IN in EU or OUT from EU

[Daydream believer]

we get huge Spanish trawlers in our waters because some of our fishing fleet sold there quotas

Well be fair , we are selling everything else in this country we probably only have fishing quotas left to sell

 

[emnick]

I watched the TV the other night. It was reporting that they move from Brussels to Strazbourg once every month!!!..... they send loads of boxes and documments etc and they all get on the (gravy) train for a 2.5 hour train journey. This has a cost of £350million per year..... For what???? We pay for this.
This summed up the EU for me. Incapable of making a simple decision.

 

[superheat6k]

I watched the TV the other night. It was reporting that they move from Brussels to Strazbourg once every month!!!..... they send loads of boxes and documments etc and they all get on the (gravy) train for a 2.5 hour train journey. This has a cost of £350million per year..... For what???? We pay for this.
This summed up the EU for me. Incapable of making a simple decision.

What summed it up for me was that some 26 of 27 countries (or however many there are this week) want to stop this nonsense, but it requires a unanimous vote of all members states..

Strasbourg is in France. Guess who the lone Country operating this £350M veto is.

I know where my X will land !

 

[fergie_mac66]

Not sure of the definition of once a month but I think it's there and back so that would be 2ce! They are crazy wasters of cash. Over and out. Not really vhf speak but appropriate.

 

[Bobc]

A good article by Boris:-

Thanks to an unexpected wormhole in the space-time continuum, I have come across the following passage from a historical textbook a few decades hence. It is a chapter called “Brexit”…

It is now generally agreed among historians that Britain’s departure from the EU really began in 1991, a quarter of a century before the famous “Brexit” referendum. It was then that the UK government took the controversial decision to opt out of the third stage of European monetary union – thereby ensuring that the British people would be able to keep the pound sterling, rather than being forced to use the euro. When this historic rupture was confirmed by the Labour government, in 2003, there was widespread condemnation from those in British banking and business who were traditionally nervous of being left out of any European project, as well as from some politicians.

As time went on, the decision looked better and better. By imposing a one-size-fits-all monetary policy on very different economies, the euro became a disaster. Unprecedented levels of unemployment were experienced in some Mediterranean countries. The French were sunk in malaise. The Greek economy shrank by a quarter. And yet the entire energies of the EU political class were devoted to rescuing this project.

So when the British had their long-delayed referendum, in June 2016, they were being offered the worst of both worlds. They did not use the euro (whatever its supposed benefits), but there were at least two major ways in which – through membership of the EU – the British were exposed to the consequences of the euro catastrophe.

The first was immigration. Thanks largely to the decision to keep the pound, and the flexibility that went with an independent monetary policy, the UK was a zone of relatively high growth – a comparative El Dorado of job creation. This meant that the UK experienced substantial waves of immigration by people in search of work, partly from eastern Europe but also from the southern countries that had been devastated by the euro. The British were traditionally welcoming, but they could see the pressures of uncontrolled immigration on the NHS and other services. They were alarmed that the influx was about 330,000 a year, unsure that they wanted this surge to help push national population to a predicted 70 or 80 million.

They were disappointed when the UK government’s “renegotiation” of the terms of EU membership failed entirely to restore control of immigration to the UK authorities. They were also increasingly unsettled by the realisation – as the campaign went on – that it was not possible to vote for the status quo. The EU had plainly changed out of all recognition from the Common Market that they had voted for in 1975.

In their desperation to save the euro, the Brussels authorities had set an ambitious agenda to go further and faster with a United States of Europe. Reading the fine print, the British discovered that there was nothing they could do to veto such moves – towards a fiscal and political union, as detailed in the “Five Presidents’ Report”. Nor could they stop further centralisation from applying to Britain.

By the spring of 2016, many electors were thinking that the EU was moving in completely the wrong direction. With some polls even predicting a Vote to Leave, a highly nervous UK government resorted to a series of scare tactics. Hysterical claims were made about house prices, food prices, World War Three and other nonexistent bogeymen. The American president was prevailed upon to campaign for the UK to remain – even though, as he was repeatedly reminded, the US would not dream of compromising its independence in the manner required of EU members.

