new user I am not allowed to post links here - Ridiculous!
You will soon be able to, I think it's just to catch those people/machines that join just to spam!EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters Telegraph website
This was in 2013 and a complete made up myth!
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/reports-of-brussels-big-brother-bid-to-impose-speed-controls-are-inaccurate-beyond-the-limit-2/EU law “threatens UK's traditional ice cream” eurofoodlaw dot com
This was in 2014 and the line from the site you quoted says:
"A UK trade association for the ice cream industry has said traditional ice cream is under threat because of the removal of long standing quality standards by the EU." (my emphasis).
So this is an issue where a UK trade association was complaining about the EU cancelling a rule. If it happened the UK could always introduce a law of its own (like the 75-80% of our laws that are UK not EU). Also if you look at wider links there's sensible Ice cream makers saying they aren't bothered, and Defra explains how it actually helps some who - under our own old rules - couldn't call something made with actual cream an ice cream!
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/traditional-ice-cream-under-threat-with-eu-rules-1-3635296
OK that was published on 7 March and said it was due to be debated the following Tuesday - so no holding back till after our vote.EU ports regulation could hold back UK ports including the £300m Liverpool2 facility
Liverpoolecho dot co dot uk
OK further digging and the final vote has been postponed but apparently "the EU has tried to regulate ports without success on two previous occasions, and this is the third attempt" and "Britain was not the only EU member nation opposed to the regulations – Spain and Poland are also against the laws."
In all honesty I don't understand the ins and outs well enough to know whether this is a serious issue or not but it looks like several amendments have been tabled that would litigate the concerns for UK privately owned ports like the Liverpool2 one.
That's assuming private owners of 300m+ businesses was high on my list of concerns - which it isn't.
I don't really see the problem with that. We have enough home grown hysteria without adding voices from other countries to the mix.Muzzling Brussels: Why EU Leaders Aren't Debating Brexit - spiegel dot de/international/europe/why-eu-leaders-are-not-speaking-out-about-brexit-a-1094261.html
Probably confirmation bias on my part but the fact the EU Commissioners are respecting the request to stay out of the argument says far more in their favour than against to me.
The only evidence I can see of things being postponed is things that were due to be debated/decided on the days immediately before/during/after our vote. That seems eminently sensible - what is the point of all the expense of the EU sitting and debating and making decisions when a few days later everything could be different? It also means when they meet at the postponed date soon after they can take into account the effect IF we were to leave.
I'm pretty certain we have a veto so can always opt out even if the others go for it. In fact - even in the hugely ramped up "outrage" coverage by the Express there is, buried near the bottom, this line "EU nations would be invited rather than obliged to join the cross-border initiative under the proposals. And Britain already has the right to opt out of EU defence policies. "EU army plans ‘kept secret’ from British voters until after Brexit referendum
rt dot com/uk/344563-eu-army-secret-referendum/
And it's not like this is a new thing so no secret, it's been discussed and debated and considered for a very long time.
I just can't....Dirty Campaign to Stop Brit EU Exit: Refugee Deluge, Interrogating Schoolkids, Hiding Tax Hikes - the new american dot com/world-news/europe/item/22650-dirty-campaign-to-stop-brit-eu-exit-refugee-deluge-interrogating-schoolkids-hiding-tax-hikes?tmpl=component&%3Bprint=1
This took some finding but to be honest it's from "The New American" which holds little sway with me, and I just couldn't face reading it as its swathes of hysteria.
It's saying the IN campaign are fear mongering which I don't disagree with. BOTH sides are fear mongering and talking tosh and neither can be at all proud of their behaviour. This is just more of the scare tactics both sides are using in claiming the other side is terrifyingly trying to ruin our lives. It's just so much noise now that I switch off within a matter of a few lines.
