# Question Time



## whiskywill (10 Jun 2016)

I have just watched Question Time. It was good but spoiled by that "thing" in drag queen makeup and a pink beret. What an a**ehole. It was me, me, me, I run marathons to save the world, me me, me.

p.s. The "thing" reminded me of my mother-in-law.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jun 2016)

I thought it was just me. I had a certain admiration for the guy before, but it went straight out the window. I for one feel no obligation to make the world a nice place for 7 billion people (nor do I attempt to screw it up for them either) but I object to being lectured by extremely wealthy (usually supposedly socialist) people on what to think about the world's poor. No doubt the Press in the morning will tell us how rude Farage was again - I thought he held temper extremely well. I'd have said sorry, finish the show without me, and walked. I suspect Hilary Benn hasn't recovered from his drubbing by Andrew Neil yet. Some say Farage alone would persuade them to vote in ... that is the effect Benn (and Kinnock) has on me, to vote out. Their oozing sincerity makes me want to puke.


----------



## JandK (10 Jun 2016)

I am banned from watching Question Time by SWMBO. She says it is not good for my heart and the amount of swear words escaping from my mouth is not good at all. I am glad I did not watch last night.


----------



## Peter Sefton (10 Jun 2016)

I normally enjoy watching QT but Eddie Izzard was even more annoying than usual, can we deport him?

Cheers Peter


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jun 2016)

June 24th he may leave, anyway.


----------



## Peter Sefton (10 Jun 2016)

phil.p":1vrm6l62 said:


> June 24th he may leave, anyway.



I was undecided but your post may have clinched it for me


----------



## Richard863 (10 Jun 2016)

Last nights performance just enhanced my opinion that all politicians are crooks and scared of losing their gravy train jobs and that includes the un-elected, un-audited bunch in Brussels. 
As for them creating yet another layer of embassies and high commissions in the world. We cant even vote this lot out of office. Our own just get promote into the house of Lords for cocking up.
If one never though of that scenario, think now. Lets withdraw all funding from them and protect ourselves. 
In hind sight I am sorry I voted for joining all those years ago, but it did seem a good thing at the time.

(hammer) 
Richard


----------



## Baldhead (10 Jun 2016)

Peter Sefton":104tvc0e said:


> I normally enjoy watching QT but Eddie Izzard was even more annoying than usual, can we deport him?
> 
> Cheers Peter


We probably can't deport him, there'll be an EU ruling somewhere saying, a**eholes who wear pink berets and bright red lipstick can not be deported. 
I used to like the guy, not now, tbh anyone who runs (or claims to run) marathons back to back must have a screw loose.

Stew


----------



## Eric The Viking (10 Jun 2016)

I know he's said it before, but I still like Farage's line, "This turkey IS voting for Christmas!"

The really disappointing thing about Izzard is that he posed(!) some sensible questions in the middle of everything, but was so obnoxious that they never got discussed. And you NEVER play the man rather than the ball. 

I have no doubt that, by lunchtime (once it's been watched on iPlayer by the Remain war room), he'll become "suddenly unavailable" for a large number of media opportunities, until after 23rd. There may even be oblique phone calls from "media consultants" along the lines of, "I've heard David was really disappointed about last night - it wasn't a good audience, and apparently he doesn't think the issues were well aired. But I'm really calling about that project we were discussing for July. You were hoping to follow Mrs. C. around for a month or so weren't you, fly-on-wall style, for that daytime show we talked about? I'm afraid we're having some difficulty selling the idea to her at the moment, and I'm not sure that she'll be available..."

Of course that's fiction, but similar things happen all the time. Few people outside politics and the media know that there's a _de facto_ rule on current affairs programmes that cabinet ministers always get the last question (or to speak last). If you, as a producer, don't agree to that, the minister will simply have more pressing commitments elsewhere. That's the way the game is played.

That was the first debate or panel programme I've seen for a long time where real concerns got addressed in a sensible way. The ITV Cameron-Farage show earlier in the week was well orchestrated: I can't tell from this side of the screen if it was the show's producers caving under pressure (from the Remain/Downing St. Press office, most probably), or just naivete from Farage's media people, but on Tuesday he was spit-roasted (and frankly he well deserved it) by the audience and Cameron. I hope he's learned from the experience.

The same "back room people" won't be at all happy about last night (and I bet Cameron himself is seething). If you see details of forthcoming shows are suddenly changed in the next couple of days, "unavoidably", you now have some idea of what's probably happened.

E.

*Before Jacob sounds off about this, I have been involved in political TV and radio programmes, on both sides of the camera, and from the perspective of both TV production and a political party. I know all about the "pre-match" negotiations, about who gets to speak when, etc., which questions are acceptable, and so on. Even on completely live shows, very little you see is accidental or "just happens" - the presenters have switched talkback in their ears for good reasons, and work extremely closely with the show's producers all the time they're on-air and beforehand. The politicians use as much leverage as they possibly can to swing things in their favour before a single frame is aired.

Last night's show got in 'under the radar' as someone in the Remain camp badly miscalculated the balance of both panel and audience, and particularly the effect their "star" Izzard would have ("He's great with young people!"). But the audience _wasn't_ predominantly young people, but a good range, many of whom had no time for the posturing and preening. Izzard evidently hadn't been properly prepped either (or won't take direction). They won't let it happen again, if they can help it.

I forgot to mention the "last resort" rule: if you can't debate, don't - in other words defeat hostile audiences by avoiding them altogether. You might find that some shows are changed to be much more the format of Tuesday night than QT.


----------



## Eric The Viking (10 Jun 2016)

PS to above: I note with no surprise that there's almost no reference made to last night's Question TIme on either the BBC or the Daily Telegraph news web sites - as if it never happened. 

Whereas the ITV debate, featuring an ill-prepared* Boris Johnson getting roasted by a well organised team effort (no disrespect to them for that!), is all over the front pages. And yet the public are always saying they want issues properly explained and debated, whereas in the ITV debate they ganged-up to 'play the man' rather than the ball.

"Go figure," as they say.

E.

*serves him right - does he ever bother to read any brief? Just because he wants us to vote leave doesn't stop him being a complete... [no carrier].


----------



## lurker (10 Jun 2016)

Richard863":369ogm45 said:


> Last nights performance just enhanced my opinion that all politicians are crooks and scared of losing their gravy train jobs and that includes the un-elected, un-audited bunch in Brussels.
> As for them creating yet another layer of embassies and high commissions in the world. We cant even vote this lot out of office. Our own just get promote into the house of Lords for cocking up.
> If one never though of that scenario, think now. Lets withdraw all funding from them and protect ourselves.
> In hind sight I am sorry I voted for joining all those years ago, but it did seem a good thing at the time.
> ...



We voted to be part of the European Economic Community (EEC) the emphasis being econonmic
We are voting now to stay or leave the European Union the emphasis being union
2 totally different things


----------



## Eric The Viking (10 Jun 2016)

lurker":2g2wupga said:


> We voted to be part of the European Economic Community (EEC) the emphasis being econonmic
> We are voting now to stay or leave the European Union the emphasis being union
> 2 totally different things



Absolutely. AND those who voted in '75 (I was a bit too young, sadly), were lied to by Heath et al.

