Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Lawrence
    'Should we withdraw from Europe?' poll discussion
    • #1
    • 8th Jun 09, 10:26 AM
    'Should we withdraw from Europe?' poll discussion 8th Jun 09 at 10:26 AM
    Poll between 8-15 June 2009.

    Should we withdraw from Europe?

    From regulations to unlocking trade barriers the European Union (EU) plays a huge part in our economic life. We’ve just had Euro elections and the eurosceptic parties did well, but let's purify the question.

    Which of these is closest to your view on Europe?

    A. Full integration. A United States of Europe. - 6% (737 votes)
    B. More Integration. E.g. Join the Euro & have unified foreign policy. - 13% (1545 votes)
    C. Status Quo. Keep things as they are now. - 12% (1357 votes)
    D. Less Integration. E.g. Keep open trade but that’s it. - 38% (4405 votes)
    E. Withdraw. UK to leave the EU. - 30% (3470 votes)

    Total votes: 11514

    Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

    This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email

    Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers

    Last edited by Former MSE Lawrence; 15-06-2009 at 2:11 PM.
Page 4
    • bo drinker
    • By bo drinker 14th Jun 09, 7:20 PM
    • 3,780 Posts
    • 4,446 Thanks
    bo drinker
    Always thought the idea of letting in small poor countries was cheap labour. Keeps our trade unions in line.
    I know a landlord who is on a list for the supply of inexpensive tradesmen, and is complaining that so many have gone back to their own country, so is having to wait.
    Originally posted by Ken68
    They have had what they came for sent most of the earnings home thus not contributing to our economy, it's been take take take and now the icing has gone off the cake:confused:
    I came in to this world with nothing and I've still got most of it left. :rolleyes:
    • orcadian
    • By orcadian 14th Jun 09, 10:09 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    orcadian
    The poll shows a fairly even split - 40% want to stay in but have less integration; 30% want to withdraw; and 30% want the status quo or more integration - but a clear majority still believe we should be in the EU. Until the EU gets better at explaining the cost savings for business of common trading standards covering a market of half a billion people, it's understandable we the public remain baffled by it.
    • europa
    • By europa 14th Jun 09, 10:58 PM
    • 76 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    europa
    as the second wealthiest nation in the EU and the fourth in the world, we can do it.
    Originally posted by YANA
    Please provide supporting evidence for these figures.
  • worbikeman
    It's a big lie about the EU making business easier - I tried to post a 7kg package to Rep Ireland, Parcelforce wanted 61!! But to a nearby address in N. Ireland, 20 miles away, the same package was 15! The reason? Because S. Ireland is 'abroad'. So much for breaking down boundaries.
    • ScarletBea
    • By ScarletBea 15th Jun 09, 11:40 AM
    • 2,788 Posts
    • 4,163 Thanks
    ScarletBea
    We can still trade with the EU but still retain our laws and borders
    Switzerland and others do well on it.
    Originally posted by AlanR55
    Ok, you'd trade with the EU, but always be second choice from an EU member state.
    And everything would be far more expensive (have you seen the prices in Switzerland?).

    And most of the UK laws do not come from the EU. That's the idea spread by those in power to justify their moronic inventions (like bin sizes, fortnightly garbage collection, post rates and such like...)
    Being brave is going after your dreams head on
  • chris_yo
    I'd like to see an honest and open debate about the European Union. However, it seems the "out of EU" crowd are more prone to using arguments that are based on nationalist sentiments of fear and misunderstanding rather than rationality and logic. Just from reading this topic there are some common themes jumping up:

