FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > European Union
European Union
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. So if it suddenly changes and import/export duties are required to be paid it could have a large knock on effect of British companies being priced out of the EU... New deals maybe able to be brokered but this will take time and may not have such favourable terms. Can't see why the EU would want to offer such good terms to an ex member who doesn't want to take the rough with the smooth..." I don't see why member states would not want to broker deals with the UK. They want to trade with us as much as we want to trade with them. Its not as if we are going to build defensive walls around our coastline. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. " Interesting point/s there would need to be import and export levies on all EU trade just as there are for other countries. Currently this is negotiated at EU levels so our trade to and from say the USA and China would also need to be re-negotiated as an individual country. Also some of the none UK companies employing people in the UK e.g. Nissan, Honda etc. do so primarily as a gateway into the EU so they may feel it is no longer in their interest to have factories here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. So if it suddenly changes and import/export duties are required to be paid it could have a large knock on effect of British companies being priced out of the EU... New deals maybe able to be brokered but this will take time and may not have such favourable terms. Can't see why the EU would want to offer such good terms to an ex member who doesn't want to take the rough with the smooth... I don't see why member states would not want to broker deals with the UK. They want to trade with us as much as we want to trade with them. Its not as if we are going to build defensive walls around our coastline." But are they going to offer free trade as we have now? Which has always been part of membership of the EU, like the lottery, you have to be in it to win it! Of course new deals will be brokered but they won't be such good terms, there would be no point to the EU if they offer free trade to non members. The possible cost to the UK will be companies laying off staff because British goods become more expensive in the continent and may not sell so well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We joined a common market, we have been conned into becoming part of the monstrous and corrupt body which is the EU." Can you be more specific in the allegations, it's hard to find discussion points on such a general statement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the UKIP threads... Please abstain from party politics and politician bashing as far as possible.. What would we gain / lose from leaving the EU?" according to Nick Clegg on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning we would loose 3 million jobs right away  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. Interesting point/s there would need to be import and export levies on all EU trade just as there are for other countries. Currently this is negotiated at EU levels so our trade to and from say the USA and China would also need to be re-negotiated as an individual country. Also some of the none UK companies employing people in the UK e.g. Nissan, Honda etc. do so primarily as a gateway into the EU so they may feel it is no longer in their interest to have factories here." And as companies said they would relocate from Scotland should they have chosen independance I do recall reading somewhere that Nissan have already stated they would seriously reconsider their position in the UK should it leave the EU. They came hear for the trade with Europe as you say, after trade limitations would put in the way of them freely importing vehicles from Japan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. So if it suddenly changes and import/export duties are required to be paid it could have a large knock on effect of British companies being priced out of the EU... New deals maybe able to be brokered but this will take time and may not have such favourable terms. Can't see why the EU would want to offer such good terms to an ex member who doesn't want to take the rough with the smooth... I don't see why member states would not want to broker deals with the UK. They want to trade with us as much as we want to trade with them. Its not as if we are going to build defensive walls around our coastline. But are they going to offer free trade as we have now? Which has always been part of membership of the EU, like the lottery, you have to be in it to win it! Of course new deals will be brokered but they won't be such good terms, there would be no point to the EU if they offer free trade to non members. The possible cost to the UK will be companies laying off staff because British goods become more expensive in the continent and may not sell so well." The world would continue to turn and trade would carry on. Most importantly, our laws would not be determined by a European institution which has no regard for our culture, heritage and needs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"3 million jobs according to my friend at the Beeb. He's terribly clever and knows a bit about politics so I'm going to believe him. Plus he's sexy so I believe everything he says " is that gained or lost? I am guessing it's 3,000,000 jobs lost which would impact quite heavily on the benefits / tax systems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. So if it suddenly changes and import/export duties are required to be paid it could have a large knock on effect of British companies being priced out of the EU... New deals maybe able to be brokered but this will take time and may not have such favourable terms. Can't see why the EU would want to offer such good terms to an ex member who doesn't want to take the rough with the smooth... I don't see why member states would not want to broker deals with the UK. They want to trade with us as much as we want to trade with them. Its not as if we are going to build defensive walls around our coastline. But are they going to offer free trade as we have now? Which has always been part of membership of the EU, like the lottery, you have to be in it to win it! Of course new deals will be brokered but they won't be such good terms, there would be no point to the EU if they offer free trade to non members. The possible cost to the UK will be companies laying off staff because British goods become more expensive in the continent and may not sell so well." The European Economic Area (EEA) unites the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an Internal Free Trade Market. The UK would just become another EFTA member within the EEA but outside the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The world would continue to turn and trade would carry on. Most importantly, our laws would not be determined by a European institution which has no regard for our culture, heritage and needs." Yes it would continue to turn, and we would turn with it. But I am looking for more specific issues, e.g. can you name a law passed solely by the EU which against our culture heritage or needs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the UKIP threads... Please abstain from party politics and politician bashing as far as possible.. What would we gain / lose from leaving the EU? according to Nick Clegg on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning we would loose 3 million jobs right away "I'm afraid that I have considerable difficulty in believing anything that issues from Nick Clegg's mouth. I trust that doesn't fall into the category of 'politician bashing'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"3 million jobs according to my friend at the Beeb. He's terribly clever and knows a bit about politics so I'm going to believe him. Plus he's sexy so I believe everything he says is that gained or lost? I am guessing it's 3,000,000 jobs lost which would impact quite heavily on the benefits / tax systems" Lost. He didn't specify where or how | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the UKIP threads... Please abstain from party politics and politician bashing as far as possible.. What would we gain / lose from leaving the EU? according to Nick Clegg on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning we would loose 3 million jobs right away "Classic scare mongering from a hopeless pro European politician. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an Internal Free Trade Market. The UK would just become another EFTA member within the EEA but outside the EU. " I don't personally know anyone from Iceland or Liechtenstein but I know several from Norway who claim that Norway implements EU Policy before most of the EU does, in order to maintain the trade agreements. and that is despite the principle export being oil that everyone needs to buy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We joined a common market, we have been conned into becoming part of the monstrous and corrupt body which is the EU. Can you be more specific in the allegations, it's hard to find discussion points on such a general statement " Yes the accounts have still never been signed off, the person who blew the whistle on corrupt practises was fired by Neil Kinnock if I remember rightly. Another whistle blower was fired recently for discovering a corrupt Judge and EU official in the anti corruption department. It stinks!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I trust that doesn't fall into the category of 'politician bashing'? " No Clegg Bashing is acceptable in all constructs of a civilised world... but my aim here is to narrow down to specifics, most of what I see is that people don't want to be in the EU "just because" I am not really seeing the advantages of leaving but I can quite clearly see the costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the accounts have still never been signed off, the person who blew the whistle on corrupt practises was fired by Neil Kinnock if I remember rightly. Another whistle blower was fired recently for discovering a corrupt Judge and EU official in the anti corruption department. It stinks! "OK, but I saw that the accounts for 2013 were signed off along with every year before that. not seen that the UK accounts have been signed off, corruption happens at every level in private and civil institutions, so hard to take the fact that a corrupt judge has been singled out in the EU without looking at our own law enforcement systems. "Pleb Gate" being a good example of how dishonest the police can be to high level and in that case it turns out the politician was the honest one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The world would continue to turn and trade would carry on. Most importantly, our laws would not be determined by a European institution which has no regard for our culture, heritage and needs. Yes it would continue to turn, and we would turn with it. But I am looking for more specific issues, e.g. can you name a law passed solely by the EU which against our culture heritage or needs?" The Working Times Directive (which unions have recognized is damaging to medical training). The Common Fisheries Policy? Not to mention the numerous court rulings and goverment backtracks when it becomes clear that proposed policies would not meet European challenges. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Working Times Directive (which unions have recognized is damaging to medical training). The Common Fisheries Policy? Not to mention the numerous court rulings and goverment backtracks when it becomes clear that proposed policies would not meet European challenges." Working Times Directive says nobody can be FORCED to work more than 48 hours a week but they can if the agree to do it... not sure that I would want to live in a country that says you HAVE to work or even be treated by a doctor who works 20 hour days 6 days a week. Common Fisheries policy is a real potential benefit, though of course it would also mean that our fishermen could not fish off the coasts of other European countries as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the accounts have still never been signed off, the person who blew the whistle on corrupt practises was fired by Neil Kinnock if I remember rightly. Another whistle blower was fired recently for discovering a corrupt Judge and EU official in the anti corruption department. It stinks!
OK, but I saw that the accounts for 2013 were signed off along with every year before that. not seen that the UK accounts have been signed off, corruption happens at every level in private and civil institutions, so hard to take the fact that a corrupt judge has been singled out in the EU without looking at our own law enforcement systems. "Pleb Gate" being a good example of how dishonest the police can be to high level and in that case it turns out the politician was the honest one!"It's the habit they have of getting rid of the whistleblowers and pushing the dirt under the carpet which is the most worrying. How can you trust an organisation made up of failed politicians to be honest in their dealings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're moving towards a one world order, culturally, legally, politically. The EU is just one example of this gradual, painful transition. But it will happen eventually. It has to." Good point many of the Carbon Dioxide issues e.g. the reduction in power of vacuum cleaners get blamed on the EU but it's actually the kyoto protocol that lies behind the legislation which is a UN backed agreement that the EU has agreed to comply with, so as you say it's a World Order that the UK would have to meet with or without the EU framework. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're moving towards a one world order, culturally, legally, politically. The EU is just one example of this gradual, painful transition. But it will happen eventually. It has to. Good point many of the Carbon Dioxide issues e.g. the reduction in power of vacuum cleaners get blamed on the EU but it's actually the kyoto protocol that lies behind the legislation which is a UN backed agreement that the EU has agreed to comply with, so as you say it's a World Order that the UK would have to meet with or without the EU framework." We could of course just ignore Kyoto etc if it doesn't suit us in the same way that China does  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now here is thought. What would happen if the entire eu was disbanded? "Presumably all cross border trade would have to be individually negotiated until some agreement maybe a common trade institution was created  Business would boom for smugglers, not so sure about anyone else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Good point many of the Carbon Dioxide issues e.g. the reduction in power of vacuum cleaners get blamed on the EU but it's actually the kyoto protocol that lies behind the legislation which is a UN backed agreement that the EU has agreed to comply with, so as you say it's a World Order that the UK would have to meet with or without the EU framework." Yup. It goes beyond environmental matters too. We have a rapidly expanding international criminal justice system, the United Nations oversees multilateral treaties applying to a wide range of issues, and with a culture of globalisation that doesn't seem to be slowing down, we're all going to have to learn to share our space. Integration and mutual tolerance is key. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We could of course just ignore Kyoto etc if it doesn't suit us in the same way that China does "China doesn't ignore it... they never signed up to it! USA did sign but then failed to ratify it, and never signed to meet the targets as the UK and other European countries did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the UKIP threads... Please abstain from party politics and politician bashing as far as possible.. What would we gain / lose from leaving the EU? according to Nick Clegg on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning we would loose 3 million jobs right away
Classic scare mongering from a hopeless pro European politician."Would that 3 million jobs lost be the 3 million immigrants from across Europe going back to their own countries? So, in other words, a net balance of zero job losses? (sorry, just my sense of humour there). But in all seriousness, I can't see that Europe would cease to trade with us... we import more from the EU than we export to the EU. Before we joined the Common Market, just under 60% of our total trade was with EU countries,... some 40 years later it's still 60%. EU countries are moving inexorably toward greater political and economic union...it started off in the early 50s as the European Coal and Steel Community, in order that war in Europe would never happen again, as steel and coal were the building blocks of a country's war machine. Then the common market, the European economic community, the European community, and finally the European Union. So from a block of countries with a common trade agreement, through to the mighty political and economic beast we have today. It seems most odd to me that we can even consider devolving political and economic powers to member states of our own union (the UK) on the one hand, whilst divesting ourselves of those very own powers on the other hand. If we were to remove ourselves from the EU, it would not mean that we could not, or would not, be able to trade with the rest of Europe, and neither would it mean that we would not be able to adopt any European Laws or rulings... what it would mean is that we could also trade with the rest of the world in our own right, and we could also choose the laws and rulings that the EU come up with should they either make sense or be in our interests to do so. Economically, we would get an immediate 8 Billion per annum windfall from not making our donation to the EU... that's a lot of hospitals, nurses, doctors, teachers, roads, etc, etc, etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Economically, we would get an immediate 8 Billion per annum windfall from not making our donation to the EU... that's a lot of hospitals, nurses, doctors, teachers, roads, etc, etc, etc." Before you spend that cash windfall on worthy projects don't forget the administration costs of renegotiating all import / export trade deals with the world, and of course enforcement of the taxes agreed. I think that it may be more than our current operating costs. As for the immigration issue will they actually leave? Not too clear on that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Find the hypocrtical link between the Eu And UKIP and the fact even if we leave certain people will still get pay outs from them The EU is a great fall back for us. Uk is not a mighty country." made of* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there is a benefit in accountability, i.e. IF we don't like a new law then we can more directly access the government responsible and they won't be able to say "the big kids made us do it" Immigration happened before the EU, and will probably happen if we leave it. Financially I think most of us are far better off than when I was a child in the 60's some of that is technology making things cheaper, but a lot is that we just are better off. I thank you all for your input so far, and for keeping it mostly non political. But I am still undecided on leaving the EU and tending to think we benefit more than we suffer as members of it." The MEP's certainly will and do now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK cannot afford to go alone in modern times. We are no longer a country that's self sufficient enough to go alone. Unless everyone is happy with the cost of living/existing in the UK going upwards, if not skywards."  YES exactly what i was trying to put into words... we need the alliance to keep us from being weakend.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having just come through a referendum in Scotland where some of the claims made by both sides went from slightly dishonest to blatant, outrageous lies I kinda fear it will be a similar case come the EU referendum. "Yes I also fear it will be much the same with the no campaigners trying to make "vote no, not much will happen" sound interesting, while the yes campaigners have free space to invent any future they wish without having to be overly realistic. While the rest of us are trying to figure out what is true and what is fantasy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having just come through a referendum in Scotland where some of the claims made by both sides went from slightly dishonest to blatant, outrageous lies I kinda fear it will be a similar case come the EU referendum.