As the brow-beating and scare stories intensified, many began to suspect that the government campaign to “Remain” was driven not so much by an enthusiasm for the Brussels system, but simple fear of the political embarrassment entailed in a Vote to Leave. The Leave campaigners focused on the anti-democratic nature of the EU. They noted the not insignificant expense of membership – £350 million a week, all in – and the inability of the Remain campaign to show that the UK’s net contribution of £10 billion a year was well spent.

They demonstrated that EU legislation now inspired 60 per cent of all primary and secondary legislation at Westminster, and that the costs of this torrent of laws were running at about £600 million a week for British business – even though only 6 per cent of UK businesses actually traded with other EU countries. They convincingly showed that claims of UK “influence” in Brussels were laughable, given that only 3.6 per cent of EU commission officials actually came from the UK. They pointed out that plenty of non-EU countries had done better than Britain at exporting to the vaunted “single market”; that global free trade was legally impossible for Britain while in the EU; and in the end it was hard to resist the conclusion that the EU was an anachronism – outdated in a digital age in which people could shop across frontiers at the click of a mouse.

Given the choice between taking back control or being sucked ever deeper into a federal superstate, the British voted for independence on June 23. To no one’s very great surprise, Project Fear turned out to be a giant hoax. The markets were calm. The pound did not collapse. The British government immediately launched a highly effective and popular campaign across the Continent to explain that this was not a rejection of “Europe”, only of the supranational EU institutions; and a new relationship was rapidly forged based on free trade and with traditional British leadership on foreign policy, crime-fighting, intelligence-sharing and other intergovernmental cooperation.

The British felt suddenly and unexpectedly galvanised – with a renewed confidence in their democracy, and excitement about the new opportunities for global trade and partnership. The Brexit vote was followed by a powerful campaign for reform in Europe, and a widespread euphoria that at least one population had plucked up the courage to say that the emperor had no clothes.

After only a few years it became increasingly hard to find anyone who would confess to having voted Remain.

 

[halcyon]

I watched the TV the other night. It was reporting that they

On Country file due to the new minimum wage, we could see the fruit and veg growing cease in the UK and growers moving to Spain and Poland, as the UK cost were not viable. How does Spain get away with paying £3 a hour against our minimum wage as reported in the programme ?

Largest cruise liner docks, made in France, how does France under cut the middle east ?

On tele this morning AXA UK's largest insurance firm, but it's French, reminds me when most of the UK in a survey thought Renault was a British car firm.

Brian

 

[chanelyacht]

On Country file due to the new minimum wage, we could see the fruit and veg growing cease in the UK and growers moving to Spain and Poland, as the UK cost were not viable. How does Spain get away with paying £3 a hour against our minimum wage as reported in the programme ?

Presumably by illegally age discriminating to ensure only youngters are employed, on the lower minimum wage.

Plus all those paid cash in hand on the QT as well, of course.

Oh, and the officials bribed to report false figures.

 

[Daydream believer]

On Country file due to the new minimum wage, we could see the fruit and veg growing cease in the UK and growers moving to Spain and Poland, as the UK cost were not viable.

Nothing to do with the cost of power for green houses etc then ?

 

[halcyon]

Nothing to do with the cost of power for green houses etc then ?

It is down to wages represent 45% - 65% of UK cost, supermarkets and the UK public do not want to pay the extra, so another industry heading for the drain, or at least the jobs.

Brian

 

[Bobc]

It's a race to the bottom, and we can't win.

The supermarkets are calling the tune, and will always go for the lowest-cost product in order to be competitive.

The farmers need to push back against the supermarkets. They should build co-operatives and open their own chain of greengrocers and butchers shops and refuse to sell to the supermarkets. They should start selling direct online and provide weekly veg boxes for a flat monthly fee.

If they did this, they would be price-competitive with the imported products at the supermarkets.

They need to stop whining and get a grip of their industry.

 

[Daydream believer]

It is down to wages represent 45% - 65% of UK cost, supermarkets and the UK public do not want to pay the extra, so another industry heading for the drain, or at least the jobs.