    • "The E.U. makes our laws." WRONG. There are two types of E.U. legislative acts - "regulations" and "directives". Both are produced by participating countries. Regulations are legally binding in member states. Directives are not - they specify broad aims, but must be implemented in national law. Almost all of the "EU laws" that people talk about are actually directives - ie. suggestions and overall aims, but not actually law!
    • "The Human Rights Act was invented and forced on us by the E.U." WRONG. The Human Rights Act IS British! It is an act of Parliament that went through the same passage of debate by British M.P.s in the House of Commons as any other law. The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Act is based on, was written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British Conservative Party politician! And his whole point was to encourage traditional British civil liberties and freedom in the European Union, not the other way around!
    • "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
    • "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
    • "Other countries can just ignore E.U. rules that they don't like." NOT TRUE. For example, the European court has repeatedly ruled against national governments for giving state aid to private companies. France, Germany and Italy have all lost high profiles cases where they've given state aid to their own companies, thus preventing fair competition.
    • "If we were outside the E.U. British people could still travel freely throughout Europe." POSSIBLY NOT TRUE. I have colleagues born outside the E.U. who have visas to work and reside in the U.K. Even with this they have no right to travel anywhere else in the E.U.. Getting visas to travel to France, Germany etc. is a real pain for them - they have to provide photocopies of advance bookings for every hotel they plan to stay on every night. There is no way for them to be spontaneous and just arrive in a city looking for accommodation. Even visiting friends is hard - they need signed letters stating that their friend will provide accommodation. Doing something like a backpacking hostel holiday is impossible for them. It's crazy.
    • "The E.U. is forcing us to scrap the British lightbulb - which works perfectly well - and embrace a bulb that contains toxic mercury". PARTIALLY NOT TRUE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. Firstly, what we know today as the "light bulb" was invented at Thomas Edison's (an American) research labs in Menlo Park, California. There were previous designs, but today's design is a direct copy of Edison's. Secondly, yes CFL bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, but it is not a toxic amount - if you break a bulb you can just brush or vacuum the bits up and you'll be fine. Thermometers also contain mercury - am I scared of thermometers? No. Thirdly, 20% or so of the electric generated in Britain is used in lighting - switching to lower power bulbs will benefit us, reducing costs. Fourthly, CFL bulbs consume only 20% the energy of traditional bulbs, meaning that we generate less electricity, and need fewer power stations. Power stations are generally big dirty buildings that pump out pollution 24 hours a day. Replacing old bulbs with CFL bulbs will produce a huge net benefit to the UK. Yes, it's a European regulation, but in this case, its one which directly benefits our country. And the E.U. isn't alone here - Australia, Canada and the U.S. have all announced plans to phase out old style bulbs. It just makes economic sense.
    • Most of the "anti EU" crowd are the most vocal proponents of a United Kingdom including Scotland. I would like to see a rational argument as to why the U.K. should leave a larger political union, whilst at the same time English politicians scoff at the idea of Scotland leaving the U.K. Don't all the same arguments about large government and unaccountability apply here? And the same arguments about another country making your laws? And deciding your economic policy? And even corruption - note that it's only the Westminster parliament where MPs have been claiming dodgy expenses?
    • "The EU is forcing ID cards on us". FALSE. The ID card scheme is British and is being promoted by the Labour party, which is also British. And the whole "foreigners should have to carry ID cards" thing is rubbish - how on earth can you tell the difference between a foreigner and a resident of the U.K.? If the police stop someone who doesn't have a card, that person can simply say "well, that's cos I'm a British resident!" A system in which only one group of people have to carry ID blatantly will not work, because any body can just claim to be part of the group that doesn't have to carry ID! And do you really want to get in to forcing tourists to carry ID cards? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.
    • Let's see an honest debate, and not one where people repeat simplified points that appeal to some sense of nationalism rather than fact.
    Last edited by chris_yo; 15-06-2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason: forgot ID cards...
    • europa
    • By europa 16th Jun 09, 9:58 PM
    • 76 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    europa
    I'd like to see an honest and open debate about the European Union. However, it seems the "out of EU" crowd are more prone to using arguments that are based on nationalist sentiments of fear and misunderstanding rather than rationality and logic. Just from reading this topic there are some common themes jumping up:

