Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have he really thought this through like what will happened to countries like gibraltar? What is your view on the eu referendum in general? " Generally? We get a chance to vote. That can't be a bad thing, can it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have he really thought this through like what will happened to countries like gibraltar? What is your view on the eu referendum in general? Generally? We get a chance to vote. That can't be a bad thing, can it?" That is right, it is a good thing as we got a choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have he really thought this through like what will happened to countries like gibraltar? What is your view on the eu referendum in general? Generally? We get a chance to vote. That can't be a bad thing, can it?" Ah! Another chance to vote on something that is utterly irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have he really thought this through like what will happened to countries like gibraltar? What is your view on the eu referendum in general? Generally? We get a chance to vote. That can't be a bad thing, can it? Ah! Another chance to vote on something that is utterly irrelevant." While I am open to both sides of the argument, I don't think whether we stay in or leave the EU can be considered irrelevant. Why do you think that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days............. "Soxy. ..you are a superstar  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days............. "It is rare. Rod died in 1999. Emu is still grieving and refusing interviews. Bloody pansy. I am waiting for the autobiography. I hear it will be titled, "Ouch." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days.............
It is rare. Rod died in 1999. Emu is still grieving and refusing interviews. Bloody pansy. I am waiting for the autobiography. I hear it will be titled, "Ouch.""It'll make an interesting read,,,,, I always suspected that bird was being manipulated by Rod  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a reason the current government are working their socks off to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Because they know leaving it completely will be catastrophic. I'm usually very apathetic when it comes to politics, but I feel very strongly about integration. Despite all its teething problems, it's something we have to accept and get used to. "Teething problems? We have been in 40 years and its getting worse by the year ...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"eu lets get out now before it all falls apart and we in the uk have to pick up the pieces.lets stand alone and do our own thing and own choices .....we may do rather well ..." . We may do rather shit as well who knows, the only thing I can promise you is, we'll stand or fall by own decisions as an independent state, what we do, what regulations we change, what hours we work, what wealth we have, the NHS... These are OUR decisions to make for good or bad. The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless " with the greatest respect what a load of tosh ... Did we do all that before we joined? Nope.... And the trade figures say they need us more than we need them. And as for Government borrowing we do that on world markets through London. Not Frankfurt ... For 2 years nothing would change except we would stop paying in £11 Billion a year. And the WTO would guarantee our treaties. And you really think that Europe would not want our tourism? Sorry that is just nonsense .. unless you have FACTS of course .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"eu lets get out now before it all falls apart and we in the uk have to pick up the pieces.lets stand alone and do our own thing and own choices .....we may do rather well .... We may do rather shit as well who knows, the only thing I can promise you is, we'll stand or fall by own decisions as an independent state, what we do, what regulations we change, what hours we work, what wealth we have, the NHS... These are OUR decisions to make for good or bad. The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They did mentioned something on question time that whole of Britain had to say yes, not just england, so that includes Scotland, Ireland and wales too." I think that was the SNP bloke...lol they are playing games like they always do. It will be a UK wide vote. Scotland is in the Uk and will have to wear the decision of all the people. But they will make any excuse to call another independence referendum ... and why? Because as soon as the Scots realise the higher taxes they will be paying for the SNP policies it will be bye bye SNP. They are playing games with the financial settlement for the Scotland Bill so it happens AFTER the May elections in Scotland... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless with the greatest respect what a load of tosh ... Did we do all that before we joined? Nope.... And the trade figures say they need us more than we need them. And as for Government borrowing we do that on world markets through London. Not Frankfurt ... For 2 years nothing would change except we would stop paying in £11 Billion a year. And the WTO would guarantee our treaties. And you really think that Europe would not want our tourism? Sorry that is just nonsense .. unless you have FACTS of course .... "
It's mass uncontrolled immigration from the EU that is causing wage compression here already, with low skilled British workers seeing their wages squeezed or fall in real terms. It was talked about on Question Time tonight. The Asian guy on the panel admitted it and said "mass uncontrolled immigration is a bad thing".
Then the woman in the audience who said "without EU money this building we are in wouldn't have been built". What a load of rubbish, doesn't she realise how much money we give to the EU each day in membership fees, and that the EU actually gives us less of our own money back in the long term. We are being short changed by the EU if anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone else suspect that the government of the day will do whatever it feels like no matter what the referendum result is? or am I just a bit too jaded to believe in the word of politicians?" Your not the only one. They will just say that that's what the results were, majority wanted to stay in. How's the public gonna know what the actual results would be? Everyone knows that corruption exists, this could be another fix.. Bit like Fifa.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a reason the current government are working their socks off to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Because they know leaving it completely will be catastrophic. I'm usually very apathetic when it comes to politics, but I feel very strongly about integration. Despite all its teething problems, it's something we have to accept and get used to. "Teething Problems? It's still suffering from "teething problems" after more than half a century of existence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that voting should be postponed until the right people can vote. There are thousands of people missing, since the system was recently changed. Younger people - over 16s - should be permitted to vote too, as was the case in Scotland. This affects them for more of their lives potentially. We should remain in. The population haven't time to make the investigations and analysis upon the main data in a very short timeframe. Emotional decisions, without fuller rational evaluation, is short changing us all." That's probably the best reason for 16 year olds not to have a vote.... they won't have had the experience of the EU to make a rational evaluation. I know when I was 16, I would have voted to stay in the EU... I wouldn't now, with the knowledge that I have. Mind you, the EU was very much different then to what it is now. And for those people that say if we came out of the EU it would be very damaging for us trade wise, before we went in, 57% of our country's trade was with the EU countries... the last ONS statistics show that has dropped to 45%. But we buy far, far more from the EU than we sell to the EU. There's a lot of scaremongering about how we will lose our jobs and economy if we leave the EU, and then in the next breath tell us how powerful economically we are as the world's 5th largest economy! Plus, of course, if we vote out, it would in one fell swoop practically eradicate UKIP. Hang on a minute, a political party campaigning for something knowing that if they win that campaign it could mean the end of their existence? Now that's conviction and principle for you, unlike the rest of the sorry bunch we have who are only looking out for themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will "Thankfully we had some spare government capacity to help deal with the business model of the cigarette and tobacco industry. And it's potentially needed now too, with the playing of governments off against each other with tax avoidance plus that little issue of global warming, where unconstrained business practices could self-manage us all out of an habitable planet. Smaller government is not a panacea for the wellbeing of all but largely a minority. We've already seen income and health inequalities increase massively in recent decades - smaller government would likely be the wet dream to inflate and escalate the division between ultra wealthy and the masses who would sink to new levels of poverty within the middle classes. Businesses do not exist for the healthy management of society or eur economy, only their own. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Personally I think we need to change our status within the EU. We should go back to how it was when we first joined up, as in trade links n free movement around Europe, and not the whole being governed by Brussels in everything we do" If it's gone from "that to this" before and we renegotiate how long before we're back in the same situation.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will
Thankfully we had some spare government capacity to help deal with the business model of the cigarette and tobacco industry.
And it's potentially needed now too, with the playing of governments off against each other with tax avoidance plus that little issue of global warming, where unconstrained business practices could self-manage us all out of an habitable planet.
Smaller government is not a panacea for the wellbeing of all but largely a minority. We've already seen income and health inequalities increase massively in recent decades - smaller government would likely be the wet dream to inflate and escalate the division between ultra wealthy and the masses who would sink to new levels of poverty within the middle classes.
Businesses do not exist for the healthy management of society or eur economy, only their own.". I get this idea of one world government, it's a pipe dream and a possible nightmare. Climate change has already an international governing body, it's made of hundreds of independent states who have to come to agreement for the common good of us all!... The EU isn't needed to solve the problem and in reality causes as much climate change as it solves!. The perception of federal government looking after the minority isn't born out of any facts, plenty of very small governments look after the minority far better, Switzerland, Norway, Jersey, isle of Mann, new Zealand they all have a much better record of protecting the minority than say the USA! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will
Thankfully we had some spare government capacity to help deal with the business model of the cigarette and tobacco industry.
And it's potentially needed now too, with the playing of governments off against each other with tax avoidance plus that little issue of global warming, where unconstrained business practices could self-manage us all out of an habitable planet.
Smaller government is not a panacea for the wellbeing of all but largely a minority. We've already seen income and health inequalities increase massively in recent decades - smaller government would likely be the wet dream to inflate and escalate the division between ultra wealthy and the masses who would sink to new levels of poverty within the middle classes.
Businesses do not exist for the healthy management of society or eur economy, only their own..
I get this idea of one world government, it's a pipe dream and a possible nightmare.
Climate change has already an international governing body, it's made of hundreds of independent states who have to come to agreement for the common good of us all!... The EU isn't needed to solve the problem and in reality causes as much climate change as it solves!.
The perception of federal government looking after the minority isn't born out of any facts, plenty of very small governments look after the minority far better, Switzerland, Norway, Jersey, isle of Mann, new Zealand they all have a much better record of protecting the minority than say the USA!"Your notion of one word government sounds like a crazy jump, from the 2 proposals of in or out of the EU. But smaller national state machinery - as suggested above - where business self controls, is a huge recipe for disaster. Collective negotiations and change processes, such as for immediate global warming preventative activities is likely a good thing. The IPCC efforts are an element of this but real in-country implementation of remedies is needed. And EU wide standards can be effective - whilst potentially reducing each state's own duplication of effort. The argument small state good, business assumes power versus larger state, with tighter oversight bad is generally a fallacious and corrupt expectation. The minority are those who seek to gain disproportionately from the masses, with everyone but the top 1% or 2%, being exposed to undue risk and losses. The UK should remain within the EU, where we will likely become more influential and prosperous over time, through being more powerful within its body, than outside. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU..." This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The UK should remain within the EU, where we will likely become more influential and prosperous over time, through being more powerful within its body, than outside. " I admire your attitude but can I gently point out that we never voted ever to become part of a political Superstate experiment. An experiment that has failed at every new turn. ERM was good for Britain? The Euro was a success? And you seem blind to the clear plan being played out by the faceless manipulators in Brussels that the more members you have in the less power each individual member has. We joined when there were just 8 other countries and there are 28 now. The mathematics alone say we have 68% LESS influence than we had in 1973. And why these morons want Turkey in God only knows. Places like Poland lecture us about 'rights of their citizens' when it is US fixing THEIR housing, health, education and unemployment problems because we have to take THEIR citizens here. And all the time WE have to fund THEIR children? We have created our prosperity in spite of the EU not because of it. The rest of the EU is dying on its feet and we aren't. What does that tell you? It tells me we can do even better if we had control of the NETT £11 Billion we will pay this year, the people we want to work here and the laws we wish to create. £11 Billion is 1/6th our Annual deficit by the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS." What part of 'we aren't Norway or Switzerland' don't you quite understand? You play the usual scare story that we heard from the Liberal democrat and Labour EU luvvies on QT last Thursday. We are a substantially bigger and more diverse economy than both of those countries. And whatever they negotiated is their problem not ours. We will negotiate a deal for us that suits us. No one can force us (unlike now within the EU) to do anything that isn't in our national interests. Norway: * The EU remains the first major import and export partner for Norway, capturing 74.3% of the latter's trade. * Norway is also a very important exporter of metals. The EU's main source of primary aluminium is Norway. * Norway's trade with the EU shows a surplus. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/norway/index_en.htm Which is a very different economic picture to the UK. Norway needs the EU more than we do. The EU needs us more than it needs Norway. A very different negotiating position. And you forget there are WTO and GATT rules that will protect our negotiations because they forbid discrimination by trade. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will
Thankfully we had some spare government capacity to help deal with the business model of the cigarette and tobacco industry.
And it's potentially needed now too, with the playing of governments off against each other with tax avoidance plus that little issue of global warming, where unconstrained business practices could self-manage us all out of an habitable planet.
Smaller government is not a panacea for the wellbeing of all but largely a minority. We've already seen income and health inequalities increase massively in recent decades - smaller government would likely be the wet dream to inflate and escalate the division between ultra wealthy and the masses who would sink to new levels of poverty within the middle classes.
Businesses do not exist for the healthy management of society or eur economy, only their own..