Google Lord Kilmuir's letter (legal advice) to Heath from 1960 (the full text is there from the Google search). All the protagonists then knew where the thing was going, but deliberately lied to the electorate about it at the time.

E.

PS: To save people time, this link has most of the letter, but I'm sure the Remain camp will immediately shout "bias!". I can't find a scan of the original - haven't time to go looking this morning, but IIRC it was released ages ago under the 30-year rule as a Cabinet paper: Heath wasn't a member then, but Kilmuir was (as a government law officer - he wasn't Lord Chancellor until later, IIRC). Wilson would have been given exactly the same advice in 1964 onwards (including before the 1975 referendum - remember he retired immediately afterwards), as Kilmuir's advice was on the record and official, so-to-speak. 

There are good reasons why it's policy never to divulge advice from law officers in the normal course of government - you have to be quite a detective sometimes to get to the truth, and it can take decades!


----------



## Sheffield Tony (10 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":3b1oo0x3 said:


> Last night's show got in 'under the radar' as someone in the Remain camp badly miscalculated the balance of both panel and audience, and particularly the effect their "star" Izzard would have



Not sure if it was accident or design, but it did have a pro leave bias. 3 leave to 2 remain, one of the latter being a comedian who, rightly or wrongly, was unlikely to be taken seriously because of his style.

I think it is about time that QT had a rethink on the panel make up. Last night's was fairly typical - a couple of serious politicians, Farage, a journalist and a comedian. The latter two had no more insight into the issues than any random couple of people dragged in off the street. Not sure what they added. The only useful purpose of the invariably loathesome journalist present is to make the politicians look relatively pleasant and well-reasoned. They certainly don't need to be given another platform.


----------



## davin (10 Jun 2016)

OK I admit Izzard did come across as a twit.
But what he said to Farage was right.
I remember home moaning that he was on a bus and no-one was speaking English.
Why should they? It could have been his wife and children or my children on the bus.
I presume he only talks in the language of the country he is in when abroad.


----------



## sunnybob (10 Jun 2016)

Strange how it goes. I voted against joining, I was told I was a fool.

Now, i'm voting against leaving. I suppose I'll be called a fool again by the same people as last time.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":1boaae1a said:


> .....
> *Before Jacob sounds off about this, ....


Not a word! 
I don't watch much TV. In fact I hate it. Occasional films or documentaries. 
I'd happily get rid of it except the wife is a bit an addict. Opiate of the people.


----------



## Woodmatt (10 Jun 2016)

I only caught the tail end,must get on to iplayer.Izzard certainly looked a pratt and not someone to be taken seriously.My missis says I am an old fashioned 60 year old when I make comments about people like him but hey ho.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Jun 2016)

I find the Izzard persona very unattractive - but I assume he has a fan base probably of an entirely different age group to both me and the bulk of contributors to this forum. Take away the appearance and style, his input may be worthwhile and convincing to others. As an unreformed egotist, he was a vocal balance to equally egotistical politicians.

What has become utterly clear is that the debate has largely descended into a litany of half truths and simplistic dogma. If someone take issue with the point you are making, shout louder. Anyone wanting to make an informed judgement needs to do their own research.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Jun 2016)

Terry - Somerset":14hm5356 said:


> What has become utterly clear is that the debate has largely descended into a litany of half truths and simplistic dogma. If someone take issue with the point you are making, shout louder. Anyone wanting to make an informed judgement needs to do their own research.



That is very much how I view this campaign. It is a sad reflection of modern politics. Politics is totally media driven now, so we see career politicians that spend their time with body language coaches and have acting classes to understand camera angles etc. To appeal to a mass audience everything is simplified to a few soundbites.


----------



## Wuffles (10 Jun 2016)

I found a clip on YouTube of the Farage and Izzard stuff, standard Eddie Izzard as far as I am concerned. What's the problem? The guy is a comedian, who thinks fast, and was nagging Farage into explaining why his German wife is ok, but why is nobody else allowed one. Farage, like any politician was trying his best to avoid that argument and present his own agenda.

Izzard is about as European as you can get - he's done entire shows in other lands all in their native tongue, with jokes too, which I would imagine is harder than just speaking the lingo.

He's a clever chap, perhaps he went over the heads of some people. The heckler in the audience was no doubt one of the older gentlemen upset that a man was wearing makeup, which makes me worried about those voting out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s5wqmsVTnk


----------



## gregmcateer (10 Jun 2016)

Woodmatt":2aaodeu3 said:


> My missis says I am an old fashioned 60 year old when I make comments about people like him but hey ho.


Your missus sounds a bright lady. I didn't see QT but am quite prepared to believe EI wasn't good to watch, but aside from any views re EU, I am still surprised how people really give a monkey's about a bloke wearing make-up, dress or whatever. What harm is it? Live and let live.
Years ago the king wore tights, pink was a boy's colour and people believed some mystery guy in the sky could change things on earth and women weren't allowed to lead the prayers. (Oh, hang on, that's still true for some!).


----------



## finneyb (10 Jun 2016)

RobinBHM":1me99v80 said:


> .... It is a sad reflection of modern politics. Politics is totally media driven now, so we see career politicians that spend their time with body language coaches and have acting classes to understand camera angles etc. To appeal to a mass audience everything is simplified to a few soundbites.



I don't think its so much the politics but the 24hrs news and the 55" VHD TV screens that drives the politicians - they have no choice. And its not often I stand up for politicians.

Watched a 55" VHD TV screen in the shop the other week when Parliament was being Opened - supurb picture but almost an invasion of privacy. 

I'm a radio man myself, don't have a TV

Brian


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jun 2016)

He's a clever chap, perhaps he went over the heads of some people? No - he was rude, arrogant and a complete and utter prikk who shot his own side in the foot. As I hope to leave, I was delighted with his performance - but if I were Farage I would have made my apologies and walked out.


----------



## Woodmatt (10 Jun 2016)

Sorry for me he just does it for effect,which I guess is ok but it's not for me.Looking as flowery as he did maybe he just went to the wrong studio and was supposed to be on Gardeners Question Time.


----------



## BearTricks (10 Jun 2016)

whiskywill":1ur07eor said:


> I have just watched Question Time. It was good but spoiled by that "thing" in drag queen makeup and a pink beret. What an a**ehole. It was me, me, me, I run marathons to save the world, me me, me.
> 
> p.s. The "thing" reminded me of my mother-in-law.



I'm aware that you probably don't agree with Izzard's beliefs but I don't think his style choices have much bearing on the debate. I think it was probably a mistake for them to include him, not because he doesn't have anything to say - he clearly does - but because a certain portion of the leave camp would clearly use their distaste of something they don't understand as a reason to cement their beliefs.

Actually, you know what, calling him a 'thing' because you don't understand how or why he chooses to be a transvestite is disgusting. It has literally no effect on you or your wellbeing. He isn't hurting you or anyone else so do yourself a favour and see past that so we can actually focus on the issues here.

I feel this referendum is going to be a disaster either way and I honestly thing we should reinstate the no politics rule so we can get back to arguing about sharpening for weeks at a time.


----------



## thetyreman (10 Jun 2016)

I am so happy I didn't watch it, probably my least favourite programme of all time.