Brian

Fair comment, but I wanted to be seen to consider the balanced view before i voted to leave

 

[CAPTAIN FANTASTIC]

A good article by Boris:-

Thanks to an unexpected wormhole in the space-time continuum, I have come across the following passage from a historical textbook a few decades hence. It is a chapter called “Brexit”…

It is now generally agreed among historians that Britain’s departure from the EU really began in 1991, a quarter of a century before the famous “Brexit” referendum. It was then that the UK government took the controversial decision to opt out of the third stage of European monetary union – thereby ensuring that the British people would be able to keep the pound sterling, rather than being forced to use the euro. When this historic rupture was confirmed by the Labour government, in 2003, there was widespread condemnation from those in British banking and business who were traditionally nervous of being left out of any European project, as well as from some politicians.

As time went on, the decision looked better and better. By imposing a one-size-fits-all monetary policy on very different economies, the euro became a disaster. Unprecedented levels of unemployment were experienced in some Mediterranean countries. The French were sunk in malaise. The Greek economy shrank by a quarter. And yet the entire energies of the EU political class were devoted to rescuing this project.

So when the British had their long-delayed referendum, in June 2016, they were being offered the worst of both worlds. They did not use the euro (whatever its supposed benefits), but there were at least two major ways in which – through membership of the EU – the British were exposed to the consequences of the euro catastrophe.

The first was immigration. Thanks largely to the decision to keep the pound, and the flexibility that went with an independent monetary policy, the UK was a zone of relatively high growth – a comparative El Dorado of job creation. This meant that the UK experienced substantial waves of immigration by people in search of work, partly from eastern Europe but also from the southern countries that had been devastated by the euro. The British were traditionally welcoming, but they could see the pressures of uncontrolled immigration on the NHS and other services. They were alarmed that the influx was about 330,000 a year, unsure that they wanted this surge to help push national population to a predicted 70 or 80 million.

They were disappointed when the UK government’s “renegotiation” of the terms of EU membership failed entirely to restore control of immigration to the UK authorities. They were also increasingly unsettled by the realisation – as the campaign went on – that it was not possible to vote for the status quo. The EU had plainly changed out of all recognition from the Common Market that they had voted for in 1975.

In their desperation to save the euro, the Brussels authorities had set an ambitious agenda to go further and faster with a United States of Europe. Reading the fine print, the British discovered that there was nothing they could do to veto such moves – towards a fiscal and political union, as detailed in the “Five Presidents’ Report”. Nor could they stop further centralisation from applying to Britain.

By the spring of 2016, many electors were thinking that the EU was moving in completely the wrong direction. With some polls even predicting a Vote to Leave, a highly nervous UK government resorted to a series of scare tactics. Hysterical claims were made about house prices, food prices, World War Three and other nonexistent bogeymen. The American president was prevailed upon to campaign for the UK to remain – even though, as he was repeatedly reminded, the US would not dream of compromising its independence in the manner required of EU members.

As the brow-beating and scare stories intensified, many began to suspect that the government campaign to “Remain” was driven not so much by an enthusiasm for the Brussels system, but simple fear of the political embarrassment entailed in a Vote to Leave. The Leave campaigners focused on the anti-democratic nature of the EU. They noted the not insignificant expense of membership – £350 million a week, all in – and the inability of the Remain campaign to show that the UK’s net contribution of £10 billion a year was well spent.

They demonstrated that EU legislation now inspired 60 per cent of all primary and secondary legislation at Westminster, and that the costs of this torrent of laws were running at about £600 million a week for British business – even though only 6 per cent of UK businesses actually traded with other EU countries. They convincingly showed that claims of UK “influence” in Brussels were laughable, given that only 3.6 per cent of EU commission officials actually came from the UK. They pointed out that plenty of non-EU countries had done better than Britain at exporting to the vaunted “single market”; that global free trade was legally impossible for Britain while in the EU; and in the end it was hard to resist the conclusion that the EU was an anachronism – outdated in a digital age in which people could shop across frontiers at the click of a mouse.

Given the choice between taking back control or being sucked ever deeper into a federal superstate, the British voted for independence on June 23. To no one’s very great surprise, Project Fear turned out to be a giant hoax. The markets were calm. The pound did not collapse. The British government immediately launched a highly effective and popular campaign across the Continent to explain that this was not a rejection of “Europe”, only of the supranational EU institutions; and a new relationship was rapidly forged based on free trade and with traditional British leadership on foreign policy, crime-fighting, intelligence-sharing and other intergovernmental cooperation.