I get this idea of one world government, it's a pipe dream and a possible nightmare.
Climate change has already an international governing body, it's made of hundreds of independent states who have to come to agreement for the common good of us all!... The EU isn't needed to solve the problem and in reality causes as much climate change as it solves!.
The perception of federal government looking after the minority isn't born out of any facts, plenty of very small governments look after the minority far better, Switzerland, Norway, Jersey, isle of Mann, new Zealand they all have a much better record of protecting the minority than say the USA!
Your notion of one word government sounds like a crazy jump, from the 2 proposals of in or out of the EU.
But smaller national state machinery - as suggested above - where business self controls, is a huge recipe for disaster. Collective negotiations and change processes, such as for immediate global warming preventative activities is likely a good thing. The IPCC efforts are an element of this but real in-country implementation of remedies is needed. And EU wide standards can be effective - whilst potentially reducing each state's own duplication of effort.
The argument small state good, business assumes power versus larger state, with tighter oversight bad is generally a fallacious and corrupt expectation.
The minority are those who seek to gain disproportionately from the masses, with everyone but the top 1% or 2%, being exposed to undue risk and losses.
The UK should remain within the EU, where we will likely become more influential and prosperous over time, through being more powerful within its body, than outside."The USA has a federal government system, yet the top 10% there have as much wealth combined as the bottom 90%. Bernie Sanders said as much the other day in his victory speech at New Hampshire. What makes you think a united states of Europe would be any different to the United States of America? With the EU set on ever closer union a united states of Europe is inevitable, just a matter of time (unless it collapses in on itself like the rotten deck of cards that it is before it gets to that stage - here's hoping). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you forget there are WTO and GATT rules that will protect our negotiations because they forbid discrimination by trade. " Aren't you forgetting your own words the other day complaining about Norway's tariffs: "For instance Norway applies tariffs in the region of 267%-277% for EU cheeses, 344% for EU beef and 429% for EU sheepmeat. Magic!"? Those are tariffs approved by the WTO (and they don't just apply to EU countries). Their existence doesn't seem to support the view that we can rely on the WTO to protect UK trade, does it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They did mentioned something on question time that whole of Britain had to say yes, not just england, so that includes Scotland, Ireland and wales too. I think that was the SNP bloke...lol they are playing games like they always do. It will be a UK wide vote. Scotland is in the Uk and will have to wear the decision of all the people. But they will make any excuse to call another independence referendum ... and why? Because as soon as the Scots realise the higher taxes they will be paying for the SNP policies it will be bye bye SNP. They are playing games with the financial settlement for the Scotland Bill so it happens AFTER the May elections in Scotland..." That was right, think it was him too, he did say it pretty funny there lol, but yeah I think it is hard to get all yes from all the 3 countries. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"better get this in/out thing done sharpish....as in 2 years when the turks invade the uk and all the new german migrants can move freely in the eu......the uk will be well fucked " ... an example of what the poster above called scaremongering and general bollocks? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS." . Can I ask you an honest question, those are very well put points but... Why do you think Norway and Switzerland put up with this shit deal they have?... I mean surely it would be in their interest to have joined years ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...The world needs smaller government not bigger. Business and trade sort themselves out... Always has and always will
Thankfully we had some spare government capacity to help deal with the business model of the cigarette and tobacco industry.
And it's potentially needed now too, with the playing of governments off against each other with tax avoidance plus that little issue of global warming, where unconstrained business practices could self-manage us all out of an habitable planet.
Smaller government is not a panacea for the wellbeing of all but largely a minority. We've already seen income and health inequalities increase massively in recent decades - smaller government would likely be the wet dream to inflate and escalate the division between ultra wealthy and the masses who would sink to new levels of poverty within the middle classes.
Businesses do not exist for the healthy management of society or eur economy, only their own..
I get this idea of one world government, it's a pipe dream and a possible nightmare.
Climate change has already an international governing body, it's made of hundreds of independent states who have to come to agreement for the common good of us all!... The EU isn't needed to solve the problem and in reality causes as much climate change as it solves!.
The perception of federal government looking after the minority isn't born out of any facts, plenty of very small governments look after the minority far better, Switzerland, Norway, Jersey, isle of Mann, new Zealand they all have a much better record of protecting the minority than say the USA!
Your notion of one word government sounds like a crazy jump, from the 2 proposals of in or out of the EU.
But smaller national state machinery - as suggested above - where business self controls, is a huge recipe for disaster. Collective negotiations and change processes, such as for immediate global warming preventative activities is likely a good thing. The IPCC efforts are an element of this but real in-country implementation of remedies is needed. And EU wide standards can be effective - whilst potentially reducing each state's own duplication of effort.
The argument small state good, business assumes power versus larger state, with tighter oversight bad is generally a fallacious and corrupt expectation.
The minority are those who seek to gain disproportionately from the masses, with everyone but the top 1% or 2%, being exposed to undue risk and losses.
The UK should remain within the EU, where we will likely become more influential and prosperous over time, through being more powerful within its body, than outside.". Did Dave get the "ever closer union" wording removed then?. If not I would suggest that the aim of the EU is to have a federal government, I don't think they hide that fact!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you forget there are WTO and GATT rules that will protect our negotiations because they forbid discrimination by trade. Aren't you forgetting your own words the other day complaining about Norway's tariffs: "For instance Norway applies tariffs in the region of 267%-277% for EU cheeses, 344% for EU beef and 429% for EU sheepmeat. Magic!"? Those are tariffs approved by the WTO (and they don't just apply to EU countries). Their existence doesn't seem to support the view that we can rely on the WTO to protect UK trade, does it? " Oh wow nice twisting ... The point I was actually making was that when we leave we can export TO Norway at a lower or zero tariff if we choose and therefore improve our farmer's market opportunities. They pay that tariff because the EU demands it, they have agreed it because guess what? They need the EU market for oil and steel and non-ferrous goods more than they need our cheese. .. Its really that simple. Again the point is the EU does NOT work for us as a nation let alone our Farmers. It does work for French and Belgian farmers who are less efficient of course. Yours is the sort of half truths and twisting we are used to from the EU luvvies .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"better get this in/out thing done sharpish....as in 2 years when the turks invade the uk and all the new german migrants can move freely in the eu......the uk will be well fucked ... an example of what the poster above called scaremongering and general bollocks?" Well of course we were told that 'there will be some 30,000 migrants arriving in the UK so don't worry' and we ended up getting 2 1/2 million. And counting at 300,000 a year. So this isn't 'bollocks' at all its a real possibility. If the Poles and Romas and Bulgars think we are a soft touch you can be sure the Turks will. Or maybe the Turks will head to Germany and the Germans will head here. Either way they can all sod off... we will be out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you forget there are WTO and GATT rules that will protect our negotiations because they forbid discrimination by trade. Aren't you forgetting your own words the other day complaining about Norway's tariffs: "For instance Norway applies tariffs in the region of 267%-277% for EU cheeses, 344% for EU beef and 429% for EU sheepmeat. Magic!"? Those are tariffs approved by the WTO (and they don't just apply to EU countries). Their existence doesn't seem to support the view that we can rely on the WTO to protect UK trade, does it? Oh wow nice twisting ... The point I was actually making was that when we leave we can export TO Norway at a lower or zero tariff if we choose and therefore improve our farmer's market opportunities. They pay that tariff because the EU demands it, they have agreed it because guess what? They need the EU market for oil and steel and non-ferrous goods more than they need our cheese. .. Its really that simple. Again the point is the EU does NOT work for us as a nation let alone our Farmers. It does work for French and Belgian farmers who are less efficient of course. Yours is the sort of half truths and twisting we are used to from the EU luvvies .... "You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"better get this in/out thing done sharpish....as in 2 years when the turks invade the uk and all the new german migrants can move freely in the eu......the uk will be well fucked ... an example of what the poster above called scaremongering and general bollocks? Well of course we were told that 'there will be some 30,000 migrants arriving in the UK so don't worry' and we ended up getting 2 1/2 million. And counting at 300,000 a year. So this isn't 'bollocks' at all its a real possibility. If the Poles and Romas and Bulgars think we are a soft touch you can be sure the Turks will. Or maybe the Turks will head to Germany and the Germans will head here. Either way they can all sod off... we will be out." ... more scare mongering bollocks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. " Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... more scare mongering bollocks. " Are you just trolling me or the whole Thread with your inane crap? If you think the above is wrong then how about some FACTS? Not crap soundbites ...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... more scare mongering bollocks. Are you just trolling me or the whole Thread with your inane crap? If you think the above is wrong then how about some FACTS? Not crap soundbites ... "you go first | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... more scare mongering bollocks. Are you just trolling me or the whole Thread with your inane crap? If you think the above is wrong then how about some FACTS? Not crap soundbites ...
you go first"Oh look its the other soundbite maker in chief ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist?" You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days............. "I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Orville the Duck should make the decision with regard to Europe! Dependant upon the response, and what Europe considers an adequate response, if required we can work our way through an esteemed list. I'm thinking Basil Brush, Sooty and Sweep, Roland Rat, Kermit and the badger from Bodger and Badger. Word of warning! Gordon the Gopher should only be called upon as a last resort! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days.............
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Orville the Duck should make the decision with regard to Europe! Dependant upon the response, and what Europe considers an adequate response, if required we can work our way through an esteemed list. I'm thinking Basil Brush, Sooty and Sweep, Roland Rat, Kermit and the badger from Bodger and Badger. Word of warning! Gordon the Gopher should only be called upon as a last resort! " My vote would go for Lisa Simpson to decide | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days.............
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Orville the Duck should make the decision with regard to Europe! Dependant upon the response, and what Europe considers an adequate response, if required we can work our way through an esteemed list. I'm thinking Basil Brush, Sooty and Sweep, Roland Rat, Kermit and the badger from Bodger and Badger. Word of warning! Gordon the Gopher should only be called upon as a last resort! "agree .... the muppet cartel have run things for too long | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have he really thought this through like what will happened to countries like gibraltar? What is your view on the eu referendum in general? " Restructure or out. It's a bureaucratic, federalist quango as it stands . It started as a trade agreement and has been deviously skewed a manipulated to accommodate other agendas.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose." . I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days.............
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Orville the Duck should make the decision with regard to Europe! Dependant upon the response, and what Europe considers an adequate response, if required we can work our way through an esteemed list. I'm thinking Basil Brush, Sooty and Sweep, Roland Rat, Kermit and the badger from Bodger and Badger. Word of warning! Gordon the Gopher should only be called upon as a last resort! "You forgot about Ed the duck.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Rod Hull fell from his roof trying to fix a TV Arial.... I know it not really relevant in this thread,,,,, But how rarely you get a chance to post anything about him and Emu these days.............
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Orville the Duck should make the decision with regard to Europe! Dependant upon the response, and what Europe considers an adequate response, if required we can work our way through an esteemed list. I'm thinking Basil Brush, Sooty and Sweep, Roland Rat, Kermit and the badger from Bodger and Badger. Word of warning! Gordon the Gopher should only be called upon as a last resort!
