Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Elevenses81 on October 25, 2014, 09:37:23 AM
-
For DavId Cameron, the latest £2bn demand from Europe [for not stagnating like France] is further cause for further debate on our role in Europe.
I voted for the entry in the 1970s on purely economic terms. The EEC today is a very different animal. The EEC was born out of post-WW2 reconstruction as both a determination that there would never be another European war, an economic independence from US aid and to ensure that coal, steel and agriculture were supported by subsidy. How it has grown in size and function since!!!!.
The economic, social and strategic implications are hideously complicated, but for many in the UK it just doesn't meet their needs anymore.
-
I am holding fire on the question of leaving, but I thought that Cameron's anger over the latest demand is entirely synthetic. He has one eye on the UKIP threat, therefore must be seen to be fulminating over Europe. I am sure that the British govt agreed to future adjustments. Well, if they didn't realize that they were on the way, then they are really incompetent.
-
Wiggs,
what aspects of our continuing membership cause you concern? The expansion that has included countries that are not economically on par with Western Europe, EEC law that overrides UK law, waste, open borders and the inequality of welfare and healthcare provision?
-
Wiggs,
what aspects of our continuing membership cause you concern? The expansion that has included countries that are not economically on par with Western Europe, EEC law that overrides UK law, waste, open borders and the inequality of welfare and healthcare provision?
I don't actually have many concerns about the EU, but I need to sit down and do some serious reading about it, if we are going to have a vote. I want to see the details about the benefits and disadvantages.
-
According to one expert being interviewed on Radio Scotland this morning the reason for the size of the amount is that it has been re-calculated retrospectively and that the UK has, in effect, been underpaying for more than a decade.
According to him anyway, the monies are due and that any later claims that are made to the effect that a 'deal' has been done will just be political expediency talking since, according to him, by whichever sleight of hand is employed to make it appear that the UK has gained some sort of concession, these monies will get paid to the EU by one way or another.
We'll see - meantime there is ample schadenfreude to be enjoyed!
-
I'm sure both sides of the debate will offer cogent reasons for staying in or out. Do you think that most people will follow your example and research for themselves? I was at university studying Geography in the early 1970s and one lecturer was in favour and another against. If there s a referendum people will vote with their guts and not their heads and you probably really couldn't blame them.
-
I'm sure both sides of the debate will offer cogent reasons for staying in or out. Do you think that most people will follow your example and research for themselves? I was at university studying Geography in the early 1970s and one lecturer was in favour and another against. If there s a referendum people will vote with their guts and not their heads and you probably really couldn't blame them.
That's true. I think the vote will be to stay in, despite all the negative stuff about the EU. The future will probably seem too uncertain outside, although who can say really. I think there is probably massive ignorance about it also, and a fair number of myths.
-
It is a curiosity this EU business, isn't it! I am certainly divided and wouldn't know how to vote in a referendum. Like Wigs, I have promised myself to do some reading up on it.... but then without getting bogged down in the actual legal stuff, what do you read?
So far, apart from the 'do we stay in' vote we were offered way back when, we have had no say. I am still pissed with Gordon Brown for not letting us have our say on the treaty he signed on our behalf, when the rest of Europe had the opportunity to vote.
But then if UKIP want us out, it kinda makes me want to stay in..........
::)
-
The reasons that the EEC was created for no longer seem to apply - no likelihood of another war, coal and steel have been run down, agriculture is far more efficient and seems to favour the larger industrial farms than the smaller producers who were meant to benefit.
In a global corporate world where national borders seem irrelevant, would the UK really have no market for it's goods if it left? Would London cease to be the financial centre of Europe?
-
I voted for the entry in the 1970s on purely economic terms.
No Elevenses81, you did not.
There was a referendum, organised by Harold Wilson, in which you were asked whether or not you wanted to remain in the EEC. However, its purpose was not to seek public approval for membership of the Community, but to humiliate Tony Benn, who was behaving rather like Nigel Farage does today, and to shut him up.
It achieved its objectives.
-
Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.
-
Harrowby,
it was a long time ago, but it doesn't alter the fact that I wished to remain in the EEC for the reasons given. Do you think Wilson would have pulled out if the vote had gone the other way?
-
Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.
Could you explain your reasons for thinking this?
-
Harrowby,
it was a long time ago, but it doesn't alter the fact that I wished to remain in the EEC for the reasons given. Do you think Wilson would have pulled out if the vote had gone the other way?
Wilson ensured that the vote would go his way by getting all-party support. The referendum, in 1975 succeeded by twice as many voting to remain in the Community as voted to leave.
-
If England wants to leave the EU, let them.
We're staying put.
-
If England wants to leave the EU, let them.
We're staying put.
That isn't an option - Scotland is part of the UK and either the UK in its entirety stays in the EU or the UK in its entirety stays leaves the EU.
Perhaps you've forgotten that the Scottish people just had their say in independence and voted by a sizeable margin to stay in the UK.
-
Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.
Could you explain your reasons for thinking this?
Britain is a very small country in reality, and we need to be part of Europe, united we stand, divided we fall. We have always looked across the pond in the past to the US for support, but I suspect it won't be so forthcoming in the future unless it is in their interest to support us.
-
I am rather concerned by the obsession with the EU. It seems to me that there is a section of society which can be broadly categorised as the not highly educated lower middle classes in middle life who believe, for some reason, that the "rewards" of life, which they think are due to them, are passing them by. (I say categorisation - I realise that some may consider this close to a caricature.)
They look for a reason and are entranced by slick individual with a passing resemblence to Arthur Daley who tells them that the reasons for this are:
(a) immigrants who, simultaneously, are taking all available jobs and growing rich on welfare benefits as well as monopolising health and education services and
(b) the EU which is submerging our British identity with expensive uncontrolled beaurocracy.
Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?
Should Britain leave the EU expect an early announcement that the Nissan car plant in the North East will close. Nissan is controlled by Renault who would not waste any time in relocating the most efficient car producer in Europe onto French soil.
As far as trade to Europe is concerned, leaving the EU would be an empty gesture. The UK will be faced with all of the existing regulation and "bureaucracy" that it faces now. It costs Switzerland and Norway just as much to trade with the EU (in terms of regulations and bureaucracy) as it does EU members. But being inside the union does mean that a country can influence decision making; being outside the union means having to put up with whatever is thrown at you.
One of Arthur Dal Nigel Farage's claims is that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Well, don't forget that the competition will then come from the BRICs. Be ready for wages and living standards to fall in order to become competitive. In ten years the UK will be the Argentina of Europe.
I am not totally against Nigel Farage. Like him I believe that the UK needs to reform its preVictorian constitution. I worry that second rate political leaders like Cameron and Milliband are incapable of seeing beyond party advantage and will not seize the opportunities currently presented.
-
We have always looked across the pond in the past to the US for support
You seem to have forgotten that we have just finished paying off our WW2 loans to the US. They even made us pay for clapped-out WW1 destroyers. With the election of a Labour government after the war, all reconstruction loans were withdrawn and Maynard Keynes spent months in Washington trying to reverse the decision.
Why do you think we are a small country? Our GDP at £2tr behind only Germany and France and while France stagnates with public spending it cannot sustain, at least the UK economy grows. I would concede though that our employment growth is down to 'self employed' and zero-hour contracts and cause for concern.
-
Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?
Your well reasoned reply is somewhat tainted by this unsavoury piece of hyperbole.
-
If England wants to leave the EU, let them.
We're staying put.
That isn't an option - Scotland is part of the UK and either the UK in its entirety stays in the EU or the UK in its entirety stays leaves the EU.
Perhaps you've forgotten that the Scottish people just had their say in independence and voted by a sizeable margin to stay in the UK.
Some of us are of the view that the fat lady has yet to sing.
-
Your well reasoned reply is somewhat tainted by this unsavoury piece of hyperbole.
Hyperbole? Surely, you're exaggerating!
-
Gordon,
Devo-Max may well give you far more than any fat lady singing ever could. Compared to how Wales has fared under self-government - 75% less proportional income from Westminster than Scotland under the Bartlett formula, an NHS that people on the border flee to England to get treatment and an education system rated amongst the worst in Europe. Plaid Cymru is so out of favour it polls even behind the Tories.
-
Your well reasoned reply is somewhat tainted by this unsavoury piece of hyperbole.
Hyperbole? Surely, you're exaggerating!
Oh I see, so the 'foreigner' in our midst is perceived to be the perpetual outsider, a hate figure in hock to international banking and intrinsically disloyal and hence ripe for whatever hatred and abuse we throw on them. Get a grip man!!! Concerns about the addition of 1m added to our population since the mid 90's without additional infrastructure is not an insignificant concern.
-
It would be hard to leave the EEC as it ceased to exist in 1993.
We're in the EU now and long may we remain so.
Quite right on both counts. :)
-
What keeps Norway and Switzerland out and how are they worse off for staying out of that blessed EU?
-
What keeps Norway and Switzerland out and how are they worse off for staying out of that blessed EU?
You've got a point pow wow, two of the richest nations in Europe, just take note of their exchange rates.
ippy
-
From opinion posted so far we have :
undecided 2
for pulling out 3
for staying in 6
[I think]
-
What's your point Wallo? Trade agreements are totally different than union between nations. Canada and the EU have only to wait for ratification for the Canda EU free trade deal to be a reality. NO UNION, I'm glad to say.
Norway says NO to EU.
http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/norwegians-eu-membership-ahead-g-news-529950
-
It would be hard to leave the EEC as it ceased to exist in 1993.
We're in the EU now and long may we remain so.
Quite right on both counts. :)
Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC, we've not had any say about joining the EU.
ippy
-
... but I thought that Cameron's anger over the latest demand is entirely synthetic. He has one eye on the UKIP threat, therefore must be seen to be fulminating over Europe.
