Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

And if you had bothered to read the story you'd have seen why what you are saying isn't the case....as much as you may want it to be.

Our quotas have been cut 50% by the EU since 2009 for a start.

If we weren't in the EU there would still be fishing quotas. You seem to think there would be a biblical abundance of fish the moment we left. And fountains of Jesus wine spewing from Nigel Farage's ears.

The main difference would be that when we'd fished our self imposed quota and we then tried to sell everything apart from cod, haddock and shrimp to to the EUropeans (because thats about the only seafood Brits will eat), they would slap us with a great big trade tariff.

Pulling out of Europe is stupidity squared. Staying in Europe and renegotiating our position makes sense but not the alternative.

It is as senseless as Scottish separation.

Wheezy_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

And if you had bothered to read the story you'd have seen why what you are saying isn't the case....as much as you may want it to be.

Our quotas have been cut 50% by the EU since 2009 for a start.

Correct, your article says:

The MMO said quotas for some stocks in the area had been cut by the European Commission in recent years. It said the UK quota for skates and rays had been ‘significantly reduced’, by half since 2009.

which kind of fits in with this DEFRA publication:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/shark-conservation-plan.pdf

Shark, Skate and Ray Conservation Plan

Sharks, skates and rays, collectively known as elasmobranchs are caught in fisheries worldwide, including in EU and UK waters. Many have been depleted rapidly and extensively by fishing pressure and now exist at very low levels when compared to their historic maximum. They are also often highly migratory and move across national and international boundaries with regularity, which poses an additional challenge for their management.

In recent years, and following many years of overexploitation, the scientific advice has, in general been followed and these species have been subject to the reduced quotas that they urgently need. Many quotas have been reduced significantly,

I can imagine other EU countries had their quotas cut also.
What do you suggest? Get rid of quotas altogether?

ruggedtoast

Wheezy wrote: »

Correct, your article says:

which kind of fits in with this DEFRA publication:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/shark-conservation-plan.pdf




I can imagine other EU countries had their quotas cut also.
What do you suggest? Get rid of quotas altogether?

Graham suggests unilateral withdrawal from all the costs of union, while somehow retaining all the benefits. Exactly like the nutty Scottish separatists who were blasting the board with posts a month or so ago (and who now all seem to have mysteriously disappeared to wallow in their online misery groups).

leveller2911

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Pulling out of Europe is stupidity squared. Staying in Europe and renegotiating our position makes sense but not the alternative.

Influenece? . We have little influence in Europe, They walked over the last Nu-Labour Government and laugh at Cameron. Given the fact that the EU openly admit to the intention on becoming a Federal Europe are you in favour of being part of a Federal European Superstate?.


How many years did that take to re-negotiate the CAP and then at the end of it did it really change the way the CAP works?.The CAP is still a fudge, it still gives far too much in subsidies to the big landownders in France and to a certain extent the UK.

I would remind you that in the 80's the EU gave farmers large subsidies for grubbing out all the hedge rows across Europe, increase field bounderies to maximise the income from crops but to the cost of the natural balance of the countryside. Then in the early 2000's they gave farmers across Europe subsidies for planting hedges to "create and enhance the natural balance of the countryside".

Go back 5 years and the EU gave huge subsidies to farmers for planting wild flower meadows to encourage wildlife, now 5 years on they are giving that same subsidy to farmers to grub up the wild flower meadows and plant peas. Big land barons claimed that the peas when flowering will attract the same number of wildlife (Bees,butterflies etc) as the wild flower meadows did. There is no sound scientific evidence to back them up btw. The EU were paid off by the landowners lobbiests.............again. We need bees etc by the way to pollinate crops.

I'm no tree hugger but !!!!!! its not difficult to get this right, just stop listening to lobbyists and big business.

Just 2 examples of EU incompetance within the CAP , there are planty more......

That alone sums up the EU. This is not just an isolated incident of incompetance on a huge scale. The EU bureaucracy is a cost to our society that we can do without.

Just to add , its in no ones interest to impose trade tariffs. The EU are not stupid, both the UK and EU need a good trading agreement.

Unease with the EU project is growing in many countries across the EU but the great and the good still believe they know what best for us, the great unwashed. If the EU were doing such a great job why is there so much resentment about them in the UK, France and even Germany its increasing.

Recently UK millionaires such as Paul Sykes and Arron Banks have switched to UKIP, are they naive fools?. Not that foolish considering they are self made millionaires.

zagubov

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You are displaying all the certainty and as little of the credibility as a Shakethedisease or a Zagubov, stridently predicting Scottish nationalism.

Well I never! I hadn't considered my self a proclaimer of certainty, credible or otherwise.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

What they, and you, fail to realise is that whilst blokes may vote for nasty separatist agendas in elections they will not vote for them in referendums!

You still have time to knuckle down young Graham and make something of your life. See the world. Don't throw it all away with a political party designed for retired colonels and daily mail readers.

You're quite right; people do vote differently in referenda than they do in elections.
Sadly, the NO campaign, particularly it's pseudo-left arm, are going to learn about that soon. As they're beginning to suspect.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Graham suggests unilateral withdrawal from all the costs of union, while somehow retaining all the benefits. Exactly like the nutty Scottish separatists who were blasting the board with posts a month or so ago (and who now all seem to have mysteriously disappeared to wallow in their online misery groups).

Sorry about that; it'll be showtime soon and we're just getting the popcorn and the good seats.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

For some, its already done so. So surely a referendum would be no bad thing?