The British felt suddenly and unexpectedly galvanised – with a renewed confidence in their democracy, and excitement about the new opportunities for global trade and partnership. The Brexit vote was followed by a powerful campaign for reform in Europe, and a widespread euphoria that at least one population had plucked up the courage to say that the emperor had no clothes.

After only a few years it became increasingly hard to find anyone who would confess to having voted Remain.

Boris is looking for job, he is a misleading opportunist, irresponsible and very very naive

 

[KellysEye]

I think Boris is spot on the Stronger in Europe canpaign has consisted of only lies and made up stats, Boris has given true historic stats, he is certainlty not irresponsable or naive he is telling it as it is.

 

[dom]

Boris is looking for job, he is an misleading opportunist, irresponsible and very very naive

Quite, there are perfectly valid arguments to leave. One can therefore assume that Boris must be a big-style intellectual snob who sees them as too complicated for the prols to understand. Pathetic.

The biggest problem in the EU is an overbearing, over-complicated and occasionally corrupt European Commission. FWIW the people in the business world with whom I talk, and it’s a fairly extensive group, are constantly complaining about the EU. As for the EU's citizens: look at the polls in the Netherlands, Finland and not to forget Austria today!

They get it and they will reform the EU -- and we would look a bit silly sulking in our underpants outside a reformed EU which we ourselves had helped to reform!!

 

[Daydream believer]

They get it and they will reform the EU -- and we would look a bit silly sulking in our underpants outside a reformed EU which we ourselves had helped to reform!!

It only takes one to stop reform so reform will never happen. It will carry on as it always has ---getting worse

 

[Sandmartin]

Yes I agree that leaving the EU will cause problems and flux for a few years, but they will be our problems. I like the idea of democracy, and even though it means relying on self serving prima donna politicians. If we do manage to escape, we will at least be ruled by our own elected idiots who we can vote out off office, and not controlled by unelected faceless eurocrats (and Germany). I want control back of our fishing waters, and believe the commonwealth countries are more supportive of us than the EU will ever be. Also, as an ex-serviceman, I support NATO and know full well that the intended ‘Euro Army’ would be a disaster.

 

[Bobc]

So Cameron today basically said that leaving would cause diaster. Recession, house price crash, mass unemployment, etc.

However, before he went to get his (so called) reforms, he stated that if he didn't get what he wanted, he would recommend that we leave (suggesting that he wasn't happy with what we currently have, and that we'd be better-off out of it).

Now as far as I can see, that tells me that:-

a) he didn't have any idea of the consequences at the time, which makes him incompetent

b) he was lying to the public at the time and was always going to recommend staying whatever happend

c) he's lying to the public now in order to save face

I suppose 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

 

[fergie_mac66]

There are so many 9 bob notes in the Remain campaign that it is hard to keep up. The latest

Well just watched the bbc news on the news channel 7:40 pm ish 23rd may . They had on Vicky Price preaching remain against respected economist Professor Patrick Minford speaking for vote Leave.
Well we remember, Vasiliki Pryce (born 1952[1]), née Vasiliki Kourmouzi (Greek: Βασιλική Κουρμούζη), known as Vicky Pryce, she went to prison for 8 months a Convicted Public Liar. The BBC and remain are hitting a new new low in project fear. Do you think anybody could trust her, I think not.

Cut the"BS in Europe" Vote Leave

 

[Sandmartin]

I agree that when we leave we will be in a mess. But it will be our own mess, run by our own inept self serving polititions, but ones we can vote in and out, we would not be totally controled by unelected self-serving faceless Eurocrats. But forget America, the comonwealth will stand by us far more than Europe or America has ever done.

 

[jordanbasset]

I'm sure Boris was spot on and being totally genuine and responsible when he was extolling the virtues of the E.U. and wanting Turkey to join a few years ago. Also I'm sure Boris is spot on and being totally genuine and responsible when he is now denigrating virtues of being a member of the E.U. and how bad it would be for Turkey to join. Some say Boris is an opportunistic politician who will say what he thinks is good for the benefit of Boris, but I could not possibly comment on that