Introducing border controls IS what is happening, border control IS happening at Calais, but the point was that if there were border controls, even quite low level ones, the situation would almost certainly not have escalated as it did - its the entirely open borders, and the laws the migrants were 'entitled to' once in the EU whether entitled to be there or not that is the what made it possible and dangerous to the EU I think that house of cards is better upset sooner rather than collapsing again and again later.

Because it would be even worse than 'striking a deal' with North Korea. Both China and Russia have far more in common with us than ISIS ever will. Its an often overused term, but I think that ISIS is an existential threat to everyone else.

EU In or Out Defense Our defense is mainly via our membership of NATO, which will not change whether we are in or out of the EU. The yanks may not like out leaving the EU, but that would not change our NATO membership. The only 'fear' here is that the US effectively ignores their NATO responsibilities, and we have no real reason to believe that would ever be the case (excluding Trump winning the presidency) The UN Security council The Uk's place in the security council is not dependent on the EU, nor is it even dependent on the UK being a nuclear power. The only thing that might risk the UK's position is if the UK was no longer the UK, which SOME might argue would be the case if the UK broke up. Even then, I dont believe the US or France would like any change in the UK's position in the security council as the UK is effectively a vote for them when they need it. The Scottish issue is crucial here. Migration. This is a definite OUT generator from my perspective. Again I somewhat disagree with Gen Jacksons opinion, as the EU migrant issue can easily be considered a DIRECT result of the EU and Shengen. If there were no EU open borders, or if the EU properly protected its external borders, the issue would not have escalated to anything like it is today. There is no sign whatsoever of the EU addressing these issues cohesively or effectively, despite the clear indications that worse may yet be to come.

The UKs part in both are highly relevant to the in/out decision, and YOU Conniff are the one who threw up the Greenland report as a very poor counter to the military security linked report, presumably because you didn't properly read or understand either report. If you wanted to counter the initial link, there are some glaring questions regarding some of Gen Jacksons statements, particularly regarding the UK's membership of the security council, but YOU probably wouldn't like where examining those 'issues' with his statements would likely take us - and would of course require some effort and comprehension on your part.

Whatever Putin or Obama approves of is far lower on my list of reasons than the good of the UK as a whole. Obama/USA wants its strong say in the EU via the UK Putin is undoubtedly as you state - just as the USA was with Cuba and IS with southern Americas countries. Maybe its best for the world that the UK stays united and in the EU (and I think that is the case), but my question, and I dont know the answer, is 'Is the UK better off in the EU' at least for the next 25 years?

I have read and understand BOTH those articles. Try it yourself.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1207_en.htm Just one example of EU support for 'independent' Greenland. If the UK got as much EU support per head of population as Greenland, no-one would need to work here. If Greenland didn't get that support, as the UK wouldn't in a Brexit, they would not survive as a developed society.

Try reading the whole post, and linked and related references. Greenland still continued to receive massive support and development payments from the EU via Denmark for starters. and as a country - the population would fit easily in a large English Town or a handful of reasonably sized English villages.

Interesting 'on the ground' opinion. I only visit but seem to see far more 'nationalism'. Can't escape that the populous vote for the SNP and independence is the SNP driving force, although there is the clear point (in my view) that independence aside, the SNP appear to be a wholly better breed of politician - at least for now.

Greenland/Denmark is hardly a relevant reference point is it. Greenland as an example is more like the 'City' of London voting to leave the EU because of all the regulations they don't like about the EU while still getting all the EU benefits and support from the UK which is still in the EU - while paying sod all back in to either the UK or EU. .... very like

I have 'drive other cars' on mine, but I did specifically state it as a requirement. I have been quite surprised to see there is no mention of the other vehicle needing to be insured (my last one with Hastings did as did swiftcover), and I've looked, but it does say I cant use it to get other cars out of car pounds. It was an extra selection.