----------



## Wuffles (10 Jun 2016)

phil.p":3g1ijveh said:


> No - he was rude, arrogant and a complete and utter prikk who shot his own side in the foot.


You're talking about Farage yes? We agree.

I am of course joking, you're never going to enjoy either his humour, or his point of view. Much like I'll never understand the fascination with Farage, nor his sense of humour, which I presume is buried somewhere inside that Arthur Daley exterior.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jun 2016)

I don't have a television, so didn't watch QT, so don't have a view on Eddie Izzard or his opinions.

It does occur to me that some non-politicians can be a valuable addition to such programmes (sometimes as the 'voice of the ordinary person' counter to the usual point-scoring from the politicians) but sometimes it backfires as the non-politician does not come across well. I've just finished listening to Any Questions on Radio 4, which had three bickering politicians and one non-politician; the latter (Merryn Somerset Webb) was more informed and informing than the other three panellists, concise in her answers, and didn't constantly interrupt other panellists. The result was that I came away feeling a bit better informed, which is not always the case with such programmes.


----------



## Inoffthered (10 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":2cdnllqa said:


> Whereas the ITV debate, featuring an ill-prepared* Boris Johnson getting roasted by a well organised team effort (no disrespect to them for that!), is all over the front pages. And yet the public are always saying they want issues properly explained and debated, whereas in the ITV debate they ganged-up to 'play the man' rather than the ball.
> 
> [no carrier].




Strange, I watched the ITV debate (with the Times Red Box running alongside) and I thought that the Remaniacs were terrible. The overall opinion was that the three Remain witches performed very badly and their orchestrated attempts to insult Boris did not go down well with general viewing public.
Gisela Stewart and Andrea Leadsom came over very well and Boris did OK considering the level of personal attacks.

In the overall debate I am surprised that "Leavers" are not making more changes being imposed by the EU after the referendum, e.g. the Regulation of Ports, designed to give inefficient state owned ports in Holland and Germany a price advantage over privately owned and efficient british ports...and yes the EU is allowing subsidies of these industries), the increase in our contribution to the EU budget etc.

On the subject of our budget contribution, you may recall last year the ruckus caused when the EU imposed an additional £1.7bn charge on us because our economy was doing better than anyone else's and so we should pay more. It was notable because Camoron came out all aggressive saying it was outrageous and we wouldn't be paying it. Well, it was quietly paid last week in full and a breakdown of where it went shows that France received £1bn of it....you can see why they want us to stay.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jun 2016)

As soon as Cameron made a big deal of not paying that by Dec. 1st (or whatever the date was) it was obvious to the pedantic amongst us that it would still be paid, but not by that date while he was being watched. The EU and especially the Eurozone is in a financial mess, and we are one of the only contributors - why does anyone think for one moment that our costs won't go up?


----------



## Eric The Viking (10 Jun 2016)

Wuffles":2mrr1arf said:


> phil.p":2mrr1arf said:
> 
> 
> > No - he was rude, arrogant and a complete and utter prikk who shot his own side in the foot.
> ...



I don't like Farage either, but I watched almost all of the show: Farage was trying to make serious points and answer questions as put (mostly!). 

Izzard, as far as I can tell was just trying to be awkward and playing for laughs. I know Izzard is bright - an intellectual if you will - and I was actually hoping for some sensible debate. I'd have respected him for it.

For what it's worth, Farage spent the first ten years or so of his political career spending time and money, talking to crowds of twenty in village halls across the country, pushing leaflets through letterboxes (that he'd paid for) and dealing with idiots in UKIP who had absolutely no idea how to do practical politics. He worked very hard, and it cost him a great deal. To me he is an enigma (and quite impossible to work with!) but he is sincere, and knows his brief very well. You might have noticed he was making no defence of the silly "350m weekly to Brussels" thing - behind the scenes he probably raised merry hell about it being used in the first place (what an avoidable own goal!).

I definitely wouldn't want him as prime minister, but I don't despise him either. And, as I've tried to show during these discussions, the answers that people say they want -- the facts -- are out there. The trouble is people so want the EU to be right and true, they often aren't prepared to take a realistic look at the available evidence, and the answers are not the things they want to hear.

Turn the question round the other way: if we were outside the EU right now and contemplating joining it, how would you vote? 

We know we were deceived from the outset - why did our politicians feel the need to lie to the electorate and to parliament about loss of sovereignty, and continue to do so for at least 40 years ("shared sovereignty" being akin to being slightly pregnant)? 

We know the Euro was a political project, that economically it's an utter failure, and that the house is about to come crashing down - the question is when, not if (probably when the Greek issue comes up again in two months time). Our treaty obligations mean we ARE on the financial hook even though we're not in the euro (don't take my word for it - go read the things. Osborne is very much hoping you won't!). Cameron's 'deal' isn't worth the paper, etc. as nothing he's negotiated stands without treaty modification first, and that is not going to happen in any universe I've yet come across.

Why does no Remain campaigner want to tell the truth about this "little local difficulty"?

We know immigration is unsustainable, and that we will _never_ be allowed proper control of our borders, We haven't since we signed the Maastricht treaty way back in 1992 (free movement 'n' all). Ask anyone working in inner-city healthcare or education or housing services where the overload is coming from. Yet the Remain campaign (and Izzard typifies this) refuse to let this be discussed, shutting it down with howls of racism. I'll admit they're finding this increasingly hard to do now, but it's a tactic that's been used for decades. 

It's a simple fact: the current pressure on housing, healthcare and education resources is because there are too many people, newly arrived in the UK, requiring these things. We haven't planned for this, we haven't resourced it, and we simply cannot do so in either the short or medium term. This isn't a race, or even a cultural question, but a very immediate and practical one. And doctors, teachers and houses don't grow on trees, and you can't (in the main) buy them from China.

Regulation of ports has just been mentioned. Anyone else wonder if Rotterdam and Antwerp have been doing a bit of quiet lobbying recently? Then there's the remains of the coal and steel community: we made the best steel bar nobody (except possibly the Swedes). Ask anyone in South Wales about their steam coal and how it compared to the nasty brown stuff from Belgium and the Ruhr. Where are those British industries in this "free" market, and why? You'd think they should be prospering, after all people wanted their best-in-class products.

Then there's fishing. Even if you are magnanimous enough to say we were right to "share" our fishing grounds with our EU partners (following policy introduced <24 hours before we applied to join), the whole thing has been an utter disaster: our industry all but destroyed, the North Sea and Atlantic grounds all but emptied of fish and turned into environmental disaster areas. And how did the EU 'fix' this - it appointed a commissioner from landlocked Austria!

Don't get me started on the Common Agricultural Policy and the damage it has done to our farms.

Name one single aspect of life where the EU benefits us BECAUSE it's the EU - I struggle to think of anything! there's plenty of sensible law alongside the loony stuff, but look closely at the environmental law and so on, and you'll see it could just as well have been made in Westminster, with proper scrutiny and without the need for the EU at all. Nations don't need an EU to cooperate together in their mutual interest!

The House of Commons library recently stated that around 55% of our laws now come from Brussels. These are usually not subject to parliamentary scrutiny here, and we have no control over them and certainly no ability to repeal them presently. 