You forgot about Ed the duck. "Last I heard, Ed had joined Anonymous and was last seen astride a lion on Trafalgar Square! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead" You asked someone else that question - I guess people thought you were waiting for a reply? Norway had a referendum on entry to the EU in 1994 and the decision was not to do it. Switzerland had votes on joining the EEA in 1992 (non) and the in 1997 (non). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead You asked someone else that question - I guess people thought you were waiting for a reply? Norway had a referendum on entry to the EU in 1994 and the decision was not to do it. Switzerland had votes on joining the EEA in 1992 (non) and the in 1997 (non)." . Yeah nobody's answered it yet! Opinions seem thin on the ground | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead You asked someone else that question - I guess people thought you were waiting for a reply? Norway had a referendum on entry to the EU in 1994 and the decision was not to do it. Switzerland had votes on joining the EEA in 1992 (non) and the in 1997 (non)." . Yeah nobody's answered it yet! Opinions seem thin on the ground " They voted 'no' in referendums leaving their governments to make the best out of a bad deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah nobody's answered it yet! Opinions seem thin on the ground "probably because most folks giving an opinion on the swiss have never been to switzerland let alone even talked to anyone who's swiss so they wouldn't have a f***ing clue in reality | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Personally I'm still sitting on the fence but can already see the scaremongering and general bollocks a mile away.. from both sides. Staying in won't be any different.. maybe Brussels will be braver and take more power, who knows. Opting out won't lead to mass unemployment, higher taxes blah blah blah. We're a massive economic country. Europe need to trade with us. Always have, even before the EU. " You're absolutely correct. Whether we stay in or leave things will remain pretty much the same because we will negotiate a deal to rejoin EFTA and that deal will include free movement of people on a similar basis to what we currently have. We will still be subject most EU regulations if we want to sell our goods within the EU without tariffs. Our trade agreements with the rest of the world will still be negotiated by the EU (it currently negotiates most EFTA trade agreements being the largest member). The only difference leaving the EU will make is that we will no longer have a seat at the decision making table when it comes to what regulations are made and applied and, where as currently Britain plays a major part in negotiating EU/EFTA trade agreements with the rest of the world, as a non EU member we would be relying on mostly German and French negotiators to bargain on our behalf. Some call telling the truth scaremongering. I call it being realistic. So far I've not heard any credible proposal as to how being out of the EU would actually cost us less, give us more control of our borders or give us more say in negotiating trade agreements with anyone. We didn't do this by ourselves before we joined the EEC/EU as we have actually been a member of EFTA since its conception in 1958. We joined the EEC/EU in 1973 because being in EFTA but not being in the EEC/EU had all the disadvantages that going back to that model would still have. We've been there, it didn't work for us, why go back to it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS.. Can I ask you an honest question, those are very well put points but... Why do you think Norway and Switzerland put up with this shit deal they have?... I mean surely it would be in their interest to have joined years ago." That don't have shirt deals, there actually quite good deals and we would be lucky to negotiate a deal as good ourselves if we left. However, whilst they are quite good deals they're not as good as the deal we currently already have. Switzerland's constitution does not allow it to join; also it keeps better control of its banking sector without being a part of the EU (although this is less so now than it was). With regard to Norway the attitude to the EU and ever closer union is similar to most of Northern Europe, including Britain but not Germany. Unlike Britain and the other Scandinavian countries, opposition was a little stronger so they have stayed out. Staying out can work but it won't be anything like those that want it expect it to be. Arguments about Australian style border controls are pipe dreams. It will be almost exactly the same as now but, whilst having legally more sovereignty, we will actually have less say and consequently less real sovereignty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole point of the argument is that our government is seeking a better trading agreement but with less political integration. The EU are almost entirely at one in seeking greater political union." Actually that's not the case. There is, and always has been, a strong mistrust and dislike of the 'ever closer union' bit in Denmark, Sweden and Finland as well as Britain. Also not all the newer Easton European countries are that happy with it either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"better get this in/out thing done sharpish....as in 2 years when the turks invade the uk and all the new german migrants can move freely in the eu......the uk will be well fucked ... an example of what the poster above called scaremongering and general bollocks? Well of course we were told that 'there will be some 30,000 migrants arriving in the UK so don't worry' and we ended up getting 2 1/2 million. And counting at 300,000 a year. So this isn't 'bollocks' at all its a real possibility. If the Poles and Romas and Bulgars think we are a soft touch you can be sure the Turks will. Or maybe the Turks will head to Germany and the Germans will head here. Either way they can all sod off... we will be out." People come to Britain because it's the fastest and currently the most successful economy in Europe. They'll still come if that remains the case whether we're in or out of the EU and, if we want to be part of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) like Norway or Switzerland, we won't be able to stop them and could possibly have even less control of our borders than we currently have now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We will be voting to leave the EU. As Tony Benn said, " if you can't remove the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy" There is not one person on this site who has ever voted for our last two EU commissioners." it's the prime minister who decides who the uk's eu comissioner is. if you don't like who a party leader is likely to decide on for that role then don't go voting for that party in the uk general election in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead" It's not a bad deal for either and they are happy enough with it. If we could get such a deal ourselves it might work for us also but it's not the deal those who want to leave make it out to be. They are deals that effectively make both countries part of the EU in all but name. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead You asked someone else that question - I guess people thought you were waiting for a reply? Norway had a referendum on entry to the EU in 1994 and the decision was not to do it. Switzerland had votes on joining the EEA in 1992 (non) and the in 1997 (non).. Yeah nobody's answered it yet! Opinions seem thin on the ground "Some of us take a break to eat and watch a bit of telly from time to time. I hope you don't mind?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead It's not a bad deal for either and they are happy enough with it. If we could get such a deal ourselves it might work for us also but it's not the deal those who want to leave make it out to be. They are deals that effectively make both countries part of the EU in all but name." . So again if the deal is all but the same, but costs them more? why do the Swiss and the Norwegians keep voting to stay out, I'm genuinely interested in why you think they do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead It's not a bad deal for either and they are happy enough with it. If we could get such a deal ourselves it might work for us also but it's not the deal those who want to leave make it out to be. They are deals that effectively make both countries part of the EU in all but name.. So again if the deal is all but the same, but costs them more? why do the Swiss and the Norwegians keep voting to stay out, I'm genuinely interested in why you think they do" The Swiss constitution would not allow them to be part of the EU so it's not an option for them. I don't know why the Norwegians voted to stay out beyond what I've said about the attitude to the EU across most of Northern Europe (Scandinavia and Britain). If I was Norwegian I would vote to join the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless " Why no trade? I dont think Europe can get by without us `easily` more likely,it will implode | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You need to do your homework. That's Norway's tariff not the EU's. It is Norway that demands the tariff and not the EU. It applies to the UK, or other countries, whether or not they're in the EU. Oh dear ... nice try but its the EU negotiated that tariff with Norway for whatever reason. We had nothing to do with it and had no say. Like all deals the EU does. And we are included as we are in the EU. Outside the EU we negotiate our own bi-lateral trade deals with whoever we wish on whatever terms we wish. Ever thought maybe we could buy the minerals our industry needs cheaper direct from Norway? Want to try another twist? You can try this from the Norwegian Mission to the EU: "Norway has since 1995 had the right to choose between specific duties or ad valorem duties for all important agricultural products, that is 48 % of all tariff lines. From the outset in 1995, Norway decided to use specific duties for nearly all tariff lines. Parliament, however, noted in 1995, that a change to ad valorem duties was foreseen if border protection with specific duties proved insufficient or for other reasons.The maximum import duties are passed by the Norwegian Parliament for each calendar year" Not a mention of agreeing it with anyone. Norway imposes the tariff and decides what level of tariff to impose.. I see this theme that Norway and Switzerland have a bad deal alot. So I'm curious as to why you think they stick with this "bad deal" they have and don't join the EU instead It's not a bad deal for either and they are happy enough with it. If we could get such a deal ourselves it might work for us also but it's not the deal those who want to leave make it out to be. They are deals that effectively make both countries part of the EU in all but name.. So again if the deal is all but the same, but costs them more? why do the Swiss and the Norwegians keep voting to stay out, I'm genuinely interested in why you think they do The Swiss constitution would not allow them to be part of the EU so it's not an option for them. I don't know why the Norwegians voted to stay out beyond what I've said about the attitude to the EU across most of Northern Europe (Scandinavia and Britain). If I was Norwegian I would vote to join the EU." . Yes as the chap above pointed out the Swiss have voted twice on joining the EEA and rejected both times!. I mean the Swiss are very democratic and enjoy and do vote on many many issues!. I think everybody agrees that making things easier to trade is a good idea, I think most people agree you'd need some cooperation between independent states to achieve this. I think where we loose some people (me included) is where we see our legislators and law makers in a foreign country! I mean it's really not a new problem the Scottish the welsh and the Irish have all been annoyed by it for years to such a point where in the end devolvement back to the people had to occur!. I fear the EU expansionist plans will end in the same result! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We will be voting to leave the EU. As Tony Benn said, " if you can't remove the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy" There is not one person on this site who has ever voted for our last two EU commissioners. it's the prime minister who decides who the uk's eu comissioner is. if you don't like who a party leader is likely to decide on for that role then don't go voting for that party in the uk general election in the first place. " Ridiculous argument. Did you have any idea that the Labour Party would appoint baroness Ashton? She has never stood for election ever. Did you know the Tories would appoint Jonathan hill? Again, no. Are you seriously suggesting that I should vote for my MP or preferred party based on their possible nomination of a totally unknown person for EU commissioner? Seriously? I think leaving an ANTI democratic corporation like the EU makes much more sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless Why no trade? I dont think Europe can get by without us `easily` more likely,it will implode " Ones all the arguments are over and the scaremongering from both sides has quickly been forgotten trade between Britain and the rest of Europe will carry on regardless of whether we stay in or leave because either we will still be in or we will negotiate re-entry into EFTA on a similar bases to Norway and Switzerland (see my posts about this above). As to whether the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, that's not quite so simple. It's true that Britain has a trade deficit with Europe so one could argue they have more to loose than us. On the other hand Britain does 45% of it's foreign trade with the EU whilst the EU only does 10% of it's trade with Britain. Europe would be badly heart if it lost 10% of it's trade but Britain would be devastated if it lost 45% of its trade. Of course neither Britain will lose 45% of its trade nor the EU 10% but it does put a more realistic picture on what is at stake for each and their relative strengths in any negotiations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ridiculous argument. Did you have any idea that the Labour Party would appoint baroness Ashton? She has never stood for election ever. Did you know the Tories would appoint Jonathan hill? Again, no. Are you seriously suggesting that I should vote for my MP or preferred party based on their possible nomination of a totally unknown person for EU commissioner? Seriously? I think leaving an ANTI democratic corporation like the EU makes much more sense." well that's the way the uk democracy works.... you vote for an MP .... you end up with a prime minister that you didn't vote for unless you are resident in his constituency, he sits on the eu council and then nominates an eu comissioner on your behalf. it's our democratic process that's at fault here. the system is broken. in the same way that wales scotland and northern ireland hasn't returned a tory majority for decades but are told "tough shit, that's democracy" when the torys are elected as the mjority. the principle is exactly the same. if you don't like it then do something to change the uk democratic process instead of whinging on about how unfair it all is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thank you for your patronising, I'm touched. I totally agree with you, the system is broken, it is undemocratic and that is why We will be voting to leave.Thank you for confirming what I said. I'm not whinging, never have. I will be voting to leave. That's how our democratic system works. Well done." we get the eu comissioner that our prime minister chooses. that's how our uk democratic system works. if the referendum doesn't go your way, what then? will you concentrate on changing uk democracy? if so, how do you propose to do this? if the referendum goes your way do you think our uk system of democracy will be any less broken than it is right now? do you think the way that we do democracy in the uk will change at all or is this referendum just piecemeal to avoid any real democtratic change in the uk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thank you for your patronising, I'm touched. I totally agree with you, the system is broken, it is undemocratic and that is why We will be voting to leave.Thank you for confirming what I said. I'm not whinging, never have. I will be voting to leave. That's how our democratic system works. Well done. we get the eu comissioner that our prime minister chooses. that's how our uk democratic system works. if the referendum doesn't go your way, what then? will you concentrate on changing uk democracy? if so, how do you propose to do this? if the referendum goes your way do you think our uk system of democracy will be any less broken than it is right now? do you think the way that we do democracy in the uk will change at all or is this referendum just piecemeal to avoid any real democtratic change in the uk? After we have got out of the undemocratic EU it is time to start reforming our democracy. I have my ideas on how I would like that to look but first things first, get out of the EU. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After we have got out of the undemocratic EU it is time to start reforming our democracy. I have my ideas on how I would like that to look but first things first, get out of the EU. " and if we don't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After we have got out of the undemocratic EU it is time to start reforming our democracy. I have my ideas on how I would like that to look but first things first, get out of the EU. and if we don't? " . We could secretly gather underneath parliament with excessive amounts of fireworks! Having been intrigued with the commissioner talk I had a quick nosy of ex British ones... Now the first one that took my attention was Chris pattern who was voted out of parliament by the public!! Have no fear because, politics has a way of looking after you when the public decide your a cunt.. Anyhow he got a lovely job with a nice free house in Hong Kong where he oversaw the early return of a democratic Hong Kong to communist China and despite Hong Kong citizens who had British passports they were refused entry to the uk on the grounds that they were not really immigrants!... Anyhow after he'd sold out Hong Kong he then got a nice cushy job with the EU as funnily enough good relations commissioner!. And then there was peter mandelson, thrown out of office two or three times by his own government for various dodginess he was eventually fucked off by the voting public as well... Have no fear.. Politics has a way of being very undemocratic, yes dear old peter was given the 5k euro a week job as trade commissioner, where he was promptly caught on a nice expensive yacht with the soon to be chancellor George Osborne and a Russian billionaire aluminium oligarch... Funnily enough the Russian was just inquiring about opening EU aluminium trade with Russia where he owns several factories.... Oh the yacht by the was was owned by nick Rothschild, who's family are prominent billionaire bankers and coincidentaly he went to Oxford with David Cameron... They were even in the bullingdon club together... Oh it's such a small world in politics, even when you make it a bigger one! Still at least I've got my democratic right not to vote for this shower of shit of which i observe while being lectured about how the EU will be a different type of politics and politicans ...
