# It really is another world, isn't it?



## Phil Pascoe (16 Apr 2016)

I see an article in today's Telegraph magazine on the queen's broomsquire - he holds the royal warrant and supplies the royal household with 120 besoms a year. He also supplies her pea sticks and bean poles.


----------



## t8hants (16 Apr 2016)

Well at least Her Maj' is supporting British suppliers, unlike the MOD.


----------



## DiscoStu (16 Apr 2016)

I do find it frustrating when our government, political parties and institutions that are publicly funded don't support British industry. I know there are times when they can't etc but for example the recent EU leaflet that everyone got - it was printed in Germany! We were world leaders in printing and I can't believe we couldn't have printed that at home. 

I'm not going to sit and say I only buy British (I have Festool and Ryobi tools for a start) but it is something I try to do and I try to buy with a conscious mind. I have two British cars - a Jag and a Discovery. 

I try and buy British food but that's not as easy as it should be. I'd like to see much clearer labelling and it should be 100% British not just packaged in the UK means it can have a Union flag on it. 

What I'd also like to see is all of our politicians (of any party) stand up for the UK and start singing its praises. Like her or loath her you couldn't argue that Margaret Thatcher didn't stand up for the UK. We are a great nation and I wish we would shout about it a bit more. I think Borris is the closest we have to that and dare I say it possibly Farrage. I think the trouble is, is that we are afraid that if we are seen as being pro British then we run the risk of being seen as racist. I don't think that being Pro UK or Britain is racist it just shows some patriotism. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2016)

The broomsquire probably buys them in from Taiwan.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Apr 2016)

it did actually show a picture of his workshop.


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Apr 2016)

DiscoStu":2pvthrw1 said:


> I have two British cars - a Jag and a Discovery.


Both companies now owned by Indian companies.


> argue that Margaret Thatcher didn't stand up for the UK.


Who sold off most of the British infrastructure abroad.
In SW Herts our railway is owned by the Germans, our water comes from a French company, our electricity is supplied by a German company.......
Yes, a very patriotic decision to sell off everything we owned to reduce the wealthiest's taxes.


----------



## monkeybiter (16 Apr 2016)

At least she was British, unlike that amusing blitherer Boris!


----------



## AJB Temple (16 Apr 2016)

It does puzzle me this. There are EU fair trade rules to stop individual governments applying protectionism policies and favouring home industries. But you go to France and they buy predominantly French cars, French tractors, French cigarettes, French wine, French beer. My wife being German, and living some of the time there, I am in Germany a lot and know the Germans well: they are proud of their industry and products and they buy them. 

Yet in England we are are very fond of a bargain so, having largely destroyed our own industry, we import great deal from China. Eg Triton tools from Screwfix and similar stuff from Lidl and Aldi. We can't have it both ways really.


----------



## Wuffles (16 Apr 2016)

One thing, Triton are Australian. Point remains the same though.

Don't French car manufacturers have a government minister on the board of directors? Or was that made up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Apr 2016)

I did read years ago that all the French car manufacturers would have been long bankrupt without illegal subsidies.


----------



## thetyreman (16 Apr 2016)

trust me, the royal family aren't happy, who cares if they live in another world? I live in my own world and I love it.


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2016)

AJB Temple":sc9forpq said:


> It does puzzle me this. There are EU fair trade rules to stop individual governments applying protectionism policies and favouring home industries. But you go to France and they buy predominantly French cars, French tractors, French cigarettes, French wine, French beer. My wife being German, and living some of the time there, I am in Germany a lot and know the Germans well: they are proud of their industry and products and they buy them.
> 
> Yet in England we are are very fond of a bargain so, having largely destroyed our own industry, we import great deal from China. Eg Triton tools from Screwfix and similar stuff from Lidl and Aldi. We can't have it both ways really.


We buy French energy (EDF) from a nationalised industry. Ditto foreign control of various rail and other industries


----------



## Wuffles (16 Apr 2016)

Jacob":2qfk5bjx said:


> AJB Temple":2qfk5bjx said:
> 
> 
> > It does puzzle me this. There are EU fair trade rules to stop individual governments applying protectionism policies and favouring home industries. But you go to France and they buy predominantly French cars, French tractors, French cigarettes, French wine, French beer. My wife being German, and living some of the time there, I am in Germany a lot and know the Germans well: they are proud of their industry and products and they buy them.
> ...



What have the French ever done for us?

Bridges Reg?

Oh yeah, apart from the bridges.


----------



## finneyb (17 Apr 2016)

German industry has worker representation on the supervisory board - which just might give people ownership to but the product. 

Brian


----------



## Paul200 (17 Apr 2016)

A lot of Makita tools are made in this country - not just assembled - manufactured. They are still a family-run business too - albeit a Japanese family. Something to think about next time you're in need of a new power tool. And no - I don't work for them


----------



## Stiggy (17 Apr 2016)

The swords bought by new officers in the British Armed Forces are generally forged in India on British machines, then exported and finished in the Uk, I know because I used supply to the MOD. 

The company I worked for also provided Prince William with his sword for his wedding.


----------



## MMUK (18 Apr 2016)

DiscoStu":2454nx0r said:


> I have two British cars - a Jag and a Discovery.




British? If they're less than 20 years old they're not British, just assembled here. IIRC you have a D3? Engines for those were not machined in the UK, they arrived here part built. Most of the plastics used for the dash, switches, etc. is from PRC. The fuel system, if memory serves, is Bosch based......


----------



## Cheshirechappie (18 Apr 2016)

I read a couple of years ago in a professional institution comic - oops, sorry; journal - that by value of components and place of manufacture, Volvos were 50% British. It's also true that in Ricardo and a couple of others, Britain has a very high proportion of the world's automotive R&D business.

We might not have as many assembly lines as we once did, but we still do quite a lot of the high-end clever stuff. Rather profitably, as it 'appens.

------

Back on topic - nice to see that 'Er Maj. gets her bean poles from British sources, and doesn't just nip down B&Q and buy some imported bamboo rubbish like the rest of us plebs.


----------



## whiskywill (22 Apr 2016)

Wuffles":2de0tprd said:


> What have the French ever done for us?



They gave you that wonderful nickname, "Le Rosbif" =D>


----------



## RogerS (22 Apr 2016)

It's called globalisation.


----------



## DiscoStu (24 Apr 2016)

I know the JLR is owned by Tata but you are still buying a car made in Britain by British people. 

With regards to the Thatcher comment I was really referring to the fact that she spoke up for the UK, something that doesn't seem to happen these days. 

As AJB says, go to Germany and you'll see the road is full of German cars, same in France. Now I know I mentioned Jag and Land Rover and I do appreciate that we can't all drive them. If you look back then we get to Rover and they really were the last big British car manufacturer. Yet they closed, people blame government etc but if we the British public aren't buying their cars then surely it's us that's at fault. If everyone in the UK bought British cars Rover would be flourishing. In fact as I type this I am beginning to think that not being in the EU is the way to go? I've really been on the fence but I'm starting to opt towards the Out side. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2016)

DiscoStu":2kpa62wl said:


> ....If you look back then we get to Rover ....



Ah, but was this before or after the Phoenix Four. And even before them, let's face it....Rovers were pretty naff (apart from Disco's and Range Rovers !!) compared to what the Japanese were producing. They had an appalling reputation for reliability IIRC.


----------



## Rhossydd (24 Apr 2016)

DiscoStu":1iekeywo said:


> If you look back then we get to Rover and they really were the last big British car manufacturer. Yet they closed, people blame government etc but if we the British public aren't buying their cars then surely it's us that's at fault.


Rover folded not because people didn't 'buy British', but because the cars were second rate.
Patriotism shouldn't over rule common sense.


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":14oguhfc said:


> DiscoStu":14oguhfc said:
> 
> 
> > If you look back then we get to Rover and they really were the last big British car manufacturer. Yet they closed, people blame government etc but if we the British public aren't buying their cars then surely it's us that's at fault.
> ...



And also we shouldn't ignore the appalling management/union relationships. Remember 'Red Robbo' ..... a man credited with causing 523 walkouts at British Leyland between 1978 and 1979, costing an estimated £200 million in lost production. No smoke without fire and I know that BL management were equally culpable (the ex-MD's secretary used to work for me and spilled the beans).


----------



## Rhossydd (24 Apr 2016)

RogerS":2see3erp said:


> And also we shouldn't ignore the appalling management/union relationships.


It that really relevant to why people stopped buying British cars ?


> I know that BL management were equally culpable


Quite. Poor management creates industrial unrest.


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":13vm4l2t said:


> RogerS":13vm4l2t said:
> 
> 
> > And also we shouldn't ignore the appalling management/union relationships.
> ...


Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows. Nitpicking.



Rhossydd":13vm4l2t said:


> RogerS":13vm4l2t said:
> 
> 
> > I know that BL management were equally culpable
> ...


Nonsense. You ignore the agenda of the unions and union leaders - which I was at great pains to point out. Both sides are equally to blame for poor industrial relations. Neither side exists in a vacuum. To suggest otherwise is naive.


----------



## Rhossydd (24 Apr 2016)

RogerS":qztv4ue6 said:


> Nonsense.


No, if workers are happy they don't go on strike. It's dead simple. Why aren't they happy ? poor management.


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":3v808cy5 said:


> RogerS":3v808cy5 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense.
> ...



Whatever.


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":aolat53q said:


> DiscoStu":aolat53q said:
> 
> 
> > If you look back then we get to Rover and they really were the last big British car manufacturer. Yet they closed, people blame government etc but if we the British public aren't buying their cars then surely it's us that's at fault.
> ...


Same with motorbikes. The best of British were all prewar designs progressively modified but never radically redesigned. The Japs reworked them from bottom up and came up with a totally superior product. 
Oddly enough - one of the very few "modern" British bikes was the BSA Bantam - based on the German DKW RT 125, a design that was received as war reparations. The other was the 1953 Velocette LE which was too little developed and too late.
I blame complacent conservative management and lack of government investment.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Apr 2016)

DiscoStu":8pcy8y3u said:


> I know the JLR is owned by Tata but you are still buying a car made in Britain by British people.
> 
> With regards to the Thatcher comment I was really referring to the fact that she spoke up for the UK, something that doesn't seem to happen these days.
> 
> ...



I think it's a straight choice between being governed by a bunch of idiots in Westminster whom we elect, and because they want our votes have to listen to us at least some of the time, or being governed by a bunch of idiots in Brussels whom we don't elect and in consequence have absolutely no need to take the slightest notice of anything we think. Everything else is just arguing about details.


----------



## Rhossydd (24 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2cciwozg said:


> governed by ... Brussels whom we don't elect


Except we DO elect MEPs and there's over 2,000 UK staff working for the EU in Brussels making regulations etc that apply across Europe.

Why don't people get that we are part of the EU now and take a role in the creation of EU laws and regulation ?


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2016)

> Cheshirechappie wrote:
> governed by ... Brussels whom we don't elect


I don't understand why this myth gets perpetuated it's easy enough to find out the facts.
EU is a democratic institution run by elected MEPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections ... Parliament

The other popular myth is loss of sovereignty - yes we voluntarily agree to abide by rules whilst we are in but we can pull out any time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawa ... pean_Union


----------



## RogerS (24 Apr 2016)

Must be in an alternative universe.

Let me see. The European Commission whose role is to, now let me get this right...

- propose legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament (ie MEPs) and the Council of Ministers (note ..they propose..they are the drivers)

- enforce European law (where necessary with the help of the Court of Justice of the EU)

- set objectives and priorities for action, outlined yearly in the Commission Work Programme and work towards delivering them

- manage and implement EU policies and the budget (note..the accounts still haven't been signed off for the last, what was it? Ten years?

Now, how do the European Commissioners who do this get appointed? Mmmm...tricky one that..ah yes...the President chooses them. Now where do I put my vote ?


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2016)

These things are easy to check. They are chosen by each member state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner
The "President" : "this post presides only over the European Council – an institution of the EU – rather than presiding over the EU as a whole. The post does not have any executive powers and is unlike heads of states such as the President of the United States of America or the President of France: it is far more akin to chairman. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President ... pean_Union


----------



## RogerS (25 Apr 2016)

Ok, Jacob...you can ignore the reality if you like. It is perfectly clear what the role is. It's on their website. I'll take no further part in the thread.


----------



## Droogs (25 Apr 2016)

EU commissioners are as democratically elected to the post as much as the UK Prime Minister. By that I mean they are not. Just as the PM is appointed so are they, and what gets my goat here in good ol' blighty is, that ours is appointed by another appointee who is not directly elected by the British people. After all, remember, the party leader of each party selected (recent Labour events aside) only by the parliamentary party members of each not the general electorate. whoever wins is then the person appointed as PM if that party wins an election. NO British voter has ever voted for a PM only a local representative MP.
For me the biggest problem with us and the EU is the fact that our respective legal systems are based on diametrically opposed view points, in that continental Europe follows the napolionic legal system in which everything you want to do is forbidden unless expressly permitted by legislation and the british system works under the premis that you can do what you like unless expressly forbidden or controlled by legislation. Unfortunately the people who have the most legislative power in the EU are the appointees rather than the elected officials from each state and that by being a member you agree that EU laws superceed your own.
I may sound like an brexiter but after spending a large part of my adult life picking up the pieces left by human conflict and mans ability to inflict so much harm to his fellow that I firmly believe the EU has achieved is main goal of preventing another 26 million people dying needlesssley in another war in Europe and has brought about a stable and mostly productive and beneficial living environment for all it's citizens and this lets me live with straight bananas and french lamb. So I guess I'm a "bremainer"


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Apr 2016)

Peace in Europe was achieved by NATO and Uncle Sam waving a big stick . It was precious little to do with the EU.
Mentioning French lamb - remember the hoo ha about the Welsh live exports some years ago? It transpired that they could be sold as French under EU rules - so long as they had been kept on a French farm for a week ... and of course the French wouldn't buy them if they were imported frozen and sold as Welsh. Wonderful place, the EU ... if you happen to work for it.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2016)

The "democratic deficit" is endlessly discussed. http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/libr ... ropean.pdf
The EU isn't static - it's changing all the time, according to the will of the people, by one means or another, generally for the better.
If we are IN, amongst many other benefits, we are in a position to influence changes.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2016)

phil.p":vto7tzs1 said:


> Peace in Europe was achieved by NATO and Uncle Sam waving a big stick . It was precious little to do with the EU.
> Mentioning French lamb - remember the hoo ha about the Welsh live exports some years ago? It transpired that they could be sold as French under EU rules - so long as they had been kept on a French farm for a week ... and of course the French wouldn't buy them if they were imported frozen and sold as Welsh. Wonderful place, the EU ... if you happen to work for it.


Yebbut all these niggling details do not make the whole picture. There will be dodging, exploitation of rules, irritations, large and small, whatever system we have in place, in or out.
Many of the popular ones are fictional - straight bananas/cucumbers etc. :lol:
If we are in we have some influence.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Apr 2016)

In case you'd not noticed - we've had zilch influence for the past 43 years. Why does anyone think that's suddenly going to change?


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2016)

phil.p":263morqb said:


> In case you'd not noticed - we've had zilch influence for the past 43 years. Why does anyone think that's suddenly going to change?


You get out what you put in. If we have eurosceptic MEPs we get the worst of both worlds!

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ave-europe


----------



## Sheffield Tony (25 Apr 2016)

DiscoStu":ryxerl51 said:


> As AJB says, go to Germany and you'll see the road is full of German cars, same in France. Now I know I mentioned Jag and Land Rover and I do appreciate that we can't all drive them. If you look back then we get to Rover and they really were the last big British car manufacturer. Yet they closed, people blame government etc but if we the British public aren't buying their cars then surely it's us that's at fault. If everyone in the UK bought British cars Rover would be flourishing.



Both France and Italy seem quite nationalistic in their buying habits. We disloyal British don't support our own industry. You'd expect France and Italy to have flourishing economies then.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Apr 2016)

Jacob":30w46fdl said:


> phil.p":30w46fdl said:
> 
> 
> > In case you'd not noticed - we've had zilch influence for the past 43 years. Why does anyone think that's suddenly going to change?
> ...



Except the Eurosceptic MEPs came after and possibly because of the lack of influence.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Apr 2016)

Droogs":2mawmt3e said:


> EU commissioners are as democratically elected to the post as much as the UK Prime Minister. By that I mean they are not. Just as the PM is appointed so are they, and what gets my goat here in good ol' blighty is, that ours is appointed by another appointee who is not directly elected by the British people. After all, remember, the party leader of each party selected (recent Labour events aside) only by the parliamentary party members of each not the general electorate. whoever wins is then the person appointed as PM if that party wins an election. NO British voter has ever voted for a PM only a local representative MP.



When we go to the polling booth for a Westminster election, we do know who the leaders of the main political parties are, so we have a pretty fair idea who will be Prime Minister depending on which party gains a majority. Indeed, we have a fair idea who the leading Cabinet Ministers are likely to be, too - if not their exact roles every time. I'm sure that influences how some people cast their votes. It's also the case that the government - the executive - is formed almost exclusively from elected MPs, and is held to account by the legislature - Parliament - in the form of elected MPs.