Really? I'm not sure I have the energy but are kettles something serious enough to decide the future of our county in the EU On? And it's the Daily Mail so I'm afraid that immediately makes me think it's probably nonsense.Brexit threat saves our super-fast kettles: Brussels shelves ban on powerful appliances after British negotiators warn it could sway referendum
daily mail dot co dot uk/news/article-3466653/Brexit-threat-saves-super-fast-kettles.html
OK - again fear mongering nonsense: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/ec-has-not-decided-to-regulate-toasters-and-kettles-and-could-not-decide-alone-anyway/
And the previous similar issue that caused hysteria - vacuum cleaners - when finally decided and implemented with UK agreement has - according to Which - ".. worked both for consumers – who are now buying machines that provide the same or better suction performance as before but use less energy – and for the industry, most of which supported the new rules in the first place as a spur to innovation."
Brief reading shows the budget is produced between end April & End June each year. Its been postponed this year from end May to end June - that is true - but its not unheard of and its scare tactics again to make out that it is to delay till after we vote. Their quite reasonable explanation is that they need to do some more work around the refugee issues and the deals with Turkey around that.Something to hide? Brussels bosses delay plans for next EU budget until AFTER Brexit vote - express dot co dot uk/news/politics/670099/EU-referendum-European-Commission-delays-EU-budget-proposals-after-Brexit-vote
Brussels presses the hold button on Brexit - politico dot eu/article/brussels-presses-brexit-hold-button-uk-referendum-campaign-eu-legislation/
To be honest - having had a job setting budgets and forecasting - if I were setting the EU budgets I'd be waiting till after the UK vote as, IF we vote out, that will require serious recalculation - and its hideous enough setting budgets once let alone having to repeat!
They are all genuine articles, but unfortunately the sources aren't necessarily unbiased, or at least are enjoying publishing the most alarming and headline grabbing versions of the stories they find and burying any counter-facts way down in the smallprint. This is true of both sides. I find it disgusting that our so called "news papers" can get away with printing unproven, unprovable rubbishI do not believe in scare tactics from either side, it is completely wrong and I will never stoop that low. The people of the UK have a basic right to the correct information without any perversion of the truth, the links above are from as varied a source as possible so as not to be particularly biased either way, they are genuine articles from respectable sources.
Indeed. But with membership of the EEA comes the requirement to allow free movement of people, and to conform to most of the EU regulations. Therefore many of the supposed "benefits" of voting out are negated unless we also leave the EEA. And that's a whole other thing and almost certainly a horrid idea!And if that isn't enough, consider this......
"There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about June 23rd, and people want to know the facts. Here are some:
You are not voting to leave the EEA or WTO, meaning all of the UK's trade and benefit agreements will remain unchanged should we leave, until such a time that the UK decides to renegotiate them for any reason.
I've not seen anyone arguing that the EU and NATO/UN/G8/G20 have anything to do with one another.You are not voting to leave NATO, meaning our security agreements remain unchanged. Should we receive an act of hostility from a non-NATO member, then NATO countries are obliged to come to our assistance. This does not change.
You are not voting to leave the UN, G8 or G20, meaning Britain will have the same voice on the world stage as it does today.
Again I've not seen anyone arguing this is an issue either way in the vote.You are not voting to leave Europe!! The UK will still, geographically, be part of Europe. Non political organisations aligned to Europe will still extend membership to the UK (I.e. sports governing bodies, and so on).
Again I've not seen anyone arguing this is an issue either way in the vote. We would of course no longer be a part of Europol but whether that would be an issue for anyone other than maybe a few people seconded there I have no idea.You are not voting to stop recognising Interpol, Europol and neither are you voting for SIS / MI6 to stop dealing with other intelligence services in the fight against terrorism and global, organised crime.
There are indeed fools on TV, and in the media, and all around us. Fools and those who would take advantage of fools - again on both sides.You are not voting against being able to travel to Europe, contrary to the belief of some fools recently on TV. The UK has always maintained stricter border and passport controls than many EU members. This will not change. You will still use a passport to go on holiday and you will still be allowed entry to countries in Europe. You may even get chance to skip queues by using the non--EU queues at the airport (the only point so far that is my opinion, and not necessarily a fact).
