wellness John Major
29 November 2013, 09:38 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the CBI represents a small subset of big business - different thing. The CBI remember said the UK would suffer by not being in the Euro. Hows that working out? Of course they want cheap labour. Its like Unions wanting pay rise, they would say that wouldn't they?
29 November 2013, 11:54 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you just put your ideology away for 5 minutes and use your brain?
30 November 2013, 02:05 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, it's a big sectional interest with the power to turn off the lights. Sound familiar?
30 November 2013, 07:13 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll say it again. We will not be leaving the EU in the next 10 years. Accept it, and get on with living.
30 November 2013, 11:33 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts exactly, you have been completely brainwashed
I'll take that bet, but modify slightly to say we wont be in the EU in the next 10 years, it might self destruct in the meantime. Say a tenner on it?
I'll take that bet, but modify slightly to say we wont be in the EU in the next 10 years, it might self destruct in the meantime. Say a tenner on it?
30 November 2013, 12:59 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 November 2013, 01:21 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to imply having one is a bad thing, why do you think that? Not having one of course allows you to have diametrically opposed views on similar issues which on a forum like this suits an agenda well, but in the real world?
30 November 2013, 01:30 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always been thoroughly moderate in my views, as this is where the best, and most practical answer usually lies.
I'd love you to point which of my views are 'diametetrically opposed'? Could you name a few?
30 November 2013, 01:42 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 November 2013, 06:33 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. As the EU just ignores anything it doesn't like, such as referendum results, and changes it's mind to suit itself.
Originally Posted by Daniel Hannan
When the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated, Britain secured an opt-out from elements of it, notably the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This opt-out was no token. It was repeatedly described by ministers as a “red line”: an issue on which, in other words, they must get their way if they were to sign up to the treaty at all. The opt-out was brandished as a major victory for the Labour government. Indeed, the PM cited it in Parliament as a reason not to concede the public vote he had earlier promised.
This opt-out was no token. It was repeatedly described by ministers as a “red line”: an issue on which, in other words, they must get their way if they were to sign up to the treaty at all. The opt-out was brandished as a major victory for the Labour government. Indeed, the PM cited it in Parliament as a reason not to concede the public vote he had earlier promised.
Originally Posted by Tony Blair - 25 June, 2007
It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs. Those were the reasons why people like the right hon. Gentleman were saying that they wanted a referendum.
Originally Posted by Daniel Hannan
Pretty unequivocal, no? The EU’s human rights code would not be justiciable in the UK. Euro-judges wouldn’t be able to impose it on us.
It didn’t take long for Brussels to go back on the deal. In a series of rulings, the European Court of Justice drew explicitly on the Charter to force its decisions on Britain. Some of these decisions had vast consequences. For example, the ECJ cited the Charter when it banned cheaper car insurance for women (and cheaper annuities for men) on grounds of gender discrimination.
It didn’t take long for Brussels to go back on the deal. In a series of rulings, the European Court of Justice drew explicitly on the Charter to force its decisions on Britain. Some of these decisions had vast consequences. For example, the ECJ cited the Charter when it banned cheaper car insurance for women (and cheaper annuities for men) on grounds of gender discrimination.
01 December 2013, 10:48 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by David Campbell Bannerman MEP
My book, Time to Jump, is a blueprint for a new relationship between Britain and the EU based on firsthand experience. We would quit the EU and join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). We would negotiate a new arrangement, which I like to call 'EEA-Lite', a British option that puts us mid-way between the bilateral treaties that cover Switzerland's relationship with the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement covering the likes of Norway.
Like Switzerland and Norway (both of which run huge trade surpluses with the EU) we would negotiate a free trade deal - so we would retain tariff-free access to the EU single market. They can hardly refuse us for all kinds of reasons, not least the fact that the EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty) requires the EU to negotiate a trade deal with any departing member (Article 50), that we've run a £56 billion trade deficit with Brussels and that 4 million EU jobs depend on trade with the UK. We would also introduce firm Swiss-style immigration visa controls on EU nationals from less affluent countries, which would defuse the mounting immigration crisis.
In one blow, this nails the myth that 3 million UK jobs depend on our membership of the EU. They do not. They depend on trade with the EU.
Only if you believe that the Germans would stop selling us Mercedes cars, that the French would refuse to flog us their wine and cheese, that the Italians would deny us their clothes and shoes, can you reasonably argue that quitting Europe would put 3 million more people on the dole.
Crucially, we would also withdraw from the European single market. This is not as alarming as it sounds because 80 per cent of UK economic activity is entirely within the UK. Of the other 20 per cent, 12 per cent is with the rest of the world and only 8 percent is with the EU. UK firms wishing to continue to trade with the EU would have to comply with single market rules, but the rest would be bound either by our own UK rules or those applied by other overseas markets, such as the USA.
As for the savings, they are massive: around £100 billion in lower costs for British business from scrapping EU red tape and another £12 billion net for the taxpayer from cancelling our annual membership sub.
Which brings me back to immigration. Outside the EU, Mr Cameron would not be agonising about how to prevent another wave of Eastern Europeans, on wages of less than a fifth of those in the UK, upping sticks and heading for our free public services and, by any measure, our generous welfare system.