Yes I also fear it will be much the same with the no campaigners trying to make "vote no, not much will happen" sound interesting, while the yes campaigners have free space to invent any future they wish without having to be overly realistic.
"That is pretty much exactly how things panned out and it will probably be the same with the EU referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We joined a common market, we have been conned into becoming part of the monstrous and corrupt body which is the EU." I totally agree. Sold down the river on false pretences. I saw an interesting discussion about the current hot topic yesterday. Apparently, it seems that Germany are in fact keen on the UK remaining within the EU because of the support we provide them in resisting further bailouts and subsidies to poorer EU members at present. So to all those cynics who reckon that David Cameron won't be able to get the reforms he's after, don't count those chickens just yet.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. Interesting point/s there would need to be import and export levies on all EU trade just as there are for other countries. Currently this is negotiated at EU levels so our trade to and from say the USA and China would also need to be re-negotiated as an individual country. Also some of the none UK companies employing people in the UK e.g. Nissan, Honda etc. do so primarily as a gateway into the EU so they may feel it is no longer in their interest to have factories here." . Honda and nissans biggest market in Europe is the UK. Why would a top company want to lose one of its biggest markets?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The world would continue to turn and trade would carry on. Most importantly, our laws would not be determined by a European institution which has no regard for our culture, heritage and needs. Yes it would continue to turn, and we would turn with it. But I am looking for more specific issues, e.g. can you name a law passed solely by the EU which against our culture heritage or needs?" . The European arrest warrant which means UK police can come to your house tonight take you away and send you too Greece or Italy or Poland without evidence jury or trial and without legal representation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an Internal Free Trade Market. The UK would just become another EFTA member within the EEA but outside the EU. I don't personally know anyone from Iceland or Liechtenstein but I know several from Norway who claim that Norway implements EU Policy before most of the EU does, in order to maintain the trade agreements. and that is despite the principle export being oil that everyone needs to buy." . But it has the right to veto any rule it doesn't like, make it's own laws and the last referendum in Norway found 81% of their population didn't want to join the eu | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the accounts have still never been signed off, the person who blew the whistle on corrupt practises was fired by Neil Kinnock if I remember rightly. Another whistle blower was fired recently for discovering a corrupt Judge and EU official in the anti corruption department. It stinks!
OK, but I saw that the accounts for 2013 were signed off along with every year before that. not seen that the UK accounts have been signed off, corruption happens at every level in private and civil institutions, so hard to take the fact that a corrupt judge has been singled out in the EU without looking at our own law enforcement systems. "Pleb Gate" being a good example of how dishonest the police can be to high level and in that case it turns out the politician was the honest one!". Hate to be picking on your posts but the judge found that the politician lied consistently! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK cannot afford to go alone in modern times. We are no longer a country that's self sufficient enough to go alone. Unless everyone is happy with the cost of living/existing in the UK going upwards, if not skywards. YES exactly what i was trying to put into words... we need the alliance to keep us from being weakend....". We're the 7th largest economy in the world, we're in the g8 of richest nations, we have a permanent seat at the un security council and we would be free to trade or join brics (Brazil Russia India China and south Africa all of which have a much more diverse and progressive economy) or any other free trade body. Were Germany's biggest market Were Frances biggest market Were Irelands biggest market Do you really think these country's would want to upset us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The European arrest warrant which means UK police can come to your house tonight take you away and send you too Greece or Italy or Poland without evidence jury or trial and without legal representation. "Not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a form of expedited extradition.. It was used to get one of the London Tube bombers back from Italy so he could get sentenced to 40 years Normally hate copy and paste but this is some words I found... "Background Extradition law traditionally imposed a requirement of ‘double criminality’, i.e. that the requested state need not render the accused unless the offence with which he was charged in the requesting state was also an offence in the country where the accused person was living. The EU’s framework decision on the EAW does not do this but instead lists a range of 32 serious offences, including terrorism and connected offences, illicit trafficking in drugs or weapons, corruption and fraud, murder, kidnapping and hostage-taking. For offences in these categories, as defined by the law of the country issuing the arrest warrant, the requirement of double criminality is abolished if they are punishable by imprisonment for at least 3 years. For criminal offences other than those specifically listed in the EU Framework Decision, the double criminality rule still applies. Safeguards for the Accused The Decision contains a number of safeguards for the accused. It states that it respects fundamental rights and observes the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. The Decision allows a Member State to refuse to surrender a person on the grounds of gender, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation. Moreover, the Decision does not "prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media". The Decision requires the requested state to keep the accused informed of the EAW and the proceedings flowing from it; the person should also have the right to be assisted by a lawyer and, if necessary, an interpreter according to the national laws of the Member State. Unless he or she consents to being surrendered, the accused is entitled to be heard by the executing judicial authority. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate to be picking on your posts but the judge found that the politician lied consistently!" Don't mind at all, and will break my own conditions now and dis politicians... You know when a politician is lying, because their lips are moving! But much as I wanted the chief whip to be guilty pleb gate turned out to be completely concocted false accusations by the Police, including a false witness who was proven not to have been anywhere near at the time. That actually cost the man his job... so as I said corruption is not just an EU problem, and weirdly sometimes politicians are not lying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great thread, it's very difficult to get people to debate the positives or negatives of EU membership based on facts and figures as opposed to emotion because it is just too emotive a subject for some. The result is strong but vague statements that rarely stand up to deeper questioning. I am yet to see a specific factual argument made that convinces me we would on balance be better off outside of the EU. " When you consider the long term consequences for the country, it is very unfortunate that the debate cannot be made without emotion. The decision should be based on logic, rather than emotion and I suspect that the younger age group will be far more motivated to stay in Europe as they would be the ones whose future free movements would be restricted. I wonder just how many people who want out of Europe want out purely because of the "immigrant issue?" This certainly seems to be the backbone of the UKIP position because they have recently modified their position to be out of the EU and out of EFTA as well. Irrespective of all the discussions about the political make up of the EU - to deny your children and grandchildren the ability to move and work freely in Europe because you dont like foreigners in your own country is just the height of selfishness. Perhaps there are far too many people whose horizons are still so close to the UK that because they have never considered working in Amsterdam, or Berlin or Paris that there children and grandchildren will never want to. Talk about having limiting beliefs... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Working Times Directive (which unions have recognized is damaging to medical training). The Common Fisheries Policy? Not to mention the numerous court rulings and goverment backtracks when it becomes clear that proposed policies would not meet European challenges. Working Times Directive says nobody can be FORCED to work more than 48 hours a week but they can if the agree to do it... not sure that I would want to live in a country that says you HAVE to work or even be treated by a doctor who works 20 hour days 6 days a week. Common Fisheries policy is a real potential benefit, though of course it would also mean that our fishermen could not fish off the coasts of other European countries as well." If you really think that the common fisheries policy is good for us and for fish stocks, ask a fisherman. And do some research. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What most seem to be overlooking, is that we could still have a free trade agreement with Europe, like Norway and a number of others, but retain control of our borders and legislature. I was all in favour of joining the common market, but I'm in favour of leaving the EU." We still have control of our borders we never joined the Schengen Agreement, that is why you still need a passport to get in and out of the UK by any route. Norway has open borders to Sweden that anyone can cross, and like most of Europe not be 100% sure which country you are in. Plus our government have veto and opt out / in clauses to EU rules they just have to negotiate exactly like Norway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We joined a common market, we have been conned into becoming part of the monstrous and corrupt body which is the EU. Can you be more specific in the allegations, it's hard to find discussion points on such a general statement " If you want specifics read the pro and anti pamphlets distributed at the time of the 1975 referendum and make up your mind which side made the most accurate statements. http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/1975ref.php Food for thought the UK could leave the European Union and join EFTA (the European Free Trade Association) we are already in the EEA (European Economic Area) therefore by being in EFTA/EEA we would have all the benefits of free trade with Europe without relinquishing our rights such as controlling our laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Common Fisheries policy is a real potential benefit, though of course it would also mean that our fishermen could not fish off the coasts of other European countries as well. If you really think that the common fisheries policy is good for us and for fish stocks, ask a fisherman. And do some research. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy" I meant benefit as in benefit of leaving the EU, not as in benefit to fish stocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want specifics read the pro and anti pamphlets distributed at the time of the 1975 referendum and make up your mind which side made the most accurate statements. http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/1975ref.php " Isn't the whole argument about the EU not being the same as the item that was voted on in 75? that being the case the arguments for and against need to be updated too. I have enjoyed this debate, but have a dinner date that I must depart to make... so will look forward to being enlightened later this evening. bye for now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The European arrest warrant which means UK police can come to your house tonight take you away and send you too Greece or Italy or Poland without evidence jury or trial and without legal representation.