I've just had a thought. If we were "OUT" does that mean I could buy duty free cigs on the way back from Greece? If I still smoked of course
And on the flipside what about booze cruises - no more limitless French supermarket wine.
Not that either of those is a serious reason to make a decision - in case anyone thought I was being serious.
Based on what? There is no evidence to show this, and indeed the few rational voices amongst the shouting say we will probably be slightly worse off if we leave. (note probably and slightly)The UK economy will benefit to the tune of £billions in the first year after we leave.
I've not seen anyone arguing this is an issue either way in the vote. I'm far more worried about funding coming from companies and the lack of transparency about research results - particularly when they don't meet the expectations of those funding the research. In fact now you've brought up the topic I worry far more we might follow the US and allow ever more intrusion by the drug companies.Medical and science research will not simply stop. The UK pays into the EU to then get money back in the form of funding. The UK will now be in control of this money and can choose to fund whatever UK based medical, science, art or other research it chooses.
Not if they use the reduction in our contributions to pay for all the other umpty things the Brexiters claim can be done with it. It would still be NHS vs the farmers vs.........Farming will not lose money because of EU funding being cut. The UK negotiated a rebate of some monies that the UK pays to the EU, in order to subsidise UK farmers. Instead of asking for our money back, we can give it straight to farmers. No change there.
Thank goodness! Although our current govt wants us out of that I believe - something I'd fight very hard against.You are not voting against human rights. The EU Convention on, and European Court of Human Rights are not part of the EU. Until parliament passes a new bill of rights for the UK, these will still apply, as will precedents already passed down to UK courts from Brussels.
Quite - so there's likely to be no effect on immigration at all UNLESS we also give up any trade agreements with the EU.You are not voting to kick anyone out of the UK or block access to anyone. Neither are you voting to stop recruiting valuable European workers into things like the NHS. Like my other point about passports for travel, the UK is already outside of the Schengen zone and so migrant workers must enter the UK with a valid passport before and after June 23rd. That will not change. British borders maintain full control of who comes and goes. Should someone have the skills to apply to work in the NHS, then they will still be permitted travel and given an opportunity to apply for a job. Worst case, points based assessment, like the US, Canada and Australia use, will come into effect. The UK is likely to negotiate freedom of labour movement though, in exchange for freedom of goods movement.
Old news so hard to get full details but it was a loan from the EIB (the European Investment Bank) rather than EU funding. The UK plant was already likely to close and actually the UK had had significant EU funding for Ford (around 450m) a few years before. As with all these things - never as simple as a few newspaper headlines make it seem.You are not voting to move jobs nor production out of the UK! The EU actually helped fund the move of Ford Transit production from the UK to Turkey... Yes, the EU helped give UK jobs to people in Turkey by giving Ford a loan of £80m with very generous terms!
Actually that's another interesting question. The EIB (European Investment Bank) is owned by EU members - apparently the UK "owns" 16.1%. What happens to that if we leave? Has anyone wanting to go got a plan for this at all?
I'm afraid that is disingenuous. We have plenty of civil servants who make day to day decisions - it's not really any different. The MEPs who can direct the commission and stop things they aren't happy with are just as elected as our own govt. Theoretically more fairly voted in to be honest - except the UK's population seemingly can't be bothered to go out and vote for them which is how we end up with MEPs that are so completely different in terms of political spread than our own govt. And don't start on our own House of Lords - the biggest unelected house anywhere I think!What you are voting for is UK sovereignty. You are voting to stay in or leave a political union of leaders and representatives that you British people did not elect. You are voting against a commission of unelected, elite men that nobody at all voted for and yet they make decisions on our behalf.