Oh well back to my gunpowder plotting | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anyhow he got a lovely job with a nice free house in Hong Kong where he oversaw the early return of a democratic Hong Kong to communist China and despite Hong Kong citizens who had British passports they were refused entry to the uk on the grounds that they were not really immigrants!... Anyhow after he'd sold out Hong Kong he then got a nice cushy job with the EU as funnily enough good relations commissioner!. " Didn't the UK have to return Hong Kong to China because the lease on the territory had come to an end? That happened on the last day possible and not early, didn't it? Even if you don't like him, it's hardly reasonable to blame him for sitting in at the end of a problem from 99 years before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After we have got out of the undemocratic EU it is time to start reforming our democracy. I have my ideas on how I would like that to look but first things first, get out of the EU. and if we don't? . We could secretly gather underneath parliament with excessive amounts of fireworks! Having been intrigued with the commissioner talk I had a quick nosy of ex British ones... Now the first one that took my attention was Chris pattern who was voted out of parliament by the public!! Have no fear because, politics has a way of looking after you when the public decide your a cunt.. Anyhow he got a lovely job with a nice free house in Hong Kong where he oversaw the early return of a democratic Hong Kong to communist China and despite Hong Kong citizens who had British passports they were refused entry to the uk on the grounds that they were not really immigrants!... Anyhow after he'd sold out Hong Kong he then got a nice cushy job with the EU as funnily enough good relations commissioner!. And then there was peter mandelson, thrown out of office two or three times by his own government for various dodginess he was eventually fucked off by the voting public as well... Have no fear.. Politics has a way of being very undemocratic, yes dear old peter was given the 5k euro a week job as trade commissioner, where he was promptly caught on a nice expensive yacht with the soon to be chancellor George Osborne and a Russian billionaire aluminium oligarch... Funnily enough the Russian was just inquiring about opening EU aluminium trade with Russia where he owns several factories.... Oh the yacht by the was was owned by nick Rothschild, who's family are prominent billionaire bankers and coincidentaly he went to Oxford with David Cameron... They were even in the bullingdon club together... Oh it's such a small world in politics, even when you make it a bigger one! Still at least I've got my democratic right not to vote for this shower of shit of which i observe while being lectured about how the EU will be a different type of politics and politicans ...
Oh well back to my gunpowder plotting "Interestingly there was an EU debate on the BBC parliament channel (I think it was shown sometime in December) where the vote Leave side put forward Nigel Lawson to argue the case for leaving the EU and the remain in side put forward non other than Peter Mandelson, lol. My own view on it is Lawson kicked Mandelson's ass and sent him packing with his tail between his legs in much the same way Nigel Farage did to Nick Clegg when they had their televised EU debates a couple of years ago. For the record all post debate polls put Farage as the winner after those debates. The case for leaving EU appears to be stronger and is a positive one (we can do much better out) while the case for staying in EU is a negative one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anyhow he got a lovely job with a nice free house in Hong Kong where he oversaw the early return of a democratic Hong Kong to communist China and despite Hong Kong citizens who had British passports they were refused entry to the uk on the grounds that they were not really immigrants!... Anyhow after he'd sold out Hong Kong he then got a nice cushy job with the EU as funnily enough good relations commissioner!. Didn't the UK have to return Hong Kong to China because the lease on the territory had come to an end? That happened on the last day possible and not early, didn't it? Even if you don't like him, it's hardly reasonable to blame him for sitting in at the end of a problem from 99 years before. " . Bollocks... That opium was cut to the bone, I'd argue the 99 year lease was defuncto(Latin) .
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that voting should be postponed until the right people can vote. There are thousands of people missing, since the system was recently changed. Younger people - over 16s - should be permitted to vote too, as was the case in Scotland. This affects them for more of their lives potentially. We should remain in. The population haven't time to make the investigations and analysis upon the main data in a very short timeframe. Emotional decisions, without fuller rational evaluation, is short changing us all." Although,let's face it,most 16 year olds,are totally driven by their hippy driven,hormone raged existence. If we get to a stage where we trust anything they say,we are fucking doomed.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless Why no trade? I dont think Europe can get by without us `easily` more likely,it will implode Ones all the arguments are over and the scaremongering from both sides has quickly been forgotten trade between Britain and the rest of Europe will carry on regardless of whether we stay in or leave because either we will still be in or we will negotiate re-entry into EFTA on a similar bases to Norway and Switzerland (see my posts about this above). As to whether the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, that's not quite so simple. It's true that Britain has a trade deficit with Europe so one could argue they have more to loose than us. On the other hand Britain does 45% of it's foreign trade with the EU whilst the EU only does 10% of it's trade with Britain. Europe would be badly heart if it lost 10% of it's trade but Britain would be devastated if it lost 45% of its trade. Of course neither Britain will lose 45% of its trade nor the EU 10% but it does put a more realistic picture on what is at stake for each and their relative strengths in any negotiations." But then again, if you look at our trade with individual EU countries, you will find a different picture for each of them.... take Germany, for instance, where the UK is its biggest single trading partners, and accounts for over 25% of its exports, and we import about twice as much from Germany as we export to Germany. We import just under twice as much from France as we export to France. Germany and France will always look after themselves in the EU first, and Germany and France very much hold sway in the EU, even more so if we come out. So in that respect they have more to lose than us. To note as well us the fact that Germany is now moving away from preferential purchasing from the Eurozone, and actively increasing its trade with non-eurozone countries. So trade negotiations will take place, agreements will be made, and trade will carry on. That is the realism to look at. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all know my view on it, if you don't, just read my posts on other threads via the green arrow. In the meantime. I will just, sit watch and smile "would that be the same smile the was wiped off your face after the last election?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh no. me and the 3 million voters that voted for the party that will take us out. will be out in force again. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to carry on paying billions of pounds to shore the rest of Europe up. Oh and no-one in the party, has ever stopped smiling" Now I voted Conservative but if you are UKIP it was 3.8 million others in 2015 and you got 1 MP. You were the third largest party by both % of votes and number of votes. Nearly three times as many % votes and 2.5 times as many votes as the SNP who got 56 MPs. You got 50% more votes than the Liberals who got 8 MPs. UKIP had NOTHING to be ashamed of in 2015. Its just how the system works. And lets remember they DID win the Euro elections which is what THIS Thread is all about.,.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless Why no trade? I dont think Europe can get by without us `easily` more likely,it will implode Ones all the arguments are over and the scaremongering from both sides has quickly been forgotten trade between Britain and the rest of Europe will carry on regardless of whether we stay in or leave because either we will still be in or we will negotiate re-entry into EFTA on a similar bases to Norway and Switzerland (see my posts about this above). As to whether the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, that's not quite so simple. It's true that Britain has a trade deficit with Europe so one could argue they have more to loose than us. On the other hand Britain does 45% of it's foreign trade with the EU whilst the EU only does 10% of it's trade with Britain. Europe would be badly heart if it lost 10% of it's trade but Britain would be devastated if it lost 45% of its trade. Of course neither Britain will lose 45% of its trade nor the EU 10% but it does put a more realistic picture on what is at stake for each and their relative strengths in any negotiations. But then again, if you look at our trade with individual EU countries, you will find a different picture for each of them.... take Germany, for instance, where the UK is its biggest single trading partners, and accounts for over 25% of its exports, and we import about twice as much from Germany as we export to Germany. We import just under twice as much from France as we export to France. Germany and France will always look after themselves in the EU first, and Germany and France very much hold sway in the EU, even more so if we come out. So in that respect they have more to lose than us. To note as well us the fact that Germany is now moving away from preferential purchasing from the Eurozone, and actively increasing its trade with non-eurozone countries. So trade negotiations will take place, agreements will be made, and trade will carry on. That is the realism to look at. " I'm not sure where you got those figures from but we may have problems if we try to negotiate based on them. If they are supposed to show a position of strength for the UK, they are massively over stated. According to Germany's trade figures for 2014 (Source is the Federal Statistics Office) the UK is Germany's 5th biggest partner based on overall trade (exports plus imports) and third biggest export market behind France and the USA and just ahead of China. We bought 7% of Germany's exports, not 25%. From the UK side, 10.7% of our exports were sold to Germany (as in the ONS trade figures released this month). So if the UK and EU went completely mad and everyone stopped exports from the other side, which is the implicit threat you're using, who would be hurt most? Germany may be £30bn worse off reducing its trade surplus from £190bn to £160bn. The UK would enjoy a reduction in its trade deficit of £30bn to £95bn. If we're going to implicitly threaten a trade war, might it be better to pick someone who hasn't got much deeper pockets than we do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh no. me and the 3 million voters that voted for the party that will take us out. will be out in force again. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to carry on paying billions of pounds to shore the rest of Europe up. Oh and no-one in the party, has ever stopped smiling Now I voted Conservative but if you are UKIP it was 3.8 million others in 2015 and you got 1 MP. You were the third largest party by both % of votes and number of votes. Nearly three times as many % votes and 2.5 times as many votes as the SNP who got 56 MPs. You got 50% more votes than the Liberals who got 8 MPs. UKIP had NOTHING to be ashamed of in 2015. Its just how the system works. And lets remember they DID win the Euro elections which is what THIS Thread is all about.,.... "only 8% of the electorate voted for them .... kinda puts the whole process into perspecttive really. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh no. me and the 3 million voters that voted for the party that will take us out. will be out in force again. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to carry on paying billions of pounds to shore the rest of Europe up. Oh and no-one in the party, has ever stopped smiling Now I voted Conservative but if you are UKIP it was 3.8 million others in 2015 and you got 1 MP. You were the third largest party by both % of votes and number of votes. Nearly three times as many % votes and 2.5 times as many votes as the SNP who got 56 MPs. You got 50% more votes than the Liberals who got 8 MPs. UKIP had NOTHING to be ashamed of in 2015. Its just how the system works. And lets remember they DID win the Euro elections which is what THIS Thread is all about.,....