I do accept that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the parties are not always the same as the major Westminster parties, but most of the 'Nats' do tend to align with one or other of the two main political leanings, so a vote cast for them will have some influence on government's direction, even if it is at second hand, as it were.

The problem with the EU arrangements as currently practiced is that we can vote for a parliament that seems never to use any influence or authority it might have, but we don't vote for (nor can we hold to account) those who do exercise authority.

It's taken many centuries for the UK system to evolve, with Parliament being first a gathering of Nobles, and the ordinary folk having no vote at all. Gradually, the franchise has extended to property owners, then to the male population over a certain age, then - only comparatively recently - to the entire adult population (with the exception of a few - Lords, those serving a prison sentence and the certified insane). Individually, our political power is tiny, being limited to one vote each at any election, but collectively it does determine the general direction of Westminster governance. It could take decades or generations for that to become the case with the EU institutions; I don't think it's a good idea to vote away what has taken us centuries to achieve - it's just too precious to lose.

Am I the only one disappointed by the National debate so far? Claims and counter-claims, dodgy forecasts of economic future, security, you name it - trying to sort out 'facts' from all the noise and mud-slinging (from both sides of the debate) really isn't easy. I suppose I'm not really surprised, but given that it could determine the nation's direction for generations, I think it all deserves a bit more considered appraisal that it's getting. Thus, the ordinary voter has to fall back on good old 'gut feeling' - and my gut says the EU is a mess that the British people would be better free of. Historically, Britain has always been at it's best, both for it's inhabitants and for what it's contributed to the wider world, when it's been at it's most free. Hence, I'm for Brexit.


----------



## lurker (25 Apr 2016)

As has been mentioned the accounts have not been signed off for years
The Eurocrats have shown no interest in doing their job properly and sorting this out. 
So long as the net payers keep coughing up they never will.
The number of "givers" decreases whilst the "takers" grow.

For that reason I'm out.
If we leave, the whole sorry mess will quickly collapse but just sooner rather than later.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Apr 2016)

The usual argument is that they have been signed off - by their own auditors. No independent auditor would touch them with a barge pole. We entered the EEC (which I voted against in '75) in 1973, and in only one year since have we pulled out more than we've paid in. 1975 ... curious, that ... :lol:


----------



## Sheffield Tony (25 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2ipa6003 said:


> Am I the only one disappointed by the National debate so far? Claims and counter-claims, dodgy forecasts of economic future, security, you name it - trying to sort out 'facts' from all the noise and mud-slinging (from both sides of the debate) really isn't easy. I suppose I'm not really surprised, but given that it could determine the nation's direction for generations, I think it all deserves a bit more considered appraisal that it's getting. Thus, the ordinary voter has to fall back on good old 'gut feeling' - and my gut says the EU is a mess that the British people would be better free of. Historically, Britain has always been at it's best, both for it's inhabitants and for what it's contributed to the wider world, when it's been at it's most free. Hence, I'm for Brexit.



The reason there is not more considered appraisal is, IMHO, because nobody knows. How the remaining states of the EU will be disposed to us if we leave. How it will affect non-EU nations looking to invest in manufacturing facilities here. How many years (or decades) it will take to untangle ourselves. Much of it is more psychology than economics, and there is more certainty to be found in betting on horses.

What is certain is that we will still have to follow all those EU regulations if we want to stick a CE mark on stuff and sell it in Europe. But we will have no say in the develoment of the rules which we will have to abide by.

I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2016)

phil.p":389udy6j said:


> The usual argument is that they have been signed off - by their own auditors. No independent auditor would touch them with a barge pole. We entered the EEC (which I voted against in '75) in 1973, and in only one year since have we pulled out more than we've paid in. 1975 ... curious, that ... :lol:


It's not curious at all - it's not about a simple exchange of cash benefits. 
There are a a host of other benefits which don't come up on balance sheets but which should be considered nevertheless. Some of them merely commercial but others affecting the way we live in many advantageous ways


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Apr 2016)

Sheffield Tony":3na00l1o said:


> Cheshirechappie":3na00l1o said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one disappointed by the National debate so far? Claims and counter-claims, dodgy forecasts of economic future, security, you name it - trying to sort out 'facts' from all the noise and mud-slinging (from both sides of the debate) really isn't easy. I suppose I'm not really surprised, but given that it could determine the nation's direction for generations, I think it all deserves a bit more considered appraisal that it's getting. Thus, the ordinary voter has to fall back on good old 'gut feeling' - and my gut says the EU is a mess that the British people would be better free of. Historically, Britain has always been at it's best, both for it's inhabitants and for what it's contributed to the wider world, when it's been at it's most free. Hence, I'm for Brexit.
> ...



The risks of staying in are unknown and unquantifiable, too. The future is anybody's guess. The one thing we do know is that if we leave, our votes at a general election will help to determine the country's direction. We won't have that power in the EU, because we can't vote for the people that make the decisions - or hold them to account through the ballot box.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2c3os1hl said:


> ..... We won't have that power in the EU, because we can't vote for the people that make the decisions - or hold them to account through the ballot box.


Not so - we vote for MEPs and we vote for MPs who also have influence in the EU. It's a democratic institution, not perfect, but better than the alternatives!

All this timidity about the future - one thing is certain; we'd have more control of it if we were in rather than out.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/ ... otiations/


----------



## novocaine (25 Apr 2016)

I'm more worried about what we aren't being told by each side than what we are at the moment. comments made by the USA (or it's representative at present, Mr Obama) to the end that the UK would be at the bottom of the pile for trade agreements is worrying (yet it was a one liner on the news before getting back to the important stuff like who's banging who in what way), whilst they aren't a major market share for us as such they are still one of the major players in the international market and can drive it to their will. EU has trade agreements with them ( and other non EU countries which we are unlikely to be able to reach agreement with outside of the EU). we leave, and we lose some of that safety. it keeps being screamed that we are not a manufacturing country anymore, this is true for the most part, we do not produce heavy industry like we used to, but we do still manufacture, very high tech and very specific equipment that is sold around the globe, without EU backing this is likely to become harder. i the modern globilised market we can not stand alone, it's insane to believe we can, we are a small nation with limited resource, most of which we have sold off in short sighted money grabbing ways. 
the same thing that Scotland touted in their bid for freedom is being spouted for the UK, we can be like Norway, a non EU member who has trade agreements. how many years do you think it took for them to achieve this? why do you think they managed it (hint, because they've got a shed load of gas and oil and don't really use it), do you believe we have the same assets to sell (no we do not) and do you think they aren't having to follow the same laws you are trying to escape by leaving the EU in order to sell there? (another hint, yep they do and they get absolutely no say in what laws they have to follow to do this, they don't follow it, they don't sell to the EU). 
do we have power in the EU? yes we do, we have 13% of votes, but it isn't that simple, we have members on the committee which vote for certain important things, but that isn't quite so straight forward either, you want to know more go research it. 
Leaving the EU will cost us, there is not really a debate about that, the problem is how much it will cost us, something that's impossible to say. it will cost us to stay as well, but is that cost more than leaving? again, not possible to say, but from all external sources it looks like we will be worse if we leave. 

I guess the real issue is that it's impossible to be impartial in the UK on this subject, outside guidance is needed but isn't forthcoming. I'm on the stay side, but only just and can't really put my finger on the detail enough to push me either way. 

oh and only site I've found so far that has a fairly unbiased view is https://fullfact.org/europe/ 
this isn't to say that it's not biased, it is to say that it's the only one I've found that doesn't look to be biased. 

good luck, I hope the media frenzy dies down and we actually get truthful and easy to understand information that allows us to vote the right way.


----------



## lurker (25 Apr 2016)

Sheffield Tony":1buk0qfk said:


> I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.



I think if we stay in you can say exactly the same.

Many forget the the predictions that the UK was going to go down the pan becuse we did not adopt the Euro


----------



## lurker (25 Apr 2016)

Jacob":j9a00fc7 said:


> phil.p":j9a00fc7 said:
> 
> 
> > The usual argument is that they have been signed off - by their own auditors. No independent auditor would touch them with a barge pole. We entered the EEC (which I voted against in '75) in 1973, and in only one year since have we pulled out more than we've paid in. 1975 ... curious, that ... :lol:
> ...



The numbers dont add up because of the wide scale corruption.
My B in Law has a fruit farm in Spain, he claimed a grant for the same work 3 times (after 2 years the original claim is archived so there is no checks) over 10 years and just pockets the cash. 
And compared to the folks around him he is an honest bloke, the locals don't see a problem because the money is coming from foreigners.