Not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a form of expedited extradition..
It was used to get one of the London Tube bombers back from Italy so he could get sentenced to 40 years
Normally hate copy and paste but this is some words I found...
Background
Extradition law traditionally imposed a requirement of ‘double criminality’, i.e. that the requested state need not render the accused unless the offence with which he was charged in the requesting state was also an offence in the country where the accused person was living. The EU’s framework decision on the EAW does not do this but instead lists a range of 32 serious offences, including terrorism and connected offences, illicit trafficking in drugs or weapons, corruption and fraud, murder, kidnapping and hostage-taking. For offences in these categories, as defined by the law of the country issuing the arrest warrant, the requirement of double criminality is abolished if they are punishable by imprisonment for at least 3 years. For criminal offences other than those specifically listed in the EU Framework Decision, the double criminality rule still applies.
Safeguards for the Accused
The Decision contains a number of safeguards for the accused. It states that it respects fundamental rights and observes the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.
The Decision allows a Member State to refuse to surrender a person on the grounds of gender, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation. Moreover, the Decision does not "prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media".
The Decision requires the requested state to keep the accused informed of the EAW and the proceedings flowing from it; the person should also have the right to be assisted by a lawyer and, if necessary, an interpreter according to the national laws of the Member State. Unless he or she consents to being surrendered, the accused is entitled to be heard by the executing judicial authority.
". We always had extradition rights! You just had to have some proof of someone's guilt before shipping them off. I'm amazed you think shipping people off without habeas corpus is a great idea! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, it is simple. I vote for the politicians who will represent me (for better or for worse) and in at least a small respect they are accountable to me. The European Union overrides our laws. It has gone far beyond a common trading platform to the point where a political decision made by a remote committee far removed from us and our needs now overrides our own constitution. I do not believe that leaving the EEC will have any impact on trade. As has been stated by other posters, Norway for instance enjoys the benefit of free trade without having subjugated itself to European control. You know, we did twice in our recent history fight to avoid being overpowered by consuming powers. I really am not the most patriotic person in the world but it does seem that we are being over-powered by stealth. I am sorry that UKIP are in with a chance but that has only come about because of the inaction of our other political parties." Have you been to Norway? Do you understand their economy? Britain has an economy as much like Norways as it is to Greek economy - it is worlds apart from ours. You can't pluck a country out of nowhere and declare that you would like the bits of it that you like and selectively ignore the bits that you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The world would continue to turn and trade would carry on. Most importantly, our laws would not be determined by a European institution which has no regard for our culture, heritage and needs. Yes it would continue to turn, and we would turn with it. But I am looking for more specific issues, e.g. can you name a law passed solely by the EU which against our culture heritage or needs?. The European arrest warrant which means UK police can come to your house tonight take you away and send you too Greece or Italy or Poland without evidence jury or trial and without legal representation. "Without out it we could be a haven for Europe's criminals. The other thing is we would still have to implement many of the EU standards in our products to sell them there. You underestimate the savings generated by harmonisation of standards to our indigenous manufacturers. Not being in the EU we would still have to conform to them but have no say what goes into them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really struggle to believe that people would give their democratic freedoms up so easily. We've only just passed the 11th November and I seem to remember always reading posts about fighting for freedom, and yet here we are with people willing to hand it over on the promise of a better tv or a bit more of a secure job, slightly better trading conditions. 800 years fighting to be free people governed by elected people that we choose to vote in or we choose to vote out. And to those that think oh the EU Are democratic, their not. Ask people in Cyprus where the commission decided to steal money from private bank accounts, do you think the people of Cyprus voted for that. Ask people of Greece who's elected prime minister was forced to except the budget set by the commission who was then thrown out and replaced by eurocrat civil servants. Do you think the Greek people voted for that. The same in Italy when the eurocrats decided the Italian elected government was not to their liking and replaced it with their own civil servants. No there not democratic their antidemocratic, nearly all the commissioners are failed politicians who were voted out of office, they don't give referendum to the people and when they do and they lose like they did with the eu constitution when France, Holland and Ireland voted against it, they just rewrapped it up in the Lisbon treaty and pushed it though without anyone voting on it. You lot can trade in your freedoms, fought for by your ancestors for the glittery bribes the EU Offer.. I'm sticking to being a freeperson for better or for worse." This is the kind of argument I was referring to earlier. The whole 'loss of freedoms fought for by your ancestors' is trying to force the debate into an emotional one as opposed to a purely reasoned one. If your post is a sufficient argument then the whole of Scotland has betrayed William Wallace and Bonnie Prince Charlie! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What laws 'imposed' by the EU are causing us such a headache? How often do you think our laws conflict with European laws? Could any of you name three major 'law conflicts' that most forumites would agree justify leaving the EU?" I think you make a good point, but I suspect for many it is less about which laws might justify leaving, and more about sovereignty and democracy, and increasingly devolved powers to an unelected and largely unaccountable body for which many citizens in the UK have little or no understanding or affilitation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What laws 'imposed' by the EU are causing us such a headache? How often do you think our laws conflict with European laws? Could any of you name three major 'law conflicts' that most forumites would agree justify leaving the EU? I think you make a good point, but I suspect for many it is less about which laws might justify leaving, and more about sovereignty and democracy, and increasingly devolved powers to an unelected and largely unaccountable body for which many citizens in the UK have little or no understanding or affilitation. " I thought the Scottish Independence vote was about that? Just replace "the UK" in your post by "Scotland" and that post could easily have been made by an SNP supporter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, it is simple. I vote for the politicians who will represent me (for better or for worse) and in at least a small respect they are accountable to me. The European Union overrides our laws. It has gone far beyond a common trading platform to the point where a political decision made by a remote committee far removed from us and our needs now overrides our own constitution. I do not believe that leaving the EEC will have any impact on trade. As has been stated by other posters, Norway for instance enjoys the benefit of free trade without having subjugated itself to European control. You know, we did twice in our recent history fight to avoid being overpowered by consuming powers. I really am not the most patriotic person in the world but it does seem that we are being over-powered by stealth. I am sorry that UKIP are in with a chance but that has only come about because of the inaction of our other political parties. Have you been to Norway? Do you understand their economy? Britain has an economy as much like Norways as it is to Greek economy - it is worlds apart from ours. You can't pluck a country out of nowhere and declare that you would like the bits of it that you like and selectively ignore the bits that you don't. " Indeed. We have a unique economy and culture. In terms of trading with Europe, there would not be a problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What laws 'imposed' by the EU are causing us such a headache? How often do you think our laws conflict with European laws? Could any of you name three major 'law conflicts' that most forumites would agree justify leaving the EU?" i can actually answer that 2nd question.. because it is actually on record in the house of commons library... the answer is actually .2% of laws.... so basically 1 in every 500...... it just comes up because they tend to be the "high profile/Controversial" cases where for example people go to the ECHR and win cases for example against extridition... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What laws 'imposed' by the EU are causing us such a headache? How often do you think our laws conflict with European laws? Could any of you name three major 'law conflicts' that most forumites would agree justify leaving the EU? I think you make a good point, but I suspect for many it is less about which laws might justify leaving, and more about sovereignty and democracy, and increasingly devolved powers to an unelected and largely unaccountable body for which many citizens in the UK have little or no understanding or affilitation. I thought the Scottish Independence vote was about that? Just replace "the UK" in your post by "Scotland" and that post could easily have been made by an SNP supporter." Will it take UK citizens nearly 400 years to actually get a vote on "independence" and will they come to the same conclusion as the Scots if that vote happens?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What laws 'imposed' by the EU are causing us such a headache? How often do you think our laws conflict with European laws? Could any of you name three major 'law conflicts' that most forumites would agree justify leaving the EU? i can actually answer that 2nd question.. because it is actually on record in the house of commons library... the answer is actually .2% of laws.... so basically 1 in every 500...... it just comes up because they tend to be the "high profile/Controversial" cases where for example people go to the ECHR and win cases for example against extridition..." But if you rephrase the question as to how many laws are influenced or caused by our EU membership, the answer appears to be anything between 17 and 70 per cent, according to Wiki, which does refer to the house of commons library. Or something like that, says he not being arsed to go back and look again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you rephrase the question as to how many laws are influenced or caused by our EU membership, the answer appears to be anything between 17 and 70 per cent, " If you rephrase that to how many laws are influenced or caused by us being morally responsible members of the human race, I would hope that you would get closish to 100% Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you rephrase the question as to how many laws are influenced or caused by our EU membership, the answer appears to be anything between 17 and 70 per cent, If you rephrase that to how many laws are influenced or caused by us being morally responsible members of the human race, I would hope that you would get closish to 100% Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. " Really? Go on. Be specific. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? Go on. Be specific." Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? Go on. Be specific. Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 " That does cause a slight, and unfortunate, titter. It doesn't stop us - and other countries - killing people though, does it? Or is it more polite to blow people up than to torture them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. " I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, it is simple. I vote for the politicians who will represent me (for better or for worse) and in at least a small respect they are accountable to me. The European Union overrides our laws. It has gone far beyond a common trading platform to the point where a political decision made by a remote committee far removed from us and our needs now overrides our own constitution. I do not believe that leaving the EEC will have any impact on trade. As has been stated by other posters, Norway for instance enjoys the benefit of free trade without having subjugated itself to European control. You know, we did twice in our recent history fight to avoid being overpowered by consuming powers. I really am not the most patriotic person in the world but it does seem that we are being over-powered by stealth. I am sorry that UKIP are in with a chance but that has only come about because of the inaction of our other political parties. Have you been to Norway? Do you understand their economy? Britain has an economy as much like Norways as it is to Greek economy - it is worlds apart from ours. You can't pluck a country out of nowhere and declare that you would like the bits of it that you like and selectively ignore the bits that you don't. " .I'm glad to see you realise that all counties economies are different. And to that point how does single laws, single interest rates and single currency then work for these massively different economies?. The answer,it doesn't!. It's why Greece and Spain and Cyprus and Portugal are all failing and will fail and then those lovely undemocratic eurocrats will bail them out and bail their banks out, with other people's money... Oh yes taking money from what lot and giving it to another lot.... Ring a bell mate, your favourite socialist utopia argument!!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That does cause a slight, and unfortunate, titter. " Must say it appealed to my cynical humour a bit too... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves." I have but I have clearly come to a different conclusion from yourself. It is not a bad thing as long as you have considered the arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the UKIP threads... Please abstain from party politics and politician bashing as far as possible.. What would we gain / lose from leaving the EU? according to Nick Clegg on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning we would loose 3 million jobs right away "Nick Clegg said it....so it must be true. He said student fees would be scrapped....so it must be true! We sell to Europe what they wish to or have to buy because we produce the goods they want. Similar to what we buy from them. This is also true of Switzerland and many other countries near to but not in EU. We voted to join a "common market".... A great idea. We were sold down the river by ALL parties with various treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon which turned a group of trading nations into a federal superstate run by a handful of unelected Eurocrats.....not what any citizen of this country asked for, wanted or voted for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves." . You still don't get it though do you. I would be free not to vote for somebody who did implement it or protest for its removal. Apart from that stating that is utter nonsense, how can you honestly say you know exactly what laws we would have introduced. Next you'll be telling people exactly what the lottery numbers are for Saturday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, it is simple. I vote for the politicians who will represent me (for better or for worse) and in at least a small respect they are accountable to me. The European Union overrides our laws. It has gone far beyond a common trading platform to the point where a political decision made by a remote committee far removed from us and our needs now overrides our own constitution. I do not believe that leaving the EEC will have any impact on trade. As has been stated by other posters, Norway for instance enjoys the benefit of free trade without having subjugated itself to European control. You know, we did twice in our recent history fight to avoid being overpowered by consuming powers. I really am not the most patriotic person in the world but it does seem that we are being over-powered by stealth. I am sorry that UKIP are in with a chance but that has only come about because of the inaction of our other political parties. Have you been to Norway? Do you understand their economy? Britain has an economy as much like Norways as it is to Greek economy - it is worlds apart from ours. You can't pluck a country out of nowhere and declare that you would like the bits of it that you like and selectively ignore the bits that you don't. .I'm glad to see you realise that all counties economies are different. And to that point how does single laws, single interest rates and single currency then work for these massively different economies?. The answer,it doesn't!. It's why Greece and Spain and Cyprus and Portugal are all failing and will fail and then those lovely undemocratic eurocrats will bail them out and bail their banks out, with other people's money... Oh yes taking money from what lot and giving it to another lot.... Ring a bell mate, your favourite socialist utopia argument!!. " I do wonder how folk ever thought it would work. Hey, I am a Spanish citizen. Let us have a common currency so that if Greece fails, I will be destitute. Is that not all founded on .... Crap? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year. So if it suddenly changes and import/export duties are required to be paid it could have a large knock on effect of British companies being priced out of the EU... New deals maybe able to be brokered but this will take time and may not have such favourable terms. Can't see why the EU would want to offer such good terms to an ex member who doesn't want to take the rough with the smooth... I don't see why member states would not want to broker deals with the UK. They want to trade with us as much as we want to trade with them. Its not as if we are going to build defensive walls around our coastline." In part because we are owned by mostly foreign owners from banks yo car manufacturers we are more or less a glorified warehouse. Major issue re overseas investors taking money out of uk wiyh their companies therefore more job losses will ensue. Folk need to understand we are no longer the force on world stage than politicians try to make us feel sooner folk realise it the better. About time folk stood up and be counted as I believe without doubt that whilst some issues with the european system as it is we are far better in it than out of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You still don't get it though do you. I would be free not to vote for somebody who did implement it or protest for its removal. Apart from that stating that is utter nonsense, how can you honestly say you know exactly what laws we would have introduced. Next you'll be telling people exactly what the lottery numbers are for Saturday." I completely get it, I just do not accept it to be a reason to leave the EU. It may be an argument for certain reforms. I don't need to know exactly what laws we may or may not have introduced in order to believe that most of the major ones introduced in the last 40 years are completely consistent with the type of progressive democracy I want to live in. If you think otherwise simply name three major ones you can blame on the EU that most would agree are bad for the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You still don't get it though do you. I would be free not to vote for somebody who did implement it or protest for its removal. Apart from that stating that is utter nonsense, how can you honestly say you know exactly what laws we would have introduced. Next you'll be telling people exactly what the lottery numbers are for Saturday. I completely get it, I just do not accept it to be a reason to leave the EU. It may be an argument for certain reforms. I don't need to know exactly what laws we may or may not have introduced in order to believe that most of the major ones introduced in the last 40 years are completely consistent with the type of progressive democracy I want to live in. If you think otherwise simply name three major ones you can blame on the EU that most would agree are bad for the UK." Shall I start again with the Common Fisheries Policy? And ask Theresa May. I am not a fascist but if you cannot export a nasty violent beggar without 10 years of court proceedings, something is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"End of the day ALL laws passed by the EU have to get passed by the council of ministers,.. so if the UK government don't vote for it it aint a law... " . End of the day the Uk parliament is not on the eu council only the heads of state (or there representative is)and most laws only require a majority... So end of the day that's not true either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You still don't get it though do you. I would be free not to vote for somebody who did implement it or protest for its removal. Apart from that stating that is utter nonsense, how can you honestly say you know exactly what laws we would have introduced. Next you'll be telling people exactly what the lottery numbers are for Saturday. I completely get it, I just do not accept it to be a reason to leave the EU. It may be an argument for certain reforms. I don't need to know exactly what laws we may or may not have introduced in order to believe that most of the major ones introduced in the last 40 years are completely consistent with the type of progressive democracy I want to live in. If you think otherwise simply name three major ones you can blame on the EU that most would agree are bad for the UK." . That's nothing the same as your original statement of "our laws would have been exactly the same anyhow". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's nothing the same as your original statement of "our laws would have been exactly the same anyhow"." Why are you choosing to blatantly misquote me? Is your argument that weak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves." . Yeah total misquote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves.. Yeah total misquote "Yes it is a total misquote! Can you really not see that? Just to be clear, I didn't write that first paragraph above, but even with it in, you wrote that I stated "our laws would have been exactly the same anyhow". I'm being kind by saying you've misquoted me. Come on fella, climb down on that one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves.. Yeah total misquote
Yes it is a total misquote! Can you really not see that?
Just to be clear, I didn't write that first paragraph above, but even with it in, you wrote that I stated "our laws would have been exactly the same anyhow".
I'm being kind by saying you've misquoted me.
Come on fella, climb down on that one.". I'm not trying to insult you, what I object to is the politician tone that to any neutral reading your insinuating that not being in the EU would have been no different!. Nobody can second guess what might have been!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Norwegians are not part of the EU and they do pretty well for not being so I don't see why we can't follow their path and be as successful. " Look at the cost of living and tax rates in Norway and think again if it would be a good place for you to live when your tax rates here are about one third less than those in Norway. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Norway People are so eager to point at another country and think that the UK can be just like that country without any idea of the economics of that country. BTW, Norway accepts freedoms of movement of people because they are part of EFTA. Just saying, you know in case like most on the anti EU bandwagon it is mostly an anti foreigner stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves.. Yeah total misquote
Yes it is a total misquote! Can you really not see that?
Just to be clear, I didn't write that first paragraph above, but even with it in, you wrote that I stated "our laws would have been exactly the same anyhow".
I'm being kind by saying you've misquoted me.
Come on fella, climb down on that one..
I'm not trying to insult you, what I object to is the politician tone that to any neutral reading your insinuating that not being in the EU would have been no different!.
Nobody can second guess what might have been!."I don't think you're trying to insult me, but there's little point debating with you if you're debating tactic is to make up what I am saying. The advantage of a forum is that you can simply read back to determine whether someone is making an honest representation of what's been written. You've undermined your own argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 1. Take back control of our borders and reject the ridiculous idea of free movement of people within europe. 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. 4. Freedom to make our own trade deals with other countries all over the world, negotiated by British representatives who will be more motivated to get us a better deal than some faceless eurocrat negotiating trade deals on our behalf. Its clear the EU is heading for ever closer and more integrated political and monetary union, something which the British public never agreed to in the 1970's when we last had a vote on europe. As others have repeatedly said on this thread we have been sold down the river by treaty changes going ahead without the consent of the British electorate in referendums. Our relationship with europe has changed beyond recognition now whan compared to the 1970's, so we need a referendum on our membership now for a whole generation of people who were not old enough to vote back then or were not even born! The EU is heading for a united states of europe, i feel its inevitable the way they are heading looking at the history of the EU. You could argue the EU is actually leaving us behind more than we are leaving them, and i certainly don't want to be part of a united states of europe. Benefits of staying in the EU, can't really think of any to be honest. " As a matter of interest, why is the free movement of people such a ridiculous notion? We live in a modern and free world - not in North Korea. My wife lived for two thirds of her life in a place where she needed a passport to move around her own country and government permission if she wanted to move home. The free movement of people is a basic human right and it is down to national governments to out measures in place to stop visitors abusing the system. I personally have lived and worked in Spain, France and Norway during my adult life and feel richer because of it. I would love my children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to work in Amsterdam, Berlin or Rome and not be trapped in the UK requiring "points" just because some Short sighted people in 2017 decided that they didn't like foreigners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. " Why are you blaming the ECHR for some of our own laws? Article 8 or the right to a family life is a UK law on UK statute. Our judges decide whether to deport based on their interpretation of that law, our own law. What has that got to do with being in or out of the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Norwegians are not part of the EU and they do pretty well for not being so I don't see why we can't follow their path and be as successful. " Norway is already part of the EU Internal Market and has some EU legislation. They may not be full members but they aren't isolated and going it alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 1. Take back control of our borders and reject the ridiculous idea of free movement of people within europe. " That ridiculous idea...... Hmmmm What happens to the 2 million plus uk citizens who work in the EU and take advantage of this??? And all those hundreds of thousands that used it to retire to places like Spain or Portugal or Greece or Cyprus for example So do all those come back???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. " A quote from the second post on this thread. "From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year" I've seen reports that show it to be even more than that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Almost all laws that come from the EU we had or would have had anyway, the wording may be slightly different in places, but the intention and purpose would be the same. I also believe this to be the case which is why I asked the question the way I did. Most people i've spoken with who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves.. Yeah total misquote
Yes it is a total misquote! Can you really not see that?
Just to be clear, I didn't write that first paragraph above, but even with it in, you wrote that I stated "our laws would have been exactly the same anyhow".
I'm being kind by saying you've misquoted me.
Come on fella, climb down on that one..
I'm not trying to insult you, what I object to is the politician tone that to any neutral reading your insinuating that not being in the EU would have been no different!.
Nobody can second guess what might have been!.
I don't think you're trying to insult me, but there's little point debating with you if you're debating tactic is to make up what I am saying.
The advantage of a forum is that you can simply read back to determine whether someone is making an honest representation of what's been written.
