EU vote?

[topman]

Originally Posted by rab60bit

Yup, it was attributed to something off FB

No surprise really.

[Darcydog]

It certainly is a list!!

I can only really relate to those that I have personally come across such as the Ford Transit (Southampton) relocation to Turkey via an EU £80M loan and the loss of 400 jobs at Twinings (Andover) via £12M EU loan to shift jobs to Poland.

As for our Fishing Industry ................ decimated

And our Farmers - paid to grow nothing so that Food Prices can remain artificially high

[topman]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

And our Farmers - paid to grow nothing so that Food Prices can remain artificially high

I think some of it is to stop the food mountains and still give farmers an income. Its a tricky one of tbh.

[wraymond]

[QUOTE=Gman2;2311454]QUOTE]

Second point - twisted logic methinks. You'd rather see the UK strike deals with corrupt South American countries than the "corrupt EU". Well that just about sums up the rabid and blinkered anti-EU think that prevails amongst many in the OUT campaign

Rabid, blinkered anti-EU think? If you can’t see the wood for the trees it’s probably best not to venture too deeply into the forest!

To explain: the corruption in South American countries is South American and as such affects only South America and their political system. The corruption in the EU is in Europe and it’s political system, over which the taking back of control is what all this is all about!

Further, your blind categorisation about people who take a different view from you is not only wrong but pretty much at the root of that South American culture you seem to know so much about and attribute to the ‘many’. Instead of hiding behind the vagueness of a blanket charge, why don’t you have the courage to name names? Alternatively of course you could do the gentlemanly thing and use more appropriate language; you have in past demonstrated you know how.

[rab60bit]

Originally Posted by topman

I think some of it is to stop the food mountains and still give farmers an income. Its a tricky one of tbh.

So, what proportion of French farmers do you reckon don't now add to the food mountain (and for that matter, what proportion of French fishermen were decimated)?

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Gman2

Polly - I think you miss the point I was making. Some of the recent Russian comments would appear to be state approved supporting the use of violence to project national identity. The difference with England and Scotland - well I don't need to spell it out surely?

Second point - twisted logic methinks. You'd rather see the UK strike deals with corrupt South American countries than the "corrupt EU". Well that just about sums up the rabid and blinkered anti-EU think that prevails amongst many in the OUT campaign...

You are of correct on the first point, I wasn't aware (at the time) of the apparent state support for the violence.
On your second point however, if we refused to trade with anyone who wasn't squeaky clean, I'm afraid we wouldn't do much trade. That's a bit like saying you shouldn't sell me your car because I have a speeding conviction. However you might well not want to TRAVEL in my car because of that conviction.
By being a member of a corrupt organisation, we condone and support the corruption.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Leyland Worldmaster]

Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT

TATA steel?

I was referring to State Owned European Companies, rather than TATA Steel. That's a whole different kettle of fish- although not without relevance- due to the question of import and export tariffs!

[topman]

Originally Posted by rab60bit

So, what proportion of French farmers do you reckon don't now add to the food mountain (and for that matter, what proportion of French fishermen were decimated)?

I think very few, if there's no market to sell to then it's pointless producing it. There's about 23,000 people that work on fishing boats now. What it was in the past I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't alot higher in the past.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by Polly

How much did our past politicians really know about the direction the EU was taking?
I ask this, because I was employed by British Gas, privatised buy Thatcher, apparently in order that competition would ensure we had access to cheaper energy. Of course we all know that this policy was a complete success, witness the daily praise heaped on the energy providers. At the time though, this was put down mostly to Tory dogma, but in hindsight, how much of this was a EU requirement to allow free interstate competition?
Or is it just pure coincidence that the sale off of our nationalised industries suited the aims of the EU so perfectly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm sure it was Tory dogma, the EU stranglehold was very mild then. The whole thing about privatisation then was to relieve the government of responsibility of management and investment to maintain services and the associated Trade Union involvement and to pass on the charges via private enterprise companies (on which so many politicians held directorships) to the public.

[topman]

Originally Posted by wraymond

To explain: the corruption in South American countries is South American and as such affects only South America and their political system. The corruption in the EU is in Europe and it’s political system, over which the taking back of control is what all this is all about!

I think the idea is that if we try and trade with them it becomes our (at least in part) problem.