    • "The E.U. makes our laws." WRONG. There are two types of E.U. legislative acts - "regulations" and "directives". Both are produced by participating countries. Regulations are legally binding in member states. Directives are not - they specify broad aims, but must be implemented in national law. Almost all of the "EU laws" that people talk about are actually directives - ie. suggestions and overall aims, but not actually law!
    • "The Human Rights Act was invented and forced on us by the E.U." WRONG. The Human Rights Act IS British! It is an act of Parliament that went through the same passage of debate by British M.P.s in the House of Commons as any other law. The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Act is based on, was written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British Conservative Party politician! And his whole point was to encourage traditional British civil liberties and freedom in the European Union, not the other way around!
    • "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
    • "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
    • "Other countries can just ignore E.U. rules that they don't like." NOT TRUE. For example, the European court has repeatedly ruled against national governments for giving state aid to private companies. France, Germany and Italy have all lost high profiles cases where they've given state aid to their own companies, thus preventing fair competition.
    • "If we were outside the E.U. British people could still travel freely throughout Europe." POSSIBLY NOT TRUE. I have colleagues born outside the E.U. who have visas to work and reside in the U.K. Even with this they have no right to travel anywhere else in the E.U.. Getting visas to travel to France, Germany etc. is a real pain for them - they have to provide photocopies of advance bookings for every hotel they plan to stay on every night. There is no way for them to be spontaneous and just arrive in a city looking for accommodation. Even visiting friends is hard - they need signed letters stating that their friend will provide accommodation. Doing something like a backpacking hostel holiday is impossible for them. It's crazy.
    • "The E.U. is forcing us to scrap the British lightbulb - which works perfectly well - and embrace a bulb that contains toxic mercury". PARTIALLY NOT TRUE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. Firstly, what we know today as the "light bulb" was invented at Thomas Edison's (an American) research labs in Menlo Park, California. There were previous designs, but today's design is a direct copy of Edison's. Secondly, yes CFL bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, but it is not a toxic amount - if you break a bulb you can just brush or vacuum the bits up and you'll be fine. Thermometers also contain mercury - am I scared of thermometers? No. Thirdly, 20% or so of the electric generated in Britain is used in lighting - switching to lower power bulbs will benefit us, reducing costs. Fourthly, CFL bulbs consume only 20% the energy of traditional bulbs, meaning that we generate less electricity, and need fewer power stations. Power stations are generally big dirty buildings that pump out pollution 24 hours a day. Replacing old bulbs with CFL bulbs will produce a huge net benefit to the UK. Yes, it's a European regulation, but in this case, its one which directly benefits our country. And the E.U. isn't alone here - Australia, Canada and the U.S. have all announced plans to phase out old style bulbs. It just makes economic sense.
    • Most of the "anti EU" crowd are the most vocal proponents of a United Kingdom including Scotland. I would like to see a rational argument as to why the U.K. should leave a larger political union, whilst at the same time English politicians scoff at the idea of Scotland leaving the U.K. Don't all the same arguments about large government and unaccountability apply here? And the same arguments about another country making your laws? And deciding your economic policy? And even corruption - note that it's only the Westminster parliament where MPs have been claiming dodgy expenses?
    • "The EU is forcing ID cards on us". FALSE. The ID card scheme is British and is being promoted by the Labour party, which is also British. And the whole "foreigners should have to carry ID cards" thing is rubbish - how on earth can you tell the difference between a foreigner and a resident of the U.K.? If the police stop someone who doesn't have a card, that person can simply say "well, that's cos I'm a British resident!" A system in which only one group of people have to carry ID blatantly will not work, because any body can just claim to be part of the group that doesn't have to carry ID! And do you really want to get in to forcing tourists to carry ID cards? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.
    • Let's see an honest debate, and not one where people repeat simplified points that appeal to some sense of nationalism rather than fact.
    Originally posted by chris_yo
    FINALLY, someone who demonstrates an educated understanding of the situation in which the UK finds itself. And, low and behold, it is not a eurospectic. Oh, what a surprise!
    • Ken68
    • By Ken68 17th Jun 09, 7:28 AM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 4,141 Thanks
    Ken68
    Good one Chris Yo, welcome to the forums.
    Additionally the history of Europe is the history of WAR.
    Bonding together in trade and social agreements can only do good.
  • Sammm
    EU Integration
    I haven't posted before, but felt I needed to do this time.

    I'm really surprised at the number of people who feel that the UK's membership to the EU is wholey negative.

    I'm 30 but went to uni at the age of 27 & prior to that was pretty much against the EU, & thought we should be more independent but uni & what its taught me has been a real eye opener.

    I still don't know enough to rattle on all night about the pros of EU membership but I just did want to say that I feel in today's globolised world the EU is a real positive force against the powers of the US, Russia, China etc. The EU combined has a GDP greater than the US & a combined military force to rival China, I know I would rather live in a country which was part of the EU.


    More basically, regarding money, please don't forget that the recession started in the US & has affected the UK much harder as result combared with our EU counterparts due to the Anglo-saxon capitalist economy we lead. We're encouraged to spend spend spend, to get significantly in debt to power our economy, only to suffer when big business decided to cut back, forcing us to work longer hours to manage. A more cooperative system like the EU, I feel would benefit us long term.

    There is more that could be said & I feel it won't be popular but I can say that not all British people are against the EU!
    • SomethingWitty
    • By SomethingWitty 17th Jun 09, 4:52 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 84 Thanks
    SomethingWitty
    I'd like to see an honest and open debate about the European Union. However, it seems the "out of EU" crowd are more prone to using arguments that are based on nationalist sentiments of fear and misunderstanding rather than rationality and logic. Just from reading this topic there are some common themes jumping up:

    • "The E.U. makes our laws." WRONG. There are two types of E.U. legislative acts - "regulations" and "directives". Both are produced by participating countries. Regulations are legally binding in member states. Directives are not - they specify broad aims, but must be implemented in national law. Almost all of the "EU laws" that people talk about are actually directives - ie. suggestions and overall aims, but not actually law!
    • "The Human Rights Act was invented and forced on us by the E.U." WRONG. The Human Rights Act IS British! It is an act of Parliament that went through the same passage of debate by British M.P.s in the House of Commons as any other law. The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Act is based on, was written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British Conservative Party politician! And his whole point was to encourage traditional British civil liberties and freedom in the European Union, not the other way around!
    • "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
    • "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
    • "Other countries can just ignore E.U. rules that they don't like." NOT TRUE. For example, the European court has repeatedly ruled against national governments for giving state aid to private companies. France, Germany and Italy have all lost high profiles cases where they've given state aid to their own companies, thus preventing fair competition.
    • "If we were outside the E.U. British people could still travel freely throughout Europe." POSSIBLY NOT TRUE. I have colleagues born outside the E.U. who have visas to work and reside in the U.K. Even with this they have no right to travel anywhere else in the E.U.. Getting visas to travel to France, Germany etc. is a real pain for them - they have to provide photocopies of advance bookings for every hotel they plan to stay on every night. There is no way for them to be spontaneous and just arrive in a city looking for accommodation. Even visiting friends is hard - they need signed letters stating that their friend will provide accommodation. Doing something like a backpacking hostel holiday is impossible for them. It's crazy.
    • "The E.U. is forcing us to scrap the British lightbulb - which works perfectly well - and embrace a bulb that contains toxic mercury". PARTIALLY NOT TRUE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. Firstly, what we know today as the "light bulb" was invented at Thomas Edison's (an American) research labs in Menlo Park, California. There were previous designs, but today's design is a direct copy of Edison's. Secondly, yes CFL bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, but it is not a toxic amount - if you break a bulb you can just brush or vacuum the bits up and you'll be fine. Thermometers also contain mercury - am I scared of thermometers? No. Thirdly, 20% or so of the electric generated in Britain is used in lighting - switching to lower power bulbs will benefit us, reducing costs. Fourthly, CFL bulbs consume only 20% the energy of traditional bulbs, meaning that we generate less electricity, and need fewer power stations. Power stations are generally big dirty buildings that pump out pollution 24 hours a day. Replacing old bulbs with CFL bulbs will produce a huge net benefit to the UK. Yes, it's a European regulation, but in this case, its one which directly benefits our country. And the E.U. isn't alone here - Australia, Canada and the U.S. have all announced plans to phase out old style bulbs. It just makes economic sense.
    • Most of the "anti EU" crowd are the most vocal proponents of a United Kingdom including Scotland. I would like to see a rational argument as to why the U.K. should leave a larger political union, whilst at the same time English politicians scoff at the idea of Scotland leaving the U.K. Don't all the same arguments about large government and unaccountability apply here? And the same arguments about another country making your laws? And deciding your economic policy? And even corruption - note that it's only the Westminster parliament where MPs have been claiming dodgy expenses?
    • "The EU is forcing ID cards on us". FALSE. The ID card scheme is British and is being promoted by the Labour party, which is also British. And the whole "foreigners should have to carry ID cards" thing is rubbish - how on earth can you tell the difference between a foreigner and a resident of the U.K.? If the police stop someone who doesn't have a card, that person can simply say "well, that's cos I'm a British resident!" A system in which only one group of people have to carry ID blatantly will not work, because any body can just claim to be part of the group that doesn't have to carry ID! And do you really want to get in to forcing tourists to carry ID cards? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.
    • Let's see an honest debate, and not one where people repeat simplified points that appeal to some sense of nationalism rather than fact.
    Originally posted by chris_yo
    I wanted to get on here and rattle off a load of points in favour of the EU but you've just done a better job than I ever could. Thankyou for your reasoned opinion in shutting the naysayers well and truly up!

    I should add though, I am uncomfortable with an EU that moves toward a more "neoliberal" economic model as espoused in bits of the Lisbon Treaty (which I initially supported). Nonetheless we have to back the European project- a lot of good social and environmental regulation has arisen from EU directives.
    • thanmuwa
    • By thanmuwa 18th Jun 09, 1:03 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    thanmuwa
    Good Post Chris! just to add a bit....
    • "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
    Originally posted by chris_yo
    And Switzerland and Norway are two extremely expensive countries to live in, despite all their natural advantages. That could happen here too!
    • "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
    Originally posted by chris_yo
    To give an example from the medical industry, any drugs company in the world goes for both FDA and European approval for their drugs, because those are your two main markets. The UK has absolutely NO say in FDA regulations, but a major voice in the EU regulations. Outside the EU, the UK would still have to abide by the regulations, but with zero voice in their make-up. Same with selling any medical equipment to the EU (it needs to be CE marked and currently the UK has a huge say in what the CE marking rules are by virtue of being in the EU).

    They have had what they came for sent most of the earnings home thus not contributing to our economy, it's been take take take and now the icing has gone off the cake:confused:
    Originally posted by bo drinker
    By doing the work (which in most cases, the employer couldn't find a British person willing to do, after all, why do manual labour when you could just get the dole!) they have contributed to the economy because all that work generated tax revenue, whether it was in VAT on supplies, the food that was eaten, etc etc. You want them to also have to leave all their (hard-earned) money behind when they go? Why would anyone work if they weren't allowed to do what they wanted with the money? Most of the migrant workers took jobs that few other people were willing to do, for very low pay, and their British bosses benefitted (profitted) hugely. I would say that is a case of give-give-give rather than take-take-take, wouldn't you?

    But working abroad for money is fine when a British person does it? I bet most people know someone who is or was out in Saudi for a few years doing exactly the same thing! Ever tell them off for sending "most of the earnings home thus not contributing to (the local) economy"? Thought not.

    It's a big lie about the EU making business easier - I tried to post a 7kg package to Rep Ireland, Parcelforce wanted 61!! But to a nearby address in N. Ireland, 20 miles away, the same package was 15! The reason? Because S. Ireland is 'abroad'. So much for breaking down boundaries.
    Originally posted by worbikeman
    Ireland is abroad from the UK (and very happily so). And Parcelforce's profiteering (or subsidising UK deliveries from another point of view) is hardly down to the EU. In fact, when inequities like that come to the EU's notice, they usually tell the companies to cap prices (look at the recent changes in roaming charges for mobile phones for example)....
  • YANA
    I to enjoyed chris_yo's post and much of what he/she says is a literal, if at times twisted truth. However, non of his/her points are all that relevant, for instead of looking to the past, we must look forward and deal with the situation we find ourselves in now.
    Chris helpfully destroys the argument for increased union by pointing out that we and other countries have to comply with EU regulations to trade, whether in or out of the behemoth. Yes, OK that's fine, but we would only have to comply with our regulations if dealing nationally. Since most small business is on a national level this would be a major benefit to many and a loss to non.
    I am sick to death of having to lobby our MEP about "this" proposal and "that" regulation just to carry on doing what we do. For instance, why the hell ban a colour paint if the primer and lacquer are made of the same material, especially when less colour is used than the primer anyway. This and many similar instances, force many businesses to break the law or spend money that isn't available just to continue. A battle that has gone on for years thanks to the EU.
    So much of our legislative time is spent on circumnavigating many of these ludicrous regulations and directives it boarders on disbelief.
    For those of us struggling in the real world, you can see the cost and damage that many of these EC directives are doing on a daily basis. There are thousands of small regulations that have to be met whether producing food stuffs, an engine or a button or a...
    I am all for the Common Market - Making trade easier and cheaper is a big must, but the EU, as it has become (without the peoples consent), does the opposite.
    Sadly it is becoming nothing more than a gravy train and an ego boost for those in power, the MEPs and the lawyers of the member states.
    Finally, with my mind whirring of the inequities of EU life and after reading about the potential loss of free prescriptions in wales, it occurred to me that eighteen days of our EU tax/subscription would buy free prescriptions for all of Great Britain for a year.
  • Wollop
    IMAGINE BUYING YOUR OWN HOUSE IN A NICE LITTLE QUIET CUL-DE -SAC, YOU BOUGHT IT FREEHOLD SO IT IS YOURS AND YOU HAVE NO MORTGAGE. ONE DAY YOUR NEIGHBOURS COMES ROUND AND SAY "WE ARE GOING TO LET YOU PAY US A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND FOR THAT YOU MAY RUN AROUND OUR GARDENS AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW OUR RULES - WE WILL ALSO BE ALLOWED TO RUN AROUND YOUR GARDEN FOLLOWING OUR RULES! WE WILL ALSO DICTATE TO YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO IN YOUR HOME - ANY OUTSIDERS THAT SNEEK IN WE WILL SHIP UP TO YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE YOUR IN THE CORNER OUT THE WAY........need I continue? would you agree to any of this????? - But some completely idiotic people think full intergration or increased intergration with europe would be a good thing!!!! How ridiculous!! Why can't the neighbours just be friends??? Ever heard the expression 'dont put all your eggs in one basket'.
    • Ken68
    • By Ken68 23rd Jun 09, 4:08 AM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 4,141 Thanks
    Ken68
    I don't see it, Wollop, as US and THEM.
    More of a club where we agree to agree on lots of things big and small.
    Like no war and a clean environment.
    Mind you, touch my British sausage at your peril, even if it is all grizzle, ground up bone and no meat
    Last edited by Ken68; 23-06-2009 at 4:19 AM.
  • YANA
    Mind you, touch my British sausage at your peril, even if it is all grizzle, ground up bone and no meat
    Originally posted by Ken68
    I don't want to go anywhere near your sausage...
    • Ken68
    • By Ken68 24th Jun 09, 10:07 AM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 4,141 Thanks
    Ken68
    Sorry to lower the tone of the conversation, Lawrence.
    Will someone explain to me the groupings within the EU. For example the Tories have recently joined/started a new group to de-stabilise the federal element. Seems to me that a strong response to outside events is the whole point. Anything else is Little Englander to be picked off whenever.
    • Ken68
    • By Ken68 25th Jun 09, 5:59 AM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 4,141 Thanks
    Ken68
    This is worth a read

    http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/CIT3.htm
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

112Posts Today

1,596Users online

Martin's Twitter