You've undermined your own argument. "...What! Quote " almost all laws that come from the eu we had or would have had anyway "... You then said I agree with this statement?. I was pointing out that the statement is very misleading as nobody can second guess what laws we would have had or not... You then went on to say people with my point of view should really haven't thought out our statements !!.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. " Not correct, the ECHR is totally separate to the EU. The only link between the 2 is that all countries are required to be signatories to the ECHR to be members of the EU. Therefore leaving the EU does not mean that we are no longer bound by the ECHR, however rejecting the ECHR does mean being kicked out of the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the habit they have of getting rid of the whistleblowers and pushing the dirt under the carpet which is the most worrying. How can you trust an organisation made up of failed politicians to be honest in their dealings? "And of course British politicians never get rid of whistleblowers, or sweep uncomfortable facts under the carpet... Think David Kelly, or the collapse of the trial of the directors of Sheffield Forgemasters. That's one Labour and one Tory government cover-up that involves Iraq, I could name many more... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 1. Take back control of our borders and reject the ridiculous idea of free movement of people within europe. 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. 4. Freedom to make our own trade deals with other countries all over the world, negotiated by British representatives who will be more motivated to get us a better deal than some faceless eurocrat negotiating trade deals on our behalf. Its clear the EU is heading for ever closer and more integrated political and monetary union, something which the British public never agreed to in the 1970's when we last had a vote on europe. As others have repeatedly said on this thread we have been sold down the river by treaty changes going ahead without the consent of the British electorate in referendums. Our relationship with europe has changed beyond recognition now whan compared to the 1970's, so we need a referendum on our membership now for a whole generation of people who were not old enough to vote back then or were not even born! The EU is heading for a united states of europe, i feel its inevitable the way they are heading looking at the history of the EU. You could argue the EU is actually leaving us behind more than we are leaving them, and i certainly don't want to be part of a united states of europe. Benefits of staying in the EU, can't really think of any to be honest. As a matter of interest, why is the free movement of people such a ridiculous notion? We live in a modern and free world - not in North Korea. My wife lived for two thirds of her life in a place where she needed a passport to move around her own country and government permission if she wanted to move home. The free movement of people is a basic human right and it is down to national governments to out measures in place to stop visitors abusing the system. I personally have lived and worked in Spain, France and Norway during my adult life and feel richer because of it. I would love my children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to work in Amsterdam, Berlin or Rome and not be trapped in the UK requiring "points" just because some Short sighted people in 2017 decided that they didn't like foreigners." . What utter misguided nonsense. How an earth can any country possibly build infrastructure for an unlimited population, people coming and going Willy nilly. And you think socialists are utopian dreamers. How do you work out how much energy your going to use next year if the population could be 2,5,10,50 million more than it currently is. Come on the gov are just doing road building plans... Do we build 2 lane 4,5,6 lane... How much how long when will we need it. It's a wonderful dream just like Marxisim but totally unworkable!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" .. You then went on to say people with my point of view should really haven't thought out our statements !!.. " You're doing it again. I actually wrote - MOST people I'VE SPOKEN WITH who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves.. Can you see the difference? You've done the same thing on the other misquote. Try to debate what is actually being said as opposed to what you want people to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 1. Take back control of our borders and reject the ridiculous idea of free movement of people within europe. 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. 4. Freedom to make our own trade deals with other countries all over the world, negotiated by British representatives who will be more motivated to get us a better deal than some faceless eurocrat negotiating trade deals on our behalf. Its clear the EU is heading for ever closer and more integrated political and monetary union, something which the British public never agreed to in the 1970's when we last had a vote on europe. As others have repeatedly said on this thread we have been sold down the river by treaty changes going ahead without the consent of the British electorate in referendums. Our relationship with europe has changed beyond recognition now whan compared to the 1970's, so we need a referendum on our membership now for a whole generation of people who were not old enough to vote back then or were not even born! The EU is heading for a united states of europe, i feel its inevitable the way they are heading looking at the history of the EU. You could argue the EU is actually leaving us behind more than we are leaving them, and i certainly don't want to be part of a united states of europe. Benefits of staying in the EU, can't really think of any to be honest. As a matter of interest, why is the free movement of people such a ridiculous notion? We live in a modern and free world - not in North Korea. My wife lived for two thirds of her life in a place where she needed a passport to move around her own country and government permission if she wanted to move home. The free movement of people is a basic human right and it is down to national governments to out measures in place to stop visitors abusing the system. I personally have lived and worked in Spain, France and Norway during my adult life and feel richer because of it. I would love my children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to work in Amsterdam, Berlin or Rome and not be trapped in the UK requiring "points" just because some Short sighted people in 2017 decided that they didn't like foreigners.. What utter misguided nonsense. How an earth can any country possibly build infrastructure for an unlimited population, people coming and going Willy nilly. And you think socialists are utopian dreamers. How do you work out how much energy your going to use next year if the population could be 2,5,10,50 million more than it currently is. Come on the gov are just doing road building plans... Do we build 2 lane 4,5,6 lane... How much how long when will we need it. It's a wonderful dream just like Marxisim but totally unworkable!." Have you heard of the expression... Distortion, deletion and exageration? You are twisting what people say because it does not fit in with your version of the worlds. Just because everyone in the UK has a right to live in any part of the EU does not mean that the UK is likely to empty any time soon. The fact that everyone and anyone in the UK can do just that is often overlooked by the inward looking amongst us who only think that because the whole of the EU can come to work in the UK - they probably will. Denying the free movement of people will be denying your children and grandchildren some of the greatest enrichment that life can bestow on them. Not liking foreigners is a pretty poor excuse to limit the boundaries of your children and childrens children in the future. The UK government has within its means the ability to change our own STUPID welfare rules if that is what people really are worried about. There is no reason on earth why we would want to stop hard working people coming here and improving what is already the strongest economy in Europe. Chicken or Egg? 2,000,000 EU migrants arrive in the UK and contribute more in taxes than they take out and in the same period our economy outstrips all other EU economies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 1. Take back control of our borders and reject the ridiculous idea of free movement of people within europe. 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. 4. Freedom to make our own trade deals with other countries all over the world, negotiated by British representatives who will be more motivated to get us a better deal than some faceless eurocrat negotiating trade deals on our behalf. Its clear the EU is heading for ever closer and more integrated political and monetary union, something which the British public never agreed to in the 1970's when we last had a vote on europe. As others have repeatedly said on this thread we have been sold down the river by treaty changes going ahead without the consent of the British electorate in referendums. Our relationship with europe has changed beyond recognition now whan compared to the 1970's, so we need a referendum on our membership now for a whole generation of people who were not old enough to vote back then or were not even born! The EU is heading for a united states of europe, i feel its inevitable the way they are heading looking at the history of the EU. You could argue the EU is actually leaving us behind more than we are leaving them, and i certainly don't want to be part of a united states of europe. Benefits of staying in the EU, can't really think of any to be honest. As a matter of interest, why is the free movement of people such a ridiculous notion? We live in a modern and free world - not in North Korea. My wife lived for two thirds of her life in a place where she needed a passport to move around her own country and government permission if she wanted to move home. The free movement of people is a basic human right and it is down to national governments to out measures in place to stop visitors abusing the system. I personally have lived and worked in Spain, France and Norway during my adult life and feel richer because of it. I would love my children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to work in Amsterdam, Berlin or Rome and not be trapped in the UK requiring "points" just because some Short sighted people in 2017 decided that they didn't like foreigners.. What utter misguided nonsense. How an earth can any country possibly build infrastructure for an unlimited population, people coming and going Willy nilly. And you think socialists are utopian dreamers. How do you work out how much energy your going to use next year if the population could be 2,5,10,50 million more than it currently is. Come on the gov are just doing road building plans... Do we build 2 lane 4,5,6 lane... How much how long when will we need it. It's a wonderful dream just like Marxisim but totally unworkable!. Have you heard of the expression... Distortion, deletion and exageration? You are twisting what people say because it does not fit in with your version of the worlds. Just because everyone in the UK has a right to live in any part of the EU does not mean that the UK is likely to empty any time soon. The fact that everyone and anyone in the UK can do just that is often overlooked by the inward looking amongst us who only think that because the whole of the EU can come to work in the UK - they probably will. Denying the free movement of people will be denying your children and grandchildren some of the greatest enrichment that life can bestow on them. Not liking foreigners is a pretty poor excuse to limit the boundaries of your children and childrens children in the future. The UK government has within its means the ability to change our own STUPID welfare rules if that is what people really are worried about. There is no reason on earth why we would want to stop hard working people coming here and improving what is already the strongest economy in Europe. Chicken or Egg? 2,000,000 EU migrants arrive in the UK and contribute more in taxes than they take out and in the same period our economy outstrips all other EU economies." . I'm not twisting your words. I'm saying if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that). It's no good building things that take ten years to come through to find out the 65 million population you'd worked on is now 80 million or indeed 40 million. My dad worked all over the world from 1968-1984 and to your own admission yourself. you applied for a job(if they wanted you) got a visa(if you were not a criminal, drug addict..) And went and worked, the way you tell it, you would think no one was ever going to leave the country again or come in if we ever left the EU. What makes you think that Brussels or Frankfurt will be where the work is in 20 years anyhow!!. Your point about enriching a persons life is a very poignant one through as many countries have different languages, different skill sets, different cultures, different work ethics even, it's diverse how humans are meant to be.... And that's another reason to leave the EU. One rule won't work for all, one currency won't work for all, one interest rate won't work for all... Or do you prefer. Ein Reich Ein volk Ein führer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" let the frogs have them " I love forward thinking non raciest remarks in an afternoon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only true politician is a dead one Let's get out and leave all those across the chanel to thieve and con eachother. IMIGRATION let the frogs have them All politicians are out for themselves , sod the rest "Fuckity fuck. I fell asleep and have woken up in the 1970s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" .. You then went on to say people with my point of view should really haven't thought out our statements !!.. You're doing it again. I actually wrote - MOST people I'VE SPOKEN WITH who use the 'make our own laws' argument haven't actually thought it through for themselves.. Can you see the difference? You've done the same thing on the other misquote. Try to debate what is actually being said as opposed to what you want people to say. " I said people, you said most people, potatoe tomato!!! I apologise for missing out the word most!!!... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" let the frogs have them I love forward thinking non raciest remarks in an afternoon." it's gone dark!. It's technically evening | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that" If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then nobody is allowed to leave their birth district, and pregnant women have to keep their tights on until someone dies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then nobody is allowed to leave their birth district, and pregnant women have to keep their tights on until someone dies ". Stop being pedantic because you can't prove me wrong. Why do you think the government take census every ten years Or track birth rates, death rates. Or why do you think even government surveys show infrastructure currently near breaking strain. We gained twice as many people in the last 12 years as we did in an entire generation. Power plants take ten years to build let alone get past planning and costing. If your generating power for 50 million as we were in 1998 with a 20% margin as the rule of thumb, what happens when your population goes up 20% in ten years. Result no spare supply and real danger of power blackouts. Same goes for Water Hospitals Schools Houses Roads Trains...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then nobody is allowed to leave their birth district, and pregnant women have to keep their tights on until someone dies .
Stop being pedantic because you can't prove me wrong.
Why do you think the government take census every ten years
Or track birth rates, death rates.
Or why do you think even government surveys show infrastructure currently near breaking strain.
We gained twice as many people in the last 12 years as we did in an entire generation.
Power plants take ten years to build let alone get past planning and costing.
If your generating power for 50 million as we were in 1998 with a 20% margin as the rule of thumb, what happens when your population goes up 20% in ten years.
Result no spare supply and real danger of power blackouts.
Same goes for
Water
Hospitals
Schools
Houses
Roads
Trains......"You really dont get it do you. I thought you were just banging a drum but you actually dont get it. Just look around the world and through history. Where you have a rising population and an enlarging work force a country, state or city becomes richer - it is called growth. Growth means money, wealth and infrastructure spending. Take another place with a stagnant or falling population - the work force diminishes by the day, the tax take dries up and less people are asked to pay more and the economy falters, stagnates and collapses into recession. This country has profited throughout its history from EU migration and it will continue to do so. The UK government and no one else has the ability today and without any interference from the EU to deal with the "so called" (I say imaginary) welfare pull. Your argument is like saying that a couple should not have children because of the extra infrastructure needed. A company should never plan to expand because of the extra resources that it will need. Intelligent people plan for the future and that is the responsibility of this or any other UK government. If we want a thriving and expanding economy we need to have a growing working population because far too many inward looking Brits are now 50+ and approaching the time when they are going to be needing someone to be paying for their long term retirement and health care needs. Who will be paying if not hard working, incoming migrants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then nobody is allowed to leave their birth district, and pregnant women have to keep their tights on until someone dies .
Stop being pedantic because you can't prove me wrong.
Why do you think the government take census every ten years
Or track birth rates, death rates.
Or why do you think even government surveys show infrastructure currently near breaking strain.
We gained twice as many people in the last 12 years as we did in an entire generation.
Power plants take ten years to build let alone get past planning and costing.
If your generating power for 50 million as we were in 1998 with a 20% margin as the rule of thumb, what happens when your population goes up 20% in ten years.
Result no spare supply and real danger of power blackouts.
Same goes for
Water
Hospitals
Schools
Houses
Roads
Trains......
