UKC

You can't but be moved by David Camerons speech this morning..... NOT the politics of it but the meaning of what it is to be British.

Right, Lets for a few seconds stop knocking ourselves, stand up straight and play the National Anthem while reading a bit of what he said....

"We’re the fifth largest economy in the world. Europe’s foremost military power. Our capital city is a global icon. Our national language the world’s language.

Our national flag is worn on clothing and t-shirts the world over – not only as a fashion statement, but as a symbol of hope and a beacon for liberal values all around the world.

People from all 4 corners of the earth watch our films, dance to our music, flock to our galleries and theatres, cheer on our football teams and cherish our institutions.

These days, even our food is admired the world over.

Our national broadcaster is one of the most recognised brands on the planet, and our monarch is one of the most respected people in the world.

Britain today is a proud, successful, thriving nation, a nation the world admires and looks up to, and whose best days lie ahead of it.

We are the product of our long history – of the decision of our forebears, of the heroism of our parents and grandparents.

And yet we are a country that also has our eyes fixed firmly on the future – that is a pioneer in the modern world: from the birth of the internet to the decoding of the genome.

The character of the British people

If there is one constant in the ebb and flow of our island story, it is the character of the British people.

Our geography has shaped us, and shapes us today. We are special, different, unique.

We have the character of an island nation which has not been invaded for almost a thousand years, and which has built institutions which have endured for centuries.

As a people we are ambitious, resilient, independent-minded. And, I might add, tolerant, generous, and inventive.

But above all we are obstinately practical, rigorously down to earth, natural debunkers.

We approach issues with a cast of mind rooted in common sense. We are rightly suspicious of ideology, and sceptical of grand schemes and grandiose promises."

In reply to Indy:

It's a bit arrogant.

In reply to Indy:

Its a good speech which will, sadly, get ppo pooed by those people who can't see past their their hatred of all things DC

In reply to Indy:

Very good. Just one or two quibbles:

'Our national broadcaster is one of the most recognised brands on the planet' - Shame one of his colleagues is trying to dismantle it then.

'tolerant, generous' - Remind me - how many Syrian refugee children are we admitting?

'sceptical of grand schemes and grandiose promises." Hmm... HS2? Every school an Academy? 7 Day NHS?

They're fine words, and I would agree with a lot of the sentiment, but I'm not sure that Cameron is the one to be speaking them.

In reply to Indy:

This is the guy who used the story of his severely disabled son to get the electorate to believe his party were not going to monumentally f*ck with the NHS. Nothing is sacred to the man, including the shared history and mythology of the peoples of these islands. Project Platitudes and Fear 2.0

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

"We have the character of an island nation which has not been invaded for almost a thousand years, "

Isnt exactly accurate either. Several invasions in that time although not overly successful in the main. The glorious revolution can be argued as more an invasion though.

In reply to Dauphin:

He's also the guy who said a couple of months ago that he'd happily take us out of the EU if the EU didn't do what he was asking in his 'negotiations'. Yet, now he's saying that us leaving would jeopardise our national security and lead to world war three... There's something about him I just don't trust.

In reply to Indy:


Ha! Also noted for our outstanding sense of humour, capable of talking complete bollocks while keeping a straight face.

In reply to KevinD:



>

In fact not the slightest bit successful, and I would not have called any of them "invasions" - raids or seditious incursions would be a more accurate description. Britain was never seriously threatened by any of them. Even the Spanish Armadillo was a joke.

In reply to Trangia:

Several of the Scottish invasions did quite well. As did some of the abortive ones earlier when attention got distracted. Plus of course William didnt pop over on his own but arrived with an army.

In reply to KevinD:


Agreed. But aren't we talking about invasions post 1066?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Whilst a degree of partiotic pride is fine as long as it doesn't turn in to Jingoism, the bigger problem is that I trust Boris and most of the Brexiters even less than Dodgy Dave and his mate Gideon!. The whole EU referendum has turned in to little more than a power struggle for control of the Tory Party.

If the Brexiters win and Boris and his chums are heading up the government, I can see them struggling to manage the mess they will have got us in to.

In reply to Trangia:


I am talking about the other william.

In reply to KevinD:


Hmmm........

I wonder, was that strictly an invasion or assisting in a revolution by invitation of Parliament?

I don't know.......

In reply to Trangia:


I am increasingly coming down on the side of it was more an invasion than assisting in a revolution. Some good propaganda and bargaining from the invaders but not dissimilar to other invasions.

In reply to Indy:



Interesting, if you read the section you go on to quote, in isolation, it makes a great argument for being OUT of the EU.

In reply to GrahamD:


I wonder who actually wrote it ?

In reply to Big Ger:

>the section you go on to quote, in isolation,

A lot of your recent posts have done exactly that.

In reply to Indy:

Makes me feel somewhere between indifference, mild shame/embarrassment and frustration that people feel proud at that drivel.

In reply to aln:



Yes, I know. It wasn't a criticism, I was noting that that section, taken in isolation, could be seen as pro-Brexit.

Obviously I need a bigger spoon..

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

"If the Brexiters win and Boris and his chums are heading up the government, I can see them struggling to manage the mess they will have got us in to."

I have been wondering what would happen should BREXIT prevail with the government. Would Cameron immediately resign? would there be a leadership election? The rest of the cabinet resigns? what is actually likely to happen ? Surely Gove/Boris/IDS do not walk straight into No.10 just because they were on the winning side....so what would happen? Any website where I can read up on this scenario?

In reply to Donald82:

Genuine question, do you feel the same shame and embarrassment when Salmond/Sturgeon play the patriotic card?

In reply to Donald82:


Why?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Cameron has said he won't resign in the event of a Brexit vote, but most people think this is nonsense. Like most things related to a Brexit vote, the aftermath is uncertain. Even if Cameron didn't resign, there could well be a leadership challenge, with Gove or Johnson as the likely frontrunners. Teresa May would probably throw her hat in the ring as well - she's only lukewarm about the EU and has spoken against European institutions in the past. It's hard to try to guess what Osborne would do - he's strongly pro-EU, but he's sufficiently shameless that he wouldn't see that as an impediment to leadership.