The problem with this view, wiggi, is that DC has been fulminating over Europe for just about as long as he has been Tory Party leader. This ain't anything new. What would be synthetic would be Messrs Clegg or Mollibland fulminating in this way.
-
Could you explain your reasons for thinking this?
E, do you have any idea how much European money has been spent in places like the Scottish Highlands, the South Wales Valleys or the North East of England over the last 30 or 40 years? It comes to £billions. You can argue that the British (or for that matter, any other nation's) Government could have distributed that much direct, rather than via Europe - but would they have done? Similarly, you can argue that the money has often not been spent as efficiently as it could have been - but is that Europe's fault or local British (etc.) politicians? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-15295224 (article dates from 2011)
-
The February 1974 general election yielded a Labour minority government, which then won a majority in the October 1974 general election. Labour pledged in its February 1974 manifesto to renegotiate the terms of British accession to the EEC, and to then consult the people on whether Britain should stay in the EEC on the new terms if they were acceptable to the government. The Labour Party had traditionally feared the consequences of EEC membership, such as the large differentials between the high price of food under the Common Agricultural Policy and the low prices prevalent in Commonwealth markets, as well as the loss of economic sovereignty and the freedom of governments to engage in socialist industrial policies, and party leaders stated their opinion that the Conservatives had negotiated unfavourable terms for Britain. The EEC heads of government agreed to a deal in Dublin by 11 March 1975; Wilson declared "I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved", and that the government would recommend a vote in favour of continued membership. On 9 April, the House of Commons voted 396 to 170 to continue within the Common Market on the new terms. In tandem with these developments, the government drafted a Referendum Bill, to be moved in case of a successful renegotiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
Does anyone else feel this sounds similar to the current debate?
-
Hope,
the pros and cons are hideously complicated, and I dread to imagine what state my brain will be in after expert opinion on both sides of the argument has pulled me this way and that. At the moment we are all preoccupied with foreign criminals claiming under EU Human Rights legislation that UK law infringes their rights to staying in the UK. This seems a simple issue and will be the sort of grievance that will lead many to vote in any referendum to quit the EU. I'm sure what you say about our net income from the EU is in credit, but people don't want to know about that. They see Farage and his lunatic party offering a simplified ladybird book version of the EU where their policies change by the day and are not even endorsed by the leadership, and think it prevents them to doing any research themselves. I suspect we will stay in, but it will be closer this time than in 1975.
-
It is a curiosity this EU business, isn't it! I am certainly divided and wouldn't know how to vote in a referendum. Like Wigs, I have promised myself to do some reading up on it.... but then without getting bogged down in the actual legal stuff, what do you read?
So far, apart from the 'do we stay in' vote we were offered way back when, we have had no say. I am still pissed with Gordon Brown for not letting us have our say on the treaty he signed on our behalf, when the rest of Europe had the opportunity to vote.
But then if UKIP want us out, it kinda makes me want to stay in..........
::)
The treaty that Gordon Brown signed ??? :o >:(
That was the Lisbon Treaty. You can't just suddenly swot up on it at the last minute and think you will get the facts you have to do it as an on going process.
-
Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.
Yeah, like a hole in the head.
Oh they need us. If we left the EU would collapse.
-
Harrowby,
it was a long time ago, but it doesn't alter the fact that I wished to remain in the EEC for the reasons given. Do you think Wilson would have pulled out if the vote had gone the other way?
He lied to the people and basically rigged it. Also, the press were in favour of staying in so there was a lot of pressure on the people to say yes.
-
If England wants to leave the EU, let them.
We're staying put.
Why?
-
Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.
Could you explain your reasons for thinking this?
Britain is a very small country in reality, and we need to be part of Europe, united we stand, divided we fall. We have always looked across the pond in the past to the US for support, but I suspect it won't be so forthcoming in the future unless it is in their interest to support us.
We would be better off out than in the EU which is draining our economy.
-
I am rather concerned by the obsession with the EU. It seems to me that there is a section of society which can be broadly categorised as the not highly educated lower middle classes in middle life who believe, for some reason, that the "rewards" of life, which they think are due to them, are passing them by. (I say categorisation - I realise that some may consider this close to a caricature.)
They look for a reason and are entranced by slick individual with a passing resemblence to Arthur Daley who tells them that the reasons for this are:
(a) immigrants who, simultaneously, are taking all available jobs and growing rich on welfare benefits as well as monopolising health and education services and
(b) the EU which is submerging our British identity with expensive uncontrolled beaurocracy.
Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?
Should Britain leave the EU expect an early announcement that the Nissan car plant in the North East will close. Nissan is controlled by Renault who would not waste any time in relocating the most efficient car producer in Europe onto French soil.
As far as trade to Europe is concerned, leaving the EU would be an empty gesture. The UK will be faced with all of the existing regulation and "bureaucracy" that it faces now. It costs Switzerland and Norway just as much to trade with the EU (in terms of regulations and bureaucracy) as it does EU members. But being inside the union does mean that a country can influence decision making; being outside the union means having to put up with whatever is thrown at you.
One of Arthur Dal Nigel Farage's claims is that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Well, don't forget that the competition will then come from the BRICs. Be ready for wages and living standards to fall in order to become competitive. In ten years the UK will be the Argentina of Europe.
I am not totally against Nigel Farage. Like him I believe that the UK needs to reform its preVictorian constitution. I worry that second rate political leaders like Cameron and Milliband are incapable of seeing beyond party advantage and will not seize the opportunities currently presented.
What rubbish. You must be a LibDem twat, as you haven't mentioned Cleggie boy with the other two.
-
Norway belongs to the EEA, kind of EU lite but lacking the benefit of having any say in the rules that it must adhere to. They still pay a high price for this membership though and their citizens have all those nasty import tariffs to deal with. Switzerland doesn't have that membership but has still negotiated trade deals with the EU that compel it to comply with EU laws without having the chance to influence them.
You really are a dumb ass if you believe all that crap. Seems age doesn't make you wise!!!
-
Hope,
the pros and cons are hideously complicated, and I dread to imagine what state my brain will be in after expert opinion on both sides of the argument has pulled me this way and that. At the moment we are all preoccupied with foreign criminals claiming under EU Human Rights legislation that UK law infringes their rights to staying in the UK. This seems a simple issue and will be the sort of grievance that will lead many to vote in any referendum to quit the EU. I'm sure what you say about our net income from the EU is in credit, but people don't want to know about that. They see Farage and his lunatic party offering a simplified ladybird book version of the EU where their policies change by the day and are not even endorsed by the leadership, and think it prevents them to doing any research themselves. I suspect we will stay in, but it will be closer this time than in 1975.
The issue is quite simple. The EU is another version of the USSR. If you thought the Soviet Union would have been a wonderful place to live then vote to stay in the EU but if you want our MP's to run our country without any interference from some corrupt foreign land and have the power to vote them out if you think they are useless (which you can't do with Brussels) then vote to leave and save us £90 billion a year.
-
It's almost as if the EU Commission conspired with UKIP to produce anti-EU sentiment and persuade the British Public to vote for out. I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye?
Someone might have calculated that if they can damage Cameron, Britain might end-up with a pro-EU Socialist government under Red Ed :)
-
Another odd thing is that these recalculations are done every year, so the Treasury would know that it was going to happen. I think it has been done this way since 1995, at the insistence of various governments, including the UK. Ironically, of course, it has happened because of the British economy doing better than previously anticipated.
I realized that the Daily Mail published an article on 29 May, saying that the economy was being boosted by various extra activities, including prostitution! They calculate this as an extra £10 billion. Does the Treasury not read the Daily Mail?
-
The treaty that Gordon Brown signed ??? :o >:(
That was the Lisbon Treaty. You can't just suddenly swot up on it at the last minute and think you will get the facts you have to do it as an on going process.
But it remains fact that the Labour Government, in common with previous Tory and Labour Governments, failed to give the British people a referendum on the Treaty, which was very nearly upset when the French and the Republic of Ireland initially rejected it in referenda held by those two and several other European nations. I wonder whether the rise of UKIP would have been as it has been if we had had a referendum at that point of time.
-
Another odd thing is that these recalculations are done every year, so the Treasury would know that it was going to happen. I think it has been done this way since 1995, at the insistence of various governments, including the UK. Ironically, of course, it has happened because of the British economy doing better than previously anticipated.
I think that what has come as a surprise (in that it was only announced a month or so ago) is the fact that the EU calculations have suddenly included the black market economies of the various nations - including prostitution and drug-dealing (though those have been the headline elements, not the only ones). Should these be being included? If yes, surely Italy - what with the Mafia - ought to have become one of the economic powerhouses of the EU? ;)
-
Another odd thing is that these recalculations are done every year, so the Treasury would know that it was going to happen. I think it has been done this way since 1995, at the insistence of various governments, including the UK. Ironically, of course, it has happened because of the British economy doing better than previously anticipated.
I think that what has come as a surprise (in that it was only announced a month or so ago) is the fact that the EU calculations have suddenly included the black market economies of the various nations - including prostitution and drug-dealing (though those have been the headline elements, not the only ones). Should these be being included? If yes, surely Italy - what with the Mafia - ought to have become one of the economic powerhouses of the EU? ;)
Not all that sudden. The extra British income was announced in May this year, reported in various newspapers. So presumably the Treasury knew about this, and knew that there would an extra payment required. It's very like tax for the self-employed - if you make more than you thought you would, there is a back payment due.
So how come the Treasury has kept this quiet? Are they plotting against Cameron?
Here is the Daily Mail of 29 May, reporting the good news.
http://tinyurl.com/osycjsa
-
We would be better off out than in the EU which is draining our economy.