You really dont get it do you. I thought you were just banging a drum but you actually dont get it.
Just look around the world and through history. Where you have a rising population and an enlarging work force a country, state or city becomes richer - it is called growth. Growth means money, wealth and infrastructure spending.
Take another place with a stagnant or falling population - the work force diminishes by the day, the tax take dries up and less people are asked to pay more and the economy falters, stagnates and collapses into recession.
This country has profited throughout its history from EU migration and it will continue to do so. The UK government and no one else has the ability today and without any interference from the EU to deal with the "so called" (I say imaginary) welfare pull.
Your argument is like saying that a couple should not have children because of the extra infrastructure needed. A company should never plan to expand because of the extra resources that it will need.
Intelligent people plan for the future and that is the responsibility of this or any other UK government. If we want a thriving and expanding economy we need to have a growing working population because far too many inward looking Brits are now 50+ and approaching the time when they are going to be needing someone to be paying for their long term retirement and health care needs. Who will be paying if not hard working, incoming migrants?". I think you said intelligent planned infrastructure.... Now how do you plan with free movement of people... Go on how do you know how many people will be here in ten years. We know how much the population grows under normal circumstances... It's called census we've been carrying them out awhile. I'm looking around right now.. China reduced population for last twenty years... Massive economic growth . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then nobody is allowed to leave their birth district, and pregnant women have to keep their tights on until someone dies .
Stop being pedantic because you can't prove me wrong.
Why do you think the government take census every ten years
Or track birth rates, death rates.
Or why do you think even government surveys show infrastructure currently near breaking strain.
We gained twice as many people in the last 12 years as we did in an entire generation.
Power plants take ten years to build let alone get past planning and costing.
If your generating power for 50 million as we were in 1998 with a 20% margin as the rule of thumb, what happens when your population goes up 20% in ten years.
Result no spare supply and real danger of power blackouts.
Same goes for
Water
Hospitals
Schools
Houses
Roads
Trains......
You really dont get it do you. I thought you were just banging a drum but you actually dont get it.
Just look around the world and through history. Where you have a rising population and an enlarging work force a country, state or city becomes richer - it is called growth. Growth means money, wealth and infrastructure spending.
Take another place with a stagnant or falling population - the work force diminishes by the day, the tax take dries up and less people are asked to pay more and the economy falters, stagnates and collapses into recession.
This country has profited throughout its history from EU migration and it will continue to do so. The UK government and no one else has the ability today and without any interference from the EU to deal with the "so called" (I say imaginary) welfare pull.
Your argument is like saying that a couple should not have children because of the extra infrastructure needed. A company should never plan to expand because of the extra resources that it will need.
Intelligent people plan for the future and that is the responsibility of this or any other UK government. If we want a thriving and expanding economy we need to have a growing working population because far too many inward looking Brits are now 50+ and approaching the time when they are going to be needing someone to be paying for their long term retirement and health care needs. Who will be paying if not hard working, incoming migrants?"So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you give people the freedom to move Willy nilly it's impossible to manage your infrastructure or hospitals or schools or anything else, you need specifics when considering long term investment (your a self confessed business wizz surely you know that If you follow that logic to it's conclusion then nobody is allowed to leave their birth district, and pregnant women have to keep their tights on until someone dies .
Stop being pedantic because you can't prove me wrong.
Why do you think the government take census every ten years
Or track birth rates, death rates.
Or why do you think even government surveys show infrastructure currently near breaking strain.
We gained twice as many people in the last 12 years as we did in an entire generation.
Power plants take ten years to build let alone get past planning and costing.
If your generating power for 50 million as we were in 1998 with a 20% margin as the rule of thumb, what happens when your population goes up 20% in ten years.
Result no spare supply and real danger of power blackouts.
Same goes for
Water
Hospitals
Schools
Houses
Roads
Trains......
You really dont get it do you. I thought you were just banging a drum but you actually dont get it.
Just look around the world and through history. Where you have a rising population and an enlarging work force a country, state or city becomes richer - it is called growth. Growth means money, wealth and infrastructure spending.
Take another place with a stagnant or falling population - the work force diminishes by the day, the tax take dries up and less people are asked to pay more and the economy falters, stagnates and collapses into recession.
This country has profited throughout its history from EU migration and it will continue to do so. The UK government and no one else has the ability today and without any interference from the EU to deal with the "so called" (I say imaginary) welfare pull.
Your argument is like saying that a couple should not have children because of the extra infrastructure needed. A company should never plan to expand because of the extra resources that it will need.
Intelligent people plan for the future and that is the responsibility of this or any other UK government. If we want a thriving and expanding economy we need to have a growing working population because far too many inward looking Brits are now 50+ and approaching the time when they are going to be needing someone to be paying for their long term retirement and health care needs. Who will be paying if not hard working, incoming migrants?.
I think you said intelligent planned infrastructure....
Now how do you plan with free movement of people... Go on how do you know how many people will be here in ten years.
We know how much the population grows under normal circumstances... It's called census we've been carrying them out awhile.
I'm looking around right now.. China reduced population for last twenty years... Massive economic growth .". In fact seen as you brought that argument up I'll give you the list of countries who's population are in decline. Lithuania, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria,Poland, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Czech republic, Moldova, Hungary,Latvia and Estonia.... Oooo I wonder where all there people went?. And according to your philosophy you ruining their country by giving them negative growth. So now who's being selfish | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also now you admit that a growing population needs and gets more infrastructure.. I thought I'd just remind you of what those in charge (that favourite party of yours) the conservatives had actually done with infrastructure spending.. Oh they've cut it by 45% "That'll be why it's like driving round romania here then, what with the roads being so shit, pot holey n all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also now you admit that a growing population needs and gets more infrastructure.. I thought I'd just remind you of what those in charge (that favourite party of yours) the conservatives had actually done with infrastructure spending.. Oh they've cut it by 45%
That'll be why it's like driving round romania here then, what with the roads being so shit, pot holey n all". It's actually the only reason they've managed to bring down the deficit, if there'd left infrastructure spending as it was the deficit would have been a 20%increase instead of a 15% decrease. To be fair they did a bit of debt restructuring as well but really it all came down to the cut in infrastructure!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time." Yes. More working people does equate to economic growth. One of the biggest threats the UK has to its future prosperity is the pension crisis. We have an ageing population.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time. Yes. More working people does equate to economic growth. One of the biggest threats the UK has to its future prosperity is the pension crisis. We have an ageing population...." .Idon't think he was saying he didn't believe it I think he meant it's not a theory that can last forever,ie you can't expand your population forever! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. A quote from the second post on this thread. "From what I've read, british companies do as much trade in a day with the rest of Europe as the Government pays into the EU in a year" I've seen reports that show it to be even more than that. " Yes and your point is? As far as i'm aware we will still be able to trade with europe outside of the EU, just without paying the membership fee to be part of the club. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. Not correct, the ECHR is totally separate to the EU. The only link between the 2 is that all countries are required to be signatories to the ECHR to be members of the EU. Therefore leaving the EU does not mean that we are no longer bound by the ECHR, however rejecting the ECHR does mean being kicked out of the EU." You just summed it up perfectly well, what you are saying is they are basically one and the same. You can't have one without the other. Simple logic really leave the EU, and leave the ECHR at the same time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In fact seen as you brought that argument up I'll give you the list of countries who's population are in decline. Lithuania, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria,Poland, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Czech republic, Moldova, Hungary,Latvia and Estonia.... Oooo I wonder where all there people went?. " ooooh.... since you cherry pick like mad... lets keep going.... of the G8 countries..... Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, USA, France, Japan and EU... so lets take out the EU... how many would you like to guess have falling population rates..... since you mentioned italy... theres 1..... japan....2, germany.....3, Canada.... 4, so more than half then.... are they all coming here as well??????? France population and the UK population were actully stagnating and have actually slowed down a lot in the last 30-40 years and funny enough the one thing that has stopped it from being slower is immigration see.... the probably you face is the one point that Too Hot made.... and you didn't answer... where it is in the 1997 reports on the costs of immigration.... or the 2010 costs of immigration, the fact is that EU migration to the UK has been a Net Positive, Continues to be a net positive and will be a Net positive in the future... the thing you don't like to hear is that they more than pay their way.... they pay more in taxes to the UK treasury than they receive in benefits..... and without them financially this country would be a whole lot worse off........... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In fact seen as you brought that argument up I'll give you the list of countries who's population are in decline. Lithuania, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria,Poland, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Czech republic, Moldova, Hungary,Latvia and Estonia.... Oooo I wonder where all there people went?. ooooh.... since you cherry pick like mad... lets keep going.... of the G8 countries..... Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, USA, France, Japan and EU... so lets take out the EU... how many would you like to guess have falling population rates..... since you mentioned italy... theres 1..... japan....2, germany.....3, Canada.... 4, so more than half then.... are they all coming here as well??????? France population and the UK population were actully stagnating and have actually slowed down a lot in the last 30-40 years and funny enough the one thing that has stopped it from being slower is immigration see.... the probably you face is the one point that Too Hot made.... and you didn't answer... where it is in the 1997 reports on the costs of immigration.... or the 2010 costs of immigration, the fact is that EU migration to the UK has been a Net Positive, Continues to be a net positive and will be a Net positive in the future... the thing you don't like to hear is that they more than pay their way.... they pay more in taxes to the UK treasury than they receive in benefits..... and without them financially this country would be a whole lot worse off........... " . I was talking about the EU so only included EU countries. 1.the website I looked at didn't show falling population for Germany or France it was this one Geography. About.com/negativegrowth. I included all the European counties on the list.. 2.which point was it I didn't answer, I'm not quite sure what it was, point it out and I'll be glad to have a bash .
3. Now your cherry picking the report actually pointed out that non EU migration cost 120 billion in 22 years (I think).
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In fact seen as you brought that argument up I'll give you the list of countries who's population are in decline. Lithuania, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria,Poland, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Czech republic, Moldova, Hungary,Latvia and Estonia.... Oooo I wonder where all there people went?. ooooh.... since you cherry pick like mad... lets keep going.... of the G8 countries..... Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, USA, France, Japan and EU... so lets take out the EU... how many would you like to guess have falling population rates..... since you mentioned italy... theres 1..... japan....2, germany.....3, Canada.... 4, so more than half then.... are they all coming here as well??????? France population and the UK population were actully stagnating and have actually slowed down a lot in the last 30-40 years and funny enough the one thing that has stopped it from being slower is immigration see.... the probably you face is the one point that Too Hot made.... and you didn't answer... where it is in the 1997 reports on the costs of immigration.... or the 2010 costs of immigration, the fact is that EU migration to the UK has been a Net Positive, Continues to be a net positive and will be a Net positive in the future... the thing you don't like to hear is that they more than pay their way.... they pay more in taxes to the UK treasury than they receive in benefits..... and without them financially this country would be a whole lot worse off........... " Net benefit to the treasury in terms of tax receipts, but you failed to add into the equation the cost of infrastructure spending to accommodate them all. And the independent body Migrationwatch UK disputes that they are a net benefit to the UK anyway. Whose figures do you want to believe is more the question? Also at what cost to the domestic british worker? As wages are much lower in eastern europe than they are here, they come here in vast numbers and undercut british workers wages. Take the building trade/construction industry for example, why pay a British plumber/plasterer/electrician the going rate when you can get an eastern european plumber/plasterer/electrician to do the same job for a fraction of the price! Yes lets just throw all the british construction workers on the scrap heap shall we and have a race to the bottom in peoples wage packets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In fact seen as you brought that argument up I'll give you the list of countries who's population are in decline. Lithuania, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria,Poland, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Czech republic, Moldova, Hungary,Latvia and Estonia.... Oooo I wonder where all there people went?. ooooh.... since you cherry pick like mad... lets keep going.... of the G8 countries..... Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, USA, France, Japan and EU... so lets take out the EU... how many would you like to guess have falling population rates..... since you mentioned italy... theres 1..... japan....2, germany.....3, Canada.... 4, so more than half then.... are they all coming here as well??????? France population and the UK population were actully stagnating and have actually slowed down a lot in the last 30-40 years and funny enough the one thing that has stopped it from being slower is immigration see.... the probably you face is the one point that Too Hot made.... and you didn't answer... where it is in the 1997 reports on the costs of immigration.... or the 2010 costs of immigration, the fact is that EU migration to the UK has been a Net Positive, Continues to be a net positive and will be a Net positive in the future... the thing you don't like to hear is that they more than pay their way.... they pay more in taxes to the UK treasury than they receive in benefits..... and without them financially this country would be a whole lot worse off........... . I was talking about the EU so only included EU countries. 1.the website I looked at didn't show falling population for Germany or France it was this one Geography. About.com/negativegrowth. I included all the European counties on the list.. 2.which point was it I didn't answer, I'm not quite sure what it was, point it out and I'll be glad to have a bash .