It's also not impossible there would be calls for a General Election - although we do now have fixed terms, there is provision in exceptional circumstances for elections outside the current cycle

In reply to tony:

Teresa May, is trying to play it safe. So which ever way it goes she will try and play that tune after. Doesn't matter if you like Boris, DC, Gove etc. or not, at least they aren't fence sitters, trying to safeguard their career rather than speak their mind.

In reply to summo:


I get the impression that when it comes to the EU referendum, Boris has only got his career in mind.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


yeah possibly a little, but at least he is not like Osbourne right now, just waiting for Cameron to go ( as promised) so he can step forward etc.. Boris, just like his hair, is making his very own distinct direction. There are numerous fence sitters, hoping some top jobs appear in July.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


not sure a humble self-deprecating speech about Britain would have been better at this juncture, but it would be amusing to hear him attempt one

In reply to summo:


I've no idea whether Boris thinks it's better for the UK to be out of the EU, I do believe he thinks backing the Brexit campaign is the best thing for his career. I don't see that as a positive......

In reply to galpinos:


Perhaps they are all the same. Cameron and Osbourne said they would leave the eu without a deal on benefits and migrants, now they tell us we have to stay because of world peace. I don't recall anything in their big negotiation that changed the chance of war, trade deals or any of the other scaremongering.

In reply to summo:
I'm in the stay camp despite Cameron and Osborne, not because of them. I agree with your comments about them.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Not like that nice Mr Corbyn then?

July 2015 "Brutal"

"If the EU becomes a totally brutal organisation that treats every one of its member states in the way that the people of Greece have been treated at the moment, then I think it will lose a lot of support from a lot of people."

June 2015 "Colonies of debt peonage"

"[If] Greece leaves both the eurozone and the EU its future would be uncertain, but at least it could be its own. " There is no future for a usurious Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage."

January 2015 Undemocratic

Public opposition to the EU"s TTIP treaty is "a cri de coeur for democracy and for the right of people to elect a Government who can decide what goes on in their country."

April 2013 "Worst of all worlds"

"Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating rail services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either. What we have is the worst of all worlds."

February 2011 Human rights abuses

"We have EU trade agreements with a number of countries that include a human rights clause that has not been enforced or effected. Is it not time for us to look again at the whole strategy for the region?

May 2005 "Simply crazy"

It is morally wrong [to] pay farmers to over-produce" then use taxpayers" money to buy the over-production, so it is already a double purchase, and it is then shipped at enormous public cost across the seas to be dumped as maize on African societies. " The practice is simply crazy and must be stopped."

October 2003 Morally Unjustifiable

"[W]e are now exporting 40 per cent of the world"s sugar and subsidising it to the tune of "500 per tonne. That is not justifiable in any moral or other sense. We are driving cane sugar producers in Africa and elsewhere out of business so that European sugar can be dumped on their markets."

May 1993 Opposition to Maastricht

"I am sure that [Labour MPs] will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers"

March 1993 EU Army

"[W]e are moving towards a common European defence and foreign policy. That being so, one must ask who proposes it, who controls it and what it is for? " Title V states that the objective of such a policy shall be "to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union". What exactly does that mean?"

In reply to Big Ger:

Who said anything about Jeremy Corbyn?

In reply to RyanOsborne:

I did.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Not the same, no. Sometimes makes me cringe a bit, really depends on how they do it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Indifference because although I love Britain's people and places I feel no connection with 'Great Britain' the nation state and that's what Cameron and that speech represents to me.

Shame/embarrassment with the we're unique and special stuff, and that we have that guy in charges.

Frustration that people read that without noticing the astounding hypocrisy of DC talking about tolerance and generosity. And that people don't feel patronised by it.

Also, I'm just disgusted by DC generally. A horrible, horrible excuse for a human being.

In reply to Indy:

It's cynically political, jingoistic and dishonest by omission. It fails to mention the UK's colonial wars ( past and present) , an embarrassingly anachronistic forelock tugging attitude to a privileged Royal elite, support for a series of horrible international regimes, worsening child poverty, a manufacturing base destroyed by years of Thatcherism, gross economic inequality and a backward looking right wing government that is dismantling the welfare state our parents paid for after the second world war. And many of us in the smaller UK nations don't identify with Britain and its establishment. We're Scottish, or Welsh, or Irish.....not British. Other than that it's fine.

In reply to alastairmac:

Don't forget what the Nigerians said about us and our shielding of the proceeds of corruption ?

In reply to summo:

Rather, it seems to me that Boris is backing Brexit because that's the only shot he'll ever get at becoming PM.
Once he gets into power and gets rid of those in his way, faced with reality, he'll just be taking us back into the EU through the backdoor (probably at great cost).

Gove appears to be a bit more sincere in his convictions, unfortunately he's proven to be utterly ignorant on even the simplest EU matters.

In reply to Big Ger:

But JC didn't actually say we should leave, rather that the EU is far from perfect and should be changed.

In reply to alastairmac:

But 55% of Scots (who voted) did actually say that they wanted to remain British.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

He voted "out" when he had the chance to.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Evidence for that, or is it just your "impression"?

(Can you do Tommy Cooper instead?)

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Not necessarily. They voted, for the present, on the basis of certain assumptions/promises to maintain a union of states on the basis that they would be equal partners. And that the union would provide certain advantages. Not the same thing as voting to "adopt" a British identity.

In reply to alastairmac:


Which is not what I said, they voted to remain British/part of the UK.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sorry to split hairs Graeme. But my point was that for many who voted to remain within a UK union their identity has never been "British" but "Scottish", although they wanted their country to stay ( presently) as part of a UK union.