IMO the fundamental decision you are making is whether some things are better decided as part of a larger whole (the EU) than just on our own. Whether the benefits of access to the EEC outweigh the possible advantage of going it totally alone (assuming leaving the EU would also mean exiting the EEC). Or alternatively whether there's any real benefit to leaving the EU if we want to remain in the EEC.You are simply voting to bring sovereignty back to Westminster, and that is all. If you worry about that because you don't like the Conservative government, look at the reality. Their majority in parliament is very slim. They have been blocked on big decisions already. You are therefore not giving sovereignty to David Cameron, but to the UK House of elected representatives. Do not be fooled by the fear campaigns that are simply run by the wealthy, who need EU money to thrive! Think about the future, and your family's future"
These are not my words but definitely my views.
Sovereignty is an inflammatory word IMO - designed to get people all riled up about nothing much. No Island (in the western world) is actually an island anymore in terms of worldwide politics or trade or finances.
In general I think voting in or out based on who is telling you which to choose is, in fact, a very very bad idea! "Vote out to do Cameron's legs in." "Vote in to stuff it to Nigel Farage." In reality all of these things are nonsense and misdirection.
From all I've read I will currently be voting "IN". That's not to say I won't change my mind in the coming weeks if I find a compelling enough reason that I believe is reasonably factual.
The argument in my head for "IN" is as follows:
In or out won't change our current government (if that is your concern aim your efforts at the election scandal issues). In or out won't silence the extremists or quash political parties you find abhorrent. In or out won't magically reduce immigration or fix the refugee crisis. In or out won't even make our toasters work better, or worse
In or out will affect our trade with the rest of the EU and maybe the rest of the world. Out will quite likely cause our economy to dip - which will in all likelihood affect the poorest the worse. Out will probably cause the pound to fall in relation to the world, whether in relation to the Euro depends on the effect of us leaving on the Euro. The results of Out will probably cause the current govt to extent the austerity measures (full disclosure I really disagree with them now let alone for longer).
No-one will ever know which was the right decision, there's no way to have a "control" so whichever way we vote we have to live with the consequences.
Afterwards whichever side wins will no doubt (in a skewed fashion) shout about what a fab decision it was, and whichever side loses will shout (in an equally skewed fashion) about what a disaster it has been.
The only real losers are the general public - not given even half a hope of making a choice based on what they actually think but most driven to vote based on scaremongering lies and screeching 0 -
Indeed.[snip]
They are all genuine articles, but unfortunately the sources aren't necessarily unbiased, or at least are enjoying publishing the most alarming and headline grabbing versions of the stories they find and burying any counter-facts way down in the smallprint. This is true of both sides. I find it disgusting that our so called "news papers" can get away with printing unproven, unprovable rubbish
[snip]
Excellently put. The Brexiters (OK, just some of them) claim to be using money twice. [Not that the stayers are innocent, either.]Not if they use the reduction in our contributions to pay for all the other umpty things the Brexiters claim can be done with it. It would still be NHS vs the farmers vs.........
[snip]
but by a mechanism that seems beyond the comprehension of the UK population:(. When given the chance to change it (albeit bodged by doing it the same day as something else), they stuck with "first past the post". [I've got news for them: THERE IS NO POST!]I'm afraid that is disingenuous. We have plenty of civil servants who make day to day decisions - it's not really any different. The MEPs who can direct the commission and stop things they aren't happy with are just as elected as our own govt. Theoretically more fairly voted in to be honest
Possibly true, though they do seem to provide a brake on more rabid legislation (from any colour government).- except the UK's population seemingly can't be bothered to go out and vote for them which is how we end up with MEPs that are so completely different in terms of political spread than our own govt. And don't start on our own House of Lords - the biggest unelected house anywhere I think!