I mentioned the Arrest Warrant and Europol - the apparatus IS being put in place for a police state (with the political and economic situation in Greece and Spain presently, the EU probably thinks it really needs this!). Our courts and our police are not 'ours' any more. The idea of a warranted constabulary is wholly alien to the EU's Corpus Juris. Where is this going? Scarily, we have some clues...

... The day after the referendum, literally, there will be a debate in Brussels on the formation of an EU army. It will pass as the EP has an overwhelming pro-superstate majority (they have to vote on it in Strasbourg of course!). That means any soldiers from here taking part in it will have to forswear any loyalty to the Crown (as British EU bureaucrats already do). 

An EU army isn't needed for aid projects in the third world, on interdiction activities against people smugglers. And it won't be used to face down Putin either (well, some EU bureaucrats are crazy enough, etc.). 

Are you ready for British soldiers, wearing EU berets, on our streets to put down an 'insurrection' against the EU?

Incompetency, coupled with paranoia, control freakery, corruption and a LOT of other people's money.
The closer you look, the more chilling it all is.

To come back to the real point: if we were contemplating JOINING the EU today, rather than leaving it, what on earth would make us do so - apart from yet more lies and deception?

E.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Jun 2016)

Where is the evidence for this proposed EU army Eric?


----------



## Claymore (10 Jun 2016)

Kiss enough butts and he will be Sir/Lady Izzard ....... personally I can't stand his oooohhhhh look at me aren't I wacky.....did I tell you I am well educated blah blah Cretin.
Izzard you are not Peter Ustinov how'ever hard you try.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":3cipdnq9 said:


> The closer you look, the more chilling it all is.


 :lol: :lol:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ess-attack


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

MIGNAL":2l8hhh2q said:


> Where is the evidence for this proposed EU army Eric?


That pillar of truth and wisdom the Express. 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... an-eu-army


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Jun 2016)

Ah yes. Eric presents these things as though they are hard facts. They aren't. 
Another: 'The House of Commons library recently stated that around 55% of our laws now come from Brussels.'
Did it?


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

MIGNAL":3ofersue said:


> Ah yes. Eric presents these things as though they are hard facts. They aren't.
> Another: 'The House of Commons library recently stated that around 55% of our laws now come from Brussels.'
> Did it?


No it didn't. 
Eric gets a bit carried away but I like his style! He should be writing scripts for James Bond films and the likes, instead of worrying himself silly about politics.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what ... uenced-eu/


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Jun 2016)

Here's another one to add to Eric's list - the European Tax Identification Number.

http://www.taxand.com/taxands-take/thou ... ion-number

The harmonisation of tax collection across the EU? Where could that possibly lead?

Apparently, according to the article, public consultation started in 2013. How much did you know about this 'public consultation'?


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Jun 2016)

Yes, Eric did say that he was in TV. What's this about an EU police state? He does know that the UK has one of the highest number of CCTV per head of population in the entire world. . . . and it wasn't an EU directive! Maybe Eric should be on U-tube (TV again!) along with all the other nut job conspiracy theorists. Product fear, project fear, it's what they deal in.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Jun 2016)

Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. Bear in mind that most EU law does not receive any UK Parliamentary scrutiny, so there are no reports on it's passage through Parliament.

EU Army - it's the Guardian, so it must be true! - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... on-miltary - and it's been discussed several times on various BBC Radio current affairs programmes I've heard, usually in the context of it's being a threat to NATO.


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Jun 2016)

MIGNAL":vo0p3rz8 said:


> Where is the evidence for this proposed EU army Eric?



Here's the matter discussed by one EU organisation:
http://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/detail/article/envisioning-european-defence-five-futures/
Discussion on the European Army starts on page 31, conclusions on p.37 (no, I haven't read it all). The writers make clear that an EU army is congruent with the aims and objectives of the Project: "This future [an European army] is based on the concept of supranational European defence collaboration that dates back to the very beginning of European integration efforts after World War II."

More chillingly, the European Parliament think-tank http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EXPO_STU(2016)535003

From its abstract (prefacing the PDF):

"Several steps have already been initiated to answer the call for more defence in Europe. Since the beginning of his mandate, President Juncker has declared defence a ‘priority’, called for the implementation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and reiterated the long term vision of a ’European army’. In June 2016, a ‘global strategy’ will be issued and a Commission Defence Action Plan should follow by the end of 2016. A ‘Pilot Project’, adopted by the European Parliament in autumn 2014, has been launched and should open the path to a ‘Preparatory Action on Defence Research’ that may be voted in 2016 for the 20172020 budgets." 

So they're following a standard EU approach, of calling something unsavoury by a different name ("defense research" - what a good idea!), in the hope that the rose-tinted specs brigade will simply go "Pah! Nothing to see here, move on!."

I can't find the exact debate/discussion (it'll be in committee, so harder to track down) and I haven't time this morning to chase it, but the direction of travel is clear, and reference to June 2016.

E.

PS: The European Council meets the w/e after our referendum. Unsurprisingly, the referendum result is on the agenda, but a lot of it is taken up with security issues. There's precious little detail available though.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2fx6ebbn said:


> Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. .....


No it's outside the HOC range. Mid range would be 32.5% which sounds a lot but isn't a simple issue to start with and is explained well here: 
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what ... uenced-eu/

In any case many of the directives would be ones we'd implement ourselves, even if we were out.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":14ell11z said:


> MIGNAL":14ell11z said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the evidence for this proposed EU army Eric?
> ...


The point is - every possibility under the sun will be raised at one time or another by different individuals or groups. 
This doesn't meant they will ALL be implemented, or that there's a cunning secret plan to implement them when no one is looking. :roll: 

TBH not wishing to be rude but having to endlessly re-assure the paranoid is a bit like having to tell your kids thats there's nothing nasty hiding under the bed which will come out when the light is off!


----------



## Inoffthered (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1ofhy9do said:


> Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. Bear in mind that most EU law does not receive any UK Parliamentary scrutiny, so there are no reports on it's passage through Parliament.
> 
> EU Army - it's the Guardian, so it must be true! - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... on-miltary - and it's been discussed several times on various BBC Radio current affairs programmes I've heard, usually in the context of it's being a threat to NATO.




The percentage of laws made in Brussels is a red herring. It is not the percentage of laws but the effect they have. Only last week the it was revealed that 50 top EU criminals could not be deported because of a European Court of Justice ruling.
Whatever Cameron says, a vote to stay in is a vote for the united states of europe, further loss of sovereignty and acceptance of being controlled by unelected Eurocrats. The safeguards he thinks he has are illusory. We will get dragged in to financing the eurozone even though we are not part of it. 

Still look on the bright side, given that the economies of southern europe are broken with youth unemployment over 50%, there will be an unlimited supply of cheap labour to keep labour costs down here. Added to this, there is no way the government can build enough house to cope with the natural increase in population let alone the additional 300,000 job seekers coming in each year so property prices and rents will stay high , so despite George Osbourn's recent interventions, buy to lets still look good investments. Happy days.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":15vwfjio said:


> Cheshirechappie":15vwfjio said:
> 
> 
> > Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. .....
> ...



I disagree with your arithmetic. However...