----------



## lurker (25 Apr 2016)

I'm not 100% but I believe the EEC still give out grants to tobacco growers :shock:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Apr 2016)

It subsidised the French to plant apple trees when it was subsidising our orchard owners (who grow them better) to tear them up, and it subsidised our inshore fishermen to decommision 20' boats on the pretence of looking after fish stocks - at the same time as it was subsidising the building of Spanish beam trawlers. The subsidised tobacco farms used to be Greek - they've probably ceased to exist now ... I mean the farms, not the subsidies.


----------



## mind_the_goat (25 Apr 2016)

lurker":l5y77i7z said:


> As has been mentioned the accounts have not been signed off for years



Another well known EU 'fact'.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
Accounts ARE signed off every year, there are generally a few percent of payments that may not have fully met the rules but this is not the same as money being unaccounted for.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (25 Apr 2016)

lurker":3q6xolg9 said:


> Sheffield Tony":3q6xolg9 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.
> ...



I don't understand how you can believe that. Retaining the status quo is pretty much always more predictable* than making a big change. 
But then neither do I understand the view of those who believe that leaving the EU will make no difference to the remaining EU members wanting to do business with us - we are bound to drop some way down the list of preferred suppliers.

* Note I said predictable, desireable is a different argument.


----------



## lurker (25 Apr 2016)

mind_the_goat":3gwjz4ts said:


> lurker":3gwjz4ts said:
> 
> 
> > As has been mentioned the accounts have not been signed off for years
> ...




I refer you to my honourable Cornish friend's post at the top of page 4, :lol: 
It's exactly this twisting of words that makes me distrust the Eurocrats


----------



## mind_the_goat (25 Apr 2016)

It is one of those 'simple facts' for which a Yes/No answer is not sufficient, hence the link.
Your point does raises an interesting question in my mind. Does any national government accounting ever get audited and 'signed off' ? Independently or otherwise. It's certainly not something I've ever heard of. Do we have anything to compare EU accounting management with ?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Apr 2016)

In 1975, we were told we were voting to be members of a free trade area. Well - it didn't quite turn out like that, did it? Some people say we were lied to. Maybe, maybe not - but we certainly were not told the whole truth. What makes anybody think we'll get the whole truth this time round? I don't really think the debate will become any clearer; indeed, I rather suspect it will become even more bitter, acrimonious and confusing.

On trade - there won't be any real difference to the UK's trade position in or out in the short term. In the long term, it might make a difference, but in the long term, who knows what will happen anyway? There's a lot of huffing and puffing about 'free trade deals', which I think is a bit of a distraction, since the lack of a free trade deal doesn't mean no trade. The EU and the USA don't currently have a free trade deal (it's being negotiated), but that doesn't mean you can't buy a Lie-Nielsen plane in the UK, or that Ashley Iles can't sell chisels in America. The same will be the case if we do leave the EU.

Would they slap huge tariffs on UK products and services? No, because they don't want to risk tit-for-tat tariffs on imports into the world's fifth largest economy. Stifling trade, in the end, benefits nobody.

Could the UK stand alone trading in the world? Of course it could - we're the world's fifth largest economy - a huge market for all sorts of other people. Besides, we've been a trading nation for centuries, and very good at it too quite often; so we just keep on doing what we've always done, going after the opportunities as they arise. We could do very well indeed outside the EU - the latter is hardly an dynamic and growing economic powerhouse at the moment.

This - for me - really comes down to being able to vote for, and hold to account through the ballot box, the people who govern us. Oddly, that's a factor that has not really been discussed at all in the national debate so far, which has concentrated on narrow points about trade and very debatable points about security. I wonder why governance and who selects it hasn't been discussed much?


----------



## Wuffles (25 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2267imbi said:


> The EU and the USA don't currently have a free trade deal (it's being negotiated), but that doesn't mean you can't buy a Lie-Nielsen plane in the UK, or that Ashley Iles can't sell chisels in America. The same will be the case if we do leave the EU.



Does it mean that I won't be able to buy watches from EU Countries without paying duty?! Suddenly I am interested in the debate  

Hadn't considered that.


----------



## lurker (25 Apr 2016)

mind_the_goat":3hiw95l8 said:


> It is one of those 'simple facts' for which a Yes/No answer is not sufficient, hence the link.
> Your point does raises an interesting question in my mind. Does any national government accounting ever get audited and 'signed off' ? Independently or otherwise. It's certainly not something I've ever heard of. Do we have anything to compare EU accounting management with ?



Rob,

Sure, we are being screwed by our own government but with the eec it's twice over.
If we were " out" at least it would be just our crooks (or MPs as they call themselves )


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2016)

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/vide ... SApp_Other


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

mind_the_goat":3tusrtuq said:


> It is one of those 'simple facts' for which a Yes/No answer is not sufficient, hence the link.
> Your point does raises an interesting question in my mind. Does any national government accounting ever get audited and 'signed off' ? Independently or otherwise. It's certainly not something I've ever heard of. Do we have anything to compare EU accounting management with ?


A national government is spending its own money - the EU is spending other people's. Slightly different.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.
Jean Monnet

"The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State."
Jean Monnet

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
Jean Monnet

It's difficult to deny the founding fathers' intentions, although many quotes the Europhiles now don't agree with (or don't believe should be publicly known) are claimed to be lies.

We were lied to "by ommision" (as my mother used to accuse me of doing). I did O level history in 1970 and unusually it covered modern history - European 1914 - 1970, Russian 1917 - 1963. It was perfectly obvious that the union was intended to be political, not just trade. We possibly wouldn't have gone in at all if heath had actually told the Country beforehand that he'd given the fishing rights away. He deliberately left it til the last few hours.


----------



## stuartpaul (26 Apr 2016)

I've found myself becoming more and more frustrated with the increasingly large amounts of male cow manure being heaped on the subject by both sides. An apparent lack of facts makes it doubly difficult to make a concrete decision either way.

I know it costs to stay but is it a cost worth bearing? To consider that in a shrinking world we can make it on our own is, I feel, harking back to the days when large parts of the map were coloured pink. That simply isn't realistic trade agreements or not. In my opinion the British have this rather isolated way of thinking caused by a lack of land borders and the subsequent influence caused by that closeness of cultures crossing borders.

If we stay we have a chance to influence the shape of the future. If we leave we don't and I believe we'll find ourselves increasingly isolated.

If we do leave I suspect the chances of getting back in at some point will be incredibly small because we'll have burnt too many bridges.

As things currently stand I'm for staying, - mainly because I think the long term benefits for my children and grandchildren outweigh any short term 'inconvenience' for me. There is also the better to inside peeing out than outside peeing in argument! It isn't perfect but then what is?

Having said that the devil in me would be interested to see how leaving would affect how the EU operates. I'm not a betting man but I suspect the vote will be to leave because the common man on the Clapham omnibus see's more negative publicity (the EU stops this, that or the other) rather than positives.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

"If we do leave I suspect the chances of getting back in at some point will be incredibly small because we'll have burnt too many bridges."
It won't matter. It'll collapse without one of its major sponsors anyway.


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2016)

stuartpaul":q1xl0i6g said:


> I.....t I suspect the vote will be to leave because the common man on the Clapham omnibus see's more negative publicity (the EU stops this, that or the other) rather than positives.


I think we will stay, we'll see!
But yes - the brexit argument is entirely negative - a mixture of paranoia, rumour, xenophobia etc. with nothing positive on the table other than a vague promise that things could be "better".


----------



## t8hants (26 Apr 2016)

If we leave we must actively work towards the breakup of the EU and collapse the Euro, regardless of the consequences.
For too long the nations whose shores are lapped by the Mediterranean have lived as parasites off the northern nations.
If we don't leave we must collapse it from the inside!


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 Apr 2016)

[OK this is waaay too long, but dip into it] You'll find everything I've said backed up by the facts, _if you go to the actual sources_, such as the EU's own documents, and dig around a little for yourself.

A few interesting facts:

*The Common Fisheries Policy* (CFP), the one that all but destroyed our fishing industry (and later our fishing grounds themselves), came into existence less than 24 hours before we signed the Treaty of Rome. 

The reason? We had the normal 200-mile territorial limits under international law, and those waters were, by far, the most productive around the continent.. Certain EU countries were determined these should be a 'shared' resource. The Treaty required that we accepted all Common Market law that was in existence before our signature. 

Thus the Common Fisheries Policy was rushed through, finally being agreed literally the day before we signed. If we'd signed two days earlier, we could have refused the CFP and all the damage it did to our fishing ports and the fisheries themselves. "Quotas" would never have existed, neither would Spanish beam trawlers have been allowed here (crewed by Moroccans, incidentally, not even EU citizens). 