If you call being in credit from Europe 'draining our economy', you need to have a rethink, JK. Most serious opponents to our continued EU membership don't refer to the economioc position, but to all the corruption and inefficiencies that abound within the system - the fact that the EU accounts have not been been signed off for 17 or 18 years, the unelected Commissioners can produce Directives that hold as much influence as European Parliamentary 'Acts' that have been properly evaluated and voted on, the unnecessary expenditure on two 'headquarters', the farce that is the Community Agricultural Policy which continues to subsidise inefficient French farm practices, etc.
-
Not all that sudden. The extra British income was announced in May this year, reported in various newspapers. So presumably the Treasury knew about this, and knew that there would an extra payment required. It's very like tax for the self-employed - if you make more than you thought you would, there is a back payment due.
Hi wiggi,I was aware that it was on the cards, but only as a suggestion (I first heard about it from a friend who works within the Brussels set-up about a year ago, when it was being tossed about as a possibility). I hadn't realised that it had been enacteduntil I heard about on the radio a month or so ago. This article from Bloomberg Businessweek from May 14 makes interesting reading. http://tinyurl.com/mzb5en5
-
Not all that sudden. The extra British income was announced in May this year, reported in various newspapers. So presumably the Treasury knew about this, and knew that there would an extra payment required. It's very like tax for the self-employed - if you make more than you thought you would, there is a back payment due.
Hi wiggi,I was aware that it was on the cards, but only as a suggestion (I first heard about it from a friend who works within the Brussels set-up about a year ago, when it was being tossed about as a possibility). I hadn't realised that it had been enacteduntil I heard about on the radio a month or so ago. This article from Bloomberg Businessweek from May 14 makes interesting reading. http://tinyurl.com/mzb5en5
It's not a suggestion. It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge. Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax.
Somebody in the Treasury has either been very stupid, or deliberately obfuscating. Well, it could be both.
-
My opinion on the thread title is that, for all its failings and problems (see my earlier post listing some) our membership of the EU is a vital part of our continued economic stability. Farage's policies - overall - are policies for a steady decline into banana republicanism - similar in outcome, but not in detail, to those of Wilson and Callaghan in the late 70s.
-
I am rather concerned by the obsession with the EU. It seems to me that there is a section of society which can be broadly categorised as the not highly educated lower middle classes in middle life who believe, for some reason, that the "rewards" of life, which they think are due to them, are passing them by. (I say categorisation - I realise that some may consider this close to a caricature.)
They look for a reason and are entranced by slick individual with a passing resemblence to Arthur Daley who tells them that the reasons for this are:
(a) immigrants who, simultaneously, are taking all available jobs and growing rich on welfare benefits as well as monopolising health and education services and
(b) the EU which is submerging our British identity with expensive uncontrolled beaurocracy.
Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?
Should Britain leave the EU expect an early announcement that the Nissan car plant in the North East will close. Nissan is controlled by Renault who would not waste any time in relocating the most efficient car producer in Europe onto French soil.
As far as trade to Europe is concerned, leaving the EU would be an empty gesture. The UK will be faced with all of the existing regulation and "bureaucracy" that it faces now. It costs Switzerland and Norway just as much to trade with the EU (in terms of regulations and bureaucracy) as it does EU members. But being inside the union does mean that a country can influence decision making; being outside the union means having to put up with whatever is thrown at you.
One of Arthur Dal Nigel Farage's claims is that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Well, don't forget that the competition will then come from the BRICs. Be ready for wages and living standards to fall in order to become competitive. In ten years the UK will be the Argentina of Europe.
I am not totally against Nigel Farage. Like him I believe that the UK needs to reform its preVictorian constitution. I worry that second rate political leaders like Cameron and Milliband are incapable of seeing beyond party advantage and will not seize the opportunities currently presented.
What rubbish. You must be a LibDem twat, as you haven't mentioned Cleggie boy with the other two.
I am indeed blessed. I have been insulted by Jack Knave. I shall bear this as a badge of honour.
As is so often the case, Mr Knave simply insults, he does not provide any reasoned argument. He switches his three working neurones onto full power and blasts away.
Mr Knave : A challenge. Indicate and justify no fewer than three points within my previous post which justify the label "rubbish". It would help if you could present reasoned argument showing why my assertions are incorrect.
Elevenses81 has already attacked me with pomposity ("Get a grip, man") but he does point out that he finds similarities with the behaviour of discontented Germans in the 1930s difficult to accept. Fair enough. But you, Jack, you just blast away. Action without premeditation. The world waits ...
-
It's not a suggestion. It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge. Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax.
I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi. As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware). After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.
-
It's not a suggestion. It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge. Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax.
I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi. As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware). After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.
So the Treasury had 4 months to tell the politicians that there was a rise in calculated income, and therefore there would be a surcharge? Well, as I said, this is either stupidity or some kind of deliberate act. Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP? I guess we will never know.
-
It's not a suggestion. It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge. Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax.
I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi. As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware). After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.
So the Treasury had 4 months to tell the politicians that there was a rise in calculated income, and therefore there would be a surcharge? Well, as I said, this is either stupidity or some kind of deliberate act. Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP? I guess we will never know.
Too sensitive back in May.
Ideal now since it makes Cameron look tough on Europe and that always gets Middle Englands political G Spot.
-
Your well reasoned reply is somewhat tainted by this unsavoury piece of hyperbole.
Hyperbole? Surely, you're exaggerating!
Oh I see, so the 'foreigner' in our midst is perceived to be the perpetual outsider, a hate figure in hock to international banking and intrinsically disloyal and hence ripe for whatever hatred and abuse we throw on them. Get a grip man!!! Concerns about the addition of 1m added to our population since the mid 90's without additional infrastructure is not an insignificant concern.
Good Heavens. A whole million added to our population since the mid 90s?
Yes, we must think carefully about this. So, over 20 years an increase of about 1.75%. Not much, is it. That is an annual increase of about 0.08%. With the population measurement tools at our disposal such a quantity falls well within the margin of error.
Consider also - we have an ageing population. People are living longer and more and more people are retiring from the workforce. The proportion of the non-economically active portion of the workforce is growing and there is a real need for national income to support the non-active people.
Immigrants pay taxes. Without their contribution the situation would be even less secure than it is now.
Do you really think that Nigel Farage would lead us to the promised land?
-
Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP? I guess we will never know.
What's the current timelag in publishing Government paperwork? Is it still 30 years? ;)
-
It's not a suggestion. It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge. Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax.
I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi. As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware). After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.
So the Treasury had 4 months to tell the politicians that there was a rise in calculated income, and therefore there would be a surcharge? Well, as I said, this is either stupidity or some kind of deliberate act. Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP? I guess we will never know.
Too sensitive back in May.
Ideal now since it makes Cameron look tough on Europe and that always gets Middle Englands political G Spot.
You could argue the reverse; that this has made Cameron look weak, and trailing behind UKIP. Hence, his synthetic anger. The Rochester by-election looks lost. It does suggest that the Treasury is somehow being tricky.
-
Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC
When was there a referendum for joining the EEC?
Without going into a semanticle debate, which seems to be your forte, the rererendum conducted when Ted Heath was PM, if you wish to argue about the terms I have used, please enjoy arguing with yourself.
ippy
-
Incidentally, the new statistics on the British economy were published in May by the Office for National Statistics, which is of course, a British outfit, not some nasty EU one. It also said that these new figures would be used by the EU to calculate the contribution to the EU. So somewhere there is a gap in the chain of communication, from the ONS stats, to Treasury officials, who would presumably read this (as did the Daily Mail), and then to politicians. Maybe like Nelson, somebody put the telescope to their blind eye.
-
Do you really think that Nigel Farage would lead us to the promised land?
God no Harrowby!!!!!!!!!! I may be a pompous and judgemental old sod, but credit me with one more brain cell than Jack. In posing a question about immigration I value the reasoned reply that you have given, but you can't deny that it is a big issue for many people who blame it for suppressing wages and placing great strain on local underfunded infrastructure.
-
Yet an area like London, which has high immigration, has high wages. And somewhere like Clacton, which is economically more run-down has low immigration. I know it's sometimes said in Manchester, that local areas with low immigration (and low wages), object to immigration, which is an interesting human trait.
-
Maybe if the EU recognised the additional social cost of an unbalanced movement of EU citizens across Europe and granted those regions additional funding, hostility, warranted or otherwise, could be tempered.
-
Maybe if the EU recognised the additional social cost of an unbalanced movement of EU citizens across Europe and granted those regions additional funding, hostility, warranted or otherwise, could be tempered.
I'm not sure. Cornwall gets EU investment (not about immigration), yet UKIP seem popular there, don't they? I think it's currently half a billion euros, from 2014 to 2020. Maybe they need more immigrants to increase the cash flow!
-
Many people would be shocked how economically disadvantaged Cornwall is. It certainly is not just surfing, Rock, Padstow and stunning scenery, but more about empty holiday homes at inflated prices, no jobs and a great deal of poverty. Someone in this thread posted a cost figure to the UK of £90bn/annum which is nonsense when the figure is actually about £8bn when refunds are taken into account.
-
We have always looked across the pond in the past to the US for support
You seem to have forgotten that we have just finished paying off our WW2 loans to the US. They even made us pay for clapped-out WW1 destroyers. With the election of a Labour government after the war, all reconstruction loans were withdrawn and Maynard Keynes spent months in Washington trying to reverse the decision.
Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
-
Should we leave the EEC(sic)?
No.
-
Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
The UK didn't get a penny of it. I suggest you rely less on internet sources for your knowledge of history and go down your library and do some proper research.
-
Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
The UK didn't get a penny of it.