If the UK were to adopt some law 'off it's own bat', that law would be debated and voted on in the House of Commons, then scrutinised by Commons committee, then subject to Second Reading and vote in the Commons - all by people we elect. It would then pass to the Lords for further debate, committee scrutiny and free vote, and if the Lords were not content, returned to the Commons for amendment. That's the procedure for any law or legislation proposed by UK government Ministers (elected representatives).

If it arrives from Brussels, it goes straight onto the Statute Book unscrutinised by anybody in Parliament, because EU law and legislation has primacy over UK law and legislation.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1kymjfzk said:


> .
> I disagree with your arithmetic. ...


_In 2010, the House of Commons library published a comprehensive analysis of the variety of ways this percentage can be calculated. There are difficulties with all measurements, but it concluded "it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts"._

Midway is (15+50)/2 = 32.5


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Jun 2016)

Inoffthered":2a3r7upq said:


> The percentage of laws made in Brussels is a red herring. It is not the percentage of laws but the effect they have. Only last week the it was revealed that 50 top EU criminals could not be deported because of a European Court of Justice ruling.
> Whatever Cameron says, a vote to stay in is a vote for the united states of europe, further loss of sovereignty and acceptance of being controlled by unelected Eurocrats. The safeguards he thinks he has are illusory. We will get dragged in to financing the eurozone even though we are not part of it.
> 
> Still look on the bright side, given that the economies of southern europe are broken with youth unemployment over 50%, there will be an unlimited supply of cheap labour to keep labour costs down here. Added to this, there is no way the government can build enough house to cope with the natural increase in population let alone the additional 300,000 job seekers coming in each year so property prices and rents will stay high , so despite George Osbourn's recent interventions, buy to lets still look good investments. Happy days.



Broadly, I'd agree. Of course, the constant supply of cheap labour will keep big business happy, because it will keep wages down (as Stuart Rose mentioned early in the referendum campaign). Bit of problem for any young UK couples looking to set up home, as house prices soar and wages plummet, though.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2qi81gku said:


> .....
> If the UK were to adopt some law 'off it's own bat', that law would be debated and voted on in the House of Commons, then scrutinised by Commons committee, then subject to Second Reading and vote in the Commons - all by people we elect. It would then pass to the Lords for further debate, committee scrutiny and free vote, and if the Lords were not content, returned to the Commons for amendment. That's the procedure for any law or legislation proposed by UK government Ministers (elected representatives).
> 
> If it arrives from Brussels, it goes straight onto the Statute Book unscrutinised by anybody in Parliament, because EU law and legislation has primacy over UK law and legislation.


Yes we have delegated some responsibility to the EU. This is just a basic simple fact. Like any contract of any sort. But we ARE part of any negotiations and they aren't unscrutinised. We even have a veto over some measures, and if all else fails we can have another referendum and pull out.

Paranoia :roll:


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1ei25pgd said:


> ......Of course, the constant supply of cheap labour will keep big business happy, because it will keep wages down (as Stuart Rose mentioned early in the referendum campaign). Bit of problem for any young UK couples looking to set up home, as house prices soar and wages plummet, though.


We need realistic minimum wages strictly enforced so that employers can't underpay anybody, whoever they are. Then there is a level playing field.
Incidentally we all have been benefitting from cheap EU labour in the price of fruit and veg amongst other things. It wouldn't be picked if there wasn't a mobile labour force. There are not enough local unemployed in Boston to pick all those potatoes and strawberries!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":3adi1xjv said:


> Cheshirechappie":3adi1xjv said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Nitpicking. I said I'd seen estimates between 15% and 75%, so 55% (the figure Eric quoted) was about mid-range. Exactly half way between 15% and 75% is 45%, so 55% is about mid RANGE. NOT exactly half-way, and not using somebody else's figures.

The real point is that ANY legislation enforced on us by Brussels is placed on the UK Statute Book without any UK parliamentary scrutiny of the sort domestic legislation is subject to, so we are governed by some laws not subject to the scrutiny of our elected representatives. That's because EU law takes primacy over UK law - something we have never been allowed to endorse or reject through the ballot box (until now). Even now, the Remain campaigners won't be bringing this one up, and they try very hard to shut down debate or move the subject on if a Leave campaigner does - which speaks volumes.

Edit to add - we don't 'delegate powers to Brussels'. Brussels forces it's powers on us, whether we like it or not, because various politicians have signed up to treaties (Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon) without being honest with the UK population what those treaties stipulated.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jun 2016)

" Farage spent the first ten years or so of his political career spending time and money, talking to crowds of twenty in village halls across the country, pushing leaflets through letterboxes (that he'd paid for) ..."
Have you actual proof that he paid for their letterboxes, Eric?


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":5y3rq1gu said:


> Jacob":5y3rq1gu said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":5y3rq1gu said:
> ...


No it isn't. I am quoting the correct figures which you and Eric are misquoting.
You can't just choose figures from out of the air!

I find it increasingly strange this desperate anxiety to pick up on every bit of information/misinformation and attempt to make an issue of it. Brexit seems to be a form of mass hysteria and, with the passage of time, increasingly irrelevant and uninteresting.

Paranoia rules! :roll:

PS


> Exactly half way between 15% and 75% is 45%, so 55% is about mid RANGE


. 
1 45% is mid range of your figures.
2 Your figures are wrong to start with.

Why are you so anxious to misrepresent so many things?

PS "The midrange is the mean of the maximum and minimum values of the data set"


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":26jp44vi said:


> The point is - every possibility under the sun will be raised at one time or another by different individuals or groups.
> This doesn't meant they will ALL be implemented, or that there's a cunning secret plan to implement them when no one is looking. :roll:
> 
> TBH not wishing to be rude but having to endlessly re-assure the paranoid is a bit like having to tell your kids thats there's nothing nasty hiding under the bed which will come out when the light is off!



Why don't you just come out with it - "I have my fingers firmly in my ears: La, La, La, I can't hear you."

The references I posted are unusually frank for the EU - they're usually more oblique than that. Sadly 'wait and see' won't cut it - decision day is 23rd June. So use Google: the European Army is being taken very seriously on both sides of the Atlantic. US military manufacturers seem quite keen on the idea (can't imagine why :shock: ).

Sigh. 

And stop quoting apologists for the EU - what do you expect they will say??? It's no more proof you're right than the people claiming NASA never sent anyone to the moon "because there's no evidence". 

Incidentally I actually met someone who went to the moon, last week. 

Not that I'm smug or anything. Or that it was fulfillment of a boyhood dream that I never thought possible. Or that I couldn't think of anything to say, but just grinned like an silly person whilst BUZZ ALDRIN autographed my book...

... did I mention it was BUZZ ALDRIN? It's ridiculously unlikely, but absolutely true.

Gotta go: nurse is coming.


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Jun 2016)

phil.p":25w0dopj said:


> " Farage spent the first ten years or so of his political career spending time and money, talking to crowds of twenty in village halls across the country, pushing leaflets through letterboxes (that he'd paid for) ..."
> Have you actual proof that he paid for their letterboxes, Eric?



Bother! You exposed the fatal flaw in my argument.

[Slinks off, head hanging low]


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":33ypuj5t said:


> ....
> Why don't you just come out with it - "I have my fingers firmly in my ears: La, La, La, I can't hear you."....