Like Switzerland and Norway (both of which run huge trade surpluses with the EU) we would negotiate a free trade deal - so we would retain tariff-free access to the EU single market. They can hardly refuse us for all kinds of reasons, not least the fact that the EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty) requires the EU to negotiate a trade deal with any departing member (Article 50), that we've run a £56 billion trade deficit with Brussels and that 4 million EU jobs depend on trade with the UK. We would also introduce firm Swiss-style immigration visa controls on EU nationals from less affluent countries, which would defuse the mounting immigration crisis.
In one blow, this nails the myth that 3 million UK jobs depend on our membership of the EU. They do not. They depend on trade with the EU.
Only if you believe that the Germans would stop selling us Mercedes cars, that the French would refuse to flog us their wine and cheese, that the Italians would deny us their clothes and shoes, can you reasonably argue that quitting Europe would put 3 million more people on the dole.
Crucially, we would also withdraw from the European single market. This is not as alarming as it sounds because 80 per cent of UK economic activity is entirely within the UK. Of the other 20 per cent, 12 per cent is with the rest of the world and only 8 percent is with the EU. UK firms wishing to continue to trade with the EU would have to comply with single market rules, but the rest would be bound either by our own UK rules or those applied by other overseas markets, such as the USA.
As for the savings, they are massive: around £100 billion in lower costs for British business from scrapping EU red tape and another £12 billion net for the taxpayer from cancelling our annual membership sub.
Which brings me back to immigration. Outside the EU, Mr Cameron would not be agonising about how to prevent another wave of Eastern Europeans, on wages of less than a fifth of those in the UK, upping sticks and heading for our free public services and, by any measure, our generous welfare system.
01 December 2013, 12:11 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any agency worker doing the same job as a full time employee must be paid the same after 3 months".
Removing that would keep people on unfair wages"...............
Cheers!!,!!
01 December 2013, 05:24 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 December 2013, 10:10 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. Get out of Europe, stop the immigration. The influx of those willing to live five to a room and take a pittance in wages will dry up.
01 December 2013, 10:53 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make business sound like a charity.
02 December 2013, 07:01 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 December 2013, 09:11 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 December 2013, 09:18 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, please, please, present us with some genuine facts and figures which will show us what we will lose if we were to leave the EU, comparing them to what we would gain if we were to pull out. The pro-EU camp is always lacking in these crucial figures. I don't care about soundbites, I want facts and figures to back up your pro-EU argument.
02 December 2013, 10:27 AM
#53
They know others with up to 15 Poles/Lithuanians/Latvians etc etc etc per house.
They live here like dogs for 6 months, then go back. Often the house is trashed. But they pay.......
They also work dodgy.
And the Eastern Europeans are committing over 50% of the car crime now here, despite being in a massive minority.
02 December 2013, 10:28 AM
#54
So was the best you could come back with? I presented you with a view expressed by an MEP - so someone who knows what really goes on - and within that view he expressed figures to back up leaving the EU and also countered the argument presented by those who think we should stay.
So, please, please, present us with some genuine facts and figures which will show us what we will lose if we were to leave the EU, comparing them to what we would gain if we were to pull out. The pro-EU camp is always lacking in these crucial figures. I don't care about soundbites, I want facts and figures to back up your pro-EU argument.
So, please, please, present us with some genuine facts and figures which will show us what we will lose if we were to leave the EU, comparing them to what we would gain if we were to pull out. The pro-EU camp is always lacking in these crucial figures. I don't care about soundbites, I want facts and figures to back up your pro-EU argument.
Two points:
He MAY have an axe to grind?
And why should we believe ANY politician????
02 December 2013, 01:01 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So was the best you could come back with? I presented you with a view expressed by an MEP - so someone who knows what really goes on - and within that view he expressed figures to back up leaving the EU and also countered the argument presented by those who think we should stay.
So, please, please, present us with some genuine facts and figures which will show us what we will lose if we were to leave the EU, comparing them to what we would gain if we were to pull out. The pro-EU camp is always lacking in these crucial figures. I don't care about soundbites, I want facts and figures to back up your pro-EU argument.
So, please, please, present us with some genuine facts and figures which will show us what we will lose if we were to leave the EU, comparing them to what we would gain if we were to pull out. The pro-EU camp is always lacking in these crucial figures. I don't care about soundbites, I want facts and figures to back up your pro-EU argument.
02 December 2013, 06:21 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not say what you posted was a soundbite. I am asking you to provide some credible evidence to back up your claim that we will be worse off if we ever pulled out of the EU, and evidence to counter the figures which have suggested we would be better off. I don't think you have any, do you?
02 December 2013, 06:24 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 December 2013, 06:38 PM
#58
Formerly UKIP?
Got it in one.
The party that campaigned on the promise that they would a) try and undermine the European Parliament if elected, b) refuse any and all expenses.
So far, two of them have been shown to be fiddling their expenses.
ANOTHER party based on lying to get elected.
Got it in one.
The party that campaigned on the promise that they would a) try and undermine the European Parliament if elected, b) refuse any and all expenses.
So far, two of them have been shown to be fiddling their expenses.
ANOTHER party based on lying to get elected.
02 December 2013, 11:08 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not say what you posted was a soundbite. I am asking you to provide some credible evidence to back up your claim that we will be worse off if we ever pulled out of the EU, and evidence to counter the figures which have suggested we would be better off. I don't think you have any, do you?
And neither do you.
Last edited by paulr; 02 December 2013 at 11:15 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post