Jump to content

EU - in or out?


Gary
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems the EU are funding education projects in the UK (with our money of course);  university of Liverpool £221,606 for a study into "the unrecognised late bronze age route between the Mediterranean and middle Egypt".   University of Warwick £312,117 for a study "resilience in east African landscapes. University College London, £2,499,006 study the evolution of calendars in late antiquity. University of Exeter, £1,519,640 for a study "the impact of plant evolution on fire behaviour in ancient ecosystems". No doubt someone will try to justify this spend, but it seems the Brussels Mandarins don't need to !  :twisted:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the EU are funding education projects in the UK (with our money of course);  university of Liverpool £221,606 for a study into "the unrecognised late bronze age route between the Mediterranean and middle Egypt".   University of Warwick £312,117 for a study "resilience in east African landscapes. University College London, £2,499,006 study the evolution of calendars in late antiquity. University of Exeter, £1,519,640 for a study "the impact of plant evolution on fire behaviour in ancient ecosystems". No doubt someone will try to justify this spend, but it seems the Brussels Mandarins don't need to !  :twisted:  

As an example of EU waste, this is just the tip of the Iceberg.  How about the CAP, that soaks up 40% of the WHOLE budget each year, but yet contributes only 1.5% to productivity.  Even ardent Europhiles concede it's insane, but everyone agrees that the EU is stuck with this situation forever because of France's veto.

 

Or maybe we could talk about the EU Parliament travelling circus, which relocates to Strasbourg every month, for absolutely no good reason. This costs the EU £170m each year.  

 

I could go on.... there are lots more examples.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaningless propaganda PJ, as EU funds are merely OUR money (less their dip) being recycled back to the UK.  Some worthwhile funding of which could continue from HMG, cutting out the Brussels middle man - so basically a non-argument for staying in.  The bizarre funding projects could be ended, saving us money.  :roll: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say ,my only reservation about leaving the EU will be concerning workers rights. Our unions have suffered over the years with the result that many benefits enjoyed by employees have disappeared. I know the EU would never get them back but are there any present day protections for workers,however flimsy, that could be set in stone before the Brexit ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say ,my only reservation about leaving the EU will be concerning workers rights. Our unions have suffered over the years with the result that many benefits enjoyed by employees have disappeared. I know the EU would never get them back but are there any present day protections for workers,however flimsy, that could be set in stone before the Brexit ?

I think that the huge influx of cheap migrant labour, who have walked all over custom and practice, have done more harm to workers rights than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are definitely right about the cheap labour FJ & it comes across at times as if that is something that has been instigated for & by "big business". The workplace these days is a far cry from premium rates for overtime & unsocial hours & is a dog eat dog scenario. Agency work has seen to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 o'clock news showed the debate in parliament about Port Talbot & all the absent MPs should be ashamed of themselves. The last vestiges of a once great industry being haggled over by a handful of interested parties presided over by Mr Javid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the steel workers jobs aren't among the 3million jobs losses we'll suffer if we leave the EU - according to intelligence insulting HMG leaflet. Mind you, 3million roughly equates to the number of migrants taking up jobs in the UK -so perhaps that evens it out  !  Then we're getting the doom and gloom scenario from the IMF, as if it just refers to the UK after Brexit; it actually refers to a GLOBAL recession, in which those countries able and willing to protect their own citizens may actually be better off. Sure the steel workers would agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 UK after Brexit; it actually refers to a GLOBAL recession, in which those countries able and willing to protect their own citizens may actually be better off. Sure the steel workers would agree. 

 

but the UK so insignificant no nation will want to do trade deals with the UK  :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because successive governments have asset stripped our main industries in favour of importing materials & finished goods. Without British people in proper jobs & paying tax & NI then it is impossible provide proper public services & welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because successive governments have asset stripped our main industries in favour of importing materials & finished goods. Without British people in proper jobs & paying tax & NI then it is impossible provide proper public services & welfare.

What were these "main industries" that governments have "asset stripped" Davy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i say asset stripped i mean run down in favour of buying in from abroad. Coal,steel,ship building, energy companies foreign owned. Even the train builders are foreign owned & we are reliant on foreign countries to build our power stations.....China ,which is now  entering its own shrinking financial times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep hearing the term "trade" being thrown around.  The origins and purpose of "trade" are the exchange of goods and services that cannot be sourced in one's own territory.  At it's zenith, the British Empire would import mainly raw materials from the Dominions and (as the workshop of the world) convert them into finished products  to trade back; a conveniently symbiotic arrangement. However, in order to keep trade expanding and thus profits; new markets and consumers had to be found. One such market was China, but unfortunately didn't particularly want or need the goods we we're offering, believing themselves to be perfectly happy and self sufficient. So, how to create a demand in the Chinese market? The solution was to grow poppies elsewhere in the Empire and trade opium for Chinese goods. Likewise, the expanding US Empire looked for untapped markets, and found one in Japan; but the Japanese were isolationist and didn't want to play the trading game; which resulted in a bombardment from a Squadron of warships, commanded by Commodore Perry; forcing Japan to sign trade agreements. So the expansion of the capitalist system and "trade" moved on.  Alas, the rich industrialists soon realised that profits could be increased and imported goods made cheaper, if the labour available in the Third World could be utilised to actually make things.  The result being that what we call "trade", is actually the importation of cheap goods, provided by cheap labour; with the consequent loss of more expensive manufacturing jobs in the advanced economies. The balance of trade of a Nation dictates it's economic standing, if exports exceed imports, creating a trade surplus; Gov has more money to generally improve the well being of it's citizens through the provision of public services and investment.     :wink: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davy, unfortunately for the traditional heavy industries you're talking about, the developing world overtook us over 50 years ago and the UK couldn't compete. The countries of the Far East found they could build better and cheaper ships than the traditional Western shipbuilders. UK coal had become more expensive than other sources, and in any case the Greens have forced us to shut down coal's biggest customer the power stations. Even if the mass closures of pits hadn't happened, they would be dead on their feet now. The same Green activists convinced Government that nuclear was too dangerous and so the UK sold all its nuclear expertise abroad. Steel production is world-wide and is a competetive market with fewer customers. The Port Talbot blast furnaces are past their sell by date now as new steel production has been overtaken by re-cycling which is cheaper and less polluting.You can't keep living in the past and blaming long dead politicians for the way things are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...