Is that what you really think? If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.
The European economy is not a zero sum game. If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too. If the European economy does well, we benefit.
Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years. How cool is that?
-
Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
The UK didn't get a penny of it.
Is that what you really think? If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.
The European economy is not a zero sum game. If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too. If the European economy does well, we benefit.
Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years. How cool is that?
Remind me who saved Europe from annihilation and stood alone. Remind me who our ally was. Remind me which was the only European nation to be in hock to the US for 65 years. Remind me why the US withdraw its reconstruction loans with the election of a Labour [sorry, communist] government. Do you have a library card?
-
Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
The UK didn't get a penny of it.
Is that what you really think? If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.
The European economy is not a zero sum game. If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too. If the European economy does well, we benefit.
Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years. How cool is that?
Remind me who saved Europe from annihilation and stood alone.
The Soviet Union.
Remind me who our ally was.
The USA and the Soviet Union.
Remind me which was the only European nation to be in hock to the US for 65 years.
Did you expect them to just give us all of that military hardware? Don't you think a 65 year term for repayment is generous?
And remind me which nation sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Europe to die on the Western Front despite not being directly involved and having a greater threat from Japan.
As well as that, Britain got $3 billion or more under the Marshall Plan. If I was an American I'd be telling you to shove your library card up your ass now.
-
This board always welcomes erudite contributions such as yours Jeremy. So you don't have a library card then?
-
This board always welcomes erudite contributions such as yours Jeremy. So you don't have a library card then?
Why are you obsessing about who has got a library card and who hasn't?
What does it matter if I found my facts on Wikipedia or in a library as long as they are correct?
I'm currently thinking that your fascination with my library card is because you are trying to deflect attention from the fact that I am, broadly speaking, right on this occasion.
-
Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC
When was there a referendum for joining the EEC?
Without going into a semanticle debate, which seems to be your forte, the rererendum conducted when Ted Heath was PM, if you wish to argue about the terms I have used, please enjoy arguing with yourself.
ippy
Really.
Ted Heath took us into the EEC following a general election, it was a manifesto pledge.
The only EEC referendum was under a Harold Wilson government and that was to ask whether we should REMAIN in it.
You like this word "semantic" , I suggest that you look it up and find out what it means.
Semantics Proff, just as I said true to form.
ippy
-
Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC
When was there a referendum for joining the EEC?
Without going into a semanticle debate, which seems to be your forte, the rererendum conducted when Ted Heath was PM, if you wish to argue about the terms I have used, please enjoy arguing with yourself.
ippy
Really.
Ted Heath took us into the EEC following a general election, it was a manifesto pledge.
The only EEC referendum was under a Harold Wilson government and that was to ask whether we should REMAIN in it.
You like this word "semantic" , I suggest that you look it up and find out what it means.
Semantics Proff, just as I said true to form.
ippy
I don't think it is semantics to say that the referendum conducted under Edward Heath didn't happen because it didn't.
-
Re: the Marshall Plan.
An interesting article from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
-
Semantics Proff, just as I said true to form.
ippy
No Ippy, you're just wrong again.
Who took us into the EEC?
ippy
-
Ted Heath.
There was no referendum, it was a manifesto pledge.
Are you going to claim that the general election was in fact a referendum and THEN accuse me of quibbling over semantics?
O K Proff, how does that alter my point about the referendum was for the membership of the EEC not the EU?
ippy
-
Should we leave the EEC(sic)?
No.
This time Jeremy is correct.
OK I post now as a member not as a moderator.
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
I read in the Torygraph recently that a wealthy PUKIP supporter now owns the Daily Express, and the Daily Star. IMHO the former is aimed at those who want to see Kate looking a bit more like the Queen Mum, and the latter is aimed at those who want to see more of Cheryl Cole's bum.
Thank you.
-
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
While the EU might be overdue for reform with it's (seemingly) unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy, it gives us access to one of the worlds largest trading blocks and we would have plenty of allies in the reform process if we could just concentrate on the real problems and abandon the hysterics!
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
-
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
While the EU might be overdue for reform with it's (seemingly) unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy, it gives us access to one of the worlds largest trading blocks and we would have plenty of allies in the reform process if we could just concentrate on the real problems and abandon the hysterics!
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
Karma Applaud
-
My thoughts exactly Lapsed Atheist.
-
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
While the EU might be overdue for reform with it's (seemingly) unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy, it gives us access to one of the worlds largest trading blocks and we would have plenty of allies in the reform process if we could just concentrate on the real problems and abandon the hysterics!
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
The trouble is that most of the EU institutions and organisations are deeply flawed and even corrupt. They protect themselves from reform by exploiting the differing interests of the member states and directing farces - such as the changes to the payments/rebates to the EU budget currently in the news.
-
The payments/rebates are not 'changes', and have always operated this way. Cameron can huff and puff, but we all know he will end up agreeing. Playing for waivering Tory voters using the EU payment demand will certainly backfire. Yes of course the EU needs reform, but not this way.
-
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
However, its worth remembering that UKIP are taking from Labour as well, LA. You comment about the possibility of a 'weak Socialist pro-EU administration' seems to miss the point that what we need is a strong centrist pro-Europe administration that can push forward the needed changes (something that currently only the Tory Party seems willing to be/attempt) which can only really eventuate if Tory and Labour 'moderates' are willing to work together, perhaps with a Lib-Dem rump. I sometimes feel that DC fails to keep his gunpowder dry, which he really ought not to be blurting out until he is actually in the actual talks.
-
The trouble is that most of the EU institutions and organisations are deeply flawed and even corrupt. They protect themselves from reform by exploiting the differing interests of the member states and directing farces - such as the changes to the payments/rebates to the EU budget currently in the news.
Many of those criticisms are true of any large institution, the solution is transparency and accountability - those are the things that we should be pushing for.
-
Many of those criticisms are true of any large institution, the solution is transparency and accountability - those are the things that we should be pushing for.
And which of the main 4 or 5 UK political parties are doing so?
-
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
However, its worth remembering that UKIP are taking from Labour as well, LA. You comment about the possibility of a 'weak Socialist pro-EU administration' seems to miss the point that what we need is a strong centrist pro-Europe administration that can push forward the needed changes (something that currently only the Tory Party seems willing to be/attempt) which can only really eventuate if Tory and Labour 'moderates' are willing to work together, perhaps with a Lib-Dem rump. I sometimes feel that DC fails to keep his gunpowder dry, which he really ought not to be blurting out until he is actually in the actual talks.
I don't think that there is any evidence that traditional Labour voters are 'flocking' to UKIP it's more the 'don't knows'. The recent 'near-miss' at Heywood & Middleton probably had more to do with Labour voters staying at home.
I agree that we need a strong centrist pro-Europe administration, but being 'pro-Europe' should not mean being uncritical of the EU. To me the greatest danger would be that the UKIP vote might end-up giving us a minority Labour government, propped-up by LIB-DEMs and nationalists. A weak administration totally unable to stand-up to Brussels or make unpopular decisions at home.
-
Many of those criticisms are true of any large institution, the solution is transparency and accountability - those are the things that we should be pushing for.
And which of the main 4 or 5 UK political parties are doing so?
THAT is the real question that we should be asking.
-
A bit of wishful thinking: Is there any chance that the other parties (ie aside from UKIP) could formulate and agree on an EU reform policy/program and build a supporting coalition with other member states?
-
A bit of wishful thinking: Is there any chance that the other parties (ie aside from UKIP) could formulate and agree on an EU reform policy/program and build a supporting coalition with other member states?
The Germans and Dutch are quite keen on reform, and I dare say we could work with them if we could just get over our current xenophobic tantrum.
-
A bit of wishful thinking: Is there any chance that the other parties (ie aside from UKIP) could formulate and agree on an EU reform policy/program and build a supporting coalition with other member states?
If only. Ironically, we need UKIP to do well enough to scare both the main parties into a coalition which we really ought to have had back in 2010. At least we would then have a government which was set on keeping us in a reformed EU.
-
The Germans and Dutch are quite keen on reform, and I dare say we could work with them if we could just get over our current xenophobic tantrum.
No, we need the xenophobic tantrum to force the real parties into a productive coalition that would then sideline the tantrum party.
-
Sadly consensus precludes party political posturing. It would seem sensible to have cross party agreement amongst pro-EU parties, but they just aren't mature enough are they?
-
The Germans and Dutch are quite keen on reform, and I dare say we could work with them if we could just get over our current xenophobic tantrum.
No, we need the xenophobic tantrum to force the real parties into a productive coalition that would then sideline the tantrum party.
I'd agree that like a nasty stomach-bug, it probably has to 'run it's course', but that will keep British politics locked in the toilet for some time :)
-
Sadly consensus precludes party political posturing. It would seem sensible to have cross party agreement amongst pro-EU parties, but they just aren't mature enough are they?
I think the parties in and of themselves are mature enough; it's the bulk of the electorate who aren't.
-
It would seem sensible to have cross party agreement amongst pro-EU parties, but they just aren't mature enough are they?
You never know.
They might promise the world, get some scare stories started in the press and media, get a couple of celebs to endorse the euro and band together.. al la referendum style... :)
Strange one really as my heart tells me to stay in but my head really echoes what Udayana said.
-
The EEC today is a very different animal.
Yep it's called the EU.
-
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
While the EU might be overdue for reform with it's (seemingly) unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy, it gives us access to one of the worlds largest trading blocks and we would have plenty of allies in the reform process if we could just concentrate on the real problems and abandon the hysterics!
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
I think that's a pretty good assessment.
-
It's almost as if the EU Commission conspired with UKIP to produce anti-EU sentiment and persuade the British Public to vote for out. I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye?