only 8% of the electorate voted for them .... kinda puts the whole process into perspecttive really."I see your point but the number was actually 12.5% of the votes cast which is what counts. If people can't be arsed to vote that is their loss and they have no cause to complain. Percentage of cast votes: CON 36.9 LAB 30.4 UKIP 12.6 LD 7.9 SNP 4.7 GRN 3.8 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results From which you will see that the SNP and the LibDems combined also got 12.6% but gained 64 MPs. It tells me that yes the system is hard for a new party to make ground and that the SNP really ought to be quiet given the % of the votes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"following that logic means that the folks who did vote can't complain about the way the elected governments for the past 40 years have voted on their behalf on european council matters such as the nomination of comissioners because that's the democratic process. people deserve the european government that their elected prime minister elects on their behalf." Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 ...." again your logic dictates this goes for the uk as regards wales scotland an NI ..... the priciple is exactly the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"following that logic means that the folks who did vote can't complain about the way the elected governments for the past 40 years have voted on their behalf on european council matters such as the nomination of comissioners because that's the democratic process. people deserve the european government that their elected prime minister elects on their behalf. Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 ...." Indeed I was born in 1977 and I never voted to join the EU in the first place. Never wanted to be part of the monstrosity it has now become but I've had to live my whole life in the EU based on a decision made by other people in the 1970's. It's an absolute disgrace on the mainstream parties in this country that we've had to wait this long for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. A whole generation of people have never had a say. If it was upto Labour and the Lib dems we still wouldn't be getting a say now, the Conservatives only offered a referendum because of increasing pressure from UKIP. The main Lib/Lab/Con parties should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, only the tories can save a little bit of face now for finally giving the British people a say on this matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 .... again your logic dictates this goes for the uk as regards wales scotland an NI ..... the priciple is exactly the same. " On Scotland the SNP position on this is quite frankly ridiculous. They want a fully independent Scotland not bossed about by Westminster but they are perfectly happy to be bossed about by Brussels and want to remain in the EU????? Makes no sense at all in fact the same can be said for Plaid Cymru in Wales. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"following that logic means that the folks who did vote can't complain about the way the elected governments for the past 40 years have voted on their behalf on european council matters such as the nomination of comissioners because that's the democratic process. people deserve the european government that their elected prime minister elects on their behalf. Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 .... Indeed I was born in 1977 and I never voted to join the EU in the first place. Never wanted to be part of the monstrosity it has now become but I've had to live my whole life in the EU based on a decision made by other people in the 1970's. It's an absolute disgrace on the mainstream parties in this country that we've had to wait this long for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. A whole generation of people have never had a say. If it was upto Labour and the Lib dems we still wouldn't be getting a say now, the Conservatives only offered a referendum because of increasing pressure from UKIP. The main Lib/Lab/Con parties should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, only the tories can save a little bit of face now for finally giving the British people a say on this matter. " i take it then that you want to include 16-18 year olds in the vote so that generation don't miss out on having their say then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 .... again your logic dictates this goes for the uk as regards wales scotland an NI ..... the priciple is exactly the same. On Scotland the SNP position on this is quite frankly ridiculous. They want a fully independent Scotland not bossed about by Westminster but they are perfectly happy to be bossed about by Brussels and want to remain in the EU????? Makes no sense at all in fact the same can be said for Plaid Cymru in Wales. " what ridiculous is the stance you take where you think it's unjust that europe supposedly boss you about as an englishman yet you demand that you have the right to boss about the scots and the cymro | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The UK should remain within the EU, where we will likely become more influential and prosperous over time, through being more powerful within its body, than outside. I admire your attitude but can I gently point out that we never voted ever to become part of a political Superstate experiment. An experiment that has failed at every new turn. ERM was good for Britain? The Euro was a success? And you seem blind to the clear plan being played out by the faceless manipulators in Brussels that the more members you have in the less power each individual member has. We joined when there were just 8 other countries and there are 28 now. The mathematics alone say we have 68% LESS influence than we had in 1973. And why these morons want Turkey in God only knows. Places like Poland lecture us about 'rights of their citizens' when it is US fixing THEIR housing, health, education and unemployment problems because we have to take THEIR citizens here. And all the time WE have to fund THEIR children? We have created our prosperity in spite of the EU not because of it. The rest of the EU is dying on its feet and we aren't. What does that tell you? It tells me we can do even better if we had control of the NETT £11 Billion we will pay this year, the people we want to work here and the laws we wish to create. £11 Billion is 1/6th our Annual deficit by the way." Couldn't agree more. The criteria for membership of the EU has become so diluted over the years,it's now almost non existent. At one time member countries were expected to financially contribute. In the last ten years,most new members have been financially receiving substantialy more,than they will ever contribute. We have helped to pay,for the building of their infrastructure. Then multinational companies move their factory's,from Britain,to one of the new members grossly over EU subsidised countries. There's a definite unfairness,almost a madness,that we are helping to finance,our own demise. There are Many things about the EU,that totally bamboozle me. I'm not blaming the new countries,let's face it,who wouldn't be happy to jump on that gravy train. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless with the greatest respect what a load of tosh ... Did we do all that before we joined? Nope.... And the trade figures say they need us more than we need them. And as for Government borrowing we do that on world markets through London. Not Frankfurt ... For 2 years nothing would change except we would stop paying in £11 Billion a year. And the WTO would guarantee our treaties. And you really think that Europe would not want our tourism? Sorry that is just nonsense .. unless you have FACTS of course ....
It's mass uncontrolled immigration from the EU that is causing wage compression here already, with low skilled British workers seeing their wages squeezed or fall in real terms. It was talked about on Question Time tonight. The Asian guy on the panel admitted it and said "mass uncontrolled immigration is a bad thing".
Then the woman in the audience who said "without EU money this building we are in wouldn't have been built". What a load of rubbish, doesn't she realise how much money we give to the EU each day in membership fees, and that the EU actually gives us less of our own money back in the long term. We are being short changed by the EU if anything. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"following that logic means that the folks who did vote can't complain about the way the elected governments for the past 40 years have voted on their behalf on european council matters such as the nomination of comissioners because that's the democratic process. people deserve the european government that their elected prime minister elects on their behalf. Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 .... Indeed I was born in 1977 and I never voted to join the EU in the first place. Never wanted to be part of the monstrosity it has now become but I've had to live my whole life in the EU based on a decision made by other people in the 1970's. It's an absolute disgrace on the mainstream parties in this country that we've had to wait this long for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. A whole generation of people have never had a say. If it was upto Labour and the Lib dems we still wouldn't be getting a say now, the Conservatives only offered a referendum because of increasing pressure from UKIP. The main Lib/Lab/Con parties should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, only the tories can save a little bit of face now for finally giving the British people a say on this matter. i take it then that you want to include 16-18 year olds in the vote so that generation don't miss out on having their say then?" No I don't think they should. The voting age should remain the same as in a general election in my opinion. I do think we need to have more frequent referendums on such things, say one every 10 or 15 years or one each time there is treaty change. But to leave it for almost half a century, 40 odd years is utterly ridiculous! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Thank you for confirming the undemocratic and unrepresentative monstrosity the EU has become and why we need to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down as well. We never had this problem in 1973 .... again your logic dictates this goes for the uk as regards wales scotland an NI ..... the priciple is exactly the same. On Scotland the SNP position on this is quite frankly ridiculous. They want a fully independent Scotland not bossed about by Westminster but they are perfectly happy to be bossed about by Brussels and want to remain in the EU????? Makes no sense at all in fact the same can be said for Plaid Cymru in Wales. what ridiculous is the stance you take where you think it's unjust that europe supposedly boss you about as an englishman yet you demand that you have the right to boss about the scots and the cymro" Well why don't the SNP and Plaid Cymru want to go fully independent then and leave both the UK and the EU? Surely that would be real independence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well why don't the SNP and Plaid Cymru want to go fully independent then and leave both the UK and the EU? Surely that would be real independence. " nice try at the old straw man thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" this is just waffle .... hit us with some facts for a change " Well this is just your usual Trolling a Thread to piss people off who are trying to have an adult conversation. Hit us with something constructive. I guess your very short attention span never made it past the first line or you would have seen plenty of FACTS and hey guess what? SOURCES... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" this is just waffle .... hit us with some facts for a change Well this is just your usual Trolling a Thread to piss people off who are trying to have an adult conversation. Hit us with something constructive. I guess your very short attention span never made it past the first line or you would have seen plenty of FACTS and hey guess what? SOURCES... "third hand sources .... useful as a chocolate chastity belt .... get some real facts and a proper bibliography or you can just keep waffling | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as genpop realise that no more popping over to Europe or even Ireland at the drop of a hat, weeks of applying for visa's at £180 a pop + any Brit working in Europe will be treated as a non eea citizen and find it almost impossible to get a working visa + Europe could get by without UK very simply indeed, then no trade, massive debts, and no one even able to pay a decent wage, government won't be able to borrow money - we would be bankrupt in no time with houses worthless Why no trade? I dont think Europe can get by without us `easily` more likely,it will implode Ones all the arguments are over and the scaremongering from both sides has quickly been forgotten trade between Britain and the rest of Europe will carry on regardless of whether we stay in or leave because either we will still be in or we will negotiate re-entry into EFTA on a similar bases to Norway and Switzerland (see my posts about this above). As to whether the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, that's not quite so simple. It's true that Britain has a trade deficit with Europe so one could argue they have more to loose than us. On the other hand Britain does 45% of it's foreign trade with the EU whilst the EU only does 10% of it's trade with Britain. Europe would be badly heart if it lost 10% of it's trade but Britain would be devastated if it lost 45% of its trade. Of course neither Britain will lose 45% of its trade nor the EU 10% but it does put a more realistic picture on what is at stake for each and their relative strengths in any negotiations. But then again, if you look at our trade with individual EU countries, you will find a different picture for each of them.... take Germany, for instance, where the UK is its biggest single trading partners, and accounts for over 25% of its exports, and we import about twice as much from Germany as we export to Germany. We import just under twice as much from France as we export to France. Germany and France will always look after themselves in the EU first, and Germany and France very much hold sway in the EU, even more so if we come out. So in that respect they have more to lose than us. To note as well us the fact that Germany is now moving away from preferential purchasing from the Eurozone, and actively increasing its trade with non-eurozone countries. So trade negotiations will take place, agreements will be made, and trade will carry on. That is the realism to look at. " Agreements will be made and trade will still go on pretty much the same as now because those agreements will result in pretty much what we have now. We nay have slightly less control of our own borders than we have now and we'll probably have to pay a little more we do now but we'll survive. What I can't understand is why we would want to pay more yet have less control and have no say about decisions and rules that we'll have to agree to anyway. Seems totally mad to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh no. me and the 3 million voters that voted for the party that will take us out. will be out in force again. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to carry on paying billions of pounds to shore the rest of Europe up. Oh and no-one in the party, has ever stopped smiling" But we'll still be paying billions of pounds and possibly more even if we leave the EU. Norway, which isn't an EU member, is the 10th largest contributor to the EU. You have to pay the EU to be a member of EFTA. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We nay have slightly less control of our own borders than we have now" How do you work that out given we will have total control of our borders? "and we'll probably have to pay a little more we do now but we'll survive." To whom will we be paying anything let alone 'more'? " What I can't understand is why we would want to pay more yet have less control and have no say about decisions and rules that we'll have to agree to anyway. Seems totally mad to me." Well yes indeed that is exactly what we are doing now. We are paying £2 Billion more this year than last year, we have less control the more members that join and the rules are given to us whether we like it or not. So yes it is indeed totally mad and why we should leave.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we'll still be paying billions of pounds and possibly more even if we leave the EU. Norway, which isn't an EU member, is the 10th largest contributor to the EU. You have to pay the EU to be a member of EFTA. " Why do people keep dragging up Norway? We are NOT Norway. We are a far bigger and more diverse economy than Norway. Even the PM of Norway says the UK should not adopt the Norwegian model! And joining EFTA isn't compulsory. Has the USA joined EFTA? Has China joined AFTA? No I really don't think they have .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" this is just waffle .... hit us with some facts for a change Well this is just your usual Trolling a Thread to piss people off who are trying to have an adult conversation. Hit us with something constructive. I guess your very short attention span never made it past the first line or you would have seen plenty of FACTS and hey guess what? SOURCES... "Ever heard of tongue in cheek? And, for the record, whilst I don't agree with your conclusion, your figures and facts are accurate and well sourced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ever heard of tongue in cheek? " well I'd like to think I can laugh at myself and with others but when one individual makes some pretty personal comments in various Threads it like 'enough'... But thank you. I do try to be accurate and when I mess up I own up as well .