Lt Kije Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Looks like its down to inky and Baz then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 One of the reasons we pay into Europe Baz is to equalise the market, Equalise the market..... so that a German company can undercut a UK based one to build trains for our network and thus puts 1500 people out of work.... the poorer and less developed EU countries get more, The poorer and less developed countries get more....why the hell do you think they are queing up to get their hands on all of this "free" money I wonder....(duh!) as they develop they will take less, until we have a level and equal playing field, and you really think we will have a "level playing field"? As if! how are you getting your figures is it per country or is it on population. If you are talking about the £880 million increase, it is a simple percentage increase on what we currently pay We rightly gave our Empire back, That may be your opinion...... Have a look at this, look at all the graphs http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start I did.... it makes me cry to see how much we give away.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Another of your rasher statements Kije! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 inky, I would have expected Baz or Obs to come back with a post like that, was I expecting to much Still it does undermine you some what Ok, lets pick his article to pieces then. I didn't think it was necessary before, because his errors and lies were just so obvious - but apparently at least one poster on here has been taken in. He states that Norway has oil, that Switzerland is a tax haven, and because of that the UK is not comparable to either of them. Well last time I checked WE have oil, and natural gas. WE have the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles - both tax havens. He also states that our EFTA contribution would be around 2 billion euros - based on scaling up Norways contribution to our GDP. This is STILL far less than the 7.2 billion euros we've had to cough up in 2010 EU Budget- and the EU want still higher sums to meet it's inflation busting budgets in year to come. AND the true figure would not even be the 2 billion claimed. The author's own quoted source states that the total EFTA contribution is calculated based on the ratio of the total EFTA GDP to the total EEA GDP. Our membership of EFTA would obviously increase EFTA's GDP, but our GDP would also still be calculated as part of the overall EEA GDP - this dilution effect would mean that our bill would be significantly less than the simple scaling of Norway's bill quoted. Our bill would then actually FALL further as the EU continues to persue its expansionist agenda and the GDPs of Turkey (800 billion), and the other 10 or so prospective members are added to the EEA GDP - but not to the EFTA GDP. And further still as the under-developed EU states see their GDP's rise (assuming your EU experiment actually works economically - something which the past couple of years have shown is far from certain). The author - quite noticeably - fails to mention the level of the Swiss EFTA contribution, and doesn't mention Liechtenstein at all (perhaps he considered their cases to be "inconvenient truths" when he realised they didn't fit his arguements). He also only mentions Iceland with a sneer about their banking difficulties. Banking difficulties???? If I remember rightly, Icelandic banks went bust and took a whole load of UK and European money with them, UK and European governments were forced to compensate their savers for their losses, and now the Icelandic people are pretty much telling everyone else to go whistle for a refund, and neither the EU, EFTA, the IMF, the World Bank, or anyone else is doing the slightest thing about it. Sounds to me like it's not Iceland who are having "banking difficulties", it's the rest of us who have paid the bill!!!! Finally, the author states that we'd still be bound by 80 to 90% of EU regulations and laws. Fine. As long as they're the ones that deal with trade then I for one don't care how MANY of them there are - I'm more interested in what just one or two of the others have done to our country. So in summary, working from this authors OWN SOURCE MATERIAL, we'd have a bill less than a third the size of our current one, we'd have a bill which declined as time went on rather than increased far in advance of real terms, we'd not be bound by the very elements of EU law and law-making which most annoy the majority of the UK population, and we'd STILL have full trading rights with all current - and future - members of the EU. What's not to like?????? (Still waiting for an answer to the originally posted question BTW) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 STILL waiting for an answer to my question!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 better get the sleeping bags lads.... could be a long wait!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 I will not be on properly for a few days, as I am down on the East coast, with a crap connection, Peter trade is the answer you want, inky I will reply when I can get better access to a computer instead of my phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Asp, you seem to trust your figures, where do you get your news. You seem to think all news is liberal clap trap. To formulate an opinion you need to get evidence, what media do you use to get yours. It is you who are naive you don't even know you are being taken in. Nothing to do with kicking the opposition just good journalism , can I infer you are a supporter of Mr Murdock and his empire. There is a very good reason for getting these figures from a source away from the MSM including the BBC and that is the MSM are so pro EU they wouldn't dream of publishing anything that would make the EU out to be anything other than the best thing since sliced bread. As for me being a supporter of Murdock, well there you go again LtKije jumping to ill founded conclusions on flimsy or non existent evidence. I do think that all the hysteria about this man and his "evil empire" is overstated given that the media he controls in this country provides around 6% of news presentation compared with the BBC with its 53%. Who has the monopoly here? Now let me think......... Difficult one that No I think I was right first time. The BBC and the Grauniad seizing the chance to kick a man when he's down, why else the blanket coverage of a, lets face it, story of little interest outside of the media/political bubble, while ignoring the fact that the country is in hock and going further in debt bt the second, the EU is in