For lovers of historical detail, the matter was debated in the Commons on 17th. February 1972, as part of the discussion on the European Communities Bill (paving bill for us joining the Common Market). Exchanges between Wilson (then in opposition but still Labour leader) and Heath make some of the duplicities apparent. We had a "derogation" until 1982, at which point we ceded control entirely to the EEC, leaving our own Fisheries Protection organisation responsible for interfering with and prosecuting British fishermen. Thanks, Ted.

It's also true, incidentally, that a recent EU Fisheries Commissioner came from Austria. Buggins's turn, evidently.

*EU Accounting practices*: Simply ask any honest UK accountant about this! An Excel spreadsheet showing funds disbursement has long been accepted as an adequate method of keeping accounts. *The Commission and its directorates does not practice double-entry book keeping*, even to this day, The EU Court of Auditors is roughly the equivalent of our Public Accounts Committee, and completely toothless. It has indeed refused to sign off the accounts for the past twenty-two years. Critics say its standard is impossibly high - you decide! Two experts, Bernard Connolly (British) and Marta Andreasen (Spanish, later British MEP) were both suspended and dismissed for raising concerns publicly about fraud.

*Subsiding tobacco growing*: This is true. The subsidy was given to small farmers around the Med, principally in France, Spain and Italy under the Common Agricultural Policy. The tobacco grown was such poor quality it was mostly deemed unsuitable for commercial use and industrially incinerated, although the subsidies, for farming it and not for producing a commercial crop, were paid.

*Regulations concerning the length and shape of fruit*: Bent bananas anyone? 

The regulations aren't as dramatic as some would have you believe, well, not quite. *They do exist* however, and those for bananas were textually very similar to those for cucumbers, with large paragraphs being almost identical. They probably ran to 10,000 words (but I'm guessing, based on the printouts). I still have the hard copies somewhere (downloaded from Europa, the EU's documentation server). As far as I know, Bananas are not grown commercially anywhere in Europe, BUT, they are grown in French colonies and the French wanted to support importation from those colonies ("annexes") rather than from the old British Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean. 

Needless to say, the French colonies grow larger, straighter species than those of the Caribbean, so this regulation effectively prevented imports from the old Commonwealth. It had a crippling effect on the farming communities there, as a major market (the UK) was suddenly denied to them. I think, but don't know, that the Cucumber rules were simply copied without the same political intrigue behind them. I once spoke at a public meeting, sharing a platform with a well-known EU-phile politician who tried to lie (deliberately) that these are a myth. He was rather put out when I pulled the real documents from my briefcase and showed them to the audience.

*Political Lies:* Years before signing the Treaty of Rome, Edward Heath was fully briefed* about loss of sovereignty, and its consequent illegality and lied to Parliament about it during the debate on the Treaty of Rome, and to the British public during the later referendum. Lord Kilmuir, then a Law Lord (IIRC) and later Lord Chancellor (roughly the Lords equivalent of the Speaker), wrote to Heath *in 1960!*, giving a formal, legal opinion on the matter thus:

_"Parliament can bind neither itself not its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it....

"... we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field...

"... To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is *the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state*. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation to take two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws."_ 
[Viscount Kilmuir, 14th Dec. 1960]

This discussion of a "federal state" (emphasis mine) and loss of sovereignty happened when Heath was merely a wannabe!

*Control of major industries:* On our accession to the EEC, we also joined the European Coal and Steel Community (Treaty of Paris, April 1951). It was originally the "first pillar" of European integration (the other two being the Common Market and Euratom, the nuclear treaty, which continues alongside the EU). Under it, the Belgians and Germans have been allowed to subsidise "brown" coal (high sulphur and low energy content), and steelmaking, particularly in Germany. We were forbidden significant subsidies of our own - it wasn't just the Ridley plan that did for the British coal industry! 

Prediction: wait until after the referendum for the EU's legal challenge to the present government stakeholder plan for steel rescue.

Speaking of Euratom, it still interferes in sovereign states' investment decisions. If you've wondered why we couldn't have just built our own reactor at Hinkley Point I may have news for you...

. . .

What's the point of my mentioning all the above? Simply this - the Big Idea is now and always has been a politically-integrated federal European superstate. Read the works of Schumann and Monnet, the EU's dodgy-past founding fathers, if you don't believe me. 

It took us, the Brits, centuries (and much bloodshed) to achieve the constitutional position of being sovereign in our own country, and it was taken from us by stealth and outright lies, by people who held to a different agenda. And the rules are made today by cheating, fudging and lying. 

The Euro is the biggest and most egregious example: the very necessary entry conditions were basically falsified for Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece; today we are seeing the fallout in their collapsing economies.

And today that game continues. The vast majority of the protagonists advocating "Remain" have a direct personal interest in the outcome. For example, the Kinnock family (two generations!), Nick Clegg, Paddy Ashdown and many others worked for the EU at various times and have generous pensions as a consequence. Bigger businesses can afford more effective lobbyists, to gain legislation that works in their favour. 

Even the BBC gets a small bung annually (several tens of millions, mind). Bear that in mind when you listen to the Today programme.

Personally, I think the most important things for this country are not any short-term financial gains or losses, but whether we have honest, accountable government here, to make our own laws in our own land, whether we can continue to vote for people on the basis of their individual political views and character, and whether we can make our public services effective, efficient and accountable. 

The practical outworking of the EU has been government by stealth, lies and deception, and by the most powerful vested interests. I want that to change, permanently. British government is far from perfect, but at least we have a chance of reforming it. As Cameron's recent "negotiation" showed, we have zero chance of turning the EU around. 

The only issue is when, not if, it will hit the rocks. We don't need to be on board when that happens, and personally I owe nothing to Merkel, Obama and the rest, and will pay them no heed.

E.

*Commons' Library Research Paper 10/79, excerpt in Appendix 2. Ironically, Viscount Kilmuir would today have been described as an Europhile.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Thank you, Eric.

The freedom, democracy and Common Law tradition we so often take for granted was built up very slowly over several centuries. It's far too precious to surrender by just voting it away. It could take generations, or centuries, to rebuild it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

The BBC gets a bung - yes, and so does the CBI.  
Jacob - not wishing to be a part of an inefficient, corrupt political union has nothing to do with xenophobia.


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":rl0nmb4u said:


> Even the BBC gets a small bung annually (several tens of millions, mind).


Care to explain what you're talking about and give a source ?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":1y8pkqlg said:


> Eric The Viking":1y8pkqlg said:
> 
> 
> > Even the BBC gets a small bung annually (several tens of millions, mind).
> ...



Indeed it does - it took an FOI request from The Spectator magazine before it would admit to it, though - and then reluctantly.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/th ... d-to-hide/


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":q8mb37ja said:


> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/


Although that page fails to mention what the payment was for, exactly where it came from or whether it a continuing payment.
The various BBC R&D departments have done a huge amount with respect to setting international standards and it's quite likely that a significant proportion of that money was payment for work done.

In the context of the overall BBC budget £3m is virtually nothing, in fact the BBC pays subscription fees over £9m to be a member of the EBU. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... e.pdf.html

That such a piddling amount would bias journalistic reporting is an insult to the people that make the programmes.
I've read reports recently that say the current issue with BBC 'impartiality' is that it trying _too_ hard to be even handed.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":o03tuzbh said:


> Cheshirechappie":o03tuzbh said:
> 
> 
> > http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/
> ...



It's not the amount, it's the secrecy about it. If it was just a straight commercial payment for work done, why not just state that openly? If the EU wanted commercial work done, why not go to a commercial organisation instead of a publicly-funded national broadcaster? Why did it take an FOI to unearth the payment, and why is the BBC apparently embarrassed by it?

Something ain't quite right. As for BBC impartiality - well, that's another subject entirely, but you don't have to know very much about some subjects to be starkly aware of a bias.


----------



## Wuffles (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1ad5ntpa said:


> Rhossydd":1ad5ntpa said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":1ad5ntpa said:
> ...



You can't knock the BBC. Their F1 and MotoGP coverage used to be excellent  - until they lost it/gave it away.

One day they'll be forced to give away Wimbledon, then the home counties will riot.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

You can't knock the BBC? Well, you can, actually ... it's easy.  By the bye...


----------



## Wuffles (26 Apr 2016)

phil.p":1gprfoxq said:


> You can't knock the BBC? Well, you can, actually ... it's easy.  By the bye...



You missed my sarcasm.

"Their F1 and MotoGP coverage *used* to be excellent"


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1dp1r9e1 said:


> It's not the amount, it's the secrecy about it.


Is there 'secrecy' about it ? or is it just so small an amount for work done that it wouldn't show up in the information they publicly release about their budgets ?
There's a fair chance that it's been openly declared at the end of a programme's credits, but no one notices that.