I'm listening quite hard to the paranoid army. In fact it's hard to avoid it - they shout loudest and longest!
And I believe what they say less and less.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jun 2016)

C'mon, Eric - we all know that for something to be true it must be published by either -
1/ Fullfact
2/ Europa or
3/ The Gruaniad. (OK - The "Independent" at a push)


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":17yzq29r said:


> Cheshirechappie":17yzq29r said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



In theory, yes another referendun is possible. In practise no. No government would be interested in a referendum for decades. So to suggest that 'vote remain, we can change our mind at any point', is not a valid point.

We are part of negotiations in theory. In practice no prime minister has achieved any positive outcome in the eu for UK benefit.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

RobinBHM":2dn791wq said:


> ...
> In theory, yes another referendun is possible. In practise no. No government would be interested in a referendum for decades. So to suggest that 'vote remain, we can change our mind at any point', is not a valid point......


Why do you say that? Can you see into the future? What is it you have seen? How do you know no government would be interested in a referendum for decades?


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Jun 2016)

Phil P.: You got me again!

The European army stuff was europa.eu though, and the second quote refers to the paving language in the 'not-really-a-constitution-honest' (Lisbon) treaty, wot we already signed up to.

On the % of EU law thing - I WAS mistaken. I heard a reference to it over the w/e and assumed the HoC library had updated their number (from 2014). They haven't; somebody exaggerated and I believed them; I am sorry.

As has been said, though, the actual number doesn't matter. What does is that _any_ legislation can be pushed straigh past our parliament without review. And, as has also been said here, that can have dramatic consequences for the British population, fishing, transport and daft energy/environmental policies being but the tip of an iceberg (and boy the analogy is appropriate!).

E.

PS: the "Grauniad" was real too - Private Eye picked it up in the 1970s on a page header. They thought at the time the typesetters were having a competition to do the worst mistake that would get past the proofreaders. But others thought it was just a conspiracy theory put out to discredit Guardian raiders.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":1dx1493w said:


> ....
> As has been said, though, the actual number doesn't matter. .....


Unless misquoting them serves a purpose.
Who are you working for Eric? 8)


----------



## Inoffthered (11 Jun 2016)

Cheshirechappie":38kv9doh said:


> Inoffthered":38kv9doh said:
> 
> 
> > Broadly, I'd agree. Of course, the constant supply of cheap labour will keep big business happy, because it will keep wages down (as Stuart Rose mentioned early in the referendum campaign). Bit of problem for any young UK couples looking to set up home, as house prices soar and wages plummet, though.



Why worry about young UK couples not being able to buy a house in this country? The EU demands opens borders and open markets and this is an obvious and predictable consequence. You need to stop thinking about UK interests and consider the wider European perspective. In time we will get used to the cultural shift as our economy attracts more and more Europeans and, of course, we will be taking 10% of the Syrian refugees plus however many others choose to come here when they have obtained their German passport.

We should rejoice in having such a diverse and welcoming multicultural society and personal/family hardships are a small price to pay. 

As for plummeting wages, what's the problem? It maintains profits for big business and provides jobs for all the workers that flock here. In time we will be able to save money by abandoning all pretence of democracy by scrapping the EU parliament which is nothing more than a talking shop. Euro MPs cannot instigate legislation and they cannot remove commissioners. At best they can only delay the passage of legislation yet they are an expensive bunch to support with salaries, flat rate expenses and business travel....just to give the impression of democracy. Get rid, save the money and let the commissioners get on with the project of forming a United States of Europe. 

I have absolute faith in Junker to deliver a free and fair society, follow this link and then tell me how you cannot have full confidence in him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fASN9oYGdw


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Jun 2016)

Since we joined the EU, employment in the UK has changed massively. Jobs in manufacturing have fallen from ~30% to ~10%, and agriculture forestry and fishing from ~ 5% to ~1%. Service industries, including health and education, have largely taken up the slack increasing from ~50% to ~80%.

Most of us have been happy to benefit from reduced prices for food and consumer goods, achieved mainly by losing jobs in the UK to lower wage parts of the world. Unemployment has not increased (regional differences aside) as new businesses evolved and other existing services expanded.

Competition for jobs in the UK from immigration (rather than exporting them) is simply a continuation of what has been going on for 40 or 50 years. To maintain opportunities for UK job seekers we must enable them to adapt to changed circumstances and equip them with the skills required for the future - not dwell on the past.

There may be some substance to arguments that migration is pushing pay down - but minimum and living wage legislation provides some protection possibly at the cost of attracting more migrants. Artificially increasing pay further through restricting migration and creating a shortage of job candidates simply increases costs for all consumers - hardly a win-win scenario.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Inoffthered":2urw3ay8 said:


> ...
> Why worry about young UK couples not being able to buy a house in this country? The EU demands opens borders and open markets and this is an obvious and predictable consequence.....


Not so. 
Housing shortage has been govt policy since 1979 with cessation of council house building and selling off. They've also encouraged the boom in prices - good for those who own property, a disaster for those who don't.
There's massive under-occupancy and empty properties everywhere as housing has become a good investment. Simpler to keep them empty rather than having troublesome tenants!
It's too easy to blame immigrants for every little grievance but it's wrong, doesn't remedy anything and benefits nobody.


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":3fg9ay9s said:


> RobinBHM":3fg9ay9s said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...




I dont think referendums are like buses, you dont see one for forty years, then suddenly 3 come along  

I know there has been a bit of speculation about a seconf referendum, but that relates to, a very close vote or negotiations breaking down.

It is still wrong to suggest:, 'vote in anyway its always possible to change our mind later'.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/cou ... eferendum/


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

RobinBHM":1ju8uec7 said:


> .....
> It is still wrong to suggest:, 'vote in anyway its always possible to change our mind later'.....


I didn't actually say that, but what I do say is that the notion that we are tied in forever and will be ruled by johnny foreigners is just false. We will have our part to play in the law making, and another referendum could happen if we got seriously brassed off with the whole thing.


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":22eeh5ck said:


> ... what I do say is that the notion that we are tied in forever and will be ruled by johnny foreigners is just false. We will have our part to play in the law making, and another referendum could happen if we got seriously brassed off with the whole thing.


What part of "ever closer union" are you struggling with, Jacob?

Have you actually read any of the treaties, or the Constitu..., er, the Lisbon treaty? I thought every prole in the country (me included) was sent one, courtesy of our EU masters (printed using our money, naturally).

It's grandiose stuff, but you'd be a fool to think they don't mean it. _They_ think they mean it.

And anyway, you're not one, are you? :wink: 

E.

PS: Anyway, we did the "Ken Clark never read the Maastricht treaty before voting on it" thing a while back. I thought you'd have got through the reading list by now :shock:


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":2k8ozxax said:


> ......
> What part of "ever closer union" are you struggling with, Jacob?....


There are those who aspire to "ever closer union" but it can't happen without our cooperation and full agreement and in any case is very vague. Who knows what changes the future will bring?

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... er-farther


----------



## Inoffthered (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":ot0elczb said:


> Eric The Viking":ot0elczb said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Eric is right, this referendum is about sovereignty versus being part of a European super state.
The rest of Europe has to go for political union, they just need us to pay for an ever increasing EU budget.

