Your first piece of disinformation:-
In or out, the NHS is screwed so long as we have a Tory government. If you have any evidence to dispute that, go ahead and post it otherwise I will assume we all agree on that point.
The NHS is screwed if we remain in the EU, you can assume whatever you like, but once TTIP is in place the NHS will be sold off/privatised, the leaked Brussels papers make that quite clear.
If we vote out and a future UK government decides it wants to privatise the NHS, that government can be voted out by this country's electorate 8)
Firstly as I have repeatedly made clear, I absolutely agree that TTIP is a terrible threat to our future, not just with the NHS but with lots of other national and sovereign interests. That’s common ground between us so you don’t need to keep beating that drum. The point I’m trying to make is that the Tory’s have done nothing during the past 37 years to suggest they intend to do anything but privatise the NHS. Yes, in theory you could vote them out if they try to privatise it, but they are only 1 year into a 5 year term so you’d have to wait until 2020. That process may even have already started via the back door:
http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/oct/02/nhs-one-way-road-privatisationThe individuals in the Brexit camp now claiming to be the white knights riding in to save the NHS almost exclusively reside on the right of the party and subscribe to free market economics. Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttel of UKIP have both made clear in the past that they would like to privatise the NHS. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn are the only party who have committed themselves to vetoing TTIP and stopping the privatisation of the NHS. However, his chances of getting elected with a hostile media are very low.
So the point I’m trying to make is that to argue that the NHS can only be saved by exiting the EU is kind of irrelevant. The Brexit campaign are using it to pull on the public heartstrings and basically using it as a political football.
So let me ask you a direct question Ed Kandi: Do you really think the Tory’s will save the NHS post exit? And if not, who will?
Your first piece of obfuscation:-
The timescale for these two eventualities is impossible to ascertain, but we know that in Germany for example, the millions of migrants that Merkel is intent on letting in will be given EU passports if they stay, and will therefore be able to move to any part of the EU that they choose.
The same will apply to the millions of Turkish citizens who Cameron is so keen to let in to the EU despite what he is now saying.
The first thing I simply have to do is take issue with your use of the term “migrant” with regard the people whom Germany has taken in. I assume you are talking about the 800,000 Syrians that ended up in Germany? They are Refugees. What we are seeing here is a massive fallout from the wars that have been raging in Syria and Iraq. If you wish to get into the why’s what’s and whatever’s that another discussion but in a nutshell, that entire region was completely destabilized by the U.S.’s (backed by Europe and particularly the UK) desire for regime change in several countries. You don’t have to look too far using Google to see the kind of devastation that they are fleeing and I think a bit of humanity wouldn’t go amiss.
So I think that’s the first issue we need to address which is to distinguish between economic migrant and refugees. We have economic migrants which are those coming from the likes of Eastern Europe to create a better life for themselves and refugees who are entering bordering nations on an unprecedented scale to escape the devastation in their own nations. I think Turkey as a nation is taking a heavy brunt from the latter and is looking to the west to help take some of the burden.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of all that, but again, that’s another more dedicated discussion.
You need to try to control those emotional thoughts that the word 'migrant' has triggered off in your mind. My usage of the word is entirely correct in the context of the logistics of people moving from one country to another.
Your response is typical of the sort of garbage the BBC has subjected us to on their televised debates; whenever the subject of the logistical problems surrounding a mass influx of humanity into a country whose benefits systems are already at full stretch comes up, the Remain side always throws up this smokescreen of emotional claptrap.
The human cost of it all is obviously desperately sad, but if we all stand around wringing our hands and emoting everywhere we just divert attention away from the point of the discussion, which is obviously your intent 
The point is that if we don't take back control of our borders and control the numbers entering our country our services will soon be at breaking point.