I agree, but I believe the 'financial implications would mean little in the fervour of a Scottish drive for self determination. Take defense - The Tory perspective https://www.gov.uk/government/news/8-benefits-to-scotland-from-the-uks-defence-and-armed-forces and www.gov.scot/resource/0041/00418420.pdf and http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/12-defence-facts-that-the-no-campaign-dont-want-you-to-know/

and why are these real issues not being laid out in detail by the various camps? The camps arguing that they are speculative is ridiculous as all future events are speculative by their very nature. Some can be seen to be more likely than others if all the relevant facts are available. So lets see the current facts and the reasoning behind the rhetoric.

I agree, but I do my main shop at Aldi tins, meats, potatoes and drop off at Tesco/morrisons as passing for other stuff. Tesco is far to unreliable in even having stock of 'good value' items to rely on buying there, and Morrisons prices are up and down like yoyo's even more than Tesco. Aldis prices are constant and you know what you get.

I would disagree. The SNP wouldn't need much of a turnaround/new voters in independence votes to succeed and if you watch the Scotland politics show she is constantly feeding the independence movement with almost every speech and response she makes. In a two horse race (yes/no) every 1% lost by the 'ins' is probably a 2% gain for the outs as they will probably still vote. I must admit that a smaller 'England' is far better in the EU than a United Kingdom would be out. I think theres a darn good chance of an out vote - and quite soon. The only thing that might change that was if the SNP lost a load of seats. Dont get me wrong, I believe Connifs rhetoric is completely out of whack, but SOME of the headline might well be right in this case.

and the SNP have now formally declared what everyone really knew, that whatever happens, while the SNP are in power, Scotland will continue to seek independence whether the UK stays in the EU or not.

And the Guardian seems to think that EU safety and environmental controls on fracking is a significant part of the EU 'red tape' the Tories dont like http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/10/uk-backs-bid-by-fossil-fuel-firms-to-kill-new-eu-fracking-controls-letters-reveal NOTE This article was changed on 11th September to clarify the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change’s position. It is working with the European Commission to avoid “unnecessary red tape” but it would not necessarily oppose all new controls on fracking. So it would seem like those for whom protecting the environment is a prime driver should also be voting to stay in the EU.

Another major UK/EU issue came up in debate elsewhere Fracking http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/unconventional_en.htm

Answering unclebulgarias question. Whats yours?

After you Conniff. Present something reasonable if you want a reasonable discussion. I'm not interested in responding to your tantrums. Take them to John Lewis. In actuality, there is no deal as yet, and quite probably wont be before the referendum, although some of the 'items' (like the red card) are as you are perhaps implying? - are at best little more than a framework for us to go begging for a favour, which may or may not be looked upon favourably.

Not entirely correct - protection from EU rules for 'the city' does not require any 'OK' from the EU to enact unlike the red card etc, which would still require an EU 'OK' even if that part of the 'renegotiation' was passed by the EU Which makes Boris's stance seem even more incongruous.

Exports $3.015 billion (2014 est.) Export goods crude oil, minerals, petroleum products, fruits and vegetables, cotton fiber, clothing, meat and live animals, wheat Main export partners Iraq 63.8% Saudi Arabia 11.1% Kuwait 7% United Arab Emirates 6% Libya 4.5% (2014 est.) In 2013, Syria exported $1.35B and imported $5.79B, resulting in a negative trade balance of $4.44B. The top exports of Syria are Apples and Pears ($101M), Sheep and Goats ($95.6M), Calcium Phosphates ($93.7M), Refined Copper ($77.9M) and Raw Cotton ($61.3M), using the 1992 revision of the HS (Harmonized System) classification. Its top imports are Wheat ($431M), Cars ($366M), Refined Petroleum ($292M), Raw Sugar ($220M) and Seed Oils ($165M). The top export destinations of Syria are Egypt ($274M), Jordan ($255M), Saudi Arabia ($180M), Lebanon ($175M) and Turkey ($84.4M). The top import origins are Turkey ($899M), China ($689M), Lebanon ($523M), South Korea ($445M) and Ukraine ($430M).

Lets look forward to the day we can buy something from the Syrians then.

Surprised theres been no comments on the SKY news ISIS documentation story ..

Although might be considered from a biased perspective, the facts regarding EPR builds in the following link seem quite clearly damning http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2859924/finland_cancels_olkiluoto_4_nuclear_reactor_is_the_epr_finished.html