> If the EU wanted commercial work done, why not go to a commercial organisation instead of a publicly-funded national broadcaster?


 Firstly, because they may be the only people with teh specific expertise to do it. Secondly a lot of the 'BBC' is now commercial divisions that are atsked to make a profit back into the BBC, eg BBC Studios and Post Production who not only supply facilities for BBC programmes, but also supply studio facilities for commercial operations like ITV, C4, Sky etc.


> why is the BBC apparently embarrassed by it?


 who says they are ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

Wuffles":25abzzhr said:


> phil.p":25abzzhr said:
> 
> 
> > You can't knock the BBC? Well, you can, actually ... it's easy.  By the bye...
> ...


No, I didn't.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Rhossydd":36057he5 said:


> Cheshirechappie":36057he5 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the amount, it's the secrecy about it.
> ...



Read the Spectator article.

The original point was that the BBC received funding from the EU. They do indeed, not just a one-off, but a continuing annual payment. They didn't declare it in their accounts. The BBC applied for the funding, it wasn't something foisted upon them. The only reason we know about it is because of a FOI request on behalf of The Spectator magazine.

Make of that what you will, but the straight fact is that the BBC applied for, and receives, an annual grant from the EU.

Quote - "Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.

Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.

The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming."


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2uvhnkhb said:


> Read the Spectator article.


I have, have you properly ? because..


> but a continuing annual payment.


It doesn't say that.


> They didn't declare it in their accounts.


 It says they did " In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’" as pointed out it's insignificantly small in teh whole picture of the BBC's accounts.


> The BBC applied for the funding, it wasn't something foisted upon them.


When they're paying out £9m pa for EBU membership each year, it would be irresponsible of them not to obtain any grants their eligible for surely ?


> The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming."


So you're getting steamed up about £1m grant going into programming over two and half years ? with no idea of whether it's funding subtitling in Welsh, making programmes in Gaelic or into John Humphries Swiss post office account to make him give Brexiters are harder time that the government ?

Come back with _real_ facts please.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Facts are quite straightforward. Ignore them and bluster if you like, but there they are above, in black and white - and glorious technicolour.

The BBC has been using some EU funding for research and development, and to make programmes. It chose not to make that fact public, but had to comply with an FOI request. All facts stated above.

The original point made by Eric The Viking in his post was that the BBC had received funding from the EU. You asked for proof of that statement. Proof has been provided.


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1sqnpy2i said:


> Facts are quite straightforward. Ignore them and bluster if you like, but there they are above, in black and white - and glorious technicolour.
> The BBC has been using some EU funding for research and development, and to make programmes. It chose not to make that fact public, but had to comply with an FOI request. All facts stated above.


There's SO little detail in article and precious little fact, and a lot of bias itself, that you can't draw any conclusions at all.

Describing it as a 'bung' on the basis of the information quoted so far is just ridiculous.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Slice it or dice any way you like, Eric's original point that the BBC receives some funding direct from the EU is correct. You wanted proof. There it is.


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2p7l5gqx said:


> Eric's original point that the BBC receives some funding direct from the EU is correct. You wanted proof. There it is.


Are you deliberately missing the point, or just don't understand ?

A bung is an implication of dishonesty or bribery. Nothing like applying for a legitimate eligible grant.


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1s3pre1p said:


> Thank you, Eric.
> 
> The freedom, democracy and Common Law tradition we so often take for granted was built up very slowly over several centuries. It's far too precious to surrender by just voting it away. It could take generations, or centuries, to rebuild it.


Not so. We could drop out of the EU anytime we chose

What worries me about the Brexiters is that they have no positive reasons for leaving - it's all negativity all the way - not to mention fear of bent bananas and other daft bits of nonsense. Doom and gloom!

Is there anything obviously positive to be gained by leaving, other than "freeing" ourselves from the "undemocratic" yoke of johnny foreigner?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Jacob said:


> Is there anything obviously positive to be gained by leaving, other than "freeing" ourselves from johnny foreigner?



Firstly, I personally wouldn't choose to use the phrase, "Johnny foreigner" in this context. I have great admiration for Europe the geographical entity, the peoples, the cultures and the history. My only problem is with the political entity, the European Union.

What do we have to gain? I think much. Firstly, our right to chose who governs us through the ballot box, and by extension, influence the laws under which we live (earlier in the thread, Droogs mentioned the difference between English and Scottish Common Law, and the Napoleonic and Roman legal traditions of much of the Continent) and the institutions that administer national affairs. Secondly, our freedom to join in association with any nation we see fit (the Commonwealth has been sadly neglected, I feel), and to trade with whoever we like. Thirdly, our freedom to form defence alliances with whom we choose, and to act independently if we feel the nation's best interests would be so served. Our right to control our own borders has been mentioned too - we must currently give preference to an EU national over a Commonwealth citizen, which does seem a tad off, given our long historical association with Commonwealth nations.

One thing a study of history has shown me is that Britain has always been at it's best for both it's citizens and for its contributions to the wider world (in all manner of fields - governmental, legal, scientific, organisational, technological, artistic, you name it) when the people are at their most free to just get on with it. To surrender those freedoms to the cold, bureaucratic hand of an EU superstate, a United States of Europe (which is where the EU is heading), would be a catastrophic mistake both for the UK, and for what it contributes, and could contribute in the future, to the wider world.

Just my opinion, formed after years of reading about world history, and a passing interest in current affairs.


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 Apr 2016)

This all started because I slipped up. The EU money going to the BBC is about 25m over ten years:

In euros:
2007: 1,943,146
2008: 6.336.295
2009: 3,498,043
2010: 6,034,385
2011: 354,954
2012: 5,269,083
2013:  6,744,151
Total: 30,180,057 (22,382,997 Sterling)

I understand these numbers come from the "other side", i.e. the Commission, although I don't presently have a definitive source.

To be strictly fair, This EU grant accounts for approximately:

0.086 % of the licence fee income, or
0.067 % of the BBC's total income. in one year (averaged).

The BBC's 2014-15 annual report is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2014-15/BBC-FS-2015.pdf The Income part of the balance sheet starts around p.37. It does list other odd sources of funding,but not the EU. Contrast that with a commercial organisation's accounts and controversial items.

The point is that it's concealed, and that people like former Chairman Patten are direct recipients of EU funds from previous employment. Imagine the BBC getting funds directly from, say the Conservatives, and concealing that.

The EU also funds a huge number of journalism prizes, rewarding individuals. 

I'd also mention the Charlemagne Prize here too, which also promotes European Integration (nominally awarded by the City of Aachen, it is very strongly influenced by the EU, obviously). It's hard to find it's value (in 1985 it was DM 5,000 plus the gold medal). Past recipients include Churchill (1956), Roy Jenkins, Tony Blair and even The Euro, which, presumably, desperately needed the dosh.


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":1ab5xpz3 said:


> ......
> The point is that it's concealed,


Assuming that the figures you show are correct then clearly it is not concealed.


> ...... Imagine the BBC getting funds directly from, say the Conservatives, and concealing that.


It's not concealed and it's not party political there is no comparison


> The EU also funds .......etc


The EU is SUPPOSED to be funding worthy causes, amongst other ways of supporting them.

Can you think of any _positive_ benefits of leaving, other than the many (often imaginary, hypothetical or exaggerated)l disbenefits which we would leave behind?
I can't.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Jacob":13oehvva said:


> Can you think of any _positive_ benefits of leaving, other than the many (often imaginary, hypothetical or exaggerated)l disbenefits which we would leave behind?
> I can't.



Freedom?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Apr 2016)

Other than "free" trade - which we pay very dearly for - I've yet to find a positive reason for staying in.


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":otl1ld08 said:


> The point is that it's concealed


'Concealed' ? get real, this is an absolutely insignificant amount in the total accounts.
Two thirds of it went to pay for R&D projects, mainly 3D TV and UHDTV from what I've researched.
That leaves a contribution of 0.022% to programme making. Do you really get enough 'bias' to consider it a 'bung' when it's that tiny ?

There's a lot wrong with the BBC, but picking on this issue as example of it being under the influence of the EU is just plain silly.


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Apr 2016)

phil.p":q56iyi0n said:


> I've yet to find a positive reason for staying in.


Have you read _anything_ of the effects of what voting to leave will do to the world economic system ?

Just about every major power in the world is urging us to stay in the EU to provide some economic stability.


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1tfj147y said:


> Jacob":1tfj147y said:
> 
> 
> > Can you think of any _positive_ benefits of leaving, other than the many (often imaginary, hypothetical or exaggerated)l disbenefits which we would leave behind?
> ...