People should decide the appropriate terms for themselves, but here are the dictionary definitions again:
Migrant: a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions
Refugee: a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster
There’s no emotion getting involved at all my friend, just logic. I think you are just plain wrong on this point I’m afraid. I’m willing to concede that the vast number of individuals in both Boston and the UK generally are migrants. Refugees aren’t really an issue over in the UK due to Mr Cameron only being prepared to take a few thousand. But the individuals whom you were so concerned about getting passports after they were brought to Germany are Refugees. That distinction needs to be made, and it’s actually in the interests of your argument to do that. I think the general population are much more sympathetic to the idea of limiting migration but when some kind of natural disaster or war occurs then we simply have to act. That’s actually very much a British trait and one of the reasons I’m so proud to be British. We have always as a nation been prepared to hold out our hand and held out people when they are in trouble. The issue in Syria is real, these people are stuck in a war between Assad and ISIS whilst having to dodge bombs from the Russians, Americans and most of Europe. So it’s not “garbage” or “obfuscation” it’s cold hard fact. If you want to debate migrants and immigration lets have a sensible debate, but again, the plight of Syrian refugees is irrelevant.
So to reiterate, I’m not obfuscating, I’m simply telling you before we can have a sensible debate on immigration (or refugees for that matter) you need to stop lumping all of them together and recognise the varying underlying causes. I'm happy to move this on by having that debate but lets make the appropriate distinctions.
Another fine piece of obfuscation:-
Nobody knows the exact figures, but we do know that millions of pounds are transferred to the EU every week - this fact has never been disputed, the debates always end up in petty squabbles over the exact amount, how much we get back as a rebate etc, but these things don't make much difference, the fact is that millions of pounds that now leave our country every week will stay in this country if we vote to leave.
The petty squabbles over exactly how much are of the order of about £200m a week, so not exactly insignificant. The main problem is though, that you have simplified the fee we are paying into a simple cash equation, i.e. we pay £xm per week for membership… and that it. It’s a bit more complicated than that. As I mentioned on a previous post, there are many unquantifiable benefits of being in the EU, the most obvious being access to the free market. That means anything any company in this country makes can be sold anywhere in the EU without paying any kind of tariffs or duties. Companies such as the Japanese car makers Nissan and Toyota build their cars in the UK, employing thousands, so that they can sell them throughout the EU without paying import tariffs. The UK is attractive to them because we are members of the EU and common market.
I could go on, but I think you will find that the common market gives our economy a large boost in terms of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and also in terms of employment, tax receipts, etc. It has been pointed out by several economist that as little as a 0.7% drop in our GDP would result in us losing more than the cost of EU membership. We may go it alone and be successful, but it is a jump into the unknown. Therefore, it is s a risk economically and as yet, the Out campaign have failed to produce any kind of credible economic plan. It's all very well saying we'll negotiate, but for me, its too big a decision to be left down to these kind of back of a fag packet plans.
You've been watching too many TV debates, same old b*llocks every time 
Nobody knows the exact figures, but we do know that millions of pounds are transferred to the EU every week - this fact has never been disputed, the debates always end up in petty squabbles over the exact amount, how much we get back as a rebate etc, but these things don't make much difference, the fact is that millions of pounds that now leave our country every week will stay in this country if we vote to leave.
If it makes it any easier to have something empirical to wrap your mind around, the ONS gives the estimated net UK contribution, after rebates etc as £70 billion over the next five years.
You can debate the figure until you fall over backwards foaming at the mouth, nobody knows what it is, but we do know that we will save a couple of quid by voting out.
Firstly – I haven’t watched a single debate actually. I realised early on that the politicians and media were talking utter nonsense (on both sides) and frankly, I couldn’t face sitting and watching it for fear of crushing boredom. All my opinions have come from my own research, thoughts and conversations/debates with others. My job is in engineering and I’m paid to solve problems, so I like to get to the bottom of all the facts before I make a decision. Believe it or not, I started out leaning slightly towards out, having been seduced by the left wing arguments put up by the likes of Paul Mason. I’m open minded enough that if anyone can make a strong enough argument I will happily change my mind. I’m not wedded to in or out, I just want what’s best for mine and my kid’s future. Please don't presume to second guess my decision making process.
