Exactly. The question is whether our current net £10bn contribution could be better spent here on what we deem important, rather than what the EU deems important for us.

Problem is that with UK Government spending there seems to be a huge bias towards inner cities and other large conurbations. Rural and outlying areas seem to come off much worse when it comes to funding even though there is much endemic poverty in those regions and way less support.

Michael Gove, the Lord Chancellor, is claiming that the ECJ can just overturn Cameron's deal at will, but the prime minister, the president of the European Commission and the president of the European Parliament all say he's talking nonsense. And, with all due respect to Gove, who's quite intelligent in a spoddy sort of a way, it has been known.

The biggest thing that motivates voters to a 'Leave' view is control of our own borders. It's essentially an anti-immigration line.

The problem is that we would remain an attractive destination for immigrants because we're a relatively sane country under a decent rule of law, and we'd have to renegotiate all our trade and travel agreements with the EU (which of course would still have to be mutual) and we don't know how that would work out.

The argument against leaving often focuses on Norway, which is not in the EU but, in order to sustain workable trade and travel agreements, has to abide by EU law and even pay into the EU anyway, only without any say in the EU parliament or commission.

Globalisation probably means you can't pull up the drawbridge any more, because you aren't in a castle and there's no drawbridge.

Yeah, but have you met him? Simon's a massively vain saloniste individual of the kind we used to call a 'gadfly', who says provocative things just because he can. He was a terrible editor of the Times and a terrible editor of the Standard and he got his status and his knighthood just because he's handsome and charming and well-connected and he can witter nicely about parish church architecture. He hasn't got a clue how the EU, and the markets, would grind down on an exit-prone UK.

Well no, I haven't, and when I first saw him on TV many years ago I assumed he was a Tory, such were his mannerisms and forelock tugging...but this article doesn't strike me as such a terrible answer to the question of what is the best reason to vote Out (ie to re-enter under more favourable circumstances in future). I am voting to stay, though.

It's not "essentially an anti-immigration line", for everyone although obviously it is for some.

I once dated a Polish girl who was educated to MSc level and spent her first 5 years here working in a warehouse (In the warehouse, not the offices). Given a straight choice, I'd rather that job be given to someone from Syria, but economic migration *prevents* us from taking that option.

But yes, you can also argue that she might have beaten a British national with a family to support who hadn't worked for a year to that job, for which she was vastly overqualified. Of course, lots of 24yo Polish graduates is good for the economy, but not necessarily the most fair when they are happy to take unskilled jobs which are obviously more suitable for unskilled people, or a Syrian with a family to support currently living in a tent.

Norway pays the EU £200m a year, so 2% of the current net UK contribution.

We should take the polish masters woman AND put her in a job that isn't in a warehouse.

Jobs aren't a finite resource we don't need to choose between two migrants with different but equally valid arguments for why they should gain entry.

leave back out to 9/4 with SkyBet, Ladbrokes, and a few others

i don't get this entitlement about jobs, doesn't the job "belong" to the most skilled worker, if a employer rather hire someone from Romania or Poland who is overqualified, i don't see why this is a problem

when the likes of Boris Johnstone state that he would much rather see £1 spent in London than Strathclyde you realise they don't give a flying **** about anywhere else. Their defence is that growth in London has a knock-on effect for elsewhere in the UK but if all investment hits London then how on earth can there ever be a knock on effect.

I would much rather it gave to a UK national. its detrimental to Poland to have their educated citizens emigrating and its also detrimental to the UK unskilled workers when they have to rely on zero hours contracts to get by. Companies are more inclined to take on Polish etc as they will not speak up on issues, not aware of workers rights, less likely to join the union etc. The myth that they are harder working is a fallacy for the most part.

yeah there are a number of assumptions there that are largely bollocks

"Looking after our own first" or whatever is insane. Why do we have a greater moral responsibility to someone merely due to the chance of having been born in the same country?

TDA aren't you the one that wanted to refuse people with skills required in their country of origin?

Yes. The two views are compatible. We have equal moral responsibilities to every other human on the planet - it just so happens that in the extreme case that people are attempting to move countries leaving a severe skills shortage in their country of origin, they should be rejected on that ground alone.

yeah there are qualifiers there that were strangely absent last time. In any case it's bad.

Maybe I thought they were obvious. I can't really remember that debate too well.

If I owned a business, I would 100% employ someone from Poland with a degree ahead of someone from UK who doesn't.

Not only are they better qualified, it's a huge deal to leave your friends and family to seek a better life in another country, and so they are likely to be highly motivated to perform well and better themselves.

However, that's not much comfort to the guy with a family to support who missed out, hence why 4m people voted UKIP and pretty much forced the Torys to hold this referendum.

When it's negative, no?

sorry but I don't understand what you mean?

**** Strathclyde gets too much money as it is. Money needs to go to the North of England. We are the least invested area by far. We wish we could get the level of investment Scotland gets too much of and London gets way way too much of.

I was quoting boris johnstone to epitomise the point that a disproportionate amount of money goes to London and government are happy with it. if he had said he would rather see £1 invested in London than Sheffield I would have quoted that.

Leave voters are shredding the stay voters on bbcqt

Question Time makes me want to punch kittens.

You asked how there could be a knock on effect when London gets too much investment and am saying the effect is negative on the rest, not positive like they would like to have people believe.