I should borrow that for use as a signature line…
Not at all. There are substantial groups of Irish-Americans, Indian Americans and New Zealand-Americans, for one things, but not a lot of New Zealand-Americans. And you were the one who specified migratory connections as one of your criteria. As for the business links you specified, there are a number of Irish and Italian companies whose ADRs are listed in New York; there are no New Zealand companies.
US outward direct investment in Ireland in 2012: $22.7 billion. Italy: $2.24 billion. India: $4.11 biliion. New Zealand: $0.62 billion.
Inward investments in the US in the same year: Ireland: $1.46 billion. Italy: $1.97 billion. India: $1.46 billion. New Zealand: -$0.48 billion. (Yes, that’s a negative figure.)
So, no, not a joke. Tell us again about the " business, family, and two-way migratory connections" that you claim gives New Zealand more in common with the US than the countries I have mentioned?
Leaving the EU will not be a radical change. There will be no revolution. I predict that if we leave, in five years people will wonder what the fuss was all about.
Not sure that I agree that Dave is in favour of the NHS, except to sell it off to his cronies.
As far as Brexit is concerned I am on the fence at present. I work in the University sector so may be affected if we leave due to reduced funding. However, I am not sure that I want to be part of an “ever closer union”. That being said, I don’t trust any of our elected politicians to maintain the rights of workers that we have built up over the centuries in the event of an exit.
Plus I like being able to visit Europe without a visa.
At the head of the EU is an unelected body who are in overall control, this makes it impossible for the UK to work for change within the EU. This leaves the EU with the only option of leaving to regain control of its own law making, its economy, ecology and the security of our borders. At present we have no say on who we can let in from other EU countries, it does not matter if they are hardened criminals a EU passport gives them right of entry. Hopefully after leaving the EU we will be able to negotiate trade agreements with the countries of northern Europe while retaining our sovereignty.
The present course of the EU is set to fail with the possibility of Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Scandinavia joining the UK in a reformed none federated Common Market.
Groups who wish to leave the EU have always been pro Common Market but it is the belligerent and dogmatic attitude of the EU that is the driving force behind the referendum that will result in the UK leaving.
There’s no chance whatsoever of this. Countries outside the EU negotiate their trade agreements with the EU, not with individual member states.
I woulddn’t characterise the whole Brexit movement this way, but there’s certainly a segment of Brexit supporters whose support rests on a wholly uninformed and unrealistic idea of what the UK’s position will be, and what options will be open to it, if it leaves the EU.
Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Scandinavia (with the exception of Norway) are already joined with the UK in a non-federated common market. The Brexit campaign seeks to bring this state of affairs to an end, not to inaugurate it.
I want to know how calling the EU a Hitlerian superstate or declaring the EU’s ultimate desire is a federal European superstate isn’t scaremongering.
Also I find it weird that Boris is saying this - wasn’t he the one, a few weeks ago, who was saying we could vote LEAVE to extract a better deal from the withdrawal negotiations and then opt to stay???
What Boris said a few weeks ago has very, very little bearing on what he will say today.
Which unelected body is that, TM?
The European Council of elected Heads of State and Government of Member States?
The Council of Ministers, made up of elected government officials?
The Parliament, which is directly elected?
The Commission, appointed by elected Member State Governments and hired and fired by the elected Parliament?
This is not true. Known criminals that are deemed a risk by the Home Secretary can be denied entry and/or sent home.
As UDS says, we already have this, and LEAVE are bringing about its end.
Nonsense. Give me one example of the EU being ‘belligerent’ or ‘dogmatic’.
How so? How is he not a hypocrit?
I think Stanislaus is suggesting that Johnson is a hypocrite.
Ah…sorry, early in the morning for nuance 
He’s a bullshitter. He doesn’t care about whether what he is saying is true. He cares whether it is useful. If it serves his interests to say that the purpose of the referendum is to strengthen our negotiating position rather than to actually leave, then that’s what he’ll say. If at a later date it serves his interests to say that the EU is a dangerously Hitlerian superstate which we should cut all ties with, then he’ll say that.
He doesn’t recognise a contradiction because he doesn’t make statements based on some coherent underlying view of the world. He makes them on the basis of what will sway his current audience.
Cameron is similar, of course. He’s gone from saying that he’d be prepared to leave the EU if they didn’t accept his negotiating terms to saying that leaving would risk WWIII. At the time of the first statement he needed to reassure the Eurosceptic right of his party. At the time of the second, he needed to shore up the Remain vote. So he said whatever it was necessary to say to achieve those goals.
You are not wrong YET, but the course set is for a Federated States Of Europe and if this is allowed to happen it will be within the next decade. The EU is known to be holding back new legislation until after the referendum as it does not want to give the out vote more credence
Not true. The Council of Ministers (i.e., the relevant ministers and ultimately Prime Ministers) of the member states has the final say on legislation, after trying as far as possible to get consensus with the (elected) European Parliament. The unelected Commission is there to interpret and apply the legislation the Council has approved.
Not true. We can indeed, and have, turned away people from other EU countries with criminal records. Where they have slipped through, it’s because of failures in accessing their criminal records. If we leave the EU, we would also leave the agreed information-sharing arrangements, and we’d be even more likely not to know who is and who isn’t a criminal before they come.
What legislation would that be.
I believe the US equivalent of that legislation involves Black Helicopters from the UN.
TTIP is a big one. The American election has a say in that too.
You don’t have to be a CT to believe that the EU may not wish to rock the boat in the lead up to the referendum. It’s what any reasonable EU politician would do. It’s also not unreasonable to assume that voting to stay in will just encourage the bastards further.