In reply to Big Ger:



https://next.ft.com/content/64159804-fc1f-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d

In reply to RomTheBear:

That's an "opinion" piece, one which you cannot read without subscription, got any more?

In reply to Big Ger:

An opinion piece which incidentally points out the facts : Boris has never been clear on what his Brexit plans would be. At some point he was even suggesting to vote brexit and then stay in anyway.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well seeing as I cannot read it I cannot verify its veracity.

In reply to Big Ger:

if you don't have a subscription, take the title paste it into google news and click on the link from there

In reply to RomTheBear:
Thanks , got it now. Here is the entire part on Boris Johnson:




So, back to my original question

Here is your statement;


Do you have any evidence for this? There's certainly NONE in the link you posted.

In reply to Big Ger:

Do you have any "evidence" that he's backing Brexit out of pure honest conviction ?

I'm not sure what evidence you need, a medical certificate from the doctor stating that he has a serious case of Opportunistis Brexitis ?

The inconsistencies in his plan for leaving the EU and the made up reasons he decided to join the leave camp for at the last minutes make me think he's interested only in the power grab.
The article I posted makes the same reasonable analysis.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You made this claim, not I.


If it's have only your own opinion, then say so, it's better to be honest.

In reply to Big Ger:

You asked for "evidence", not I


Everything on here is an opinion, including yours, especially when it comes to assessing the character of politicians. However we know he doesn't have a consistent opinion on brexit nor on post brexit plans (in fact it seems he doesn't have any plans). To anyone with a bit of judgement that suggests he has more ambition than vision.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

But there has just been promises, and no treaty changes before the referendum .

How urgent do you think the EU will think the 'concessions' that Cameron was promised , will be to them once they have the Remain vote in the bag?( no matter how pathetic, and meaningless they are the will be on the back burner, kicked into the long grass, whatever way you say it, the result us the same. )

( maybe they will let us win the ESC , to show how much the love us)

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes, and?


So why do you find it so frigging impossible to say; "Oh it's just my opinion". Because funnily, I believe you're right, and it's my opinion too.


I think he has shown a remarkable degree of pragmatism on it.

In reply to summo:

Well Cameron and Osborne say we should listen Christine Lagarde, and why not she and her experts know what they are talking about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10884632/Do-I-have-to-go-on-my-kne...

Oh wait a minute , Osborne and Cameron said she gets things wrong. ( but now we should listen to her)

In reply to Jim C:


I'm sure some will listen to her, like those investigating her for fraud in France. 400m euros I think.

In reply to summo:



That's a misleading statement.

In reply to Big Ger:


Because it's bleedingly obvious ?


So you're basically just trolling because I didn't start my sentence by "in my opinion" ?

In reply to Donald82:


OK, she is officially under investigation in France for a 400 million Euro back hander?

Is that better?

In reply to Indy: you might want to add who received the alleged backhander, and her role in how she fits in with the payment. What you write is a little disingenuous

In reply to wbo:


My thoughts exactly. There was no bribe or backhander. The French government submitted to arbitration over compensation to the notorious (and definitely dodgy) Bernard Tapie over claims he was diddled out of a fair price for his Adidas shares by state-owned bank Credit Lyonnais. As French Finance Minister at the time, Mme Lagarde oversaw the payment that had been set by arbitration.

The suggestion has been made that the change of heart that saw the government submit to arbitration was made in order to find a way to reward Tapie for supporting the Sarkozy election campaign. This may be so, but in the upcoming trial, Lagarde is a proxy for Sarkozy. The charges are minor, negligence in public office, not corruption, for which the maximum fine is a paltry €15,000.

In reply to BnB:

Did you really mean to write 'a paltry €15,000' ?

In reply to BnB:

Are you suggesting minor offences are acceptable if you are high up the food chain, I'm sure many average Joes commit minor tax offences and hmrc doesn't cut them any slack.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Yes. Relative to the €400m Euro payment it is a pittance. It is also about a day's pay for CL.

More to the point, the tiny potential fine indicates how serious, or rather not, her supposed crime is considered. The reputational damage is a different matter, however.

In reply to summo:

Where did I say that? You were happy to accuse her of bribery and I set you straight with some facts. That's all.

I didn't say she's innocent. The trial, if it ever transpires, will decide that.

In reply to BnB:
So should we be paying much attention to a very influential and powerful woman that has been charged with a minor charge of negligence in public office and may be given a financial slap on the wrist or should we look more into the matter?

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Of course we should. She's one of the most powerful people in the world and no stranger to realpolitik. I was just countering speculative accusations with some background facts.

In reply to BnB:

You don't think with these kind of accusations, which she hasn't really denied, that perhaps she should stand down? Or at least be suspended. She seems to think she is above everyone else, whilst preaching to the world about financial integrity.

In reply to summo:



Not really.

In reply to summo:

She should stand trial if there's a case to answer. Surely the outcome of that process will define her eligibility to continue. But there is a strong possibility that the legal action is politically motivated as a way of getting at Sarkozy's administration and party. And that Lagarde is not the real target.

In reply to BnB:




It's not the money it's her reputation ( such as it is)

As I understand it, the decision to award him the money was overturned and Tapie was asked to pay the 404 million back, but Tapie said it was 'all gone' .
Where did it all go, who did he give it to?
The suspicion will obviously fall on those that signed it off in the first place. So sucpicion falls on Legarde.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Well when I asked you if you had evidence, or if it were just opinion, what did you do?

You posted this nonsense;




I then asked you, twice, if it was just based on your opinion, you continued to prevaricate.


No, I'm trying to get you to be honest Rom, just fess up if you have nothing but your own opinion to go on.,

In reply to BnB:


Accusations might well be politically motivated, but then those accusations must be tested by a non politicised prosecution authority, and if there is then a decision to prosecute, there must be something of truth to that accusation( politically motivated or not)

In reply to Big Ger:

What's your evidence ? Or is it just your opinion ?