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We nay have slightly less control of our own borders than we have now How do you work that out given we will have total control of our borders? " One of the main requirements of being a part of EFTA(European Free Trade Area) is free movement of peoples. Norway has less control over its own borders than the UK has, similar for Switzerland. " and we'll probably have to pay a little more we do now but we'll survive. To whom will we be paying anything let alone 'more'? " ]Norway pays more to the EU than the UK does NET " What I can't understand is why we would want to pay more yet have less control and have no say about decisions and rules that we'll have to agree to anyway. Seems totally mad to me. Well yes indeed that is exactly what we are doing now. We are paying £2 Billion more this year than last year, we have less control the more members that join and the rules are given to us whether we like it or not. " but we have a say in making those rules, unlike Norway, Switzerland and other EFTA countries that have no seat at the table. " So yes it is indeed totally mad and why we should leave.... "Maybe go back and read what I've said. Facts are facts. Some of them work for leaving the EU, some of them work for staying in. When the 'leave EU and join EFTA' scenario is looked at properly the facts don't support it as being a better alternative than what we currently have. In fact it seems that that alternative has all the things those that say they want to leave really hate the most about being in the EU but even more so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we'll still be paying billions of pounds and possibly more even if we leave the EU. Norway, which isn't an EU member, is the 10th largest contributor to the EU. You have to pay the EU to be a member of EFTA. Why do people keep dragging up Norway? We are NOT Norway. We are a far bigger and more diverse economy than Norway. Even the PM of Norway says the UK should not adopt the Norwegian model! And joining EFTA isn't compulsory. Has the USA joined EFTA? Has China joined AFTA? No I really don't think they have ...." The reason why Norway and EFTA are constantly brought up is because UKIP and others in the leave EU grouping keep quoting that scenario as an example of a country that is doing well outside of the EU. It seems to me only right that it should be pointed out what choosing that scenario would actually mean. Are you now saying that we should leave the EU and NOT try to re-enter EFTA? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ever heard of tongue in cheek? well I'd like to think I can laugh at myself and with others but when one individual makes some pretty personal comments in various Threads it like 'enough'... But thank you. I do try to be accurate and when I mess up I own up as well .. "Stick to making your case and don't worry about the personal attacks. You come across more convincing when you stick to your argument. The forum will judge for itself what others say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The reason why Norway and EFTA are constantly brought up is because UKIP and others in the leave EU grouping keep quoting that scenario as an example of a country that is doing well outside of the EU. It seems to me only right that it should be pointed out what choosing that scenario would actually mean. Are you now saying that we should leave the EU and NOT try to re-enter EFTA? " Can I gently correct you there. UKIP and others have never held up Norway as the role model of a deal. Yes they say that they show countries (like Switzerland) can be successful outside the EU. And neither has an 'Leave' group said we have to join EFTA. Especially if, as you say, the nett cost is the same and the nett loss is more. EFTA is a very small select group of countries. We are not obliged to join it in any way. As I say the USA isn't and neither would we. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here are some facts and their sources: Germany has a nett trade surplus within the EU. €693.9 billion to €621.6 billion = PLUS €72.3 Billion. Exports of goods to countries outside the EU amounted to €501.9 billion in 2015, while imports totalled €326.5 billion = PLUS €175.4 Billion. So the EU is VERY good for Germany and why it loves it. Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ germany/balance-of-trade As has been pointed out the UK has a nett Deficit with Germany. The facts are: €79.2 Billion Exports vs €38.5 Billion Imports = MINUS €40.7 Billion. We buy twice as much as we sell to Germany the EU's biggest single country market. Source: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment /ForeignTrade/TradingPartners /Tables/OrderRankGermanyTradingPartners.pdf?__blob=publicationFile What this says is we make up some 65% of Germany's trading surplus with the whole EU. I would suggest that Germany will do all it can to make sure there is NO trade war ever! As for France it is a similar story but the bottom line is Germany runs the EU. We are the second biggest contributor (£11.1 Billion in 2016) to Germany but have zero influence. Germany may have to make up Our £11 Billion when we leave. And Germany in any case can't afford to piss off 65% of its EU export surplus .... Its worth saving the £11.1 Billion alone but the Schadenfeude of seeing the EU suddenly have to reduce its budget or the look on Merkel's face when she is asked to make up the difference will be priceless
And finally here is what is REALLY wrong. Do we all remember October 2014 when the EU decided our country had done so well we had to pay up an extra£2 Billion. Yes POUNDS not EUROS. Oh and in a month if you please... While France and Germany got rebates of some £1.8 Billion. So thats alright then ...
Source:
http://www.cityam.com/1414168815/eu-budget-map-how-much-has-uk-been-asked-pay-compared-other-countries"Here's a couple of facts for you according to the 2014 source you (and I before you) cited: France's trading deficit with Germany is: 33.9bn Euros Austria's trading deficit is 19.6bn Spain's is 10bn Poland's 8bn Sweden's 7.4bn Italy's 5.7bn That's a total of more than 80.0bn euros. Which is more than twice the 40bn for the UK. Now if the UK represents 65% of the trade balance, then they must be around about 130%. Adding in the UK again, that's 195%.So according to your method of calculation, the components of the trade surplus/deficit add up to far more than 100% The fact is that your numbers don't add up. They fail the simplest of numerical sanity checks. You can't add balance of trade numbers in the way that you did and make a sensible result. It was wrong when you wrote: "What this says is we make up some 65% of Germany's trading surplus with the whole EU." You can have these facts as freebies: Germany's exports to the UK at 79bn euros are 12% of German exports in the EU (648bn euros) or 7% of their world exports (1123bn euros). When you work those percentages out for all countries to which Germany exports, they will add up to 100%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that your numbers don't add up. They fail the simplest of numerical sanity checks. You can't add balance of trade numbers in the way that you did and make a sensible result. It was wrong when you wrote: "What this says is we make up some 65% of Germany's trading surplus with the whole EU." " So your whole response was about ONE % number in my whole post with which you disagree? And with which I can see your argument incidentally. So can we take it you agree with the other 31 lines of text? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that your numbers don't add up. They fail the simplest of numerical sanity checks. You can't add balance of trade numbers in the way that you did and make a sensible result. It was wrong when you wrote: "What this says is we make up some 65% of Germany's trading surplus with the whole EU." So your whole response was about ONE % number in my whole post with which you disagree? And with which I can see your argument incidentally. So can we take it you agree with the other 31 lines of text? " Ah well, as you asked. The gist of the first part of your post was to build up a case for your statement that "Germany in any case can't afford to piss off 65% of its EU export surplus". This was so you could "suggest that Germany will do all it can to make sure there is NO trade war ever!" I'm going to agree that Germany probably will do all it can to make sure there is no trade war but that's not going to be because they are afraid of any implied threat of loss of UK trade bacause basically that's irrelevant and your arithmetic around that was wrong, totally misleading and massively overstated the importance of UK trade with Germany. I believe Germany will try to avoid a trade war because they are very very good at trading and the figures that you quoted demonstrate how good they are. So since you wanted a line by line analysis, here we go (with apologies to everyone who is bored stiff by this) "Here are some facts and their sources: Germany has a nett trade surplus within the EU. €693.9 billion to €621.6 billion = PLUS €72.3 Billion. Exports of goods to countries outside the EU amounted to €501.9 billion in 2015, while imports totalled €326.5 billion = PLUS €175.4 Billion. So the EU is VERY good for Germany and why it loves it. Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/balance-of-trade " There's nothing wrong with your choice of numbers or arithmetic at this stage. What you might have noted from them is that Germany is very good at maintaining a trade surplus with the world as a whole including the EU. In the list of 239 countries that they trade with you have to go down to number 175 before you find the first one that trades in surplus with Germany and that's Nauru running a surplus of 4000 euros per year on the deal. Within the overall surplus, Germany has trade deficits in the EU with the Netherlands, Ireland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia. It also has trade deficits with Norway and Iceland in the EEA and a trade surplus with Switzerland. A bit further down in your post you'll tell us that Germany wouldn't dare piss off the UK. That's a country running a trade surplus with 175 out of 239 countries in the world including 21 out of 27 EU countries. Incidentally they've had a trade surplus every year since 1952, that includes 5 years before they joined the EEC. Historically, Germany did well in trade terms before the EEC and has done well inside the EEC/EU after that - they seem to be VERY good at trade. So, to adapt your soundbite: trade has been VERY good for Germany and they seem to love it whether in the EU or outside it, both historically and right now. " As has been pointed out the UK has a nett Deficit with Germany. The facts are: €79.2 Billion Exports vs €38.5 Billion Imports = MINUS €40.7 Billion. We buy twice as much as we sell to Germany the EU's biggest single country market. Source: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment /ForeignTrade/TradingPartners /Tables/OrderRankGermanyTradingPartners.pdf?__blob=publicationFile What this says is we make up some 65% of Germany's trading surplus with the whole EU. I would suggest that Germany will do all it can to make sure there is NO trade war ever! " As I pointed out in the earlier post and you accepted, this calculation, other than the simple subtraction to get the deficit, is totally wrong. Your numbers would never add up to 100% based on the way you calculated it and are ridiculous overstatements of the position. It's much more straightforward to calculate the percentage of German exports to the UK as a percentage of either their EU trade or their world trade (12% or 7%) - or you could use total trade (exports plus imports) in both cases if that's better for your point of view. Either way, if you were to stroll into a trade negotiation with Germany and tell them that you control 65% of their trading surplus, they are going to laugh you out of the room. " As for France it is a similar story but the bottom line is Germany runs the EU. " You haven't made any point by that statement. What is the similar story? Is it based on your wildly incorrect calculation? " We are the second biggest contributor (£11.1 Billion in 2016) to Germany but have zero influence. Germany may have to make up Our £11 Billion when we leave. And Germany in any case can't afford to piss off 65% of its EU export surplus .... " Here you seem to be confused and negate your own points above entirely by saying we have zero influence. Yet you've just been telling us that we have massive influence because of our impact on the balance of trade. Obviously that was based on your incorrect calculation, but now it's make your mind up time. Does our trading position give us strength in negotiations or not? If it does we have influence if it doesn't then we don't have influence. Putting that to one side, how do you measure influence? I'm not going to look it up the exact numbers but in one of your earlier posts you told us that enlargement to the EU 28 meant that we'd lost something like 62% of our influence in the EU compared to when we joined. So if according to you we had influence before and now we have x% of that influence, we still have influence, don't we? And unless that original influence we had was 0%, then 62% of it mnust be a non-zero value. I'd suggest that you were using a soundbite ("We are the second biggest contributor (£11.1 Billion in 2016) to Germany but have zero influence") which doesn't fit with your statements before about influence and doesn't fit with what you've just been telling us about how we can influence Germany with our trade. As for being second biggest contributor in 2016 you're half right. When it comes to the gross budget we are 2nd biggest contributor in 2016, but after rebates we are third biggest. If you want to argue about that you can go and dig through the 2016 EU budget document for yourself, after all I had to. Over the past few years we've been 3rd biggest contributor after Germany and France with Italy following a close fourth. " Its worth saving the £11.1 Billion alone but the Schadenfeude of seeing the EU suddenly have to reduce its budget or the look on Merkel's face when she is asked to make up the difference will be priceless " I totally agree that you'd feel Schadenfreude at the expense of Angela Merkel if Germany had to pick up an £11.1bn bill. Only you can quantify your own Schadenfreude, but if the situation did arise you might have to halve your feeling of joy. Of course the 11.1 billion may be the net payment to the EU, but then the UK gets money back out of that 11.1 bn - let's not forget the CAP payments etc which will altogether reduce her pain and your pleasure at it by around 50%. Still, don't let that stop you from enjoying the moment " And finally here is what is REALLY wrong. Do we all remember October 2014 when the EU decided our country had done so well we had to pay up an extra£2 Billion. Yes POUNDS not EUROS. Oh and in a month if you please... While France and Germany got rebates of some £1.8 Billion. So thats alright then ... Source: http://www.cityam.com/1414168815/eu-budget-map-how-much-has-uk-been-asked-pay-compared-other-countries" " Here I had to laugh out loud. You started with "And finally here is what is REALLY wrong" and you hit the nail totally on the head. Just about every key point you made about that surcharge was REALLY wrong. Let's start with "Yes POUNDS not EUROS", another excellent soundbite. The only problem is that the surcharge was 2bn EUROS not POUNDS. Now, let's have a look at "Oh and in a month if you please..." 1) the UK Government knew that the surcharge was coming for a long time before it was raised. They knew it would be payable in October. They knew these things because they were written into the details of how the contribution is calculate based on GNI and that that payment could change (up or down) if GNI changed. The treasury has all the paper work, knows how the amounts are calculated and knew when it was due. The ONS had to provde revised GNI figures on a regular basis and did so in the May before the increase was finally announced publically. 2) As negotiated by the chancellor in the end the payment was deferred into the following year and, if I remember rightly, split into two payments. Now let's look at the amount of the payment. Apparently 2bn euros or roughly £1.7bn. But wait - it was eligible for the UK rebate and suddenly it was half that amount. The chancellor would love you to believe that he negotiated the discount, but it was due anyway. So apart from the amount of the surcharge, the currency it was in, it's timing and how surprised we should have been about it you got everything else right. (You can tell that I couldn't be bothered to check the rebates you claim that France and Germany got, perhaps you could do that?) If it had been a totally unexpected demand for an unknown amount in a ridiculously short time scale, I'd be sharing your outrage. Since the government was well aware of it's treaty commitments, I can only suggest that it was incompetence covered up by bluster. You can check this all in the House of Commons report on it (you can google "House of Commons Treasury Committee The UK's EU budget contributions tenth report of sessions 2014-2015" to find the report.) So, since you asked, I don't think that much of your post survives objective critical examination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh no. me and the 3 million voters that voted for the party that will take us out. will be out in force again. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to carry on paying billions of pounds to shore the rest of Europe up. Oh and no-one in the party, has ever stopped smiling Now I voted Conservative but if you are UKIP it was 3.8 million others in 2015 and you got 1 MP. You were the third largest party by both % of votes and number of votes. Nearly three times as many % votes and 2.5 times as many votes as the SNP who got 56 MPs. You got 50% more votes than the Liberals who got 8 MPs. UKIP had NOTHING to be ashamed of in 2015. Its just how the system works. And lets remember they DID win the Euro elections which is what THIS Thread is all about.,....
only 8% of the electorate voted for them .... kinda puts the whole process into perspecttive really.