Someone might have calculated that if they can damage Cameron, Britain might end-up with a pro-EU Socialist government under Red Ed :)
Why would a pissed off with the EU British public vote in a pro-EU political party?
A poll in the 'I' has Labour and Conservatives on 30% each and UKIP on 19%.
-
The treaty that Gordon Brown signed ??? :o >:(
That was the Lisbon Treaty. You can't just suddenly swot up on it at the last minute and think you will get the facts you have to do it as an on going process.
But it remains fact that the Labour Government, in common with previous Tory and Labour Governments, failed to give the British people a referendum on the Treaty, which was very nearly upset when the French and the Republic of Ireland initially rejected it in referenda held by those two and several other European nations. I wonder whether the rise of UKIP would have been as it has been if we had had a referendum at that point of time.
Labour in their manifesto promised a vote on the Constitution Treaty which morphed into the Lisbon treaty. They reneged on it because they knew they would lose and Labour are socialists which means, like Lenin, they do not trust the people and only want to implement their madness which is in line with the EU.
-
We would be better off out than in the EU which is draining our economy.
If you call being in credit from Europe 'draining our economy', you need to have a rethink, JK. Most serious opponents to our continued EU membership don't refer to the economioc position, but to all the corruption and inefficiencies that abound within the system - the fact that the EU accounts have not been been signed off for 17 or 18 years, the unelected Commissioners can produce Directives that hold as much influence as European Parliamentary 'Acts' that have been properly evaluated and voted on, the unnecessary expenditure on two 'headquarters', the farce that is the Community Agricultural Policy which continues to subsidise inefficient French farm practices, etc.
What are you going on about being in credit?
As a point of correction the EP can not make or propose any laws or directives. Only the Commission can propose these based on the treaties. It's like basing your life on an out of date book like the Bible and not revaluating your circumstances as time moves on. Totally stupid.
-
My opinion on the thread title is that, for all its failings and problems (see my earlier post listing some) our membership of the EU is a vital part of our continued economic stability. Farage's policies - overall - are policies for a steady decline into banana republicanism - similar in outcome, but not in detail, to those of Wilson and Callaghan in the late 70s.
You're Welsh aren't you. That explains everything.
-
As a lifelong Labour supporter I no longer have the stomach for the likes of Miliband and Emily Thornberry in No 10 on a small majority, but that may well happen as previous posts have suggested. The leadership is mediocre, but how I would vote in May I really don't know. Maybe a tactical Tory vote. My local tory MP is well-respected, local and very much listens to his a constituents. Labour at the last 3 elections just parachutes in candidates.
Cynicism with our politics has become a depressing reality. A reformed EU is clearly best option for the UK, but Cameron has played his hand like an arse and has only lost whatever support he had from the likes of Germany, Netherlands and even France. I can't believe these nations want a non-functioning EU either. Labour under a decisive leader could achieve reform, but we don't have one.
-
I am rather concerned by the obsession with the EU. It seems to me that there is a section of society which can be broadly categorised as the not highly educated lower middle classes in middle life who believe, for some reason, that the "rewards" of life, which they think are due to them, are passing them by. (I say categorisation - I realise that some may consider this close to a caricature.)
They look for a reason and are entranced by slick individual with a passing resemblence to Arthur Daley who tells them that the reasons for this are:
(a) immigrants who, simultaneously, are taking all available jobs and growing rich on welfare benefits as well as monopolising health and education services and
(b) the EU which is submerging our British identity with expensive uncontrolled beaurocracy.
Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?
Should Britain leave the EU expect an early announcement that the Nissan car plant in the North East will close. Nissan is controlled by Renault who would not waste any time in relocating the most efficient car producer in Europe onto French soil.
As far as trade to Europe is concerned, leaving the EU would be an empty gesture. The UK will be faced with all of the existing regulation and "bureaucracy" that it faces now. It costs Switzerland and Norway just as much to trade with the EU (in terms of regulations and bureaucracy) as it does EU members. But being inside the union does mean that a country can influence decision making; being outside the union means having to put up with whatever is thrown at you.
One of Arthur Dal Nigel Farage's claims is that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Well, don't forget that the competition will then come from the BRICs. Be ready for wages and living standards to fall in order to become competitive. In ten years the UK will be the Argentina of Europe.
I am not totally against Nigel Farage. Like him I believe that the UK needs to reform its preVictorian constitution. I worry that second rate political leaders like Cameron and Milliband are incapable of seeing beyond party advantage and will not seize the opportunities currently presented.
What rubbish. You must be a LibDem twat, as you haven't mentioned Cleggie boy with the other two.
I am indeed blessed. I have been insulted by Jack Knave. I shall bear this as a badge of honour.
As is so often the case, Mr Knave simply insults, he does not provide any reasoned argument. He switches his three working neurones onto full power and blasts away.
Mr Knave : A challenge. Indicate and justify no fewer than three points within my previous post which justify the label "rubbish". It would help if you could present reasoned argument showing why my assertions are incorrect.
Elevenses81 has already attacked me with pomposity ("Get a grip, man") but he does point out that he finds similarities with the behaviour of discontented Germans in the 1930s difficult to accept. Fair enough. But you, Jack, you just blast away. Action without premeditation. The world waits ...
I have in the past presented material/articles on the EU on this forum and have been abused for it even though I wanted people to comment and argue on what I had provided. Instead I got abuse by people who didn't even read it and yet even so passed judgement on what it had 'said'. I can't be bothered to type stuff on the EU that will only be totally ignored except for short reposts.
However, for you my three points are:-
Para 1 & 2 is utter nonsense! Who are these people? You seem to be saying that as they don't agree with you and take what you consider to be an extreme position they must be deluded, insane and imbecilic troglodytes.
Para 4: A similar thing was said if we didn't join the Euro, that businesses would leave and capital would move out of the UK. This never came about and thank God we didn't join that hellhole which idiots like you would have taken us into. France?!?!?!? That country is losing businesses and companies because it is in the Eurozone.
Para 5: Anyone trading with the EU have to keep to their rules including China and the USA. And the EU has to keep to their rules and standards etc. All our produce has to be to EU standards even if it is not going to be sold in the EU thereby imposing extra costs on the suppliers and manufacturers!!! Influence with what? Ever closer union means that the tracks that the EU is on have already been laid in the Treaties (that is to the EUSSR) and there is no way they can turn to the left or right or even backtrack. This is utter madness.
Para 6: Wages and standards are going down because we are in the EU. Look at the Eurozone, what a great success that is!!! What fucking planet are you on??
Para 7: As I said, what fucking planet are you on?? What are you waffling on about pre-Victorian...
I hope you feel blessed.
May the Knave be with you!..Moderator: content removed.
-
Immigrants pay taxes. Without their contribution the situation would be even less secure than it is now.
Our people pay taxes. We have nearly 2 million unemployed, we don't need any more low skilled people. Immigrants who take jobs take jobs from the indigenous people so you have to add on the benefits they have to take because their jobs have been nicked. Also, the low paid immigrants get in-work benefits so their taxes pretty much add up to nothing when everything is taken into account. Immigrants also drive down wages making Britain a poorer place.
Do you really think that Nigel Farage would lead us to the promised land?
What a stupid thing to say you Moderator: content removed. The EU has taken us to a hellhole that's for sure. Look at its flagship project the Eurozone! A total mess which is about to crash.
-
Do you really think that Nigel Farage would lead us to the promised land?
God no Harrowby!!!!!!!!!! I may be a pompous and judgemental old sod, but credit me with one more brain cell than Jack. In posing a question about immigration I value the reasoned reply that you have given, but you can't deny that it is a big issue for many people who blame it for suppressing wages and placing great strain on local underfunded infrastructure.
Reasoned reply from Hollowby. You must be joking. I think both of you must have brains comparable with a chimpanzee - though that may be an insult to the chimps at London zoo.
-
For DavId Cameron, the latest £2bn demand from Europe [for not stagnating like France] is further cause for further debate on our role in Europe.
The Government was warned...
I voted for the entry in the 1970s on purely economic terms. The EEC today is a very different animal. The EEC was born out of post-WW2 reconstruction as both a determination that there would never be another European war, an economic independence from US aid and to ensure that coal, steel and agriculture were supported by subsidy. How it has grown in size and function since!!!!.
Is that why all our pits were more or less shut down and the strikes of the 70's took place. You are one of the first I have ever heard admit to voting to go in the EEC. Every adult I know and have met never admitted to that.
To me it appears the poorer countries took the money from the wealthier countris. Basically we got used or is that mugged?
The economic, social and strategic implications are hideously complicated, but for many in the UK it just doesn't meet their needs anymore.
It NEVER met out needs. We just got deeper into debt.
-
Should we leave the EEC(sic)?
No.
Moderator: content removed.
The answer is yes.
-
Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
The UK didn't get a penny of it.
Is that what you really think? If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.
The European economy is not a zero sum game. If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too. If the European economy does well, we benefit.
Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years. How cool is that?
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
-
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
While the EU might be overdue for reform with it's (seemingly) unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy, it gives us access to one of the worlds largest trading blocks and we would have plenty of allies in the reform process if we could just concentrate on the real problems and abandon the hysterics!
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
Karma Applaud
He's talking shit, Hollowby.
-
For DavId Cameron, the latest £2bn demand from Europe [for not stagnating like France] is further cause for further debate on our role in Europe.
The Government was warned...
I voted for the entry in the 1970s on purely economic terms. The EEC today is a very different animal. The EEC was born out of post-WW2 reconstruction as both a determination that there would never be another European war, an economic independence from US aid and to ensure that coal, steel and agriculture were supported by subsidy. How it has grown in size and function since!!!!.