But your "freedom" is "from" the EU it's not a freedom _towards_ anything different which the EU is preventing.
Freedom to do what exactly? We hear all about the disbenefits of the EU but so far I've heard absolutely nothing at all about the positive benefits of leaving. 
What would we be able to do which we can't do now, and how will this benefit us?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Apr 2016)

Jacob":3818cnyn said:


> Freedom to do what exactly? We hear all about the disbenefits of the EU but so far I've heard absolutely nothing at all about the positive benefits of leaving.
> What would we be able to do which we can't do now, and how will this benefit us?



Jacob, are you just being deliberately obtuse? I've answered that question twice, once with a screed and once with a one-word answer.

Perhaps you'd like to set out for us why you think the UK being slowly subsumed to the EU superstate (which is what will happen if we vote to remain) would be beneficial for UK citizens and the wider world?


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 Apr 2016)

We could make our own laws, in our own interests, in our own parliament, for a start.

We could make trade deals that benefit us.

We could stop massively subsidising failed projects like the Euro, and spend the resources saved more effectively, either here or elsewhere.

We could get our own fishing grounds back, to manage them properly (no more overfishing, quotas, discards, etc.).

We could re-establish the Commonwealth as our trading partners.

We could control our borders properly and limit immigration from EU countries to those people we can use productively and who won't be a drain on our limited resources. Right now we pay benefits to people here who could work but don't, and the low low cost of immigrant labour has resulted in things like zero-hours contracts and absolute minimum wages.

Any of those negative?


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":2v33i1sk said:


> .... and the low low cost of immigrant labour has resulted in things like zero-hours contracts and absolute minimum wages.
> 
> ...


The "low low cost of immigrant labour" isn't their choice - it's the choice of their employers. Workers don't want low wages and zero hour contracts until they are desperate and have no choice.
We need higher minimum wages, strong protection of workers rights, strong unions working for immigrants as well as the indigenous population and then we'd have a level playing field. And a healthier economy - what goes around comes around - poorly paid workers are bad customers who can't afford to buy things.


----------



## AJB Temple (26 Apr 2016)

Yes, unfortunately. Sorry to bite back, but I do thing we need to look rationally. I am in the "mind not made up yet" camp. But to answer your points Eric:

We do make our own laws now. Too many some would say. There are EU laws but we simply do not exploit the system as well as the Germans and French. We need to operate smarter. 
Making trade deals sounds easy, but generally there is a price to pay to get market access. Research this - it is complex. Large risk. Expensive. 
Subsidising the Euro is a meaningless soundbite. We still have the £ and it floats agains the Euro, $ etc. Collapsing £ is a serious risk. Remember how much energy, agri comms, etc we import. Large UK cash outflow. How big a deficit do you want to finance? The reality of this is that the strong economies like Germany are subsidising southern EU weak ones when it comes to the Euro. Not us. 
Fishing grounds is utter peanuts. Really. For better of worse our economy has a large or very large dependence on our global position in the financial services industry. It is a huge benefit to our economy, despite our perpetual flagellation of bankers. EU will deal with that pronto if we leave. This will be a very large own goal as we have largely destroyed our manufacturing base (unlike Germany) and this will take at least a decade to rebuild, probably twice or three times that as we lack money and skills and the political drive is very much missing. Labour will never deliver this unfortunately as it requires entrepreneurs, capital and risk. 
Commonwealth - we can trade with them now! Are you seeing lots if unsatisfied demand? Commonwealth is history. The globe is not pink. 
Controlling our borders is illusory. The French have migrant camps because we have a border that is operated, by consent, in France. Post Brexit the French will export the problem to us pronto. 

It is easy to argue in soundbites. We need an intelligent unbiased analysis before we vote. Adrian


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 Apr 2016)

AJB Temple":t08qzfnb said:


> Subsidising the Euro is a meaningless soundbite.


I am sorry you think that. 

You might care to look back at how much money Osborne paid over in the early days of the coalition.

We run a significant deficit - have done since Thatcher's era. We BORROWED to bail out the eurozone banks. Sterling isn't the issue in that context.



> How big a deficit do you want to finance?


None at all. Deficit spending without paying back in good times is stupid. Even Keynes admitted that.

I hate soundbytes too.

PS: I do know of what I speak. I could go on about orders in Council, the table behind the Speaker's chair, etc. and the acquis communautaire. But I get a distinct feeling there's little point.


----------



## AJB Temple (26 Apr 2016)

I think the danger with all this Eric is that people argue from entrenched positions and guys who share an interest in wood work risk losing the plot over politics. For example, I am not sure what you mean by a "Eurozone" bank. If you mean, for example, the government stakes taken in RBS and Lloyds, it is not at all clear to me what the Eurozone has really got to do with their near collapse. The reality of the banking crisis is much more complex than blaming greedy bankers, but the media would have us believe otherwise. And it pre-dates Osborne. 

Thatcher is long dead and her era was a long time ago. We need to look forward and analyse logically what is likely to happen in the next decade if we do this or that. It will affect our children and we need to put emotion aside.


----------



## Rhossydd (27 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":sdp1ldvj said:


> Any of those negative?


Most are.
Most will need years of legislation and cost a fortune that will never be recovered.

It's easy for old nostalgic folk with little at financial risk to be swayed by the right wing press's grooming of Euro scepticism based on miss placed patriotism and xenophobia, but most working folk in the UK stand to make substantial and unrecoverable losses by leaving the EU.


----------



## Rhossydd (27 Apr 2016)

AJB Temple":2qh26bw3 said:


> Thatcher is long dead and her era was a long time ago.


Unfortunately not, her legacy of privatisation and expecting the 'free market' to handle everything is still strong in the Tories and continues to slowly be destroying the country.
eg The right to buy, selling off our schools as 'academies', selling off the land registry

Plus many of the effects of past Thatcherite policies continue to slowly destroy former state institutions.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

And of course we all remember how phenomenally successful state industries were, don't we?


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2016)

phil.p":20luiy08 said:


> And of course we all remember how phenomenally successful state industries were, don't we?


Yes they were. Where are they now? 
Luckily Heath had the sense to nationalise Rolls Royce but what happened to ICI and all the other big operators now foreign owned, run abroad or disappeared entirely?
Many of our utilities are now run by _state industries_ which belong to other states, not our own. Madness.


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 Apr 2016)

@AJB: To be clear: Osborne, in his first Parliament as chancellor, "donated" money to bailout eurozone banks. The euro would quite possibly have collapsed at that point otherwise, as few other sources of funding (i.e. untainted, from outside the eurozone) were forthcoming. 

We run a deficit; Osborne borrowed to finance it and we are still paying back and paying interest on that loan, which is unlikely ever to be repaid to us, let alone with interest.

I'm bugging out of this thread now. I agree it doesn't belong here, but like the ancient bull in the field, I'm afraid I charged at the red rag. 

For that, my apologies.

E.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

There was rather a drift from the original observation, wasn't there? No change there, then. Still, it's run a while without being locked, so at least it's stayed civil.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2016)

Not just here but in the real world; the more people talk about stuff the more civil it is likely to be. By and large people aren't evil beasts or madmen even though they are often wrong about everything! When talk is repressed or discouraged people nurture grievances, get angry and rely on dodgy sources of info (Daly Mail etc).
Better out than in!


----------



## stuartpaul (27 Apr 2016)

A subject like this is always going to stimulate passionate debate. That's actually something I'm glad about because I've learnt stuff as we've gone along.

Helps shape thinking and dispel myths, - of which there are far too many.

Eric, - you shouldn't apologise for feeling passionate about it!

Perhaps instead we should be discussing the proposed European Harmonisation of dovetails .........


----------



## lurker (27 Apr 2016)

I had decided to stop posting on this thread :roll: 
Because I have made up my mind and have no desire to inflict my opinions on others, but.........

I echo what others say, its nice we are civilised enough on this forum not to start a slanging match.


----------



## lurker (27 Apr 2016)

stuartpaul":ebcyyoqa said:


> Perhaps instead we should be discussing the proposed European Harmonisation of dovetails .........



I'm surprised no one mentioned the proposed EEC directive for honeing guides


----------



## RogerS (27 Apr 2016)

Jacob":d7i5tej6 said:


> ...
> Better out than in!



At last....Jacob is a Brexiter


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

lurker":17moh5tn said:


> stuartpaul":17moh5tn said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps instead we should be discussing the proposed European Harmonisation of dovetails .........
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me on iota if someone in Brussels and someone else in Strasbourg had one planned.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2016)

RogerS":1bg391nw said:


> Jacob":1bg391nw said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Ho ho - I meant your hot air is better out than in!


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 Apr 2016)

[making a guest appearance & wearing a mask]

I've just Googled it:

The European Directive on the Harmonization of Dovetails (E.D.O.T.H.O.D. pron. "Eddy Thud") was introduced in 1999, by the then Transport Commissioner, Martin Bangemann, otherwise infamous for wanting motorcycles either banned completely* or fitted with airbags*.