I see your point but the number was actually 12.5% of the votes cast which is what counts. If people can't be arsed to vote that is their loss and they have no cause to complain.
Percentage of cast votes:
CON 36.9
LAB 30.4
UKIP 12.6
LD 7.9
SNP 4.7
GRN 3.8
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
From which you will see that the SNP and the LibDems combined also got 12.6% but gained 64 MPs. It tells me that yes the system is hard for a new party to make ground and that the SNP really ought to be quiet given the % of the votes."We don't have a voting system that relates,in any way, to a percentage of total votes across the country. The populace recently voted to stay with that system. Your percentage figures include those constituencies where the SNP got 0% of the vote eg in Devon where they don't stand! SNP percentages in Scotland would better reflect how many MPs they have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We don't have a voting system that relates,in any way, to a percentage of total votes across the country. The populace recently voted to stay with that system. Your percentage figures include those constituencies where the SNP got 0% of the vote eg in Devon where they don't stand! SNP percentages in Scotland would better reflect how many MPs they have. " You miss my point. I was responding to someone who made a very serious error in quoting a wrong percentage. I also made no comment about which system is better. These are the UK national percentages. We are ONE UK. Scotland is a part of the UK like Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is not an independent island. Yet. In a General Election there are no national, county or whatever borders. Only Constituencies. And if the SNP choose not to stand in Devon that is their problem. They are free so to do. UKIP didn't stand in every Constituency and still got more votes. Likewise the Greens only stood in a few. Bottom line is that the SNP have 56 MPs sitting in Parliament swearing allegiance to a Queen and country they wish to leave and break up. At least Sinn Fein had the honesty to never attend Parliament because they felt the same way .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even the royal family want to be in eu, william got strong views to stay in as he got interviewed earlier." Shag that was probably the German blood he has flowing through his veins speaking, as the British royal family has German ancestors. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What has that got to do with a referendum ? UKIP logic can be difficult to follow "Try reading from the beginning of the thread then it will all become very logical in the context of replying to other comments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even the royal family want to be in eu, william got strong views to stay in as he got interviewed earlier." Ha ha no he didn't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I guess it's the sort of logic that says it's OK for UKIP to send MEPs to the European parliament, something they don't want to be part of, but it's not alright for the SNP to express their views in Westminster? Or is it supposed to be one rule for UKIP another for everyone else." Who said it was not alright for the SNP to express their views in Westminster? Nobody has said that on the thread so you just made it up. Telling these lies and misquoting people seems to becoming a habit of yours just lately doesn't it. The SNP are welcome to express their views in Westminster, just as UKIP are in the European parliament (and Westminster with Douglas Carswell UKIP MP ). Maybe the SNP know they can do considerable damage to Westminster from the inside out, as UKIP do to the European parliament from the inside out and that is what the people who vote for them want them to do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even the royal family want to be in eu, william got strong views to stay in as he got interviewed earlier. Shag that was probably the German blood he has flowing through his veins speaking, as the British royal family has German ancestors. "That is right. I think so as well, with the german connection lol. "Even the royal family want to be in eu, william got strong views to stay in as he got interviewed earlier. Ha ha no he didn't" Yes he did, maibe you missed the news lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even the royal family want to be in eu, william got strong views to stay in as he got interviewed earlier. Shag that was probably the German blood he has flowing through his veins speaking, as the British royal family has German ancestors. That is right. I think so as well, with the german connection lol.
Even the royal family want to be in eu, william got strong views to stay in as he got interviewed earlier.
Ha ha no he didn'tYes he did, maibe you missed the news lol."Naw he was talking about every where but | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I guess it's the sort of logic that says it's OK for UKIP to send MEPs to the European parliament, something they don't want to be part of, but it's not alright for the SNP to express their views in Westminster? Or is it supposed to be one rule for UKIP another for everyone else. Who said it was not alright for the SNP to express their views in Westminster? Nobody has said that on the thread so you just made it up. Telling these lies and misquoting people seems to becoming a habit of yours just lately doesn't it. The SNP are welcome to express their views in Westminster, just as UKIP are in the European parliament (and Westminster with Douglas Carswell UKIP MP ). Maybe the SNP know they can do considerable damage to Westminster from the inside out, as UKIP do to the European parliament from the inside out and that is what the people who vote for them want them to do."Now you're making a real dick of yourself and contradicting your bosom buddy chalk. This is a discussion forum not a quoting forum and I don't need your clearance to ask a question. In fact new contributions will always be 'made up'. The alternative is that some people will keep on repeating the same old crap without any thought about something new. Oh I could have been describing you there - what a surprise and guess what, no one mentioned that before.. If you stop trying to be a smart arse, which you'll never be good at, you'll see I was asking two questions. I never said anyone said it. So, who said it wasn't alright for me to ask a question or two? That's certainly not your role. If you think I'm breaking forum rules you go right ahead and let admin know. Here it is again:I guess it's the sort of logic that says it's OK for UKIP to send MEPs to the European parliament, something they don't want to be part of, but it's not alright for the SNP to express their views in Westminster? Or is it supposed to be one rule for UKIP another for everyone else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe the SNP know they can do considerable damage to Westminster from the inside out, as UKIP do to the European parliament from the inside out and that is what the people who vote for them want them to do." The main damage UKIP do is to their snouts bashing them around in the EU money trough while doing nothing constructive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe the SNP know they can do considerable damage to Westminster from the inside out, as UKIP do to the European parliament from the inside out and that is what the people who vote for them want them to do. The main damage UKIP do is to their snouts bashing them around in the EU money trough while doing nothing constructive." Oh so now you think we are pigs, as well as Nazis, homophobics, racists etc etc. Sits watches and smiles | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We don't have a voting system that relates,in any way, to a percentage of total votes across the country. The populace recently voted to stay with that system. Your percentage figures include those constituencies where the SNP got 0% of the vote eg in Devon where they don't stand! SNP percentages in Scotland would better reflect how many MPs they have. You miss my point. I was responding to someone who made a very serious error in quoting a wrong percentage. I also made no comment about which system is better. These are the UK national percentages. We are ONE UK. Scotland is a part of the UK like Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is not an independent island. Yet. In a General Election there are no national, county or whatever borders. Only Constituencies. And if the SNP choose not to stand in Devon that is their problem. They are free so to do. UKIP didn't stand in every Constituency and still got more votes. Likewise the Greens only stood in a few. Bottom line is that the SNP have 56 MPs sitting in Parliament swearing allegiance to a Queen and country they wish to leave and break up. At least Sinn Fein had the honesty to never attend Parliament because they felt the same way ...." The idea of the Scottish National Party standing outside Scotland is as ridiculous as descibing Sinn Fein as honest. If you think they are why do they need secretarial support and accommodation in London when they do not take up their seats as MPs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Latest Poll of Polls showing,,,,,, 42% in..... 42% out,,, "I'm one of the 42% then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Latest Poll of Polls showing,,,,,, 42% in..... 42% out,,,
I'm one of the 42% then"I'm one of the 16% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Latest Poll of Polls showing,,,,,, 42% in..... 42% out,,,
I'm one of the 42% then
I'm one of the 16% "You'll get splinters sitting on that fence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Latest Poll of Polls showing,,,,,, 42% in..... 42% out,,,
I'm one of the 42% then
I'm one of the 16%
You'll get splinters sitting on that fence "Very true ,,,,,, but it's a good place to get the best view of both sides,,,,, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Maybe the SNP know they can do considerable damage to Westminster from the inside out, as UKIP do to the European parliament from the inside out and that is what the people who vote for them want them to do. The main damage UKIP do is to their snouts bashing them around in the EU money trough while doing nothing constructive." Oh so now you think we are pigs, as well as Nazis, homophobics, racists etc etc. Sits watches and smiles " I didn't know that you were a UKIP MEP, which is what the post was about. If you are an MEP then if the cap fits wear it. I didn't mention Nazis, homophobics or racists, though I suppose you could check with Gerard Batten, a London MEP and senior UKIP politician, on his views. You might come back from that with thoughts on whether or not some senior UKIP politicians are Nazis, homophobic or racist. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/gerard-batten-ukip_n_5350598.html However, surprisingly enough, I wouldn't say that his snout was bashing around in the EU money trough because he, unlike almost all his MEP colleagues, actually stuck to his principles about not joining UKIP's political venture ADDE so that they could get their snouts in that money trough. You might remember that UKIP had its own referendum about creating a pan European political party (PEPP). You'd remember that the UKIP members voted 2 to 1 against it. That's the sort of democracy in action you'd expect from a party that's really enthusiastic about referendums, isn't it? That's what we all want to see: have a referendum and then follow the wish of the majority of the members. So having had a referendum and received the mandate of its members, what does the UKIP leadership do? Ignores them. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2875851/ Ukip-fury-Farage-forms-EU-political-party-secure-1-5m-taxpayers-cash-Brussels.html As Gerrard Batten said at the time: ‘I'm not interested in being part of a European political party. The members of Ukip weren't asked. There's been no consultation.’ The idea was rejected in 2011 following an ‘expensive’ referendum,’ he said. ‘I can't think of any arguments that would make me want to join. I think the feeling among the activists is that they won't be in favour of it. Or how about Tim Congdom, who said: ‘In 2011 Ukip held a big internal debate on the issue. ‘The party membership voted two to one against Ukip's affiliation to a Pepp.’That was the clear and unambiguous democratic verdict of the party membership after a big debate extending over several months. ‘I am much saddened that the leadership should now have decided to ignore and overrule the clearly expressed view of the party membership.’ And what's the justification for doing this. According to East Midlands UKIP MEP Roger Helmer "if the Eurosceptic party did not take the money it would go to “integrationist organisations” promoting ever-closer union. Helmer said the money could otherwise be available to “the German or other foundations which promote further integration”. “We are going to be criticised by those who say: ’You should turn your back on this money. You should take a principled stand and refuse it,’” he said. “But it doesn’t make any difference to the taxpayer. “If we don’t take the money, it will not go back to the member state of the taxpayer. It will simply go to those other foundations committed to further European integration.” He added: “We think that if there are resources available, we want to get them. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/ ukip-eu-taxpayers-cash-new-political-party That was the UKIP MEP's line - let's not take the principled stand ... we think that if there are resources available we want to get them. Now the UKIP sour grapes scare mongers on here will write (and have written in the past) that I don't want them to have the money. I don't care if EU funding goes to UKIP - after all that's the democratic way if they form the right group and apply, which they did, they should get it. What I find very odd is that a party that goes on and on and on about a referendum has one amongst its own members and gets a very clear result telling them that they don't want UKIP to do something. But the party leaders (apart from Batten and a couple of others) decide that a democratic decision doesn't work for UKIP. Why is that? Well it's not to take the principled stand that its members expected it's "we think that if there are resources available we want to get them". Or alternatively, theres's a trough of EU money and most of the UKIP MEPs want their snouts sloshing away in it. Oh and then there's the minor point that the money is granted for a purpose - using it for anything else might be the sort of corrupt fraud that UKIP senior members have told you happens in the EU. Now according to an MP in the UK Parliament, all does not look like it's been going as it should. Now ask Centaur_UKIP, if anyone should know what's going on it's an MP: Centaur UKIP tell you that it's their job so they must know. And surely an MP from sovereign, democratic Westminster must know more than the corrupt and undemocratic people in the European institutions (as Centaur UKIP reminded us that they are in another thread). What is it that this MP has asked to be investigated? He's asking if UKIP,and Farage in particular, is using the money for the purpose that it was intended. Are UKIP defrauding the EU and by implication taxpayers? Now they may or may not be. It's a valid question. Read all about it in the Daily Mail: http ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3259590/ Ukip-s-Nigel-Farage-faces-investigation-using-EU-money-campaign-Britain-leave-EU.html As the Mail says: - He is using taxpayers' money officially allocated to his group of MEPs - Labour's Wes Streeting says Farage faces 'a catalogue of questions' - Full coverage of Ukip leader Nigel Farage and the investigation he faces The amount in question - the overall grant not the potential fraud - is 6.4 million euros (£4.7million) in the past three years. Quite some trough, isn't it? So in summary, UKIP MEPs disobeyed the democratic wishes of their party and formed a PEPP so that they could get their hands on lots of money. They knew that wouldn't be the principled thing to do, but they did it anyway. Let's play that one again: UKIP had a referendum - their own leaders called it a referendum - they got a resounding majority and in true contempt for democracy ignored it. Then there are unanswered questions about the legality of how that money is used. Sits, watches and wonders when are sensible people in UKIP going to realise and start asking their own questions about some of the corrupt bunch they voted for? Still, it's good to keep smiling. Then perhaps you could ask your party leaders why they ignored the democratic wishes of their members after a referendum? How well does that sit with trusting what they say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS." Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course the EU in gratitude at our exit will bend over backwards to make our lifes more pleasant with favourable terms "The EU will fall apart very quickley when we leave. The Germans will be the first to follow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/" ....Well said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said."It's a pity that the Norwegian government doesn't know about Hannan. Then they would obviously be embarrassed to have to explain to him their government report (Google this - Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2012: 2 Chapter 1 ... Submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 17 January 2012). It says "Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything, and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many" Now 3/4 is 75%. I for one think I'll stick with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs own view. Hannan's posts refer to a study done based on EFTA statistics but don't bother to tell you who did the study or where to find the data, other than link you to a eurosceptic site that doesn't give the data either. Who has got more of an axce to grind and an incentive to pass on false information Hannan or the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affaqirs? So let's get what the Norwegian ministry of Foreign Affairs reported again: ""Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything, and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said.