meltdown, we are losing military adventures accross the globe, famine in Africa etc etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 The Guardian Asp is owned by a trust, which keeps it editorially independent, You might not like what it has to say, but it has no axe to grind. If you are willing to show me where you get your news Asp we could put them to the same test, also you might like to look at Murdock's stake in ITV, and his stake world wide on other media organisations, I look forward to finding out where you get your news, as I did not know the UK had a red neck paper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 The Grauniad editorially independent? Independent of what? Rational thought? It's the chief cheerleader for the leftie pro european luvvies, that's how independent it is. I get the impression you have a particular dislike for Murdock. Is it his politics (I believe he justs backs the winner) or his fortune, or maybe just his handsome features. I don't particularly like the man but I don't let that influence my opinion. I've heard of a red top paper but not a red neck one. Pray enlighten us poor ignorant eurosceptics oh mighty one!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 Some further information on the "independence" of the Grauniad: It is owned by the Scott Trust whose trustees include: Liz Forgan (ex Channel 4 and BBC Radio) Alan Rusbridger (current and long term editor of the Grauniad) Larry Elliot (current economics editor of the Grauniad) Will Hutton (10 years at the BBC, ex editor of the Observer. Author of books in support of the EU and against the US right) So the editorial policy is guided by the trust which consists of the editorial team. No conflict of interest there then More information can be found at: My link WARNING - ENSURE THAT YOUR HUMOUR MUSCLES ARE SWITCHED ON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 The Guardian dances to it's own tune, I see you are carefully staying clear of giving away your red neck paper Asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 No less careful than you're being making sure you don't reply to the original question, Corporal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 No I am not inky, I have been doing, as to your post last week I have been working away for a week and only got back last night, give me a chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 What on earth is a "red neck" paper???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 The Guardian dances to it's own tune, I see you are carefully staying clear of giving away your red neck paper Asp I have already told you several times that I don't have a newspaper of choice because, in my opinion, none of them are worth the price of the shoe leather required to walk to the paper shop. And what is a red neck paper? The Grauniad certainly does dance to its own tune, Europhile, AGW alarmist, pro public sector union activism, definitely pro BBC leftist bias. Look at the "journalists" it employs - champagne socialist Polly Toynbee, green nutcase George "Moonbat" Monbiot and the rest. It would certainly explain your own strange view of reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 So..... where will the benefits of EU membership be when Italy (with a debt level of currently 1.5 trillion euros apparently) decides to default and brings the whole house of cards tumbling down???? Not long now!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 inky You say The UK has tax havens such as Isle of Man and the channel islands, well non of them seem to be as successful as Switzerland, and I do not think Switzerland would want the competition do you, anyway this is all irrelevant because I do not think you would be happy paying into the EFTA. Also being in the EFTA you still have to abide by EU rules. Yes I agree we pay more in than is spent on us, but as a EFTA member you would pay in and get NOTHING back, good luck trying to get that one passed Baz and Obs., and as a EFTA member you would have absolutely no influence on how the EU spends the money. Found this, they might get rid of some Myths. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm#1 Asp, You seem to get alot of your info from Wikipedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 We'd pay less than a quarter of what we do now, and only have to abide by EU rules as regards trade - rules which are co-negotiated with EFTA anyway. We'd bring to EFTA a major economy with strong links to the USA and to the Commonwealth, an economy which the EU really WANTS to trade with - significantly strengthening EFTA's negotiating position with the EU. We'd get back control of our borders, justice system, benefits system, legislative process and sovereignty. We'd retain control of or taxation system and of our defence and foreign policies - all of which the EU wants a degree of direct control over. We'd avoid the worst of the fall-out when the Eurozone implodes because the developed economies are committed to continually bailing out the weak or feckless ones - until finally even the richest nations are all bankrupt and begging from the IMF. And IF, by some miracle, the EU experiment were to experience any degree of success in bringing its third world members up to the economic performance of the unholy Germanic/Gallic alliance - then, due to the formula used to calculate it, our EFTA contribution would actually decline quite substantially over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 Steady Inky, you'll give Kije blood pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 LtKije, are you saying that the information about the Scott Trust trustees is wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 Well there's a suprise Your reasons for supposing the trustees are free of any editorial bias are? Take your time answering ltKije Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 How can ANYONE who has their own opinions ever be free of bias? The only way of sifting through all the conflicting personal agendas is to use multiple news sources to pick up on current issues - then to do your OWN research to determine whether the "facts" being quoted are even correct, and whether the usual journalistic liberties have been taken with statistics and their interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 The only way of sifting through all the conflicting personal agendas is to use multiple news sources to pick up on current issues - then to do your OWN research to determine whether the "facts" being quoted are even correct Good point Thats why the Murdock press should be broken up, so we have multiple news sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.