In reply to summo:

Yes, we know, everybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong and corrupted. The IMF, the Bank of England, the treasury, our allies leaders, pretty much every economic institution worth its salt , the currency markets, the banks...

In reply to Big Ger:

It's an opinion based on facts.
Maybe instead of trolling just because I don't start every sentence with "in my opinion" you should try to actually come up with something interesting to say on the topic.

In reply to RomTheBear:

My evidence is this, I asked you three times if your statement;


Was based on evidence or opinion.

Your first reply was a link to an article behind a paywall, one which, after searching, was shown to provide no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion.

Your next two replies were prevarications.

Only on your fourth reply, did you actually admit it was nothing more than your opinion.

A simple, "that's my opinion" to the first question would have sufficed, but no, your fragile ego will not let you be honest.

.

In reply to RomTheBear:


"Facts" you seem totally incapable of supplying. "Facts" I asked you three times to show, yet none are forthcoming.


Maybe instead of pretending you have evidence to back up your opinion you should just say, "that's my opinion," and be content.

In reply to Big Ger:

I told you three times but it doesn't seem to register.

- he backed Brexit at the last minute
- he is very vague in his post Brexit plans.

The article I posted points out those same facts.



I'm not so sure why you are so angry. It's a bit sad.

In reply to Big Ger:


What's your evidence ?

In reply to RomTheBear:




Yes, and how do those "facts" relate to your comment;


Neither shows anything about his alleged desire to be PM, nor do they indicate that he would take us into the EU through "the back door" Do they?



The article you posted, well, actually, I posted, doesn't say anything about his alleged desire to be PM, nor does it indicate that he would take us into the EU through "the back door".




LOL!! Oh dear, that old chestnut again.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I invite members to go back and read your replies to see if they are, as I claim, indeed prevarications.

In reply to RomTheBear:


most people have something to gain in the big institutions from staying on the EU gravy train, much of it is greed related. What is wrong with being a littler poorer life but making all your own decisions? Not everything important in life has a financial label attached.

In reply to Big Ger:

It's a pretty obvious logical deduction really. If he is not campaigning by conviction, that must be ambition.
By the way I'm not the only one having made this deducted, as many political commenters have made the same.




Actually it suggests exactly that.

In reply to Big Ger:


So it's just your opinion really.

In reply to summo:

I'm not sure what the Bank of England, or the treasury, or the imf, would have to gain.


That's very true, but at least the brexiters need to be honest with the economic consequences, instead of dismissing every economic opinion as a conspiracy.

Do you have any example of any decision taken by the EU, against the UK parliament, that is making your life personally worse/more difficult ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Who actually pays those IMF salaries, how many of the staff skip from one big job to the next, it's a clique, but you must toe the party line.


The opposite to the 'inners' can apply, none of their claims are proven either. The IMF are only going to release their data, just before the vote, don't want to give people time to actually analyse it and find fault.


Much of CAP that is written to work for mainland Europe, doesn't suit Northern most Europe and there is not enough flex in it. Most the other stuff, working directives, mat/paternity, H&S etc.. that people claim is only possible because of the EU, Sweden had already before the EU thought of it (or copied) and to a higher level. Which proves we don't need the EU for it.

Perhaps the question is, what does the EU do, that any country could not do itself in a way that best suits that individual nation's needs. Once size fits all is rarely the best option, but more of a make do.

In reply to summo:




I'll repeat the question since you just sidestepped it:
Do you have any example of any decision taken by the EU, against the UK parliament, that is making your life personally worse/more difficult ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

As I said CAP. I claim it, although not very much, it's ties you up in ways that are neither best suited to farming or for the environment. But it's written to apply to the whole EU, which varies by height by several thousand metres, temperature in the dozens and a huge range of climate zones and that's before you get into the environmental detail.

Classic one for many are crested newts, protected to death on mainland Europe because they are rare, but two a penny in some northern countries, but the same protection status applies, with no practical local considerations allowed.

ps. I'm hoping a UK exit might spread a little exit vibe among the Nordic nations where I live. So all those big work place claims would be here anyway. Although as I'm self employed I impose my own conditions.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Only you think he's not campaigning be conviction.


Really, their opinion.


No it doesn't.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So inviting others to consider your responses to my points is "only my opinion", really?

LOL!!

You're getting more ridiculous by the minute.

Here is your statement again;


So, care to prove it is anything more than just your opinion, you've admitted it is once. But then you pretended you have "facts to back it up".

When I asked you for these facts, you were unable to provide them, and came up with some unrelated waffle.

.

In reply to Big Ger:

I won't claim to know why Bojo supports brexit, but I do find it amusing that in February he didn't know whether he was in or out and in May the EU is worse than Hitler. 3 months is a very long time in politics.

In reply to Big Ger:

What's you evidence ?


I do have facts to back it up. I've laid them out several times.


In my opinion, you are now just lying.

In reply to Big Ger:

Where is your evidence that I am the only one who thinks that ? Or is it just your "opinion"


It most definitely does.

In reply to summo:

I'm sure they won't force you to claim the CAP if you don't want it.


This sparticular species is strictly protected in EU law, as an implementation of the Berne convention, which Nordic countries all ratified.
so in fact leaving the EU would change absolutely nothing to the protected status of this species in those countries.

So I've asked you how the EU makes your life worse, and the best you could come up with is that they are giving you extra money as part of the CAP, and they protect a species that was already protected under an non-eu agreement anyway.

This is becoming very funny indeed.




Sorry but that sentence did not make any sense to me.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


That is of interest, possibly strategical thinking.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Your posts are all extant, and increasingly childish.


Yes, you've laid out "facts' several times, but none of them in any way substantiate your original point;


In fact NONE of your posts containing "facts" refer to his desire to be PM, or him taking us back into the EU via the "back door".


