And there you have it!...

Problem with that argument of rules for all is the EU changes or ignores the rules to suit it's own case....they set strict rules for entry in to the Euro ...very few countries passed the test ... i think Uk was possibly the only one that did...I could be wrong but I think even the Germans failed...so they ignored the
rules . It's purely a matter of expediency...if the rule suits the project they'll enforce it...if it's politically embarrassing they'll ignore it.

 

Aren't there 26 other EU member states that would have a say on this?

 

I'm not saying the rules and enforcement of EU rules is optimal. That's not the case in any organisation, ever - not one.

However, you again have to weigh up - given that trade is good (unarguable) is getting to circumvent those rules, most of which are designed to make sure the terms of trade are fair between countries, worth it? And what's the convincing alternative?

The alternative I see is us competing for trade on cost or quality - something that I don't see most people being hugely keen on. If not this, then what? Until someone can answer that question I'm going to be voting remain.

 

I'm getting close to giving up on the whole awful debate but I will campaign on the day to get the vote out. Brexit will be a complete calamity for this country. The only thing I can be optimistic about is that real positive change often comes out of calamity, as it did after WW2.

 

You should be a Eurocrat ELT (only meant in fun mate)...on the one hand saying '' You can't accept a common market without accepting common rules - and when the rules impact both sides you don't get to make them unilaterally through your own Parliament. Otherwise people just undercut each other. You cannot have one without the other - you just can't. ''
and then saying
I'm not saying the rules and enforcement of EU rules is optimal. That's not the case in any organisation, ever - not one.

You've illustrated the point perfectly... the EU sets rules (strict Fiscal rules ,not guidelines) it expects it's members to adhere to...when certain members fail the strict rules are totally ignored..it's a dishonest position (EU that is not you personally ) and it's also very damaging . Greece failed the criteria but were allowed to join to keep the project on track..cue the destruction of the Greek economy....I'm not saying that was deliberate but these experts apparently did not see the dangers as real...dangers that have impacted most on ordinary working class Greek people , the rules were designed to protect both them and the Euro...those with the bigger dream were allowed to ignore those rules resulting in economic devastation.

as to ''The alternative I see is us competing for trade on cost or quality - something that I don't see most people being hugely keen on. If not this, then what? Until someone can answer that question I'm going to be voting remain.''

If we are not already competing on cost or quality now...what are we competing on ?...they're not buying out of sympathy or solidarity surely ?

 

Don't ditch the debate...we may or may not agree , but generally the debate on here is better (with odd exceptions) than most I've seen in the media ...this is a massive moment in our history and only 11 days to go..if reasoned argument can convince one person to vote the right way that's got to be worth sticking it out.