USA Warns Cameron not to leave EU

leveller2911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Seems pretty straightforward to me....

Oh dear, you really don't have any anwsers do you McTw@ttish.

I gave you far too much credit....

Lets just look at facts: The EU gave grants to farmers to grub out hedges,plough right up to field bounderies to increase productivity.

Next thing they gave grants to farmers to plant hedges, leave a 10mtr strip all around each field ,thus reducing productivity and to promote wildlife and conservation..

Where is the logic?.

GeorgeHowell

Linton wrote: »

Why do the anti EUers keep on getting this wrong and try to confuse the general public?

The European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with and predates the EU. It comes from the Council of Europe founded in the 1940's, a cold war grouping with the UK a founder member. The UK was highly influential in the wording of the convention, signed it in 1950 and granted its citizens the right to appeal to the European Commission on Human Rights in 1966. So if we left the EU we would still be bound by the ECHR. One can envisage what the effect of leaving the convention would have on the UK's attempts to lecture foreign nations on their human rights.

Suggest you try harder.

Suggest that you stop making smart-a**e snipes, which might make you feel superior but do not make you look superior, just a little desperate actually.

There is a widely held perception that if the UK left the ECHR's jurisdiction it would also have to leave the Council of Europe, and that EU membership is dependent on C of E membership. If EU membership was no longer an issue, we could deal with the ECHR matter as a totally separate issue. So the two are perceived as linked by much if the media and apparently by some alleged experts. Even if it an incorrect perception it counts as EU-associated baggage until it is resolved.

StevieJ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

So the two are perceived as linked by much if the media and apparently by some alleged experts. Even if it an incorrect perception it counts as EU-associated baggage until it is resolved.

Not with you there, I think that perception is cultured by some people and media who are trying to bamboozle the general public with Anti-EU tripe, seems to be working.

Linton

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Suggest that you stop making smart-a**e snipes, which might make you feel superior but do not make you look superior, just a little desperate actually.

There is a widely held perception that if the UK left the ECHR's jurisdiction it would also have to leave the Council of Europe, and that EU membership is dependent on C of E membership. If EU membership was no longer an issue, we could deal with the ECHR matter as a totally separate issue. So the two are perceived as linked by much if the media and apparently by some alleged experts. Even if it an incorrect perception it counts as EU-associated baggage until it is resolved.

Sounds like you are wriggling.

Hardly smart a*se to point out the factual inaccuracies and wild unjustified assertions in your advocacy of your point of view - its too easy. If you had a good case you should be able to advocate it on the basis of facts and reasoned argument rather than "incorrect perceptions". If on the other hand your case is purely based on a deeply held simplistic ideology I can understand your difficulty.

Linton

leveller2911 wrote: »

Yes and?????

Quote: By 2013, the share of traditional CAP spending is projected to decrease significantly to 32%, following a decrease in real terms in the current financing period. In contrast, the amounts for the EU's regional support represented 17% of the EU budget in 1988, but will more than double to reach almost 36% in 2013.

It hasn't happend yet and probably won't. Yet another chance for the EU to fail to deliver.

So CAP (allegedly support of inefficient French farmers) is decreasing and Regional Aid, including some to the ex mining and former old industrial areas of the UK, is increasing. Is this a problem? I thought your view was that policies such as CAP could not be changed.

A._Badger

I see the Europhiles are still trying to sell us the same old shoddy goods.

Restructuring of the CAP has been bitterly, and effectively, fought -small wonder when it so benefits French and other farmers, and adds significantly to the cost of food in this country.

Probably even worse is the CFP which, having decimated the British fishing industry, has now resulted in the decimation of fish stocks. Happy Iceland, which retains control over its increasing fish stocks!

Even the Open Europe think tank (not regarded very highly by many Eurosceptics) has reported that EU regulations have cost Britain £124 billion since 1998
.
UK government (ONS) figures show that the balance of trade with the EU
(in £ million)
2006 -29,616
2007 -35,235
2008 -28,582
2009 -27,421
2010 -35,534

They need us more than we need them.. They know it, too. hence all the squealing.

Graham_Devon

All this EU stuff from Hamish and a couple of others is starting to get as tiring and "loony" as the labour stuff we currently have on the board.

An simple entrenched position, while calling everyone else names for not agreeing.

ValHaller

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

There is a widely held perception that if the UK left the ECHR's jurisdiction it would also have to leave the Council of Europe, and that EU membership is dependent on C of E membership. If EU membership was no longer an issue, we could deal with the ECHR matter as a totally separate issue. So the two are perceived as linked by much if the media and apparently by some alleged experts. Even if it an incorrect perception it counts as EU-associated baggage until it is resolved.

That is a fair enough exposition of the situation. Human Rights are being sniped at as part of a campaign to get us out of the EU. It beggars belief that people are prepared to pay the price of putting Human Rights in jeopardy for the sake of leaving the EU.

This is the litmus paper for me which distinguishes between people who have a sane debating position which I can take seriously (although I disagree with it) and those who are simply frothing at the mouth with irrationality.

GeorgeHowell

ValHaller wrote: »

That is a fair enough exposition of the situation. Human Rights are being sniped at as part of a campaign to get us out of the EU. It beggars belief that people are prepared to pay the price of putting Human Rights in jeopardy for the sake of leaving the EU.

This is the litmus paper for me which distinguishes between people who have a sane debating position which I can take seriously (although I disagree with it) and those who are simply frothing at the mouth with irrationality.

I agree that human rights should be a completely separate issue from the EU, but the reason that they get linked is the reason that I quoted. I do not agree of course that the ECHR achieves a balance between rights, responsibilities, and public safety in the way that most reasonable people would want or expect.

GeorgeHowell

Linton wrote: »

Sounds like you are wriggling.

Hardly smart a*se to point out the factual inaccuracies and wild unjustified assertions in your advocacy of your point of view - its too easy. If you had a good case you should be able to advocate it on the basis of facts and reasoned argument rather than "incorrect perceptions". If on the other hand your case is purely based on a deeply held simplistic ideology I can understand your difficulty.

Another pro-EU poster, with perhaps a more measured and less shoot-from-the-hip approach believes that is a fair exposition of the situation. Perhaps you would like to explain why you believe that it is not, on factual grounds ?