Well again, I'm happy for our posts here to be judged on their relative merits. You made the claim above, then said you have had evidence to back it up. When called on this you have shown yourself up to be bluffing on an empty hand.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Interesting fact Rom, since you made the claim


Not a single reply of yours has contained the words "PM", "Prime Minister", "Back door" "backdoor"

So are you still going to claim you have provided evidence to back up your claim?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Cap, let's stick with it, I could not claim it, but then any farmer wouldbe at an even bigger disadvantage compared to mainland Europe. The cap scheme is skewed already, where the biggest claimants already get the most per hectare compared to northern most Europe simply because its written in their favour. Not to mention that countries like France have a generally more agreeable climate, nearer their market etc.. its an unfair subsidy scheme. I would rather it was scrapped and people paid the real cost of food in the shops.

40%, of eu budget is cap, only the farmers don't get all that 40%, much of it disappears in admin as it travels from the UK, to Brussels and back again... A pointless paperwork and money moving exercise.

Also an eu member state can't run things differently, they have to use cap. Norway does not. Interestingly the eu tried to meddle with Norway's oil industry and got told where to go this week.

In reply to summo:

Would it not still be an "unfair subsidy scheme" in the event of brexit? Increasing the cost of our (that's the uk, not Sweden) produce relative to that of the EU. And that will help our (again, the UK, not Sweden) farmers how?

In reply to Big Ger:

And here's Bojo on wot Churchill reckoned https://twitter.com/woodgnomology/status/731787727503511552

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's fair mate, so's this.

In reply to Big Ger:

I don't feel subsumed within a European superstate, so that's rather irrelevant. But you're missing the point of the quote, it's Bojo saying that the EU has been a spectacular success. Well, he said that 2 years ago. It's shit now, obviously.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Not really the UK would be free to assist any industry, with any subsidy it liked and not break eu competition laws or CAP. Norway gives its farmers greater subsidies than the cap scheme would, but also imposes higher welfare conditions... They have to lowest antibiotics use in the whole of Europe.

In reply to summo:

And what plans are there to subsidise farmers in the event of brexit?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Given that it has not happened none. There are two years grace on it before anything can change anyway.

What plans are there now to help UK farmers compete with France who get more eu grants per hectare than the UK? None. The UK farmers have had decades of an unfair market, it is little wonder the UK import loads of food from France, or antibiotic ridden pork from denmark, it can't compete even when you consider extra transport costs.

In reply to summo:

So, in the event of brexit, how will we compete when the EU still has CAP and we (the Uk, not Sweden) have got rid of the unfair subsidy scheme (your words, in case you'd forgotten).

In reply to Sir Chasm:


The UK can assist the farmers how it best suits UK farming, cut out the middleman of Brussels taking their slice and even assist it more than Europe as it would no longer break eu competition laws. As I said Norway isn't in cap and assists its farmers more than it would be allowed were it a full eu member.

The options are endless on how it assists actual mass food producers, agri environmental schemes, land owners or tenants etc... Special assistance for niche products, like those looking to marketed 'added value' goods.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


What he said was that the plan was to bring THOSE countries together. It's in the abbreviated quote you linked to.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's because Boris is, to quote the Guardian's recent description, a post-truth politician.

In other words, someone who pays no regard to the truth whatsoever and who cannot be trusted in anything he says or does. Of course, we've all known that for years, but the present episode is making it clear even to the meanest intelligence.

jcm

In reply to Big Ger:


Not sure why that matters ?


I do base my opinion on facts yes.
he backed Brexit at the last minute, do not have any consistent post Brexit vision.
So it seems to me he's mostly in it for the power grab. Faced with the post Brexit economic and political realities, it is only logical given his apparent lack of conviction that he would get us back in, through the backdoor.

In reply to summo:

If every country start subsidising on their own rules then no single market is possible, as farmers in one country become unfairly undercut by subsidised production from another.
The other solution is to ban all subsidies, but I don't think farming would exist in Europe if we did, unless we applied really high tarrifs to imports.


And that's why they pay tarrifs on their food exports.


I agree with you the CAP is not perfect. But something of the sort is necessary for a subsidised farming in the single market.

Overall agriculture is 0.6% of the U.K. economy, so personally, I think there are bigger issues than a few problems with the CAP.

In reply to Big Ger:


That is your opinion, I presume.
It is my opinion that it is a fairly reasonable and simple deduction to make.


Some of us can connect the dots together.


Not true. I've never claimed to have evidence of what's in Bojo's head, that's just your own little pointless troll quest.

But I can form a pretty good idea of his intentions, based on his actions.


You're calling me on a bluff you basically made up yourself.

I made a simple post about what I think BoJo intentions are, based on very simple observations.

Then you asked for "evidence" which is obviously stupid given that nobody can give evidence of what someone else thinks.
Instead I explained to you why I think that, and linked to an article which makes the same reasoning more eloquently.

Why so much anger, I do not know.

In reply to RomTheBear:


you mean like now; Belguim, Netherlands, France all receive more per hectare than the UK, they are the nearest road/port food routes to the UK. Is fuel more expensive than the UK, is the Euro so strong it is crippling their export market?


Why? Currently the UK sends a pile of taxpayers money to the EU, 40% of which goes out to farmers in the EU. Why not keep that money and either spend it on other things in the UK, like UK farming, or the public can pay the real price of food production in the shops, or direct to the farmer.

The EU is paying too much for food, because rather than pay the true cost up front, we over pay so various agencies can take a cut, paying their staff, marketing, running expensive IT system, before the same money eventually finds it's way back to the farmer, via Brussels. Why not remove the EU from the chain and simply pay the farms up front?


As it is they only really pay on fish, as most other food is consumed internally. The UK is a net importer of food too. An independent UK could assist those areas of food production that specifically export.


Exactly but it is 40% of the EU budget. Why? The EU disproportionately meddles in farming and food production.

In reply to summo:

Because the EU budget is no more than 1% of EU's GDP, so it can focus only on a few things. Farming and food auto sufficiency, I guess, were identified as of strategic importance.