I admire the optimism of anyone that thinks we have an effective veto and / or have a political leader that would have the balls to use it. (*) There are too many snouts in the EU gravy train for our politicians to put the country's interests above their own.


There is an interesting phrase in the Economist article that appears to give some readers comfort about our abilities to protect our position, namely 
"Thus did Mr Michel win his tweaks to the text and Mr Cameron his special dispensation for Britain (and a promise that the exception would be inserted into a future EU treaty)."

The view in the EU is that the promise is meaningless because it would require other countries to agree to the insertion of a UK veto into a treaty. The EU has form on duplicitous dealings, do you recall when Bliar gave away a chunk of our rebate on the strength of a "promise" to reform the Common Agricultural Policy? and what happened.... nothing. 

Vote Leave

(*) Do you recall last October how Camoron ranted about how the imposition of a £1.7bn surcharge on the UK was outrageous, indefensible and how we wouldn't be paying it? Well he paid it in full last week.


----------



## Inoffthered (11 Jun 2016)

This is worth a read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... e-with-us/


----------



## BearTricks (11 Jun 2016)

Saw some interesting data recently. Unfortunately I can't remember where but it should be reasonably straightforward to google for anyone not on a phone.

Apparently, the regeneration of Liverpool which eventually led to it being named city of culture, was mostly funded by the EU and the amount of money contributed by the EU to the rebuild following the Manchester bombing far outweighed the contribution by the UK government.



Inoffthered":nccrqisc said:


> This is worth a read.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... e-with-us/



I think that's easy to say for a man with a number of market leading products. I don't think Dyson would be in trouble either way.


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Jun 2016)

Jacob":38v8bhob said:


> Eric The Viking":38v8bhob said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



What a load of speculative waffle! The Economist is often smug, but honestly - that takes the biscuit.

Have you actually read any of the treaties, or the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty yet? Be honest!

"Ever Closer Union" is in the preamble of all of them (AFAIK), and they bloomin' well mean it!

The Euro won't work without a single state, with a single treasury. A single state needs a single legal system and a single army and a common police force (although truthfully I have no idea how many people are in Monaco's army, nor Lichenstein's, so it may not be a cast iron rule!).

A single state is the entire point of the endeavour, and the final destination for all those who claim the EU has prevented war in Europe since 1945 (or whatever) - lock us all in, make jolly sure we cannot leave, and look: nirvana!

Now this bit probably _is_ conspiracy theory, but hey, what the heck...

Up until quite recently, there was no defined mechanism for a country to leave the EU. 

We, the UK, could do it from our perspective (simply by abrogating (repudiating) the EU treaties we'd signed), but as far as the EU was concerned, although wholly legal under the British constitution, it would have been illegal under EU law to do so. Abrogating treaties is Kryptonite to a Brussels bureaucrat.

So now we have Article 50 (or whatever-it-is under the latest numbering system): there's a two-year period, during which we're basically tied to the _Mannequin Pis_ in order to have rotten tomatoes thrown at us, after which we'll be allowed to slink away, suitably humiliated. That process has already started (judging by some of the comments coming from EU 'luminaries' recently). The C-word ("compensation") will undoubtedly come up soon, too, and I don't mean it will be us getting our contributions back either.

The Article 50 process only exists because Giscard d'Estaing (architect of the EU constitu... Lisbon treaty, amongst other things) was 100% certain the ever-closer process was inexorable and irreversible, but (as with all the best animal traps), it was important for apellant countries to feel they could leave any time they wished. He never intended nor expected it to be actually used.

Personally I think we'd be well served to completely ignore Article 50 and just repudiate the treaties instead. There's nothing to be gained from it, and the quicker Brussels gets used to the idea the cash cow has kicked the milking pail over, the better. 

Come the Autumn, they'll have far bigger problems to worry about with the Mediterranean countries than throwing refuse at us. I don't mean the migrant crisis either, but the euro. And I don't want us to be around when they start accosting every EU member with a pulse to pay for the clear-up.

E.


----------



## BearTricks (11 Jun 2016)

We'll wish we had a single state when the aliens arrive with their laser beams.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jun 2016)

"(*) Do you recall last October how Camoron ranted about how the imposition of a £1.7bn surcharge on the UK was outrageous, indefensible and how we wouldn't be paying it? Well he paid it in full last week."

My mother used to say when I was a child that I lied by omission - I wonder whether this is an example of lying by inclusion?
They wanted the £1.7bn by (iirc) Dec. 1st - as soon as Cameron said "there is no way we're paying that by Dec.1st." it was pretty clear to me that he had no qualms about paying it after that date.


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Jun 2016)

The article mentioned above does say that James Dyson sits on several European committees, so whether it will affect him or not, it does seem he has experience of trying to negotiate with Brussels. In 25 years the UK has never got any clause or measurr into a EU directive.

That is the heart of the problem. Stay in and we continue to pay for membership of a club that we have absolutely no control or piwer to influence despite being the 2nd lafgest contributer.


----------



## BearTricks (11 Jun 2016)

We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order. 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## Inoffthered (11 Jun 2016)

BearTricks":1wjbabg0 said:


> We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk



Does that take account of the £1bn France received from the £1.7bn we have just over?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jun 2016)

BearTricks":2jvrdubz said:


> We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


Depends upon whose figures you are using and whether they are nett or gross - France and Italy get far more out. I have seen statistic that suggest Germany and the UK are the only contributors. Usually the Netherlands figure in them somewhere, not the basket case that is Italy.


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Jun 2016)

BearTricks":sygc1xgb said:


> We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk




On a net basis, I think we are the second.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... -know.html


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jun 2016)

There you are, you see. The Telegraph ... must be lies.  
Why couldn't you look at the Grauniad like normal people?


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2016)

phil.p":3r2sjrbj said:


> BearTricks":3r2sjrbj said:
> 
> 
> > We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.
> ...


It's not a simple cash transaction. Those who see it that way miss the whole point


----------



## BearTricks (12 Jun 2016)

phil.p":3uu7vg7c said:


> There you are, you see. The Telegraph ... must be lies.
> Why couldn't you look at the Grauniad like normal people?



For all the times I've seen people call it the Grauniad, and guffaw about people citing it, I've barely seen it used as a source. I think people get the point, by now, that no one on here is willing to take it seriously. It's like the Candy Man except you have to continuously say it's name to keep it away rather than invoke it.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2016)

BearTricks":oe28jqih said:


> phil.p":oe28jqih said:
> 
> 
> > There you are, you see. The Telegraph ... must be lies.
> ...


I use it as a source all the time. It's a good paper with a very good website. 
People don't like it because they they get uneasy about ideas they don't understand or haven't heard before, whereas we all know what the Express, Telegraph, Mail say, as it's shouted from the roof tops.


----------



## RobinBHM (12 Jun 2016)

A wiki site describes the guardian:

The Guardian (Sunday edition: The Observer)[2] is a British centre-left newspaper (beloved of organically-grown, muesli-wearing, sandal-hugging, tree-eating, disabled lesbian atheistic feminist social workers and teachers) with one of the most popular websites in the UK.[3]

NOT my words I hasten to add!