Bangemann was concerned that use of different dovetail angles might lead to disastrous situations on historic sleeper trains such as the Orient Express: if passengers pulled hard on drawers in their compartments whilst the train was running on bumpy track, the drawers might come apart completely, leaving everything within exposed to other passengers in the same compartment, not to mention nasty splinters on the floor. 

At the time, Bangemann himself was walking with the aid of a cane, prompting speculation that it was caused by just such an incident on the special bi-monthly service between Brussels and Strasbourg. Others claimed he was just a miserable, interfering old git who simply wasn't getting enough (travel, I mean, obviously), leaving historians to argue the point for decades to come.

Leaving aside the fact that drawers were normally treated in this way on sleeper trains anyway, without any complaints (at least in the Poirot-type things my wife likes to watch, featuring steamy brunettes, Tom Hiddleston, etc.), the measure was roughly and quickly draughted by the Commission bureaucrats. 

Sketchup being not yet invented, the only resources available were Joseph Moxon, pirate copies of Underhill (on Philips V-2000, naturally) and AutoCad on i386 machines. The latter caused several very nasty cases of _schielen-pixel_, as, by an internal order from Directorate Twenty (auditing), Commission PCs had been locked at 640x480 to maintain pan-European compatibility with the Accession countries.

Debate in the European Parliament was brief but feisty. The German Democrats claimed that standardization was the only way, and that the old "Escher" angle of 7.68 degrees should be made compulsory ("Der einzige Weg ist Escher"). UKIP's three new MEPs heckled and chanted, "We're all Angles now!". At the time, this was thought to have been an obscure reference to St. Augustine, but later was revealed to have been a reference to Farage's favourite micro-brewery brand, "All Angles" (they actually had pints of the stuff concealed under their desks, as usual). 

The vote teetered on a knife-edge (fairly blunt though, as Japanese water stones had been refused an import licence). Despite the initial hubris, UKIP's MEPs couldn't agree on a strategy (and couldn't find their voting cards either by that time). The final vote was 623:0 (UKIP abstained).

Of course, nobody in the chamber had actually _read_ the legislation beforehand. They generally felt that was what they paid bureaucrats for. So the alterations, made by a rogue legal draughtsman brought in from Agriculture, were missed entirely. 

Angry about his secondment to transport and being removed from the Field Counting Initiative** of the Common Agricultural Policy, he decided to simply substitute a long, curvy rant about Bananas. Nothing was spotted, until a UKIP aide, trying to use the document to mop up a beer ring on an MEP's desk, noticed it wasn't about dovetails at all.

And the rest is, of course, history. 

Thought I should put the record straight,

E.


*Those bits are actually true. He was M.A.G.'s dartboard pin-up for years.
** Also true, sort-of: I had a friend here who worked for the Min of Ag. in the 1990s They had an _entire department_ of 50+ people responsible for field counting (to comply with the CAP). And that was just the West of England bit. One should never say the EU hasn't helped employment in the UK...


----------



## RogerS (27 Apr 2016)

Has anyone referred to the Open Europe reports which generally seem to be accepted as factual http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/b ... -a-brexit/


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

It can't be factual - it's not published by Europa.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":3bjdaecz said:


> ........ I had a friend here who worked for the Min of Ag. in the 1990s They had an _entire department_ of 50+ people responsible for field counting (to comply with the CAP). And that was just the West of England bit. ........


There's a lot of this rumour stuff going about. As a rule I simply don't believe it - probably there will be a true story somewhere at the bottom of it which will be much more sensible, reasonable and less sensationalist.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eur ... a-z-index/


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

The thing is is that no matter how ridiculous a story about the EU is, people will believe it - because they have read so much about the EU that is ridiculous, but true.


----------



## RogerS (27 Apr 2016)

Jacob":24x41upk said:


> Eric The Viking":24x41upk said:
> 
> 
> > ........ I had a friend here who worked for the Min of Ag. in the 1990s They had an _entire department_ of 50+ people responsible for field counting (to comply with the CAP). And that was just the West of England bit. ........
> ...



On precisely what basis can you infer or claim that this is a rumour ? 

Fact 1 - Eric had a friend who worked for the Ministry of Agriculture in the 1990's. 

Fact 2 - They had an entire department of 50+ people responsible for field counting to comply with CAP. It is a fact. I was on the IT development team supporting these users.

Just because you don't like the facts, there is no justification for trying to belittle them by claiming them as a rumour. That simply undermines all your other posts and puts their veracity in doubt.


----------



## AJB Temple (27 Apr 2016)

1990s was deep history. I don't care what daft things were done back then as we cannot change it, what I am interested in is the future for my children and not compromising their opportunities.


----------



## mind_the_goat (27 Apr 2016)

Eric, thanks for that essay, one of the longest posts I've seen on the forum, at my typing rate that would have taken me all day. Although you do seems to have some inside knowledge I still find myself questioning some of you statements. For example single entry accounting and Excel ? Maybe some years ago, but now? really ? I'm open to evidence for this. Auditing, Accounts are 'signed off' but I guess the argument is what does that mean. The Auditors have reported significant errors (4% last time), these seem to be mainly due to failure to enforce the payment rules correctly. 80% of these payments are controlled by member states, not the commission.
Tobacco, It's true the producing areas are in receipt of EU funds by the single payment scheme or Regional development aid. I had heard most it was actually destroyed by burning.
Fisheries, well I have little memory of how this panned out at the time, Other than declining fish stocks I seem to recall the disagreement with Iceland was the first blow to the industry, but sure it was compounded by us joining the EU. However I have no comparative knowledge of how the fishing industry in other EU countries (Austria excepted) has faired in that time. Fishing stocks were declining long before this. I guess we did not have an equivalent right to grow our own tomatoes in Spain so we did come out badly. It's possible after a Brexit we may get out territorial waters back and be able to send the Spanish packing, but if we still want to trade then will we be able to do that. Do Norway have full control?
Bananas, here's the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:336:0023:0034:EN:PDF. It's 23 pages, the actual standards are about 3 pages, the rest supporting and explanatory notes, most of which could be applied to any fruit or veg with little change. There is no restriction on curvature, except to the point of deformity, which could be an indication of disease. I usually chose to buy Caribbean bananas, which are readily available in supermarkets. I recall it was the US that complained about EU preference for Caribbean producers.
Political Lies, these come from all quarters and the Brexit campaign is well up there at the moment. 
Control of Industry. Any evidence that German Steel industry support is illegal under EU law? There is plenty of evidence that recently the EU has pushed to reduce dumping of unfairly subsidised Chinese steel and the UK has objected. EU governments took ownership of portions of the banking industry, illegal ? I don't think so.
Hinkley, Seem reasonable to ensure any subsidies paid are fair to the rest of the industry in Europe. Why didn;t we build it ourselves? We don't have the skills and there is much doubt about France or china having them either. Many would suggest that the deal is actually uncompetitive and the decision is being challenged again. Euatom is nothing to do with the EU.
" The vast majority of the protagonists advocating "Remain" have a direct personal interest in the outcome" And that doesn't apply to the other side?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

AJB Temple":2f0qrrxo said:


> 1990s was deep history. I don't care what daft things were done back then as we cannot change it, what I am interested in is the future for my children and not compromising their opportunities.


Which is why we should leave.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2016)

RogerS":2nosrqpw said:


> Jacob":2nosrqpw said:
> 
> 
> > Eric The Viking":2nosrqpw said:
> ...


oo er!! :lol: 

I can't argue with facts but I can argue with the interpretation viz. that this is evidence of fundamental deficiency in the EU and part of argument for Brexit.
Even if it was a shambles we all know that the EU, along with all bureaucratic institutions, is not perfect. 
If we are IN then at least we have an influence over this sort of thing.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Apr 2016)

This of course is the problem - we've had little influence for the last 43 years and people for some reason think we're going to have more if we stay in. In actual fact we'll probably have even less, and we'll end up with the Euro and Schengen anyway.


----------



## RogerS (27 Apr 2016)

Jacob":315jwkky said:


> RogerS":315jwkky said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Jacob - please stop back-pedalling. You weren't arguing with the interpretation because there was no interpretation. ETV was simply stating facts. By saying that _"There's a lot of this rumour stuff going about. As a rule I simply don't believe it"_ you implied quite clearly that ETV was lying. 

You can post all the smiley emoticons for all you like but calling a fellow member a liar is not on.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (27 Apr 2016)

Right....locking this one before it descends into the bowels. It got quite some distance I'll give you all that but we al know where it's headed now!


----------

