Rob

Virtually nobody believes Germany would return to its military dominance, but it would be naive to suggest that they are not the strongest country economically and by extension the country with the largest responsibility to ensure stability within the EU. It needs to cast off its cloak of guilt and act as a true leader amongst equals. In Angela Merkel you've got the only true national Leader in the EU, and no, I don't believe for one minute that she is going to advocate invading Poland.

As ChKy said, politics is easy without people. After the Civil War we hadn't even got as far as Rotten Boroughs in terms of the electorate. Only declarations of war are sufficient to get politicians off their backsides without prevarication.

They said they were waiting for Cameron's successor to be chosen, which will happen in early September. A lot of balls in the air at the moment. As has been mentioned before, there is a chance of a second referendum, but it would have to be on somewhat different terms of reference to the one just passed because that ship has sailed. An EU style 'ask them again until you get the right answer' will not work and is only likely to harden resolve. All parties agree that a sensible compromise has to be reached in terms of our relationship going forward. You might hear the politicians playing hardball for their respective audiences, but economic reality will eventually give commerce a middle path. Ultimately all national politicians are on the receiving end of voter displeasure, even if the Commission is insulated from it, so if there is sufficient upheaval within a significant number of EU nations (which must include Germany as the de-facto leader of the EU), this would provide the stimulus for a change in Brussels. People in business and their markets don't like uncertainty, but will adapt to whatever situation is thrown up as has happened for millennia. As one businessman said to me before the referendum, we need to arrange currency cover going forward. Invoiced in dollars and holding pounds requires a hedge - we are traders, not speculators. And so the business was prepared for any fallout.

Yes. They were all used to fill empty boxes at the back of drawers. Circulation - not a chance.

Everyone who doesn't spend their life trawling eBay has periods when nothing is available. You can't buy what isn't there.

If it is as you say then the options are filled die or damaged. The latter will reduce value, the former not.

A truer word was never said and lies at the crux of our collective disagreement

Try herding cats. It's easier than leading the British people down a single route.

Yes, a true orator, but also the last to attempt building an empire through conquest which is why Europe will not wage war on itself, or at least the main central players responsible for the past 1000 years of conflict won't. Britain is leaving, not taking over the EU.

The danger is that a number of points raised will be lost in the desire to insult and ridicule from one side and ignore from the other because of the person speaking.

I for one would have voted to stay in the EU if it had remained the trading area we joined in the 1970s. Removal of trade barriers is a good thing, however, it has morphed into a vastly different animal to what most people in this country want. I think many countries in the EU badly underestimated the feelings in this country that the EU was changing its terms of reference and looking to forge a European superstate, just as this country failed to appreciate the desire for much of western Europe to concoct a political arrangement designed to ensure it would never suffer the ravages of the past 100 years. That is the essential difference between the two parties. My wife always refers to the way that Germans have been on a guilt trip for the past 70 years, but felt that the fall of the Berlin Wall was the start of a new era with positive overtones. I shared that optimism and wish the EU did so too without feeling the need to force the various nations together. That will eventually rebound as it is done without a popular mandate, even if the principle is tacitly accepted at present . On a personal level, I have long thought it inconceivable with modern communications and information exchange that people would feel the need for large countries to go to war on a recurring basis, people being considerably more educated, less expansionist minded and having considerably more liberal views than seen during the days of empires. Migration, mass travel by air and the exposure of populations to alternative cultures has largely made for vibrant communities embracing the different values. Despite the racism seen on occasions, this is not a reflection of general public opinion in this or other countries. It usually surfaces when there are economic pressures with unemployment being the usual trigger. A population engaged in gainful employment by and large doesn't have issues because they are too busy. There will always be some that don't fit this ideal, but they are fewer than the noisier opponents would imply. For a proxy, you can probably use the numbers that voted for the far right parties in the last general election with a partial allowance from UKIP, but certainly not all their voters. Both sides need to act in a measured and considerate way for the feeling of the other party because these issues didn't suddenly materialise from some 'big bang' event. We all have to live together in an overpopulated world, locally exacerbated by the fallout from the Middle East. It is the uncontrolled mass movement of populations that provided the backdrop for the leave vote in the east of the country, whereas there have been no recent elections in Europe to gauge voter feeling. This will happen. Religion, not national politics, is more likely to be the catalyst for future European unrest. However, I remain an optimist.

This is the one that best sums it up https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thomas+the+tank+engine+tunnel&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&imgil=tTsDmvotx4CKDM%3A%3B_H8oi_pMdDFbiM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmoviepilot.com%252Fposts%252F2810300&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tTsDmvotx4CKDM%3A%2C_H8oi_pMdDFbiM%2C_&usg=__to5FZ8_AjALFHW9S6_K9oVgGlmo%3D&biw=1920&bih=940&ved=0ahUKEwjfzvO23sfNAhVGIsAKHVyPDhsQyjcIKQ&ei=6dxwV5-2KsbEgAbcnrrYAQ#imgrc=tTsDmvotx4CKDM%3A

Nothing for Lordshill, April and November 1977 for Nordle

Thanks for the link to a good article. He is certainly right about the view that Europe is seen as a place to do business without any emotional attachment, but I'm not sure about it being a consolation prize following the loss of empire. This is a misconception frequently bandied about on the continent, but the truth is we have moved on and any ideas that we retain imperial ambition is anachronsitic. I'm approaching retirement age and have never known the British Empire. However, the obsession within Europe that Germany still needs to be contained is equally out of date, so perhaps both ideas emanate from the same time warp. I personally would love to see Germany re-establish a 'normal' relationship on equal terms to the other countries without having to check with the political correctness brigade before doing anything. It is quite interesting from our family perspective to see the UK/EU relationship. My wife is German, but thinks we would be better off outside the EU. She appreciates this country for its individuality and ability to think outside the straightjacket of German conformity . As she has often said - Hitler wouldn't have had a chance in this country because you are too bloody minded as individuals and refuse to conform to anything. Her sister however, thinks that we are the black sheep, because we don't conform and agrees with the principle of all decisions being made centrally without a vote. Our respective views are at odds with each other. Like many others I thoroughly enjoy going to the continent and taking advantage of the goodies to be found there, but that is leisure and holidays speaking. However, when it comes to a business or a political relationship, then you need not only a set of rules under which to operate, but also some mechanism to change them when required. That's less than 10 words to sum up the main failing of the EU in practical terms. And so we agree to differ with mainland Europe. For both sides of the referendum to fully engage with the things this country needs would be a good start.

Scott's reply has to be put in the context of what it is - a piece in a left of centre newspaper that is anti-Tory as a matter of principle. Nobody has ever said this will be easy. If Cameron didn't want the referendum, he shouldn't have allowed it in the manifesto. The simple fact is that a majority have chosen the politically incorrect option. As has been said before, the right outcome for the wrong reasons. Had the gross failings of the EU been highlighted, then they could also have been cited as a good reason for withdrawal. If the EU hadn't operated in the way it does, I could easily have voted in favour of it - except that I never had a chance to vote for it because votes are too democratic. It's time to cut out the squabbling and move on.

A second vote to satisfy the Remain camp has to be wrong in principle as it defeats the point of a referendum. You could have 16m odd signatories to a petition, but it doesn't mean that a single additional person wants another chance to win. We have made a decision and now have to live with it whether you were out or in. An EU sanctioned second referendum would also require the option of a third one or more until the 'correct' answer was obtained. Something I find most frustrating about the subsequent noise is that nobody would be complaining if the result had gone the other way. A sort of some votes are more equal than other votes scenario. TG's quote - And then there's Scotland. And Northern Ireland. And to a lesser extent Gibraltar, London and Birmingham. All with a majority Remain vote. implies that these are somehow more worthy than the voters in the parts of the country that voted leave. They had one man one vote just like everyone else, only their interests were different. It might come as a shock to Metro-man, but the country voted in a different direction to London BECAUSE they don't see the benefits of the EU as viewed from London, nor receive them. What is needed now is a framework to be laid down and the withdrawal conditions implemented. This is a country with broad minded and quite liberal attitudes (irrespective of those who see only racism and bigotry in the 'wrong' answer), so let's get on with life, looking forward, not backwards, and working for the common good (which is the norm) It's fair to say that Leave voters didn't really expect the vote to go their way because people are by and large conservative when it comes to constitutional or political change and the status quo wins more often than not. However, a failure of the UK to leave the EU having voted for it would be a betrayal of the electorate who voted for change and additionally would send the wrong message to the EU, the depressing implication being they are doing things right.

That is likely. Only the numbers are a matter for concern.

Ah, but you aren't obliged to contribute. I concur with the way forward. The opportunity to vote has been given and used by those who wanted to do so. Now the work starts.

I think too many people are trying to attach the racist tag to anything other than Remain. There are racists in all countries, but they are far exceeded by the average citizen who doesn't ask their political leaning before engaging in any form of discussion. I personally found the two months leading up to the referendum very depressing, with both sides campaigning negatively. I didn't once hear the Remain camp voice a positive reason for staying in. Lots of forecasts of Armageddon and the end of the world as we know it, be therein lies the rub - the world as we know it wasn't what a lot of people wanted. In all that time, the only balanced argument I found for remaining in the EU was this article, courtesy of my son which appeared in my inbox the day before voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y The populist reason for Out was immigration, but that was really only the main factor in certain areas that have borne the full brunt of it. It is unreasonable to assume that a population going from 0 to 30% immigrants in the space of 15 years (as in the case of Boston and the surrounding area) not to result in some discomfort amongst the indigenous population. That doesn't make them automatic racists. Immigrants can be easily assimilated if the numbers are controlled, as indeed this country has a long history of doing. As I said a couple months ago, I think that immigration was a red herring for the most part as a reason for leaving. What I found more depressing was that the whole EU setup wasn't highlighted as a reason for leaving, but both ins and outs choose to ignore the fundamentally isolated juggernaut that is the Commission. A body detached from the opinions and influence of the electorate. I also find depressing the comments of some Europeans who have stated in emails that it is now even more important not to give people a democratic right to judge the EU as it is clear they may not give the correct answer. As I have said on more than one occasion, the far right and left are much closer to each other than they will ever be to the average man on the street, dedicated as they are to their own particular brand of intolerance. I believe the left and right arms of society converge at the point of suppression of free speech and thought. Vive la difference.

It wouldn't be worth £1000 even if genuine.

I quite agree, but society has determined that the age of maturity is 18 and that is where we are at the moment. You are not likely to improve the quality of decision making by reducing the voting age to include those at school, and personally I despair at some older sections of society, but they have their rights. There will never be a perfect solution and this one is likely to go round in circles. Blackadder's Pitt the Embryo springs to mind.

No, what I'm saying is that the average teenager couldn't care less about politics as a general issue. Until you go out into the wider world as an adult you are usually insulated from the day to day workings of society. To give children of school age a vote on a subject of such complexity as whether this country is better off within or outside the EU would not result in an informed decision, and would therefore not be responsible in my opinion. I'm sure you will always find the exception to the rule with a well read person of school age from early teens up, but equally am quite convinced that you will find many more who despite being given the right to vote at the age of 18, are clearly not up to the task of making an informed judgment. To reduce this age to 16 would only serve to increase the numbers of the latter group. Society in this country is hardly being unfair in saying that 18 is the age of maturity as the average 18 year old today will be around for the next 70 years or more when they will be able to cast their vote whether acting in an informed manner or not. And carrying on from the earlier comment by Scott et al, even 65 year olds can expect to live for another generation today. I've heard a lot of people complain about the old gits determining the futures of the 16 or 17 year olds who don't get to vote. The only people who will suffer unfairly under a voting system which denies you 2 additional years' opportunity to vote in every 70 are those whose opinions are sought only once every 73 years. The EU is the closest approximation the west has to such a system. One vote (not sanctioned by Brussels) every 41 years is hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy, but it is the best we have at the moment. Thank you Mr Cameron.

I think it is deluded to believe that people currently at school can have a broad enough interest in world and national affairs as a group to justify giving them the right to vote. The politicians supporting 16 or 17 years olds voting are doing so on a single issue basis. If you ask a 16 year old do you want to be part of an area with freedom to travel within it as they want, they will say yes every time. The number of youths with a healthy and functioning knowledge of their own political system, let alone the workings of one to which they have no direct and visible connection would not be conducive to informed decision making. The age of maturity is clearly flexible, but we must be careful not to confuse rights to self determination with an assumption that all people of any age are capable of rational or sensible decision making. Maturity used to be deemed the age 21 and now it is 18. There is a good case for making it higher on some issues.

Probably won't notice whether we are in or out.

Given the uncertainty going forward, maybe people will be more questioning of their actions. A lack of trade deal will mean a reversion to WTO rules and the imposition of tariffs. In theory this will make cars more expensive for example. Is it to much to hope that the mindless consumerism of the last few decades could be curtailed as a result? That would help reduce the current account deficit, which, in any case should be pretty much eliminated as a result of the fall in the sterling exchange rate.