It's a pity that the Norwegian government doesn't know about Hannan. Then they would obviously be embarrassed to have to explain to him their government report (Google this - Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2012: 2 Chapter 1 ... Submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 17 January 2012).
It says "Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some
extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted
roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything,
and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many"
Now 3/4 is 75%. I for one think I'll stick with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs own view.
Hannan's posts refer to a study done based on EFTA statistics but don't bother to tell you who did the study or where to find the data, other than link you to a eurosceptic site that doesn't give the data either.
Who has got more of an axce to grind and an incentive to pass on false information Hannan or the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affaqirs?
So let's get what the Norwegian ministry of Foreign Affairs reported again:
""Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything, and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many""Well seeing as Daniel Hannan is an MEP he has access to the EFTA Secretariat's official figures, the study based on the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics reveals the true figure of 9% not the 75% lie pedalled by the BSE campaign. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said.
It's a pity that the Norwegian government doesn't know about Hannan. Then they would obviously be embarrassed to have to explain to him their government report (Google this - Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2012: 2 Chapter 1 ... Submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 17 January 2012).
It says "Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some
extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted
roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything,
and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many"
Now 3/4 is 75%. I for one think I'll stick with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs own view.
Hannan's posts refer to a study done based on EFTA statistics but don't bother to tell you who did the study or where to find the data, other than link you to a eurosceptic site that doesn't give the data either.
Who has got more of an axce to grind and an incentive to pass on false information Hannan or the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affaqirs?
So let's get what the Norwegian ministry of Foreign Affairs reported again:
""Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything, and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many"
Well seeing as Daniel Hannan is an MEP he has access to the EFTA Secretariat's official figures, the study based on the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics reveals the true figure of 9% not the 75% lie pedalled by the BSE campaign. "I've got access to the EFTA figures as have you on the WWW. That's nothing special. Read what he wrote, he doesn't even claim to have looked at the figures but got an analysis from a study done by someone else. He has an agenda in this. The Norwegian government published their 75% figure before Hannan (and you) thought you could bias the discussion. As I pointed out to you, Hannan isn't too hot on the truth. The article you quoted before (which was deleted here because it had an illicit link in it apparently) included the statement from him that the UK doesn't have representatives on the WTO, ILO or UNECE. That will be an enormous surprise our ambassador in Geneva Julian Braithwaite who is our representative there. Either Hannan hasn't got the foggiest idea or, to be charitable, he's bending the truth. Yet again, the Norwegian government report said: Formally, Norway is more free than EU States, and has to some extent been able to choose what it does and does not participate in. Norway has adopted roughly ¾ of EU legislation compared to those Member States that participate in everything, and it has implemented this legislation more effectively than many | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said."Thanks.
Lets expose some more of Espen Barth Eide and the BSE campaign's lies then shall we.
They say Norway is excluded from the EU's own decision making process. Again not true and a bare faced LIE, as Anne Tvinnereim of Norways centre party (who unlike Eide is a current Norwegian minister) explains when she said "we are not there when they vote but we do get to influence the position. Most of the politics is done long before it gets to the voting stage."
I'm sure Man4you will be along in a moment to put his own unique Europhile spin on it but just remember BSE also stands for Mad cows disease. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whoever is right about Norway is largely immaterial. What is true is that both Norway and Switzerland have chosen to have a "deal" with the EU rather than to ask to join it. I was in Norway last year and the most common complaint, that I heard from my neighbours there, was about the increasing number of coloured immigrants." . That's probably because 62% of sex crimes in Oslo were people of non European decent!. Lies dammed lies and statistics hey... We've got a cultural problem that nobody is willing to admit too which is exasperating the problem?. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said.
Thanks.
Lets expose some more of Espen Barth Eide and the BSE campaign's lies then shall we.
They say Norway is excluded from the EU's own decision making process. Again not true and a bare faced LIE, as Anne Tvinnereim of Norways centre party (who unlike Eide is a current Norwegian minister) explains when she said "we are not there when they vote but we do get to influence the position. Most of the politics is done long before it gets to the voting stage."
I'm sure Man4you will be along in a moment to put his own unique Europhile spin on it but just remember BSE also stands for Mad cows disease. "Being childish won't help your case | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said.
Thanks.
Lets expose some more of Espen Barth Eide and the BSE campaign's lies then shall we.
They say Norway is excluded from the EU's own decision making process. Again not true and a bare faced LIE, as Anne Tvinnereim of Norways centre party (who unlike Eide is a current Norwegian minister) explains when she said "we are not there when they vote but we do get to influence the position. Most of the politics is done long before it gets to the voting stage."
I'm sure Man4you will be along in a moment to put his own unique Europhile spin on it but just remember BSE also stands for Mad cows disease.
Being childish won't help your case"Really, you should take a look in the mirror then and look at your own childish behaviour on this thread, lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Norway and Switzerland do perfectly well as trading partners with the EU and they are not members. Their citizens don't need visas to travel or retire in Europe. The scaremongering that is happening at the moment is absolutely crazy. Let us follow their lead and just be part of the EEA, not the EU... This shows a remarkable lack of research into the real situation that Norway and Switzerland find themselves in. To be a member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) Norway has to pay the EU a sum equally to about 75% per head as the UK pays. The UK, in EU grants, gets between 50% to 75% of its money back. Norway, not being a member of the EU gets nothing back. So Norway actually pays more per head of population than Britain. In order to be a member of EFTA you have to agree to complete free movement of people from other EFTA countries (that's all the EU countries plus a few more). In all but name Norway is a full member of the Schengen agreement and actually has less control over it's own borders and immigration than Britain does. Also, to trade your goods within the EFTA area freely those good must comply with all EU directives, if not they are banned. So the Norway alternative is:- pay more to the EU, have less or no control of our own borders and immigration and still have to comply with every single rule that Brussels makes. But the biggest difference, if we took the Norway alternative, is that we would have absolutely no say in the making of any further rules but those rules would still be imposed upon us. Sounds like a great plan to me. God bless St. Nigel, the only politician doing the best for Britain!! Don't make me laugh FFS. Sorry Unleashed Craken, you are being sold a pack of lies by the remain in EU camp. The Britain stronger in Europe (BSE for short, funny considering most people in Britain associate BSE with mad cows disease ) campaign keep telling us that the only alternative to EU membership is to be like Norway. They then put forward some pro EU Norwegian Eurozealot cheerleaders to shout about it for them. One such figure is a Norwegian ex minister called Espen Barth Eide. Now considering Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership, over the last 5 years opponents of membership have lead by a figure of three to one or more (You can check the polls in Norway on google and wiki if you like), Mr Espen Barth Eide is a very un-typical Eurofanatic in Norway.
Now one of Espen Barth Eide's lies, a lie which is constantly repeated by the BSE campaign is that Norway must apply three quarters of EU laws. They often throw in the figure of 75% to make it sound more official. Lets look at the figures using the EFTA Secretariat's official statistics, a study found that between 2000 and 2013 norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period the EU itself applied 52,183 legal instruments. Work it out, its not 75% as Espen Barth Eide and the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claim, the real figure is a feeble 9%. So you are being fed a pack of lies about Norway from the remain in EU camp, don't believe a word they say.
Now i know from the general election threads you are a Conservative so take a look at this article in The Spectator from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan. He explains why Norways deal is better than EU membership, that Switzerland has a better deal than Norway and in the event of Brexit Britain can expect a better deal than Switzerland.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-brexit-would-look-like-for-britain/ ....Well said.
Thanks.
Lets expose some more of Espen Barth Eide and the BSE campaign's lies then shall we.
They say Norway is excluded from the EU's own decision making process. Again not true and a bare faced LIE, as Anne Tvinnereim of Norways centre party (who unlike Eide is a current Norwegian minister) explains when she said "we are not there when they vote but we do get to influence the position. Most of the politics is done long before it gets to the voting stage."
I'm sure Man4you will be along in a moment to put his own unique Europhile spin on it but just remember BSE also stands for Mad cows disease.
Being childish won't help your case
Really, you should take a look in the mirror then and look at your own childish behaviour on this thread, lol. "Being petulant won't help your case either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that voting should be postponed until the right people can vote. There are thousands of people missing, since the system was recently changed. Younger people - over 16s - should be permitted to vote too, as was the case in Scotland. This affects them for more of their lives potentially. We should remain in. The population haven't time to make the investigations and analysis upon the main data in a very short timeframe. Emotional decisions, without fuller rational evaluation, is short changing us all." I agree with this. Glad somebody has raised the 16+ voting debate. As well as recognising that this really needs to be less of an argument over what is good in the short but how will it impact say 30-16 year olds. Lets face it, any increased cost from staying in or leaving the EU is going to fall to the shoulders of the current younger generation more. Also good point on bringing up how short the the announcement to referendum date is - and how it times with issues such as the humanitarian crisis which is impacting Europe and the near East. As the above post said, we can't formulate a rational response is such a short time frame. Not with all the scaremongering, manipulation of numbers and a humanitarian crisis all coming at once. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