Is that why all our pits were more or less shut down and the strikes of the 70's took place. You are one of the first I have ever heard admit to voting to go in the EEC. Every adult I know and have met never admitted to that.
To me it appears the poorer countries took the money from the wealthier countris. Basically we got used or is that mugged?
The economic, social and strategic implications are hideously complicated, but for many in the UK it just doesn't meet their needs anymore.
It NEVER met out needs. We just got deeper into debt.
Our pits closed down because it was cheaper to import coal from open-cast mines in Poland and from afar as Australia than mine our own deep mines. This was not an EU Issue. Not even the EU would support loss-making pits. This continues to leave blighted communities in Wales and northern England that 30 years of Labour and Tory government have done nothing about other than claim to have created X number of jobs. These jobs are unskilled and low-paid and hardly appeal to those who once had well-paid jobs underground.
During the LBC leader’s debate UKIP leader Nigel Farage claimed the UK’s membership fee of the EU is “£55 million a day” – the equivalent of about £20 billion in total per year. In fact with rebates the figure is nearer £12bn. Not a lot when our NHS budget is now over £100bn and £40bn is lost every year in tax avoidance.
The debate about the EU Sassy is not an economic one, but about the perceived loss of Westminster powers.
-
Yes the UK should stay in the EU rather than being the 51st State of the USA, and rather than being a nonentity on the edge of Europe.
While the EU might be overdue for reform with it's (seemingly) unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy, it gives us access to one of the worlds largest trading blocks and we would have plenty of allies in the reform process if we could just concentrate on the real problems and abandon the hysterics!
The irony is that Farage's clowns are only likely to split the Conservative vote and get Miliband elected as the leader of a weak Socialist pro-EU administration, totally incapable of pushing forward the required changes.
Karma Applaud
He's talking shit, Hollowby.
It's always good to hear your skilful analysis Jack, it puts everything in perspective :)
-
I have in the past presented material/articles on the EU on this forum and have been abused for it even though I wanted people to comment and argue on what I had provided. Instead I got abuse by people who didn't even read it and yet even so passed judgement on what it had 'said'. I can't be bothered to type stuff on the EU that will only be totally ignored except for short reposts.
Jack, whilst I am sure that there have been those who have 'passed judgement' without reading (this, after all, seems to be relatively wide-spread across boards and threads), there have been many who have not only read but who have given considerable time to critique the points you have raised - often based on many years of their own study of this particular issue.
Unfortunately, you don't often seem to have taken their expertise and understanding into account in your responses, simply assuming that your views are the 'correct' views to be held.
-
The debate about the EU Sassy is not an economic one, but about the perceived loss of Westminster powers.
Not sure I'd agree, 11s. I'd say that there are elements of both involved. Certainly, for the majority of folk I know the issues are more financial (which includes auditing) than any perceived loss of Westminster powers.
-
I've seen pro-EU people argue that it's worth £70 billion to the British economy. How they arrive at that figure - no idea. I expect this kind of thing will be kicked around if there's a referendum. I think exports are worth about £200 billion, but then some of those would remain outside the EU. There are also costs associated with EU membership, sometimes calculated at £50 billion, again I don't know how they're calculated.
-
For DavId Cameron, the latest £2bn demand from Europe [for not stagnating like France] is further cause for further debate on our role in Europe.
The Government was warned...
I voted for the entry in the 1970s on purely economic terms. The EEC today is a very different animal. The EEC was born out of post-WW2 reconstruction as both a determination that there would never be another European war, an economic independence from US aid and to ensure that coal, steel and agriculture were supported by subsidy. How it has grown in size and function since!!!!.
Is that why all our pits were more or less shut down and the strikes of the 70's took place. You are one of the first I have ever heard admit to voting to go in the EEC. Every adult I know and have met never admitted to that.
To me it appears the poorer countries took the money from the wealthier countris. Basically we got used or is that mugged?
The economic, social and strategic implications are hideously complicated, but for many in the UK it just doesn't meet their needs anymore.
It NEVER met out needs. We just got deeper into debt.
Our pits closed down because it was cheaper to import coal from open-cast mines in Poland and from afar as Australia than mine our own deep mines. This was not an EU Issue. Not even the EU would support loss-making pits. This continues to leave blighted communities in Wales and northern England that 30 years of Labour and Tory government have done nothing about other than claim to have created X number of jobs. These jobs are unskilled and low-paid and hardly appeal to those who once had well-paid jobs underground.
Figures please... You see that would not really the proof. How do you import coal from Australia cheaper than mining it here?
During the LBC leader’s debate UKIP leader Nigel Farage claimed the UK’s membership fee of the EU is “£55 million a day” – the equivalent of about £20 billion in total per year. In fact with rebates the figure is nearer £12bn. Not a lot when our NHS budget is now over £100bn and £40bn is lost every year in tax avoidance.
Goffer is the term we used in selling during the late 70's for people who accepted whatever they were told on face value.
The tax man does not let anyone get away... Are you talking legitimate tax evasion or people ripping them off.
If the tax man like the DWP could actually tell you the amount they are being ripped off then they would not be, being ripped off would they?
The NHS budget includes the wages of the nhs staff and there really good pension when they retire.
The nhs is not paying that much out for treatents they are paying the costs of doctos and nurses and all health care staff included in that. Same as any firm... but allow anyone to be treated from any country for free and what do you expect?
The debate about the EU Sassy is not an economic one, but about the perceived loss of Westminster powers.
They should never have entered the EU and financially we would have been better off, if they had not.
-
How do you import coal from Australia cheaper than mining it here?
Have you ever considered coming to your own conclusion? Yes, it really was cheaper to ship a low-cost bulk item halfway around the world because of the huge costs involved in UK deep mining. Consider the logistics of extraction. Miners often had to work many km from the bottom of the shaft and their journey underground could take up to 90 minutes. Arthur Scargill, if you remember, boasted at every opportunity that UK deep-mined coal was the cheapest in Europe when the UK was the only country which produced it. The rest of the world had switched to open-cast mining after ww2.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
It's in our interest to help the EU recover. We need to stay in.
-
Figures please... You see that would not really the proof. How do you import coal from Australia cheaper than mining it here?
Australian coal is near the surface. It's mined by stripping off the rock on top and then removing the coal with massive digging machines. British coal is deep underground and has to be removed by people with drills.
The proof that it is cheaper to ship Australian coal half way round the World is obvious: the British mines have almost all gone.
-
I have in the past presented material/articles on the EU on this forum and have been abused for it even though I wanted people to comment and argue on what I had provided. Instead I got abuse by people who didn't even read it and yet even so passed judgement on what it had 'said'. I can't be bothered to type stuff on the EU that will only be totally ignored except for short reposts.
Jack, whilst I am sure that there have been those who have 'passed judgement' without reading (this, after all, seems to be relatively wide-spread across boards and threads), there have been many who have not only read but who have given considerable time to critique the points you have raised - often based on many years of their own study of this particular issue.
Unfortunately, you don't often seem to have taken their expertise and understanding into account in your responses, simply assuming that your views are the 'correct' views to be held.
I don't know what heavenly forum you're on Hope but it definitely is not this one for I have never received cogent comments on articles I have posted on any EU issue.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
It's in our interest to help the EU recover. We need to stay in.
No it's not. No we don't.
-
When the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of telling you lot, "I Told You So!"
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
It's in our interest to help the EU recover. We need to stay in.
No it's not. No we don't.
So you have no understanding of basic economics.
Let me put it in terms that a moronic idiot would understand: if Europe is rich, they buy more stuff off us.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
It's in our interest to help the EU recover. We need to stay in.
No it's not. No we don't.
So you have no understanding of basic economics.
Let me put it in terms that a moronic idiot would understand: if Europe is rich, they buy more stuff off us.
I'm splitting my sides in gut wrenching cachinnations. Up to your usual low standards, Jeremy!!!
;D ;D ;D
That's one big fucking massive IF.
You're the moronic economic idiot!!!
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
-
I thought that the EU economy crashed during 08/09 and stayed stagnant, but has been growing since about 2013; but I stand to be corrected. Chart here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth
-
I thought that the EU economy crashed during 08/09 and stayed stagnant, but has been growing since about 2013; but I stand to be corrected. Chart here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth
Perhaps Jack was referring to himself when he said "I have never received cogent comments on articles I have posted on any EU issue"?
-
I'm splitting my sides in gut wrenching cachinnations. Up to your usual low standards, Jeremy!!!
I'm merely pitching my arguments at a level you might be able to understand.
You're the moronic economic idiot!!!
I didn't actually call you a moronic idiot. I merely stated the level at which I was pitching my argument. So instead of throwing insults around, why not try thinking and engaging. Can you at least see that my statement
"if Europe is rich, they buy more stuff off us"
is true?
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
-
I'm splitting my sides in gut wrenching cachinnations. Up to your usual low standards, Jeremy!!!
I'm merely pitching my arguments at a level you might be able to understand.
You're the moronic economic idiot!!!
I didn't actually call you a moronic idiot. I merely stated the level at which I was pitching my argument. So instead of throwing insults around, why not try thinking and engaging. Can you at least see that my statement
"if Europe is rich, they buy more stuff off us"
is true?
I've answered that. Any fool can postulate 'if' questions.
The fact that you didn't understand my straight forward and clear answer just shows why you are pitching things so low; because that's the only level you know.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
-
I didn't actually call you a moronic idiot. I merely stated the level at which I was pitching my argument. So instead of throwing insults around, why not try thinking and engaging. Can you at least see that my statement
"if Europe is rich, they buy more stuff off us"
is true?
I've answered that. Any fool can postulate 'if' questions.
No. That was a blatant avoidance of an answer.
