Leaving the EU ruin our special relationship with the USA

In a word no. Lets use Brazil as an example (a country both of us probably have no affiliation with), if Russia were to invade Brazil, I am not willing to risk my life, or the lives of my family member and friends to defend Brazil. If you are winning to die, that's your choice, but I would like to ask which family members you would be willing to sacrifice in such a situation? (This last question was if you would chose to defend Brazil).

nato would ahve done well under you..... NOT

We are talking about Europe. You do understand how Nato works?

However it does affect us becayse its closer to home, so yeswhat happens in Ukraine affects us more than Brazil. Its the point of the nation to be aware of potential threats from all areas, Russia being one of them. You are naive hat if you let them go unchecked invading other countries then that wont encourage them more to destabilise closer to home. Why shoul I be sacrificing any theoretical family members? You really are a bit of a fantasist. If a nato country is attacked we are onligated to come to the defence of that country.

I think that you forgot to quote me.

The underlined part is my point. You either ignore the alliance if another member is attacked or you need to be willing to sacrifice people (you may not know this, but people die in wars). I don't like the idea of ignoring alliances, therefore I am against making them, especially alliances that are very one-sided and with nations that I don't believe would actually help us. I shall ask you again, this time ill make it NATO specific, if Russia was to attack Turkey, are you willing to die to help the Turks?

Well it wouldnt be me , but if i was in a position to do so then yes, because thats what it means to be in an alliance. Todays wars are fought with professional armies not conscripts.

If you are willing to go to war, especially with powerful nations, you need to be aware of 2 key issues.

Conscription can return if it was a large and prolonged conflict.

The enemy can also directly attack the UK (remember the Blitz?)

It is nice to see that you are so willing to send other people against their wishes to their deaths , all to save people who wouldn't do the same to save you.

Not at all I believe the Uk would keep its word in respecy of its Nato onligations rather than shirk them. and let the Alliance fall apart.its only with such a commitment that any potential aggressor will be deterred. the fact your the sort who doesnt consider keeping their word, says more about you.

Ofc the enemy cna attack the UK. They would deploy their forces the same becayse thats what they are required to do, so emoji your argument away, says it all.

But yet, trade between the US and UK is mutually beneficial, a trade deal would be worked out in no time.

Why do you say that when Obama says completely the opposite? It sounds like you are in denial. The TTIP has been in negotiations for 3 years so far and has yet to be scrutinised by politicians. It will be another couple years in the making until everyone is happy. What do you know about trade deals that suggests we could work something out in record time?

Because Obama will not even be in charge! What he says doesn't matter and does not hold up to scrutiny. Trade deals can be completed in a short space of time, remember, when dealing with the EU, there is a lot more bureaucracy involved and each member state can cause individual problems. If you seriously think that the US would not be eager to complete a trade deal with the UK, given the current and historical links between the two nations on a huge range of issues, you must be mad.

Ok so Obama won't be around but Clinton is very much aligned with his thinking and Trump is generally anti-trade, suggesting that imports should have high tarrifs so as to favour US business. Obama also had more of a sense of where US beaucrats are at than you do. I'm not convinced. And even if we secure a deal with the US, what about a new deal with our biggest trading partner, the EU? If had taken the US 3 years do far with no result. And why would it be a better deal than we currently have?

Quite simply, both the US and EU are not going to do things that would significantly hurt themselves, just to get back at the UK, its mutually beneficial to have a deal arranged as soon as possible, it would be fine.

Is it though? Sure, it is in our interests, but the US? Why would they want to deal with us as a priority when there are bigger fish (EU) to catch? On a world stage of many other individual countries there isn't anything particularly special about the UK despite the rose tinted vision many Little Islanders like to think. We aren't an empire any more and never will be.

We are the 5th largest economy in the world, not some random pacific island nation nobody as heard of, you need to be realistic. A nation can work on 2 trade agreements at once, as I have said, it is not one or the other, the US has plenty of negotiators.

The US does sell lots goods and services to the UK. London and New York also frequently have lots of financial transactions between them, it is ludicrous to think that the US would punish itself, especially Wall Street. Obama is just trying to help Cameron.

But as Obama has pained himself to spell out, it is in America's interest for us to be in Europe. Once out of it, we are less important to the US as we will no longer have as much influence. You can't be the talk of the party if you aren't even in the room. And yes, sure - the US will be happy for us to allow their goods and services into our country, but what would they be prepared to offer in return? That is the crux of any trade negotiation.

I am not buying the argument on trade. All you are saying to back up your argument is that they want to trade with us, yet all the evidence, rhetoric or not seems to suggest things may not be so straightforward.

If ever there was a time to push the button of unintended consequence, it is to leave the EU.

Just out of curiosity, which strong government is going to lead us through a Leave EU scenario? The Tories will be utterly fragmented, split and no doubt resort to their default position of infighting. Then we have Labour - hmmm. Which leaves ??? I see no good coming out of leaving the EU. I can think of no example in life where being isolated and alone is a better place than to be in a group, even if the group dynamic is sometimes difficult.

It is all very well saying that we will be able to choose our own destiny, but just as in life, sometimes, some doors are never open to be chosen in the first place. Sure, we get to choose, but our choices will be more limited than at present.

which would then be won by one of the main players in the Tory side of the out campaign (Bo Jo being the most likely as the Brexit side of the party will want one of their own, and understandably so).

God helps us all if Boris gets in. He is a likeable idiot yes, but his politics are those of a nut case. He certainly isn't the sort of character that will unite a nation sadly. To me, this referendum is more about a family argument within the Tory party than anything else. To leave will be to destroy our country. We will have less influence on the world stage, less influence in Europe, less business muscle and will have to jump through everyone else's hoops. And with knee jerk immigration controls being put into place, we will start to see services like the NHS suffer from a lack of recruitment. If you think it is bad now, you ain't seen nothing should we leave.

Tosh, "destroy our country", years of mass migration and poor financial management are doing that right now, not becoming a full sovereign nation.