3. Now your cherry picking the report actually pointed out that non EU migration cost 120 billion in 22 years (I think).
". My mistake I noticed you put eu migration just now. Still would love to know how you know the future as you state will continue to be cost negative in the future!!. Either way my argument has never been primarily about cost but about sovereign democracy and actual workability of the concept of freedom of movement!. It's a lovely dream but totally unworkable for the reasons I stated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. " Like the european court of auditors you referenced on the other UKIP thread claiming they were independent of the EU when they are in fact the fifth pillar of the EU.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. " .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. " Blimey, are we suffering from hyperinflation. In March this year Mr Farage said the cost of membership was about £55 million a day. Of course that's a headline number for the gross payment and niftily forgets to take off the EU rebate and EU payments (our money of course) back to Agriculture, so in fact we'd be getting back £33 million pounds a day. Certainly that's still a lot of money but a lot less than £80 million. To put the contribution into context, it's less than 0.5% of UK gross national income. My annual tax statement from HM Revenue and Customs says that 0.75% of my income tax bill goes to the UK contribution to the European budget. That's 75p in every £100 of income tax. Compare that to £1.64 out of every £100 going to housing and utilities (like street lights), or £2.06 of every £100 on UK Government administration or £24.52 out of every £100 on welfare, £18.87 out of every £100 on health. Perhaps the revenue is kind to me and charges everyone else far more for the EU, but basically if we got that money back it wouldn't even keep the bloody street lights on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. " .. And while we're claiming bias. The cream foundation from the ucl which produced the report on net gain migration, is primarily funded by the institute for fiscal studies which is in itself a think tank funded by the wealthy and one that's had a few claims of bias itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. Blimey, are we suffering from hyperinflation. In March this year Mr Farage said the cost of membership was about £55 million a day. Of course that's a headline number for the gross payment and niftily forgets to take off the EU rebate and EU payments (our money of course) back to Agriculture, so in fact we'd be getting back £33 million pounds a day. Certainly that's still a lot of money but a lot less than £80 million. To put the contribution into context, it's less than 0.5% of UK gross national income. My annual tax statement from HM Revenue and Customs says that 0.75% of my income tax bill goes to the UK contribution to the European budget. That's 75p in every £100 of income tax. Compare that to £1.64 out of every £100 going to housing and utilities (like street lights), or £2.06 of every £100 on UK Government administration or £24.52 out of every £100 on welfare, £18.87 out of every £100 on health. Perhaps the revenue is kind to me and charges everyone else far more for the EU, but basically if we got that money back it wouldn't even keep the bloody street lights on. " Thats still 75p out of every £100 i earn that i would rather not go into the corrupt EU's pockets thanks. Ok say the figure is £55 million per day as you suggest, that would pay to keep a lot of lights on, or pay for a lot more nurses in the NHs, or a lot more policemen in the police service or a lot more firemen in the fire service, spend the money how you like, its still £55 million per day we'd be better off with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. " What's that got to do with the meaning of independent? I do wish you could stick to the point!!!! But, let's play your game because we can all leap around and cherry pick statistics. Now for the next one you need to know that the A8 countries are the 8 Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004(Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians, Latvians etc) "In recent economic analysis, a 1% increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime". That one and a whole host of others are available from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. Academically my Oxford trumps your UCL and Migrationwatch UK is mere dust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. Blimey, are we suffering from hyperinflation. In March this year Mr Farage said the cost of membership was about £55 million a day. Of course that's a headline number for the gross payment and niftily forgets to take off the EU rebate and EU payments (our money of course) back to Agriculture, so in fact we'd be getting back £33 million pounds a day. Certainly that's still a lot of money but a lot less than £80 million. To put the contribution into context, it's less than 0.5% of UK gross national income. My annual tax statement from HM Revenue and Customs says that 0.75% of my income tax bill goes to the UK contribution to the European budget. That's 75p in every £100 of income tax. Compare that to £1.64 out of every £100 going to housing and utilities (like street lights), or £2.06 of every £100 on UK Government administration or £24.52 out of every £100 on welfare, £18.87 out of every £100 on health. Perhaps the revenue is kind to me and charges everyone else far more for the EU, but basically if we got that money back it wouldn't even keep the bloody street lights on. " Money back (rebate) that goes into agriculture that takes it to £33 million per day you say. Yes then the EU back dates payments 20 years to the mid 1990's for money earnt on our black market for which they hit us with a bill of around "£2 billion which they demand must be paid within a 2 month period. So then we still end up more out of pocket than we already are. On top of that the EU has made no secret it wants to impose a financial transaction tax on the city of London so they can bleed yet more money out of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. What's that got to do with the meaning of independent? I do wish you could stick to the point!!!! But, let's play your game because we can all leap around and cherry pick statistics. Now for the next one you need to know that the A8 countries are the 8 Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004(Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians, Latvians etc) "In recent economic analysis, a 1% increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime". That one and a whole host of others are available from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. Academically my Oxford trumps your UCL and Migrationwatch UK is mere dust." .Hey I never mentioned independent analysis.. That was you. I was just pointing out that bias runs both ways  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. Blimey, are we suffering from hyperinflation. In March this year Mr Farage said the cost of membership was about £55 million a day. Of course that's a headline number for the gross payment and niftily forgets to take off the EU rebate and EU payments (our money of course) back to Agriculture, so in fact we'd be getting back £33 million pounds a day. Certainly that's still a lot of money but a lot less than £80 million. To put the contribution into context, it's less than 0.5% of UK gross national income. My annual tax statement from HM Revenue and Customs says that 0.75% of my income tax bill goes to the UK contribution to the European budget. That's 75p in every £100 of income tax. Compare that to £1.64 out of every £100 going to housing and utilities (like street lights), or £2.06 of every £100 on UK Government administration or £24.52 out of every £100 on welfare, £18.87 out of every £100 on health. Perhaps the revenue is kind to me and charges everyone else far more for the EU, but basically if we got that money back it wouldn't even keep the bloody street lights on. Thats still 75p out of every £100 i earn that i would rather not go into the corrupt EU's pockets thanks. Ok say the figure is £55 million per day as you suggest, that would pay to keep a lot of lights on, or pay for a lot more nurses in the NHs, or a lot more policemen in the police service or a lot more firemen in the fire service, spend the money how you like, its still £55 million per day we'd be better off with. " Maybe so, but in economic terms its peanuts, basically noise in the economic system. Oh and by the way, you'd have to use over half that money to pay the farmers who wouldn't be getting payments from the EU now you've taken over. Having said that though, I thought you'd give us our money back - so I won't be any better off at all when you get this money back from the EU because you've already spent it. Never mind, it's not much of a tax bonanza anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. What's that got to do with the meaning of independent? I do wish you could stick to the point!!!! But, let's play your game because we can all leap around and cherry pick statistics. Now for the next one you need to know that the A8 countries are the 8 Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004(Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians, Latvians etc) "In recent economic analysis, a 1% increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime". That one and a whole host of others are available from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. Academically my Oxford trumps your UCL and Migrationwatch UK is mere dust..Hey I never mentioned independent analysis.. That was you. I was just pointing out that bias runs both ways "Of course. And as I said 'other independent bodies are available'. Though I'm glad no one asked what they were at the time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. An instant saving of around £80 million per day, which we pay to the EU in membership fees to be part of the club. Blimey, are we suffering from hyperinflation. In March this year Mr Farage said the cost of membership was about £55 million a day. Of course that's a headline number for the gross payment and niftily forgets to take off the EU rebate and EU payments (our money of course) back to Agriculture, so in fact we'd be getting back £33 million pounds a day. Certainly that's still a lot of money but a lot less than £80 million. To put the contribution into context, it's less than 0.5% of UK gross national income. My annual tax statement from HM Revenue and Customs says that 0.75% of my income tax bill goes to the UK contribution to the European budget. That's 75p in every £100 of income tax. Compare that to £1.64 out of every £100 going to housing and utilities (like street lights), or £2.06 of every £100 on UK Government administration or £24.52 out of every £100 on welfare, £18.87 out of every £100 on health. Perhaps the revenue is kind to me and charges everyone else far more for the EU, but basically if we got that money back it wouldn't even keep the bloody street lights on. Money back (rebate) that goes into agriculture that takes it to £33 million per day you say. Yes then the EU back dates payments 20 years to the mid 1990's for money earnt on our black market for which they hit us with a bill of around "£2 billion which they demand must be paid within a 2 month period. So then we still end up more out of pocket than we already are. On top of that the EU has made no secret it wants to impose a financial transaction tax on the city of London so they can bleed yet more money out of us. " Oh yes. Well lets not forget that 2 billion (I'm sure it was euros and not pounds but your the one who knows money) is reduced to a lesser figure because the UK rebate applies to it. So again you start with a headline figure and conveniently forget other factors. Then those damn sneaky Europeans actually worked out the formula for calculating those amounts and agreed it with British input and consent. I know we're supposed to think they slipped in ninja style and stuffed the bill through the door of 10 Downing Street while Mr Cameron and co were fast asleep, but the treasury knew all year long it was coming. If they didn't they'd be incompetent... well let's not go there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. What's that got to do with the meaning of independent? I do wish you could stick to the point!!!! But, let's play your game because we can all leap around and cherry pick statistics. Now for the next one you need to know that the A8 countries are the 8 Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004(Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians, Latvians etc) "In recent economic analysis, a 1% increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime". That one and a whole host of others are available from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. Academically my Oxford trumps your UCL and Migrationwatch UK is mere dust..Hey I never mentioned independent analysis.. That was you. I was just pointing out that bias runs both ways
Of course. And as I said 'other independent bodies are available'. Though I'm glad no one asked what they were at the time ". Is there such a thing as independent?. I mean everyone's funded by somebody and if your seeking funds your going to be slightly biased towards those people donating I reckon (but that just my opinion) I've no independent research to back that fact up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a few Benefits of leaving the EU, 2.No more European court of Human rights laws over-ruling our own domestic courts giving criminals and terrorists the "right to a family life here" nonsense. Foreign criminals should be deported if convicted in our own domestic courts free from challenge by the ECHR. Not correct, the ECHR is totally separate to the EU. The only link between the 2 is that all countries are required to be signatories to the ECHR to be members of the EU. Therefore leaving the EU does not mean that we are no longer bound by the ECHR, however rejecting the ECHR does mean being kicked out of the EU. You just summed it up perfectly well, what you are saying is they are basically one and the same. You can't have one without the other. Simple logic really leave the EU, and leave the ECHR at the same time. " No one has given a reason to leave the jurisdiction of ECtHR. People have chosen to blame the ECtHR for something that is UK law. Our human rights act gives foreign criminals a right to a family life. (recently slightly amended). Nothing to do with Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Is there such a thing as independent?. I mean everyone's funded by somebody and if your seeking funds your going to be slightly biased towards those people donating I reckon (but that just my opinion) I've no independent research to back that fact up."