On your claim of obfuscation, I just don’t get how you can accuse me of that in that passage at all? I’ve clearly laid out some of the reasons why I think you are wrong about the money we are sending to the EU and I can only assume you either misunderstood my point or don’t want to hear it. The cost of EU membership has been given as £350m. That figure straight away has been discredited, so it’s not an “argument”, it’s a fact. The figure is generally thought to be around £130m after the rebate and EU investment in the UK has been accounted for. So, we pay approx. £8bn per year for our membership. That membership has lots of benefits which are difficult to quantify but almost certainly add up to much more than £8bn. If Nissan and Toyota open car factories in the UK so that they can have access to the common market then they will pay corporation tax, Business rates and their employees will pay income tax into the treasury. They will also invest in local infrastructure, train staff (which may attract other firms) and use local supply networks. That’s just two firms that I am particularly familiar with, there are many others like them. In addition, being part of the common market means British firms can sell their goods without tariff to a huge number of potential customers. In my last job I saw this first hand as I went across the EU supporting our products. None of this is obfuscation, but if you still think it is, please provide some evidence to counter my point, be specific about how I am obfuscating, I am genuinely confused by this. You might even change my mind if you make a strong enough argument.
And finally, a nicely blended mix of disinformation, obfuscation, and just plain old dislike for members of the Leave campaign :-
The other thing that we know for sure if we do leave the EU is that we will not have an unelected committee of faceless American and European corporate fat cats selling off our NHS.
How naïve, if we vote out that is precisely what we will end up with. Just look at the credentials of all of those involved in the Out campaign, even "man of the people" Nigel Farage is an ex banker. If we isolate ourselves from Europe, we will be forced into an even cosier alliance with the Americans. Check out the trade agreements they have already signed with Canada and Mexico and decide for yourself what kind of deal we will get on our own with BoJo at the helm.
Whatever any future alliance with the Americans would be, we would still be in control of the future of our NHS as we can vote down any proposals to privatise it
If we stay in, and TTIP is eventually ratified, there would be no hope of keeping it as Aneurin Bevan intended.
The leaked Brussels papers show that a TTIP committee would be appointed (not elected) and there would be no guarantee that the UK would even be represented. Assuming there was a UK representative and he or she argued for keeping the NHS, if he was successful, we would then be guilty of distorting the market and our government woud be open to a legal claim amounting to billions of pounds.
As far as the NHS goes, it is quite clear that if we stay in we will eventually lose it and have to pay for private healthcare;
whereas if we vote out we will always have the opportunity to vote to keep it 
You're right about one thing, I don't like the Brexit team one bit, I disagree with them fundamentally on just about everything its possible to disagree on. But then that's also true of David Cameron, George Osborne and most of the rest of the in campaign. I wouldn't trust any of them with our country's future, after an In or Out vote.
We’ve already covered the NHS at the top of this post so I won't go through it again save to say, the EU referendum is NOT a referendum on the future of the NHS, it's a referendum on EU membership. TTIP hasn't been signed yet so let's all start campaigning against it.
Re TTIP: If we isolate ourselves from the EU we will simply have to look for new trade agreements with others such as America and China. What kind of agreement then do you think the Americans would offer us? A better one than they are offering the huge collective bargaining block of the 28 countries of the EU? A better deal than they have signed with Canada or Mexico? I think we need to get real and realise as part of the EU we have far more power over policy than we ever would as a poodle to either the Americans or Chinese. Currently we have a place at the table, elected representatives and a power of veto. Do you think we will ever get power of veto over policy in an agreement with China or America?
I’ve already said, I’m totally against TTIP and I’m glad so many people have now got wise to it, I’ve been following its dreaded progress for many months, but the Mainstream Media didn’t seem interested until it became a useful tool in the Brexit campaign. But now so many of us know the true nature of it, we can fight it and we can win.
I'll finish by saying this:
I've tried to clarify my position as much as possible for you. I am genuinely not setting out to obfuscate anything or provide disinformation, quite the opposite. Before I entered this debate it all seemed very one sided so I was just hoping to put across a different point of view and add some balance.