There is, also, more than pure monetary matters at stake.IMO the fundamental decision you are making is whether some things are better decided as part of a larger whole (the EU) than just on our own. Whether the benefits of access to the EEC outweigh the possible advantage of going it totally alone (assuming leaving the EU would also mean exiting the EEC). Or alternatively whether there's any real benefit to leaving the EU if we want to remain in the EEC.
[snip]In general I think voting in or out based on who is telling you which to choose is, in fact, a very very bad idea!
[snip]
I'm an outer so far, but, like you, saddened (though not surprised) by the quality (!) of debate from both sides. My feeling for OUT is that I do feel a loss of control, and that this may be our last chance on the matter - despite what I think will be a period of hardship, economically. But I may be swayed yet - your reasoned dissection of gupyuk's post, which I had sort of bookmarked, being probably the best persuader yet. I have actually read the "new deal" negotiated, and at face value it does seem good: I just get the feeling that, reading between the lines (which I know is often unwise), the other nations' "hearts aren't in it".From all I've read I will currently be voting "IN". That's not to say I won't change my mind in the coming weeks if I find a compelling enough reason that I believe is reasonably factual.
The argument in my head for "IN" is as follows:
In or out won't change our current government (if that is your concern aim your efforts at the election scandal issues). In or out won't silence the extremists or quash political parties you find abhorrent. In or out won't magically reduce immigration or fix the refugee crisis. In or out won't even make our toasters work better, or worse
(Such things usually do, whether EU-related or not.)In or out will affect our trade with the rest of the EU and maybe the rest of the world. Out will quite likely cause our economy to dip - which will in all likelihood affect the poorest the worse.
[snip]Out will probably cause the pound to fall in relation to the world, whether in relation to the Euro depends on the effect of us leaving on the Euro. The results of Out will probably cause the current govt to extent the austerity measures (full disclosure I really disagree with them now let alone for longer).
A beautifully-written post. I commend you for it; as I said, you may still persuade me to change my mind.No-one will ever know which was the right decision, there's no way to have a "control" so whichever way we vote we have to live with the consequences.
Afterwards whichever side wins will no doubt (in a skewed fashion) shout about what a fab decision it was, and whichever side loses will shout (in an equally skewed fashion) about what a disaster it has been.
The only real losers are the general public - not given even half a hope of making a choice based on what they actually think but most driven to vote based on scaremongering lies and screeching0 -
On 23rd June, I shall vote to leave the EU, but my reasons for doing so are rather different from those of others voting for exit. I am a great enthusiast for both Europe and the institution of the EU (for all its present faults and problems). I should like to see, and be a part of, a Europe that is highly integrated not only economically but also politically, militarily, judicially, etc . – a federation of states with the potential to become greater than any other nation or federation in the world (I should be the first to admit that this seems highly unlikely at present, but I am an optimist and I do not believe in giving up just because things get difficult). However, even most of those who wish to remain in the EU simply want a beneficial trade agreement with Europe: they, along with the anti-Europeans, do not want to be in the Euro currency system or the Schengen zone, do not want closer political union, a European defence force, or a European anything else. In fact, supporters of ‘Remain’ are usually very quick to assert that if Britain does remain in the EU we shall opt out of pretty well everything and do our very best to oppose any moves towards closer union. I consider us to be, for the most part, bad Europeans: parochially-minded people who just want the economic benefits , seem to have forgotten the horrors of the two World Wars resulting from a divided Europe, and have no vision for the future, merely a vague notion of ‘sovereignty’ and nostalgia for the long gone days of Empire. I believe that leaving the EU would probably be bad for Britain but, by removing one negative and obstructive influence, would give Europe the best hope, however remote, of realising its full potential.0
-
A beautifully-written post. I commend you for it; as I said, you may still persuade me to change my mind.
I wanted to come back and thank you for that. It made my day - the beautifully written bit rather than the mind changing bit really.
I'm happy to discuss, and learn, and even to try and debunk dodgy IN claims and reports despite my leanings.