After writing thousands and thousands of words on these last 3 threads related to Europe, I think that at last you've found something we could almost agree on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Is there such a thing as independent?. I mean everyone's funded by somebody and if your seeking funds your going to be slightly biased towards those people donating I reckon (but that just my opinion) I've no independent research to back that fact up.
After writing thousands and thousands of words on these last 3 threads related to Europe, I think that at last you've found something we could almost agree on. ". Bollocks it was only tens of thousands!. Personally I'm not really bothered about the cash, it's neither here nor there. I object to the EU on unaccountability, transparency, it's antidemocratic and the freedom of movement policy is an environmentally disastrous, unworkable, selfish piece of policy that puts one country against another, it's nothing more than imperialism by the back door. Now if you can fix all that... I'm in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time. Yes. More working people does equate to economic growth. One of the biggest threats the UK has to its future prosperity is the pension crisis. We have an ageing population...." Economic growth is not reliant on more people, it relies on more prosperous people, innovation and producing goods and products that people want to buy in the most efficient way. To put it simplistically, if you made shoes in a a small town, you are far better off having one Imelda Marcos in your area than 2000 Hilda Ogdens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time. Yes. More working people does equate to economic growth. One of the biggest threats the UK has to its future prosperity is the pension crisis. We have an ageing population.... Economic growth is not reliant on more people, it relies on more prosperous people, innovation and producing goods and products that people want to buy in the most efficient way. To put it simplistically, if you made shoes in a a small town, you are far better off having one Imelda Marcos in your area than 2000 Hilda Ogdens." Growth in part relies on normal employed working people paying tax and spending their hard earned. Its not complicated, its simple economics, more employed workers gives you growth. They don't have to be candidates for the dragons in Dragon Den. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time. Yes. More working people does equate to economic growth. One of the biggest threats the UK has to its future prosperity is the pension crisis. We have an ageing population.... Economic growth is not reliant on more people, it relies on more prosperous people, innovation and producing goods and products that people want to buy in the most efficient way. To put it simplistically, if you made shoes in a a small town, you are far better off having one Imelda Marcos in your area than 2000 Hilda Ogdens. Growth in part relies on normal employed working people paying tax and spending their hard earned. Its not complicated, its simple economics, more employed workers gives you growth. They don't have to be candidates for the dragons in Dragon Den." If you understood simple economics you would realise your overly simplistic analysis is flawed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So more people = economic growth?? A novel economic theory but not one I suspect that will last the test of time. Yes. More working people does equate to economic growth. One of the biggest threats the UK has to its future prosperity is the pension crisis. We have an ageing population.... Economic growth is not reliant on more people, it relies on more prosperous people, innovation and producing goods and products that people want to buy in the most efficient way. To put it simplistically, if you made shoes in a a small town, you are far better off having one Imelda Marcos in your area than 2000 Hilda Ogdens. Growth in part relies on normal employed working people paying tax and spending their hard earned. Its not complicated, its simple economics, more employed workers gives you growth. They don't have to be candidates for the dragons in Dragon Den." if you have a business that increases its turnover (growth) but makes no profit and losses money (deficit) not much point in increasing turn over as you borrow more That is how the UK is and has been run for years The vast majority of immigrants are low payed ,pay very little or no income tax , little NI and little in VAT Yet put strain on the health service ,transport ,housing,welfare education etc and help keep millions unemployed Not their fault ,government failures Your right not rocket science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The vast majority of immigrants are low payed ,pay very little or no income tax , little NI and little in VAT Yet put strain on the health service ,transport ,housing,welfare education etc and help keep millions unemployed Not their fault ,government failures Your right not rocket science " see... that is a sound bite that sounds good.... but in the case of immigration from the EU is not true..... again if you see the report on immigration that was published a few months ago.... there were 2 sets of figures.... one based on 1997 till now figures... the other based on figures in the last 10 years... one set (the 97 figures) shows immigration was a net negative... the other (the 10 year figures) showed immigration was a net positive... the difference between to two figures was the cost of immigration from OUTSIDE the Eu.... BOTH sets of reports showed that Immigration from within the EU was a net positive and that these people were paying taxes and contributing to the UK treasury at a high rate that benefits were paid out.... and were contributing at a higher rate than the resident UK population..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestingly enough, when people make statements like 'the independent body MigrationWatch says....' we are supposed to think that "independent" means unbiased and will always give a balanced and accurate view. MigrationWatch has a distinct anti-immigration bias and its aim is to push that particular message and its own anti-immigration slant. That's OK if you only want to believe that sort of message, but you might want to look at what it says with a measure of scepticism if you have an independent mind. Other independent bodies are available. They may also have the benefit of being unbiased. .No but then you never pull up the people that post the ucl report about the net gain from migration but fail to post their other report which I'll quote. A previous study in 2013 by UCL's Cream found that for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. .. And while we're claiming bias. The cream foundation from the ucl which produced the report on net gain migration, is primarily funded by the institute for fiscal studies which is in itself a think tank funded by the wealthy and one that's had a few claims of bias itself." I would add that the UCL report was co written by the very same professor who predicted that eastern European migration would be around 50,000 over 3 or 5 (I can't remember which) years. They have serious form for getting things mind blowingly wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone - anyone? - provide facts and figures as to whether we trade at a loss with Europe or whether we have a trade surplus with Europe? Surely this is the acid test: if you have a business (for which read the UK) and trade with another business at a loss (read EU), then what happens to your business in the end? Of course it goes bust. The EU is not a great place of prosperity and growth, as some seem to think - Greeks, Irish, Italians and Spaniards might agree, I think " In this context trading at a profit or loss is completely different to trading in a surplus or deficit. The former would be making something for a fiver and selling it for a tenner, so profit is made. The latter would be making ten items for a fiver, selling them for a tenner, but buying 20 items at a tenner from the customer. So you would make a profit on what you have sold but you would be trading in a deficit. I know it's a bit simplistic but it illustrates the point. I'm sure many British company's sell lots of goods to Europe at a good profit, but we buy a lot more from Europe than we sell to them so bottom line it is a trade deficit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone - anyone? - provide facts and figures as to whether we trade at a loss with Europe or whether we have a trade surplus with Europe? Surely this is the acid test: if you have a business (for which read the UK) and trade with another business at a loss (read EU), then what happens to your business in the end? Of course it goes bust. The EU is not a great place of prosperity and growth, as some seem to think - Greeks, Irish, Italians and Spaniards might agree, I think In this context trading at a profit or loss is completely different to trading in a surplus or deficit. The former would be making something for a fiver and selling it for a tenner, so profit is made. The latter would be making ten items for a fiver, selling them for a tenner, but buying 20 items at a tenner from the customer. So you would make a profit on what you have sold but you would be trading in a deficit. I know it's a bit simplistic but it illustrates the point. I'm sure many British company's sell lots of goods to Europe at a good profit, but we buy a lot more from Europe than we sell to them so bottom line it is a trade deficit." The latest figure I can find is for September 2014 and was £2.8 billion deficit for the month. So if you take that as an average monthly figure it would be at around £33.6 billion. That doesn't allow for the "Rotterdam effect" where many goods exported to the rest of the world that go through the port of Rotterdam get counted as EU exports when really they are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone - anyone? - provide facts and figures as to whether we trade at a loss with Europe or whether we have a trade surplus with Europe? Surely this is the acid test: if you have a business (for which read the UK) and trade with another business at a loss (read EU), then what happens to your business in the end? Of course it goes bust. The EU is not a great place of prosperity and growth, as some seem to think - Greeks, Irish, Italians and Spaniards might agree, I think In this context trading at a profit or loss is completely different to trading in a surplus or deficit. The former would be making something for a fiver and selling it for a tenner, so profit is made. The latter would be making ten items for a fiver, selling them for a tenner, but buying 20 items at a tenner from the customer. So you would make a profit on what you have sold but you would be trading in a deficit. I know it's a bit simplistic but it illustrates the point. I'm sure many British company's sell lots of goods to Europe at a good profit, but we buy a lot more from Europe than we sell to them so bottom line it is a trade deficit." Yes, I understand the idea is simplistic, as mine was. Just wanted to show the Europhiles that trading with Europe is only beneficial when we do so turning a profit. I notice they are quiet on this point. It is the second time I've made it. No response the first time! I would suggest Britain is in serious trouble if we continue to rely on the economy of others: recent financial problems came as a consequence of the American sub prime problem. The near collapse of the money market in 2008 (we were perilously close to a run on the banks) and the problems in countries like Greece must surely show even the most strident Europhile that the current status quo is not working. Cheap imports are also not necessarily good for our economy! Ask any of the former miners where I live. The collapse of a British industry in favour of cheap European imports has led to serious economic problems locally. How many people need to be affected by this issue on a national basis before people see the folly of such a policy? Many pro Europe Brits would change their minds if their own jobs (and industries they work in) were axed, simply so we can import cheaper goods and services. If that thinking were rolled out across too many industries in Britain, we would, of necessity, have to go bust | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it started off in the early 50s as the European Coal and Steel Community, in order that war in Europe would never happen again, as steel and coal were the building blocks of a country's war machine. " You are correct that the first incarnation of the EU was as the ECSC- but the thinking was more that if you created a market germany and france could share- then the likeliehood of war was reduced. hence a common market in coal and steel. nothing to do with war machines as such. my pleasure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The possible cost to the UK will be companies laying off staff because British goods become more expensive in the continent and may not sell so well." britain has been trading globally for at least 300 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The vast majority of immigrants are low payed ,pay very little or no income tax , little NI and little in VAT Yet put strain on the health service ,transport ,housing,welfare education etc and help keep millions unemployed Not their fault ,government failures Your right not rocket science see... that is a sound bite that sounds good.... but in the case of immigration from the EU is not true..... again if you see the report on immigration that was published a few months ago.... there were 2 sets of figures.... one based on 1997 till now figures... the other based on figures in the last 10 years... one set (the 97 figures) shows immigration was a net negative... the other (the 10 year figures) showed immigration was a net positive... the difference between to two figures was the cost of immigration from OUTSIDE the Eu.... BOTH sets of reports showed that Immigration from within the EU was a net positive and that these people were paying taxes and contributing to the UK treasury at a high rate that benefits were paid out.... and were contributing at a higher rate than the resident UK population..... " Hmm... My thoughts are as follows: If enough people wish to leave the EU, they have every right to. I felt the same about Scottish independence. Of course, before such a discussion is had, it would be nice to have the pros and cons.... There's too much bs to sieve through... too many agendas to consider... It's particularly confusing when both sides appear to say that their position is absolutely clear cut. What a divisive creature man is. We clearly don't know what's good for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