The fact that you didn't understand my straight forward and clear answer
I understood it perfectly. You were saying "Jack Knave doesn't have an answer so he is going to run away, whilst hurling insults to cover his tracks.
You have no idea about economics.
-
Meanwhile PUKIP show themselves up again, a Puke MEP has finally apologised after implying that the boss of a Christian charity is a paedophile.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/01/ukip-mep-apologises-tweet-charity-boss-paedophile
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
-
The fact that you didn't understand my straight forward and clear answer
I understood it perfectly. You were saying "Jack Knave doesn't have an answer so he is going to run away, whilst hurling insults to cover his tracks.
That clearly tells me you didn't understand it at all because you're too shallow minded to see your own simple error.
Go back to school and get a proper education. and clear your mind of all that Leftie crap.
-
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
Data does indeed report. That's why it's collected.
What is reported is the analysis and assessment of that data which is done by a human being.
In fact data is collected by humans so compounding the iffyness of it.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
Let me rephrase and put down some clear questions:-
1. Do you have any data that supports your assertion that "EU GDP is going down year on year"?
2. If you do not have any data on what basis did you make the claim?
I'm undecided on the EU, so I'm keen to hear either case being made... Do you think I should listen to someone who claims to "have never received cogent comments on articles I have posted on any EU issue" and appears to makes claims without first having evidence to back the claims up?
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
1. Do you have any data that supports your assertion that "EU GDP is going down year on year"?
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
1. Do you have any data that supports your assertion that "EU GDP is going down year on year"?
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020.
So you were not cogent then.
-
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020
A decrease in the proportion of global GDP does not necessarily mean that EU GDP is decreasing.
It could well be increasing.
Not a particularly useful example for you to use.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
1. Do you have any data that supports your assertion that "EU GDP is going down year on year"?
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020.
So you were not cogent then.
More to the point I'm not God or a god i.e. I'm not infallible.
-
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020
A decrease in the proportion of global GDP does not necessarily mean that EU GDP is decreasing.
It could well be increasing.
Not a particularly useful example for you to use.
I never said or implied that. You need to learn how to understand English.
-
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
Citation required.
I intrigued, what would count as a valid citation?
Data that reports the EU GDP falling for the last 3/4 years. Why, on what basis did you make the claim?
Data doesn't 'report' only people do. So what I'm asking essentially is who's comments on this would you accept and who's wouldn't you?
1. Do you have any data that supports your assertion that "EU GDP is going down year on year"?
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020.
So you were not cogent then.
More to the point I'm not God or a god i.e. I'm not infallible.
I never said you were. You did claim that others were not cogent when engaging with you on the EU and yet you were found wanting in this regard when I engaged with you on the topic.
-
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020
A decrease in the proportion of global GDP does not necessarily mean that EU GDP is decreasing.
It could well be increasing.
Not a particularly useful example for you to use.
I never said or implied that. You need to learn how to understand English.
Really?
Then what do you understand by this, which is exactly what you said.
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
It is you who needs lessons in English.
-
More to the point I'm not God or a god i.e. I'm not infallible.
No. You're a liar. You said that EU GDP is going down year on year and it isn't.
Here's a graph of EU GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#mediaviewer/File:Graph_of_average_growth_rate_of_EU_countries_and_Euro_zone.png
It shows GDP growth in real terms, above 0 means GDP is going up, below 0 means it is going down.
GDP went up in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013.
The predictions for 2014 onwards are positive.
Next time, do your research before putting your foot in your mouth.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
-
Leave the EU? I thought we were better together.. Gordon where are you! ;D
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
There will still be migrants if we left the EU?
-
Leave the EU? I thought we were better together.. Gordon where are you! ;D
We are better apart but better together in the EU... Alex where are you! ;D
-
We are better apart but better together in the EU... Alex where are you! ;D
:o Yeah.. better together apart exactly ! ;D
-
What I was referring to the EU's share of global GDP.
See chart http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Share_of_world_GDP,_2002_and_2012_(%25,_based_on_current_international_PPP).png
It is forecast to go down to around 15% by 2020
A decrease in the proportion of global GDP does not necessarily mean that EU GDP is decreasing.
It could well be increasing.
Not a particularly useful example for you to use.
I never said or implied that. You need to learn how to understand English.
Really?
Then what do you understand by this, which is exactly what you said.
Except the EU GDP is going down year on year. It is virtually dead in the water. We need to leave it.
It is you who needs lessons in English.
I clarified this with Jaks. Read my responses to him.
-
More to the point I'm not God or a god i.e. I'm not infallible.
No. You're a liar. You said that EU GDP is going down year on year and it isn't.
Here's a graph of EU GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#mediaviewer/File:Graph_of_average_growth_rate_of_EU_countries_and_Euro_zone.png
It shows GDP growth in real terms, above 0 means GDP is going up, below 0 means it is going down.
GDP went up in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013.
The predictions for 2014 onwards are positive.
Next time, do your research before putting your foot in your mouth.
As I said to Hollowby read my reply to Jaks.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
We have plenty of unemployed here so we don't need low skilled immigrants. And by giving our indigenous people the jobs we would also save on the benefits they have to claim because of all those unnecessary uncontrolled immigrants.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
There will still be migrants if we left the EU?
Moderator: content removed.
-
Moderator: quoted content removed.
Are you saying that there won't be immigrants if we leave the EU, Jack? Don't forget that East Europeans emigrate to places other than the UK - including to places outside the EU.
Just as a thought for all of us, when we signed up to the EEC, we signed to freedom of movement for workers: when did this become freedom of movement for anyone? Was it the Lisbon Treaty, or the Maastricht, or when?
Interesting article here - though it doesn't answer my question above - http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-eu-freedom-movement
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
There will still be migrants if we left the EU?
Moderator: content removed.
Very cogent, such fine debating skills! Also insults used in a reply to a post that favours his own position. There is no need for me to hurl similar insults back at you, your posts do that for you sir. :)
-
Moderator: quoted content removed.
Are you saying that there won't be immigrants if we leave the EU, Jack? Don't forget that East Europeans emigrate to places other than the UK - including to places outside the EU.
Just as a thought for all of us, when we signed up to the EEC, we signed to freedom of movement for workers: when did this become freedom of movement for anyone? Was it the Lisbon Treaty, or the Maastricht, or when?
Interesting article here - though it doesn't answer my question above - http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-eu-freedom-movement
I don't know what I said as it has now been removed by some twat.
I believe the freedom of movement clause in the Treaty of Rome uses the term peoples not workers.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
There will still be migrants if we left the EU?
Moderator: content removed.
Very cogent, such fine debating skills! Also insults used in a reply to a post that favours his own position. There is no need for me to hurl similar insults back at you, your posts do that for you sir. :)
I thought, Moderator: content removed., was very cogent and clarified and explicated the issue fully.
-
Moderator: content removed.
Oh let me guess.
A UKIP voter I presume?
Oh let me guess. Moderated by a Leftie twat friend of yours closing down the debate by screaming "Racist" and other authoritarian and bigoted methods because it doesn't fit into your dogmatic, articles of faith ideology. Dealing with you lot of anally retentive control freaks is like arguing with those myopic theists on the other board or the expedient blindness of the Catholic church when having to tackle paedophiles in their ranks.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
There will still be migrants if we left the EU?
Moderator: content removed.
Very cogent, such fine debating skills! Also insults used in a reply to a post that favours his own position. There is no need for me to hurl similar insults back at you, your posts do that for you sir. :)
I thought, Moderator: content removed., was very cogent and clarified and explicated the issue fully.
But my post was supporting your position?
I'm honestly not sure if we should leave the EU but some people that support it don't seem intelligent and make claims that they can't back up. resorting to insult just further undermines you and does reflect on your position.
-
I don't know what I said as it has now been removed by some twat.
Which of the moderators are you accusing of being a twat?
-
Moderator: content removed.
Oh let me guess.
A UKIP voter I presume?
Oh let me guess. Moderated by a Leftie twat friend of yours closing down the debate by screaming "Racist" and other authoritarian and bigoted methods because it doesn't fit into your dogmatic, articles of faith ideology. Dealing with you lot of anally retentive control freaks is like arguing with those myopic theists on the other board or the expedient blindness of the Catholic church when having to tackle paedophiles in their ranks.
Moderator:
Nope - the reality is much simpler Jack. I decided to Mod this post because I judged it to be in breach of the Rules.
Now, I have Modded other posts of yours recently for similar reasons in this same thread and I recall warning you by PM (on 28th October) about your future conduct. I suggest you re-read this PM again a.s.a.p, and especially if you intend to continue posting as you have done here.
Gordon
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
According to a report by University College London's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, in 2011 EU economic migrants contributed a net £5bn to our economy in taxes. Given that our net annual 'fee' to the EU is £12bn [includes rebates], migrants can be viewed are an essential asset to our economy.
There will still be migrants if we left the EU?
Moderator: content removed.
Very cogent, such fine debating skills! Also insults used in a reply to a post that favours his own position. There is no need for me to hurl similar insults back at you, your posts do that for you sir. :)
I thought, Moderator: content removed., was very cogent and clarified and explicated the issue fully.
But my post was supporting your position?
I'm honestly not sure if we should leave the EU but some people that support it don't seem intelligent and make claims that they can't back up. resorting to insult just further undermines you and does reflect on your position.
This is my last post here. I have provided clear and cogent arguments on this forum for why we need to leave the EU which a demented chimp could have seen was good reason for us to exit it. As you lot have failed to understand this obvious and plain position because you wallow in your stupor of your Leftie ideology, which failed decades ago, and thus blinds you of the limpid answer that is in front of your very eyes I see no point in setting my position relentlessly to you in an endless palillogy.
As I stated above when the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of saying I told you so.
-
This is my last post here.
