If you think it is rational to plan a national agriculture policy on a scenario from bad and grossly unrealistic and implausible science fiction, okay…
A blockade is an act of war so of course they should consider using whatever tools at their disposal to solve the issue.
With respect Ramira has been continuously sniping at me since I came on this site
Yes. It says you haven’t been clear what you mean.
So, having declared a bias against the Tories in television dramas, you don’t actually have any examples? That statement itself speaks volumes.
Seriously, dude, I’m open to persuasion here but having heard every variation of “The BBC is biased against ” I want something material to work with.
That’s weak sauce - the Archers has always had a direct feed-through of government agricultural policies and guidance going back the beginning of the show; that was part of its reason for existing.
Again - give me something more substantial to work with. I mean, it’s not like “The Thick of It” was particularly kind to any of the (unnamed) parties portrayed therein.
You’ve posted quite a lot of things portraying Muslims in a poor light, to which Ramira (as a Muslim) has responded. If you feel she’s violated the rules of a particular forum, do please report the relevant posts, but don’t complain if people take personally something which in their view libels them badly.
And my mother was a WWII war refugee, and remembers the chaos and near-starvation in refugee camps all too well. So perhaps our differing perspectives are understandable.
To be more precise myself and others, like Gary Kumquat have responded and pointed out completely unsupported assertions and what seem to be essentially inventions, some pub stories. Of course it is also noticeable, although I have not commented, in other threads where similar habits on other subjects are called out.
Economic history aside, the issue here is not that trade with the EU would stop if the UK left, even if economic autarky were desirable (which for the UK it isn’t), but the terms on which such trade would carry on, and how they would be made. As things stand, the UK has one of the largest votes in the Council of Ministers (which takes the final decisions); it would have no vote if it left, and we simply have no idea what might be on offer in that situation, or why it should be any better than the terms for EEA membership for other non-EU members (i.e., abide by Single Market rules but have no say in what they are).
It’s exactly the same conundrum as the SNP faced in last year’s Scottish referendum, over its wish to carry on in a single currency area after (nominal?) independence: have, perhaps, one route for possible consultation over management of the currency (if and when the London government might feel like offering it, mechanism unspecified), or 56 members in the Westminster parliament, all the time?
I’m surprised there has been any discussion of this poll. To me it looks much more likely that the British will leave.
Or is that no one understands Cameron’s big negotiated deal?
Why? 45%, even if it’s a plurality, is hardly a mandate for an EU exit. The voting on the referendum on continued EEC membership in 1975 was 67% in favour. This is just a mechanism for the Conservatives to put pressure on Brussels to make concessions in exchange for continued UK membership.
It could be an outlier, or, a reaction to the immigration crisis. I’d say the chance of UK leaving the EU are greater than they were 6 months ago, but it will take a number of polls showing Leave ahead before I get my hopes up.
So just to put things in context, when was the last time the UK was self sufficient for food?
Can in fact Brussels make enough concessions to satisfy the British which don’t involve changing the treaties? And Brussels has rejected changing the treaties.
No the UK will not and should not exit the EU. The entire EU is currently tightening up and re-thinking immigration policies. Even Germany is starting to close the doors. The UK will threaten to leave the EU and get a few concessions and the rest of the EU will move slightly more towards the UK’s position. Its all just politics as normal.
If the UK did hypothetically leave the EU. The EU would by far would still be their largest trade partner, and now they would have no say at all in the EU parliament or way of promoting their own agendas inside the EU. Politicians might bring up the idea of leaving to appeal to the populist vote, but they know its completely unfeasible in reality.
The U.K leaving the EU is not just about immigration yes regaining control of our borders is important. The question of regaining our sovereignty is also of great importance; more than 70% of our laws now originate from an unelected group in Brussels, if we wish to make our own laws then we have to leave the EU.
The EU. Dictates to the U.K. who we can make trading agreements with, by leaving the EU our manufacturers will be set free to trade with who they wish.
They tell the U.K. that by leaving the E.U. we will have to negotiate trading agreements with the EU and that is not a problem as we import far more from the EU. Than we export to the EU
There is a heavy cost for membership of the EU, £20 billion pounds per year, £20 billion pounds that could be spent improving the infrastructure of the U.K.
Leaving the EU. Is about freedom from a claustrophobic and ever-growing undemocratic federal European state that we did not sign up for
Along these lines, I remember reading somewhere that the male/female ratio of the “refugees” is heavily lopsided toward men. (I’ve noticed that in most pictures of refugees the crowd does seem to be mainly male.) This is the opposite of what you would expect from genuine refugees: Such a crowd should consist mainly of women and children, as a large fraction of the men would either be involved in the fighting, or have been killed by it. Some people have voiced concerns that this is some kind of ISIS “fifth column,” but really most of these refugees are common economic migrants, looking to send money back home.
That’s true of cross-Mediterrenean arrivals as a whole, but not Syrians.
Erm, no. EU law is difficult to quantify but it’s certainly not 70%. The House of Commons Library gives a rough figure of between 6% and 14%.
The UK participates in forming agreements with our fellow Member States within the EU, to give us a better collective deal. There is nothing to stop the UK making its own deals, as long as they don’t undermine ones agreed by the EU.
How is that not a problem?
I think we need a real analysis of what that ‘saved’ £20bn would get us.
What’s undemocratic about it? The elected Parliament? The Council representing 28 elected Member State governments? Or the Commission, appointed by said elected governments and ratified by the elected Parliament? Please specify.
Less, in fact, since he is referring to an “unelected group in Brussels,” so presumably it’s just the stuff adopted as a result of action taken by the European Commission.
Research from Business for Britain published today takes a detailed statistical approach to the question of who makes Britain’s laws. On the one hand we had Nick Clegg claiming in his debate with Nigel Farage that only 7% of British laws were made in Brussels. On the other side Nigel Farage, quoting Viviane Reding, the former European Commissioner for Justice, claimed 75% of legislation originates from the EU. Turns out Nigel was far closer…
Today’s report‘s key findings:
• Between 1993 and 2014, 64.7% of UK law can be deemed to be EU-influenced. EU regulations accounted for 59.3%t of all UK law. UK laws implementing EU directives accounted for 5.4% of total laws in force in UK.
• This body of legislation driven by EU regulations consists of 49,699 exclusively ‘EU’ regulations, 4,532 UK measures which implement EU directives and 29,573 UK only laws.
Analysis of the EU’s influence on British law is continually hijacked for political purposes, leading to disputes over the true number:
Nobody believes the 7% figure Nick Clegg advanced in his disastrous debate with Nigel Farage. Europhiles like to cite the various House of Commons Library which put the percentage in the mid-teens, however EU regulations are transposed into national law without passing through Parliament. Hence they do not appear in studies by the House of Commons Library which most recently estimated the proportion of EU legislation at just 13.3%. If most of our laws and regulations are being made abroad without reference to parliament, do we really need full-time MPs in Westminster?
Be handy if you provided a link. It’d also be nice if you looked into what other groups of “concerned citizens” the CEO of Business for Britain Matthew Elliot has been involved with. Also, do you know what astroturfing - in the political sense - is?