To be honest, I don't worry too much about the eu budget, as a taxpayer it cost me around 100£ a year, I would probably pay more in roaming fees or a visa to work in another EU country, not to mention that my job and salary prospect would be very dire indeed in my sector if we were out of the EU.

In reply to summo:


Surely you must have some numbers, what's the % of the money per head sent to Brussels that is lost in admin/IT etc, and how does it compare with what we would spend per head for a home run scheme ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


but the home run scheme also employs staff now in defra anyway. Farming bodies / unions currently pay for offices in London to speak to defra, then in Brussels to speak to the EU. Duplicated madness. Either way we can control things ourselves and have a farm subsidy scheme that suits only the UK, rather than trying to make one size fits all. Which the bigger the EU becomes, the harder it is.

In reply to RomTheBear:


all the more reason to control it ourselves?

In reply to summo:
Rubbish, even I can work out as a non farming perosn.Its better its controlled in EU.

let us take a simple example. I want to export beef to a country outside Europe.It will be heavily controlled by both shipping rules and food regulations in the EU. in turn the coutry which I am exporting to wil have its own rules.So the Eu can use its clout to get its way.

Let us narrow it down to foodtuff we sell into Europe.Do you really think that its going to be a free for all or that we are going to have a system in place cheaply and at fast time to rewrite all the rules? Those rules will just follow what the EU does anyway- they will have to anyway- otherwise farmers will not be able to export their products.


You will still have the farming bodies/ unions/DEFRA in both places- either in or out- and they will still be lobbyingand have a presence in Brussels - in or out.

In reply to neilh:

the UK already exports what is called the 5th quarter of many animals (the stuff we don't eat like trotters, heads etc..) to countries in Asia, no EU involvement. The UK also sent various farm trade delegations there in the past few years. No EU involvement required.

The problem is, if continental meat or diary is cheaper than UK, because the EU is subsidising them more through CAP, which EU country do you think is going to get the trade deal. Not the UK, because the UK government isn't allowed to assist it's own farmers to even up the market.


The system exists already within defra, a paper system and a badly functioning IT system that people have to already use to apply for CAP, where applications are worked on by DEFRA. All that needs changing is how much you give farmers for various things and why. I've used the CAP system in more than one EU country and see no reason why it can't work. Any future changes to a UK CAP system would be much easier too, as you aren't trying to meet the needs of 27 other nations, so an AL1,2... can come out each year. Rather than the current method where you get a big change and no one grasps it at all for the first year or three.

Those rules don't have to follow what the EU currently does though and it doesn't impact being able to export to Europe. As most EU rules are related to land management and not the actual product standards, animals housing legislation the UK is generally ahead of all mainland Europe, as many countries tend to 'flex' these more than honest UK. Exporting food is about product quality etc. not land management.


The farming bodies won't need to be in Brussels, if the UK isn't in the EU. It would serve no purpose. DEFRA might, but defra & UK export depts. have permanent representatives in places outside the EU already, so that's no change either.

In reply to summo:
Of course the EU has an involvement in exports outside the EU. Never mind tariff controls. Its probably the reason why you can export to Asia in the first place. Asia will accept EU product on EU regulations. Its the same in any industry.So are you saying that Asian markets will willingly accept Uk products on UK rules, especially foodstuffs?

Are you trying to tell me that the farming bodies will not need to be in Europe after an out vote.Are you kidding me? Those bodies will want to know exactly what the EU is doing as its such a big market for the UK.They will still need to be in Brussels. they will still need to be in Washington etc etc.

if you think that we can go our own lonely furrow and do what we want on foodstuffs etc, you really are living in dreamland.Foodstuffs and agriculture is just about the worst example for the out vote.

In reply to summo:

You haven't answered. Do you know what the admin cost of the CAP are per head, and how they compare with what the cost per head would be of administering a "better suited" scheme in the UK.

Even if you wanted to run a similar scheme at uk level, which would basically mean we'll have to face tarrifs, it would still be one size fits all, as there is as much variation in types of farming within the UK than there is across the EU.

Regardless, we're talking about insignificant sums of money per head of population. To me it's just not worth surely wrecking the economy, jobs and livelihoods in the short term and risking wrecking it in the long term, just for grudges between farmers that won't be solved by leaving the EU.

In reply to neilh:

Indeed. Even assuming that somehow we managed some marginal efficiency gains in farming by leaving the EU and the CAP , it's still going to be fraction of a thousandth of our GDP, the uncertainty of the referendum alone probably already swallowed it 100 times over.

Badically, this argument about farming is not only deluded, it's completely missing the big picture.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The UK does have to run the CAP scheme in the UK. Although according to private eye they are doing a shit job of it in the UK (or possibly just England not sure if it shared).

In reply to RomTheBear:

you are joking? The UK climate is pretty mellow, it has neither the temps or drought risk of southern Europe, nor the cold and winters of the true North. With it come less variation in farming methods. There will of course be differences, like a farmer in cornwall who can nearly graze out all year, compared to the Scottish isle. But these are nothing compared to EU variation.


40% of the EU budget insignificant, whose jobs at risk. The bloated EU, Brussels and Strasbourg... ???

For me it's not about economics, it's about freedom, democracy and choice, which the EU progressively removes. Better to be slightly poorer and free, than rich and tied to a parliament you can't control.

In reply to neilh:

The UK has done in the past and will continue to sell food stuffs around the world without the EU. These are deals done direct between UK to China etc.. there is no EU intervention.


For trade, for sales and purchases, not for negotiating how much a farmer gets per hectare for leaving field margins etc..


Norway does, they subsidise their own farmers more than the EU CAP equivalent. They look after themselves, they help only their own farmers and control their own internal food source. Seems to work for them.

Worst example... of the reason to leave. Hardly, it's one of the best (for me), I can only presume you have never had to deal with CAP.

In reply to summo:


China for example will consider the goods EU goods- not UK goods.

They will be subject to the rules negotiated between the EU and China, as well as the tariffs between EU and China.