I think you must be confused, I can't recall having said that a referendum would be a bad thing.

I was countering the incorrect assertion that we need to leave now if we have the chance to do so in case things change in the future, rather than more rationally choosing to leave at the point that happens, if it ever does.

I've been inclined towards the view that we should have a referendum for some time. I find the majority of arguments I hear against membership to be embarrasingly uninformed, and those that aren't are almost universally put across by people idealogically opposed to the concept so no amount of good reasons to stay would sway them, but none the less I think democracy sometimes requires letting people have the choice to do stupid things for stupid reasons

Graham_Devon

Seems Merkel has now warned us she would rather see us leave than compromise.

There will be no renegotiation. We are either in, or we know where the door is.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has reportedly warned David Cameron she would rather see the UK leave the EU than compromise over the principle of free movement.

Der Spiegel news magazine quotes German government sources as saying she feared the UK was near a "point of no return".

Chancellor George Osborne dismissed the story as speculation about how Germany may react to a future UK policy shift.

But he insisted ministers would act in the national interest in addressing public concerns about immigration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392

Wheezy_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

I would remind you that in the 80's the EU gave farmers large subsidies for grubbing out all the hedge rows across Europe, increase field bounderies to maximise the income from crops but to the cost of the natural balance of the countryside. Then in the early 2000's they gave farmers across Europe subsidies for planting hedges to "create and enhance the natural balance of the countryside".

No, that's incorrect. It seems to be just a Daily Mirror headline.
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/tear-up-hedgerows-full-of-wildlife/
There weren't subsidies for grubbing out hedgerows. There was however a EU directive defining a hedgerow as up to 2 metres wide either side which incentivised land owners to trim exisiting hedges in order to qualify for subsidies.(or something among those lines, I'm not a hedgerow expert:))
(I realise my link is just a EU blog, if you have other info, I'd love to see that.)

leveller2911 wrote: »

Go back 5 years and the EU gave huge subsidies to farmers for planting wild flower meadows to encourage wildlife, now 5 years on they are giving that same subsidy to farmers to grub up the wild flower meadows and plant peas. Big land barons claimed that the peas when flowering will attract the same number of wildlife (Bees,butterflies etc) as the wild flower meadows did. There is no sound scientific evidence to back them up btw. The EU were paid off by the landowners lobbiests.............

Again, incorrect. The decision to make peas and beans qualify for 'wildlife' grants was a UK Government one. (DEFRA)

The EU's new rules on subsidies oblige farmers to ensure that some of their land supports wild plants and animals.
But during negotiations, farmers in Europe watered down the policy so planting crops that improve soil may be counted as helping wildlife.
Wildlife campaigners have expressed outrage at the move.
Member states can tighten the EU rule if they want to, but England's farmers persuaded the government this would make them uncompetitive.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced that planting peas and beans in so-called Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) will qualify for full grants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27764658

leveller2911

Wheezy wrote: »

No, that's incorrect. It seems to be just a Daily Mirror headline.
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/tear-up-hedgerows-full-of-wildlife/
There weren't subsidies for grubbing out hedgerows. There was however a EU directive defining a hedgerow as up to 2 metres wide either side which incentivised land owners to trim exisiting hedges in order to qualify for subsidies.(or something among those lines, I'm not a hedgerow expert:))
(I realise my link is just a EU blog, if you have other info, I'd love to see that.)

It was a subsidy Wheezy and I'm happy to clarify.

Most hedgerows,especially ancient hedgerows if you "timmed" back to 2m wide you would be left with the thickest,oldest part of the hedge which doesn't produce any shoots or new growth. In trimming them back your left with the older, woody sections that will never produce berries,fruit or leaves for that matter. Think of an Oak tree where you cut off all the leaf producing branches (new growth) your left with thick limbs and a trunk.No gain in leaving a hedge which won't grow, produce any new growth,food for insects or birds or cover for cover for them.

Some trees will regrow after cutting right back (coppicing and Pollarding) but this is different from the hedgerow species ,most of which would die off.

The blog you posted is just that a pro EU blog, no disrespect intended.

There were thousands of miles of Ancient headgrows (

Again, incorrect. The decision to make peas and beans qualify for 'wildlife' grants was a UK Government one. (DEFRA)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27764658

Fair comment , but I would mention Quote: "But during negotiations, farmers in Europe watered down the policy so planting crops that improve soil may be counted as helping wildlife".

This together with my previous post which said "The EU were paid off by the landowners lobbysts.............again". Was pretty much spot on correct. I just missed out the British farming lobby.

Done now

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems Merkel has now warned us she would rather see us leave than compromise.

There will be no renegotiation. We are either in, or we know where the door is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392

Which is exactly NOT what Merkel said Graham. As you well know.

The EU is predicated on free movement. It is the one inalienable thing the bloc is based on. It would be fundamentally absurd for a member country to disallow free movement and be part of a union which is all meant to have the same currency.

Accommodation has been made for the UK and Switzerland to pick and choose which bits they want, but not free movement.

Switzerland just elected a racist right wing government, abolished free movement and has been kicked out of the Erasmus programme.

What on earth is Merkel meant to say? Every other leader would say the same thing.

I am thoroughly beginning to dislike David Cameron and his stupid faux indignation over these issues. He's like a man walking into oddbins with an oddbins loyalty card and feigning indignation because they won't let him start opening bottles before he's paid for anything.

He knows what the terms of his loyalty card are, he read them when he voluntarily signed up, and in fact even wrote some of them.