Awesome so I can get last word thanks!
I have provided clear and cogent arguments on this forum for why we need to leave the EU which a demented chimp could have seen was good reason for us to exit it.
You did say (paraphrasing) the GDP of the EU was falling and we should leave. After pushing you on this, it took a while, this fact was in fact not a fact but wrong. No further arguments have been put forward as far as I know, not clear or cogent I'm afraid.
Someone suggested that immigrants provided a positive impact to the UK economy and I replied that even if we left the EU we would still have immigration. This post actually supported your position, somehow you decided the best response to this support was throw the toys out of the pram.
As you lot have failed to understand this obvious and plain position because you wallow in your stupor of your Leftie ideology,
I'm planing to vote conservative, I sincerely hope they win the next election and we get a referendum on Europe.
which failed decades ago,
I agree socialism failed.
and thus blinds you of the limpid answer that is in front of your very eyes I see no point in setting my position relentlessly to you in an endless palillogy.
Doesn't apply because I'm not from the left. You sound a bit like you got your arse handed to you and now you are taking your ball home.
As I stated above when the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of saying I told you so.
Isn't it going to be tricky saying anything to us if you have made your last post?
-
I have provided clear and cogent arguments on this forum for why we need to leave the EU
I must have been on holiday when you did that.
As I stated above when the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of saying I told you so.
How are you going to do that if...
This is my last post here.
-
Yes we should leave.
~TW~
-
Yes we should leave.
I was leaning that way, now I'm pretty convinced I'm wrong. :(
-
Can't see any reason why we shouldn't have a referendum about joining a federated Europe, instead of having it imposed on us, without a choice.
ippy
-
Sorry I thought it said 'should we leave the BBC'.
-
Yes we should leave.
I was leaning that way, now I'm pretty convinced I'm wrong. :(
Yep. That settles it. I'm trying to think of an occasion on which TW was right, but I can't.
-
When the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of telling you lot, "I Told You So!"
I would like to remind people of what I said in October with regards to what is now happening with Greece et al and what is being said on the Grexit thread. I reckon by the end of the year things will look substantially different for the EU and its future.
-
When the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of telling you lot, "I Told You So!"
I would like to remind people of what I said in October with regards to what is now happening with Greece et al and what is being said on the Grexit thread. I reckon by the end of the year things will look substantially different for the EU and its future.
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
-
When the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of telling you lot, "I Told You So!"
I would like to remind people of what I said in October with regards to what is now happening with Greece et al and what is being said on the Grexit thread. I reckon by the end of the year things will look substantially different for the EU and its future.
Hi Jack,
I would agree that the Greek 'solution' has a very good chance of coming unstuck and if that happened the Euro would be in crisis, but that would not be an end to the EU. Possibly it would bring about the more sensible EU that Cameron is seeking.
-
We have plenty of unemployed here so we don't need low skilled immigrants. And by giving our indigenous people the jobs we would also save on the benefits they have to claim because of all those unnecessary uncontrolled immigrants.
Jack, the problem is that in many places the unskilled jobs have been offered to our unskilled unemployed and, for whatever reason, they have turned them down. The unskilled jobs remain in situ, so we need to bring in unskilled workers who are willing to fill the vacancies.
-
"Should we leave the EEC?"
YES!!
-
"Should we leave the EEC?"
YES!!
It's difficult to leave something that doesn't exist, BA and others. The EEC effectively ceased to exist in 1993.
Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009 the EC's institutions were absorbed into the EU's wider framework and the community ceased to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
-
Can't see any reason why we shouldn't have a referendum about joining a federated Europe, instead of having it imposed on us, without a choice.
ippy
We've been in a form of federated Europe since 1993, but like you ippy, I think that would make for a more realistic referendum
-
When the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of telling you lot, "I Told You So!"
I would like to remind people of what I said in October with regards to what is now happening with Greece et al and what is being said on the Grexit thread. I reckon by the end of the year things will look substantially different for the EU and its future.
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
I see you don't say 'if' so you must agree with me it is going to disintegrate. In which case I look percipient and prescient and superior, as I was saying this last October if not before this!!!
-
When the EU disintegrates I will have the pleasure of telling you lot, "I Told You So!"
I would like to remind people of what I said in October with regards to what is now happening with Greece et al and what is being said on the Grexit thread. I reckon by the end of the year things will look substantially different for the EU and its future.
Hi Jack,
I would agree that the Greek 'solution' has a very good chance of coming unstuck and if that happened the Euro would be in crisis, but that would not be an end to the EU. Possibly it would bring about the more sensible EU that Cameron is seeking.
And what is Cameron seeking? It is not one that the people want, that is, the left of Greece, Spain et al and the right of Britain, France et al. It would keep in place the elite lot like the bankers and big corporations. And all this will keep the antagonism that is building up in the EU.
-
We have plenty of unemployed here so we don't need low skilled immigrants. And by giving our indigenous people the jobs we would also save on the benefits they have to claim because of all those unnecessary uncontrolled immigrants.
Jack, the problem is that in many places the unskilled jobs have been offered to our unskilled unemployed and, for whatever reason, they have turned them down. The unskilled jobs remain in situ, so we need to bring in unskilled workers who are willing to fill the vacancies.
They have been brought in because they can be paid a lot less and so push wages down, down to levels that the indigenous people can't live on and that are better off on benefits. It's a crime. We also know that some companies don't even advertise here but go straight to Eastern Europe to get this cheap/slave labour.
-
They have been brought in because they can be paid a lot less and so push wages down, down to levels that the indigenous people can't live on and that are better off on benefits. It's a crime. We also know that some companies don't even advertise here but go straight to Eastern Europe to get this cheap/slave labour.
iirc, the coalition planned to ban this last. Not sure whether they ever did. As far as wages are concerned, the wages paid to the foreign workers (many of whom are actually temporary, seasonal immigrants returning to their home countries at the end of the season) are rarely lower than what the indigenous folk had been offered previously.
-
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
I see you don't say 'if' so you must agree with me it is going to disintegrate.
Nothing lasts forever. I'd be confident the EU will still be here when I die, hopefully with the UK in it.
In which case I look percipient and prescient and superior, as I was saying this last October if not before this!!!
Currently you look like a twat. I thought I had made that clear.
-
They have been brought in because they can be paid a lot less and so push wages down, down to levels that the indigenous people can't live on and that are better off on benefits. It's a crime. We also know that some companies don't even advertise here but go straight to Eastern Europe to get this cheap/slave labour.
iirc, the coalition planned to ban this last. Not sure whether they ever did. As far as wages are concerned, the wages paid to the foreign workers (many of whom are actually temporary, seasonal immigrants returning to their home countries at the end of the season) are rarely lower than what the indigenous folk had been offered previously.
The immigrants here are more than just seasonal workers, that sounds like Labour spin. As I said many firms don't bother advertising here but go straight to the cheap labour in E. Europe. Once here they are free to stay and many do hence the migration figures.
-
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
I see you don't say 'if' so you must agree with me it is going to disintegrate.
Nothing lasts forever. I'd be confident the EU will still be here when I die, hopefully with the UK in it.
Not in its present form and much reduced. EU 2.0 and an anaemic version.
You must be pretty much on the edge then of leaving your mortal coil!!! I give the EU a year or so. Hope you have made your funeral arrangements ;D
-
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
I see you don't say 'if' so you must agree with me it is going to disintegrate.
Nothing lasts forever. I'd be confident the EU will still be here when I die, hopefully with the UK in it.
Not in its present form and much reduced. EU 2.0 and an anaemic version.
You must be pretty much on the edge then of leaving your mortal coil!!! I give the EU a year or so. Hope you have made your funeral arrangements ;D
There are a lot of reasons why the EU needs to reform in a number of areas (and Britain is not alone in realising that) but there are also a lot of advantages in being a member of the worlds largest trading bloc.
There is a good chance that we will be able to vote to remain inside a reformed EU.
-
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
I see you don't say 'if' so you must agree with me it is going to disintegrate.
Nothing lasts forever. I'd be confident the EU will still be here when I die, hopefully with the UK in it.
Not in its present form and much reduced. EU 2.0 and an anaemic version.
You must be pretty much on the edge then of leaving your mortal coil!!! I give the EU a year or so. Hope you have made your funeral arrangements ;D
There are a lot of reasons why the EU needs to reform in a number of areas (and Britain is not alone in realising that) but there are also a lot of advantages in being a member of the worlds largest trading bloc.
There is a good chance that we will be able to vote to remain inside a reformed EU.
Depends on what you see as needing reform? My version of reform would totally change the function of the EU and it would become a radically different animal.
As for what will be on offer at the referendum you seem to be aiming your hopes way too high.
-
Why don't you wait until the EU disintegrates before being smug, then you won't look like a twat.
I see you don't say 'if' so you must agree with me it is going to disintegrate.
Nothing lasts forever. I'd be confident the EU will still be here when I die, hopefully with the UK in it.
Not in its present form and much reduced. EU 2.0 and an anaemic version.
You must be pretty much on the edge then of leaving your mortal coil!!! I give the EU a year or so. Hope you have made your funeral arrangements ;D
There are a lot of reasons why the EU needs to reform in a number of areas (and Britain is not alone in realising that) but there are also a lot of advantages in being a member of the worlds largest trading bloc.
There is a good chance that we will be able to vote to remain inside a reformed EU.
Maybe there is but not because of this govt which is still unable to even begin to describe what reforms they actually want.
-
Hope you have made your funeral arrangements ;D
Why should I? We all know that you are pretty clueless on economics and European politics.
-
Hope you have made your funeral arrangements ;D
Why should I? We all know that you are pretty clueless on economics and European politics.
That's two dangerous assumptions you are making there, Jeremy.