That aside.

When Norway seeks to exports it s foodstuffs to the EU it will be bound by EU rules.Ergo its very simple when Norway writes its rules, it will follow EU rules. Just like if we come out, we will just duplicate and follow EU rules. Its very simple and not difficult to grasp or understand.

CAP is a different subject to the rules for importing/exporting.

In reply to KevinD:


It's administered by a different department in Scotland, although in a remarkable show of cross-border unity, the Scottish department responsible for administering CAP payments is also doing a shit job of it.

In reply to summo:




Many. Pretty much every company I worked for up to now has their base in the UK in large part because that's their base to access the EU single market. These companies employ millions of people.


Good, because I think the brexiteers have categorically lost this argument


I think you are looking at being significantly poorer, not just slightly.
Since when can't we control the EU parliament ? You do know it is elected (as apposed to one chamber of our own UK parliament !). If anything, the UK is more often on the winning side of the votes (in fact nearly always, 9 times out of 10) in the EU parliament, and EU council, than for example Scotland in Westminster.

In reply to RomTheBear:

100% spot on.

I do not understand the Exiteers even trying to argue the economic case for coming out, its so shot to pieces its unbelievable.

In reply to neilh:

Not everyone is trying to WIN an argument, there is more to it than that, and more to it than just money.

As in the Scottish Referendum there were people who would be happy to be independent if they were a few quid better off and others who would be happy to be much worse off to live in an independant Scotland.

Similarly here , those that value say sovereignty more than money, will never be persuaded by the economic argument, no matter how rich or poor they are personally.

Do you think the Queen is for in of for out?

In reply to Jim C:


I don't think this is similar though, Scotland is typically not a sovereign country as part of the UK, but the UK remains a sovereign country as part of the EU.

In reply to Jim C:

I think it's very similar, I want someone to make the case for change. C'mon Jim, you're an outer (although you never picked a side on Scottish independence) you can do it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


you 'think', exactly, there is no evidence for it. Only guess work on either side.


Larger EU members are given a disproportionately lower number of EMPs so countries like the UK don't railroad smaller nations. Each EMP has how long to speak on a topic they oppose or agree, I think it's 1m 20s they are allowed?

Who elects EU commissioners? Do they have the power to over rule the elected EMPs?

How much big business lobbying influences the EU, business funded EU research projects etc, as it's regulations rarely favour smaller businesses.

The UK wins 9/10, on what though? Where do you get these stats from? Are you sitting in the EU PR department in brussels?

Strasbourg, the EU preaches austerity and increases it's budget, and won't bin the Strasbourg farce. It's a managerial joke.

In reply to RomTheBear:


but the inners haven't won the economic argument either, they just rant about risk, there is no evidence for either side, only theories.

Economically the EU has and is failing, it preaches austerity, but itself requires an ever increasing budget, to keep the wheels on. The euro is screwed. Look at the long term EU members who aren't in the Euro, all are doing far better economically and fiscally than the Euro average, with no intention of ever joining, meanwhile weak countries keep being forced into the Euro if they wish to join the EU. It can only go in one direction, a race to the bottom, or collapse in this case.

There is only economic uncertainly, sometimes that uncertainty can force people into new and better positions, or you can keep on the same proven path, even if it's not the best path. The EU refuse to reform and it won't survive on it's current path, so the arguments that the UK risks collapsing the EU are void, because it's going to happen sooner or later anyway.

In reply to summo:

There is plenty of evidence. In fact it's already happening right now. Where I work hiring has virtually stopped for the last month, all major business discussions are on hold.



That's an utterly absurd argument, you say the EU wont survive on is current path, but by leaving we give up all influence that could steer it to a new path. And being outside of the EU won't protect us from the fallout if it fails anyway.


I thought these "predictions" were all theories ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

that is evidence of uncertainty, not that in or out is better or worse. If the UK is out or in after June, just means people will make different decisions. Only in 5 year time would you know if it was right or wrong.


But if the vote is in, the EU won't listen anymore, because we've got no threats left in the back, what can we do? They'll say if you don't like X, you had your chance to leave and you chose to stay.

Yes, there will always be fallout, but if you are already putting some distance between you and the blast, it can only be better. The trade deals the UK can forge beyond the EU will be better in the long run. Europe isn't some emerging market etc.. it's past it's peak, all the future big trade demands will be from elsewhere, many of them former commonwealth nations who have been ignored in favour of the EU for the past 20 years or more.

EU is like the new roman empire. It's spread too wide and is struggling to control it or match what the population want, but the out of touch leaders in Brussels think the answer is to drag even more nations into it's fold.

Eu/survival predictions, give me any evidence that the EU and the Euro is going to be here in 20 years time? The Euro might not see the decade out.

In reply to summo:
I am afraid you are wrong. For the last 6 months or so there have been alot of investment decisions been put on hold. This is driven by uncertanity yes but also companies not wishing to invest in the Uk when we might pull out of Europe.

One of the reasons there is a high FDI ( foreign direct investment) in the Uk is because of access to European markets.This is ranks along side such issues as English, good workforce, friendly business environmentn, low red tape ( its easy to set up business here) and so on.

The numbers are quite startling when you look at FDI compared with other European countrys.

it meamns japanese car companies etc put their money here.

What you are talking about if we come out threatens that. It simply means jobs going elesewhere in Europe.

To be blunt you are wrong in your assessment that it does not matter.

If you want to talk about trade deals and Europe and how that impacts on global trade for companys like mine who export outside Europe. I am more than happy to do so. My message to my employees is that their jobs are at risk.They know where we export to and the issues we are faced with on a day to day basis.Quite simply my customers in overseas markets will not buy from me unless its easy for them to do so. The EU makes it alot easier. If you want me to give specific examples I will be more than happy to do so.

In reply to summo:

You think investments and hirings have stopped because businesses are worried about a vote to remain?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


nope, others have said so though. Although it does directly impact where you can hire from. EU, non EU etc..

In reply to neilh:

I would look at the real reason companies first came to the UK, like Nissan. You are misquoting their motives.

In reply to summo:

Who has said hirings and investment have stopped because of worry about a vote to remain?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

no one precisely, how can they. People might be pausing for thought because of the election, unless you speak to the decision makers in the companies themselves, you can make no presumption that is because of a remain or exit reason.

I suspect some companies might see the end of the EU as a chance to get in without having to conform to all EU legislation, or have the UK give them some grants that would otherwise be conflict with EU competitions laws. But I can only surmise, I can't know or presume for certain. Those companies bidding to buy the steel works might be interest which way it goes, if they want additional assists with things like electricity costs.

In reply to summo:


You said "others have said so". That is you claiming people have said investment and hirings have stopped because companies are worried about a remain vote. Now you're saying "no one" has said that. You clown.


So those companies that have put investment and hirings on hold have done it because they think an out vote would be better?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


nope, you aren't reading it correctly. I said it was because of the elections and unless you speak to the actual person in the business making a decision, then you can't know if it was because of a 'in' / 'out' decision, or simply the uncertainty of what future holds. It is also possible that because of various other economic uncertainty at the moment people are withholding investment anyway and blaming the election is an easy excuse. As you clearly unable to debate without targeting the person I suggest you remove your comedy clown glasses and read what I write properly.


because of competition laws there is no reason why it couldn't be. As I said, if you read (again), I don't presume or know I can only surmise it is a possibility.

In reply to summo:


Don't talk drivel. I asked you "You think investments and hirings have stopped because businesses are worried about a vote to remain?", to which you replied "nope, others have said so though. Although it does directly impact where you can hire from. EU, non EU etc..". So i asked "Who has said hirings and investment have stopped because of worry about a vote to remain?". You replied
"no one precisely, how can they.".
You clown.


I surmise it is a greater possibility that investment and hiring has been put on hold because of concern for an out vote. The 2 people on the thread who mentioned companies they are involved with having stopped investments and hiring are of the same view. But you carry on "surmising".

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The 2 people on the thread who mentioned companies they are involved with having stopped investments and hiring are of the same view. But you carry on "surmising".

Well 2 people have posted that their company IS withholding investment, and I posted one that was not.
So what can we really extrapolate from that data ?
Not a lot really .

In reply to summo:

Nissan was located in the north east for a variety of reasons including access to Europe.

I sell in the Japanese market, not in the motor industry , so have had direct discussions in Tokyo with Japanese business people who have set up in the uk .

its the same with other international companies. They want access to European markets.

It s not difficult to understand from a business perspective.

In reply to neilh:

Nissan set up at Sunderland because the land was cheap, old airfield mainly and located not far from ports which could export cars. Sitting close to the A19 direct to Teesside and only across the 194 to the A1. I went past it everyday in the 80s going to college in Monkwearmouth.

Next main reasons were the grants from the government due to closure of the pits at places very near there and the ship yards, the large number of unemployed by skilled(old school apprentices) workers scattered around the North East and finally because union dominance was on the way out, Nissan could run the plant how it wanted to, ie efficiently.


which has nothing to do with Nissan coming to Sunderland, I presume?

In reply to neilh:


I sell wood that finishes up in the UK among other places, not directly but through a kind of cooperative. So if you've picked up a bit of 3x2 in B&Q etc.. there is in incredibly small chance it was from a tree I cut down. I have absolutely no doubt that regardless of the result, the UK will still import wood in the future as it's a net importer. The forms might vary slightly, a tariff perhaps, a price change due to currency fluctuations.. but the world will go on. A tax return might change as it would be non eu vat etc.. but again, the world will keep on turning.

Life might change a little, but that's life. If the 'in' campaign had any startling blindingly obvious economic figures, they would push them, blow the 'outers' literally out of the water and it would all be over before it start. But, I don't think there are any even marginal figures, otherwise they wouldn't have roll out every man and his dog to promise you it will be worse.... who next... there can't be many left, Mandela from the grave? perhaps a X-factor winner? etc.. just about every has promised plagues, wars, poverty etc.. but not a shred of evidence that has been corroborated.

In reply to summo:
How exactly do you know that those are a comprehensive set of reasons and that EU access was no factor at all?

It just seems to me that those reasons could equally explain why Nissan chose that place in the EU from which to access the EU market. It doesn't prove to any extent that being in the EU wasn't a reason or even a pre-requisite for considering that particular site in the first place.

In reply to summo:

Excellent .So where's your experience in selling to export markets?do you really have any idea how these things work in practise?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I lived just along the road from it, passed it 5 days a week, often more. Read the local papers, national papers, did economics in the nearest college to it shortly after it's arrival... not once did I hear the EU cited as a reference to it's arrival in the NE or the UK in general. I did hear and witness all the reasons I listed.

In reply to neilh:


I admit I have limited experience, but never said otherwise. I have some grasp of it and have been asked to be an in country agent in Sweden for a UK manufacturer as I roughly know their market, the tax system, language etc.. here , but turned them down, because I think it's not really my thing and probably more pain than joy.

I'm sure if the vote goes to 51% for Brexit I can learn more, whilst I await for global collapse and/or WW3.

In reply to summo:

No you just threaten those employed in the uk who sell into these markets or those who are employed by foreign companies in the uk.

Talk of ww3 or global collapse is ridiculous.

In reply to summo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24859486

Here is a link to what Nissans chairman says on the issue. Simple really .

In reply to summo:

I'd like to know how is it you're going to put some distance.
Geographically ? impossible unless someone can toe the UK into the pacific
Economically ? What would be the point of putting distance between us and and the biggest economy in the world, that's just economic suicide.


You live in cuckoo land if you think the commonwealth nations would give us a better deal than they would give the EU. Not only that, but their leaders are pretty much all urging us to stay in the EU. I think your problem is that you are in search of a lost empire, and completely oblivious to anything else.