crouch

I bought one in 2003 off Ebay that I believe is genuine. I have the original box with the original cardboard sleeve (ie even with the wrapping), the seals and the registration.

I have the same trouble myself - that's why I'm poor!

Wrong way round.

Have you heard of the principle of Relative Deprivation? Look it up. John Galt the most boring, pompous and self righteousness charcter in fiction. I don't have a level of credulity; if I had I would actully believe all those economic forecasts that show how Brexit must be a failure and can be nothing else.

An arbitrary system is a contadiction in terms.

Where did I introduce a points based system into this?

No but not only can you not see this, you cannot even admit the possibility. In your terms Brexit might indeed "not work"; GDP will be less than if we were in the EU but you simply cannot admit that it can be other than a minor disaster. You would have invested in the SSB.

The structure of economies changes over time; that is natural. Will this change with Brexit? I doubt it.

We're both making educated guesses; my poblem is that I've always known they were guesses whereas most Remainers wil not acknowledge this.

FOM does not enable coutries to control their borders in the long term. Short term influxes may be reversed a few years later causing ebb anf flow conditions which do not allow time for social integration but merely disruption. Most do not have an unwritten constitution or the same notion of parliamentary sovereignty and therefore the loss of law making powers is much greater in the UK. In the UK it was probably the Factortame case which showed just how great this loss had been, being underestimated by many of those who thought membership of the EEC was a good thing. It effectively interposed the courts as the arbiter in any conflict between UK and EU law and, in this respect, was a significant transfer of power which undermined the very notion of parliamentary soverignty, a crucial, indeed perhaps, the crucial principle of the British constitution.

FOM does not enable coutries to control their borders in the long term. Short term influxes may be reversed a few years later causing ebb anf flow conditions which do not allow time for social integration but merely disruption. Most do not have an unwritten constitution or the same notion of parliamentary sovereignty and therefore the loss of law making powers is much greater in the UK. In the UK it was probably the Factortame case which showed just how great this loss had been, being underestimated by many of those who thought membership of the EEC was a good thing. It effectively interposed the courts as the arbiter in any conflict between UK and EU law and, in this respect, was a significant transfer of power which undermined the very notion of parliamentary soverignty, a crucial, indeed perhaps, the crucial principle of the British constitution.

See my post above.

I don't recall ever having said it did; the subect has usually been the viabiliy of the UK not the necessity of the EU.

By this you appear to suggest that Brexit is a policy for reducing trade; where do you get this from? Trade as a trend based on proportion is important because this, as you say, is a slow burn issue and one already established; UK trade is, and has been, moving away from the EU. Many if not most of the predictions assume a permanent and significant loss of trade to the EU. This is an assumption and it may be right or wrong.

I see FOM as an issue, not as a number but in terms of ebb and flow and the difficulties of social absorption. I don't particularly expect immigration to reduce in following years but I do expect better control of borders. For a country with no written constitution and a commitment to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty membership of the EU and the supremacy of EU law was, perhaps, always a compromise too far.