Its so nice to have a generally civilised place to discuss!0 -
So, if the leave vote wins, will we leave or will there be another referendum?Make £2018 in 2018 Challenge - Total to date £2,1080
-
scaredofdebt wrote: »So, if the leave vote wins, will we leave or will there be another referendum?
Parliament could ignore it but I suspect would not as they would get their !!!!!! roasted! However *how* we disengage is far more complicated than just saying we will.
Option 1:
Assuming what even the "OUT" camp have said - that leaving the EU does not mean leaving the EEA - so we stay somehow in the single market - then many things wouldn't change much at all as far as I can see.
Going like Norway/Iceland/Switzerland in some way - so retaining our ties to the single market - would mean continuing to allow freedom of movement and accepting many many of the EU rules about goods and trade etc. So no change in immigration and not much in the rules we follow. Oh and we'd still have to pay to be part of it.
I think (it's hard to work out) that we might be free of fishing quota rules? I could be wrong - I've really found this hard to figure out.
I don't know if we would retain access to things like the EU cosmetics register, or if we'd have to replicate things like that for ourselves or do something else - I guess I could go check if Norway/Iceland/Switzerland are in on that but, despite my vague interest, its not a big enough issue to sway me either way. However going the way of the US where people do as they like with cosmetics and just "say" it's all safe does actually worry me, OTOH I suspect big companies would never bother to make less safe options for small markets like the UK so we'd just get already EU accepted things. It would be small makers that would be affected and as many of them already flout all the rules it wouldn't have any actual effect I guess.
Option 2:
So the other end of the scale is we remove ourselves totally from the single market. That is almost universally acknowledged (people on both sides) as a really crappy idea. We'd have to renegotiate trade with every single country in the EU - where our businesses do most of their business - *and* with many outside countries already having deal with the EU/EEA we'd be outside those and having to start again (expensively) from scratch.
Any reduction in costs to the UK as a whole from not paying into the EU/EEA/? whatever would no doubt be far outstepped by costs to individual businesses arranging deals elsewhere. Or the govt would have to negotiate individual trade deals with every other country. Actually I wonder if lots of countries would anyway tell us to shove off as they are either in the EEA or find it easier to deal with the EEA (rather than dozens of separate countries.)
Again it's just not as easy as wandering off and offering to trade directly with the world as a stand alone entity.
---
3: Yes I know there's flavours inbetween these two options but a page seemed more than enough!
---
When this all started I was genuinely a complete floater - no more married to one side than the other. If forced to make a decision at the outset I would probably have voted "IN" as I am naturally risk averse so have the "better the devil you know" attitude, but no more than that.
I would have been (even now still would be) perfectly OK with being persuaded to the "OUT" side if there were genuine concrete reasons, with at least some degree of likelihood, for that side - but I just haven't seen any. There's scaremongering non-facts and complete rubbish from both sides and little else.
--
At the end then - for me -there's a plan (in so much as there doesn't need to be one as things stay roughly the same) for staying. OK there's the Cameron's supposed agreement that I believe as far as I could throw him - but even without it there's no need for radical change (and expenditure) and overall we've done pretty OK in the EU.
Whereas for leaving it's all far too vague with potential "plans" to spend the maybe savings umpty times over and over. There's no certainty - nothing even approaching something approaching certainty - about what would be the plan for anything at all if we vote out.
Even if Cameron were ousted for Boris what would he do? He's not said? Or if there were a snap election - what would any of the parties do if they came to power and we'd voted out? No plans - nothing. That fills me with dread.
I think our politicians have let us down something rotten.
In my opinion - All parties - in the commons not sides of this debate - should have considered what they would do after a stay or leave vote and tell us that.
If it's not party driven they should have kept their mouths shut other than their own personal views, and those should not have been filled with craziness and bile. The fact that it has become bickering nonsense inside parties and amongst politicians in general says nothing about Europe or the EU - only about the disgraceful behaviour of our own politicians.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards