50 plus years of absent, erroneous, corrupt or disputed accounts might be seen as OK if we were a country which received EU money but as a country that paid in more than it got out it was a bad deal. It was our taxed money, despite opinions that say it was only a little bit. Once we are truly out it will be ZERO!


As to the post following mine, that showed little to me other than skills of misdirection and avoidance.

My first point, corruption, was answered with the words "Classic non sequitur." That is, itself, a classic non sequitur that has nothing to do with corruption.

Point two was incompetence. This was answered with a condemnation of David Cameron, a 'Little Englander' insult and bad language. Not my idea of an argument.

Point three was about EU dishonesty. This was answered with the accusation that the Leave campaign was dishonest, an irrelevance, and the fact that we have a veto. I'm not sure if that is another irrelevance or a non sequitur, but it is not a counter argument. A denial maybe.

Point four was about the EU being undemocratic. The answer to this was an animal reference and a denial that an unelected Commission could be undemocratic.

Point %, or 5 as it should have been, was not addressed.

Non sequiturs, insults, bad language, denials, avoidance and no arguments.