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2016)

See what I mean!


----------



## Eric The Viking (12 Jun 2016)

How are you getting on with the treaties, Jacob? 
Read them yet? Or have you joined forces with Kenneth Clarke?

If you want paper copies, your friendly local office of the European Union can provide them (well, it, i.e. the EU const... er, Lisbon treaty). If you want something that's navigable and which actually makes sense, I warmly recommend the volumes prepared by the British Management Data Foundation (BMDF). 

I have their volumes on Amsterdam and Nice (which has hidden itself somewhere, presently). I tried to order Lisbon, but they've evidently been swamped recently (can't think why). The EU edition of the Consti... er Lisbon treaty is pretty dense and very small print (or at least mine is), but at least they had the magnanimity to produce one. 

It is, after all the ultimate constitutional document under which we all presently live.

The BMDF versions were used by the HoC library, and bought for MPs to use for the few HoC debates we've actually had (on Maastricht, Amsterdam & Nice IIRC), as the EU was "oddly" slow producing volumes in English and their first versions reportedly had mistakes which the BMDF found and corrected. 

When Clarke made his famous statement about Maastricht, that he'd voted on it in the HoC without ever having read it (and the man claims to be a lawyer!), he had one fig-leaf excuse - _the official version of Maastricht wasn't made available to the British parliament before the debate_. The only one they could use was the BMDF version. Thus was our constitution overwritten...

I don't think the BMDF have a Kindle version, but they might. That said, I prefer Post-Its and being able to pencil things in the margins. And unlike the EU's energy policies, a book can't run out of power!

Regards,

E.


----------



## Inoffthered (12 Jun 2016)

I'd have more respect for the Guardian if they didn't use an offshore structure to avoid tax.
It is one of the first newspapers to criticise anyone using structuring their tax affairs in an efficient manner, but the newspaper itself is funded by operations and wealth based in one of the tax havens they love to criticise.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Jun 2016)

RobinBHM":14ho8e2q said:


> A wiki site describes the guardian:
> 
> The Guardian (Sunday edition: The Observer)[2] is a British centre-left newspaper (beloved of organically-grown, muesli-wearing, sandal-hugging, tree-eating, disabled lesbian atheistic feminist social workers and teachers) with one of the most popular websites in the UK.[3]
> 
> NOT my words I hasten to add!


And Wiki actually doesn't get much wrong. The Encyclopaedia Britannica gets half as much wrong, and that's taken as gospel.


----------



## Inoffthered (12 Jun 2016)

phil.p":3gaci83z said:


> RobinBHM":3gaci83z said:
> 
> 
> > A wiki site describes the guardian:
> ...




Well it is a British paper, i.e. it is printed in the UK, but it is funded by an offshore "externally managed" investment trust. 
There is nothing wrong with this, but it is hypocrisy of the highest order when they slag off Google, Amazon etc for arranging their tax affairs to minimise tax payments in the UK.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2016)

Thread slowly going down the tube with exchange of insults but I'm off on me hols anyway. Will be back in time to vote remain!
Been interesting threads though.

It'll be a great pity if the paranoid, timid, unimaginative, misinformed, xenophobic nay-sayers win the day!


----------



## RobinBHM (12 Jun 2016)

Hey Jacob,

Enjoy your holiday - wish I was going away now, the recent warm weather started to give me a taste for sunnier climes.

You might come back refreshed and wanting to vote leave


----------



## Eric The Viking (12 Jun 2016)

Jacob":2sdo4m2a said:


> Thread slowly going down the tube with exchange of insults but I'm off on me hols anyway. Will be back in time to vote remain!
> Been interesting threads though.
> 
> It'll be a great pity if the paranoid, timid, unimaginative, misinformed, xenophobic nay-sayers win the day!



Take the treaty with you - it's only cast-iron fact, after all!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Jun 2016)

Best description of Izzard yet in the S.T. -
a caterwauling, lipsticked five-year-old with the IQ of a bowl of Angel Delight. :lol:


----------



## RogerS (12 Jun 2016)

Jacob":1146moof said:


> Eric The Viking":1146moof said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



You only believe what you want to believe and ignore anything/dismiss anything/disparage anything that does not accord to the blinkered views of Chairman Butler.

EtV posts some excellent facts and all you can do, as some others here, is try to denigrate them with disparaging 'funny' flip comments rather than addressing and debating the issue.


----------



## RogerS (12 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":2danohfg said:


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



You've cottoned on to Jacobs' 'debating' style. Google ad nauseam until you can find something that supports your view and then just post the link up. No in-depth analysis of the pro's and con's and presenting them as an alternative viewpoint. Just make a flip comment....favourite 'mot de jour' is _paranoia_.


----------



## RogerS (12 Jun 2016)

BearTricks":3w2g2mi8 said:


> We'll wish we had a single state when the aliens arrive with their laser beams.



They were coming as they'd identified humans as a possible food source.

But then the toxicology reports came in


----------



## RogerS (12 Jun 2016)

Jacob":1sq7f7ax said:


> phil.p":1sq7f7ax said:
> 
> 
> > BearTricks":1sq7f7ax said:
> ...



Exactly. France pays way more in magic mushrooms.


----------



## rafezetter (12 Jun 2016)

Jacob":2wlan5g3 said:


> Eric The Viking":2wlan5g3 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



If I'm honest a small part of me wants the vote to fail, so that you and all the others who claim "paranoia" and other such drivel can be made to eat your words.


----------



## rafezetter (12 Jun 2016)

Eric The Viking":1ah7g5i1 said:


> How are you getting on with the treaties, Jacob?
> Read them yet? Or have you joined forces with Kenneth Clarke?
> 
> If you want paper copies, your friendly local office of the European Union can provide them (well, it, i.e. the EU const... er, Lisbon treaty). If you want something that's navigable and which actually makes sense, I warmly recommend the volumes prepared by the British Management Data Foundation (BMDF).
> ...



You're wasting your time Erik - even if he ever read it, which he won't, he would still claim it's all lies, nonsense and paranoia even while the EU army were dragging his wife (assuming he has one) out of the house by her hair to answer for a crime that didn't happen.

Lets just hope he doesn't get on the wrong side of a europol and is detained for an indeterminable time while on his hols.

I swear I've never had a compulsion to send a seriously sweary /rant PM to another member of the internet ever in my life, but for Jacob, I'd make an exception. I honestly think his credibility here is gone, he knows it and is trolling to keep himself amused at our expense utterly uncaring that there are those who might actually take his words seriously and vote remain based on his "advice". It's like taking lifestyle advice from Torquemada.

(oh and next time I see you I'll be pestering you for details about Buzz Aldrin and why didn't I get an invite?)



phil.p":1ah7g5i1 said:


> Best description of Izzard yet in the S.T. -
> a caterwauling, lipsticked five-year-old with the IQ of a bowl of Angel Delight. :lol:



That made me LOL but it's not fair to Angel Delight - I used to love that stuff. Seriously though, I also used to like EI quite a bit, as he was a more "intellectual" comedian and some of his observational comedy was seriously good, but of late I think he's latched onto this whole debacle as a way to ever increase his somewhat niche market and instead made a right fool of himself instead.


----------

