Is Brexit stuffed?

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2017-12-17 10:15 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-12-17 9:29 AM

 

Oh dear.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html

 

Brexit: Britons now back Remain over Leave by 10 points, exclusive poll shows

 

Interestingly what it also shows is that those that did not vote the first time round are hugely in favour of remaining by four to one. If its correct it settles the argument of just which way those abstainers would have voted and tells us that in fact it simply is not the will of the majority to leave the EU.

 

Ok so its just one poll I hear you Brexiteers say but its a long way to the finish line and if I were a betting man I would bet on that gap widening in favour of remain. We shall see.

 

Well if you do manage to scuttle BREXIT then I'm going to vote for Corbyn 8-) ..........

 

I intend to spend very little time in the UK for the foreseeable future, so I reckon a few years with Corbyn at the helm will be suitable revenge, especially when viewed from afar with a vino tinto in my hand >:-) ...........

 

 

Yes but Dave at least if we do manage to scuttle Brexit at least you wont be an illegal immigrant when your out in Spain all winter so we are doing you a favour. Anyway if it does turn out there is a massive shift to remain in the EU wouldnt that be simply following the democratic will of the people? Surely you wouldnt be against that after all its been the Brexiteer mantra. Just sayin. :D

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-17 10:21 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-17 10:15 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-12-17 9:29 AM

 

Oh dear.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html

 

Brexit: Britons now back Remain over Leave by 10 points, exclusive poll shows

 

Interestingly what it also shows is that those that did not vote the first time round are hugely in favour of remaining by four to one. If its correct it settles the argument of just which way those abstainers would have voted and tells us that in fact it simply is not the will of the majority to leave the EU.

 

Ok so its just one poll I hear you Brexiteers say but its a long way to the finish line and if I were a betting man I would bet on that gap widening in favour of remain. We shall see.

 

Well if you do manage to scuttle BREXIT then I'm going to vote for Corbyn 8-) ..........

 

I intend to spend very little time in the UK for the foreseeable future, so I reckon a few years with Corbyn at the helm will be suitable revenge, especially when viewed from afar with a vino tinto in my hand >:-) ...........

 

 

Yes but Dave at least if we do manage to scuttle Brexit at least you wont be an illegal immigrant when your out in Spain all winter so we are doing you a favour. Anyway if it does turn out there is a massive shift to remain in the EU wouldnt that be simply following the democratic will of the people? Surely you wouldnt be against that after all its been the Brexiteer mantra. Just sayin. :D

 

Not that old piece of hogwash again *-) ........

 

Dontcha know I used come to Spain before we joined the EU ;-) .......

 

BTW do you know who the biggest buyers of property are around here after the Brits?........The Russians.......and guess where the biggest group of migrants come from?.......Morocco.......Now remind me, are they part of the EU????? >:-) ........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-12-16 10:17 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-16 7:32 PM 2 - 3 That is what you see. It is not what I see. We have to agree to disagree.

1 As the issues and situations I included there (2&3 above) are mostly all directly sourced from EU documents, memorandum etc, especially this one: Entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties”.  You say "it is not what you see" so I can only conclude that this article, from Radio Poland 27 June 2016, is something you 'do not see'  either: The foreign ministers of France and Germany have proposed creating a “European superstate” limiting the powers of individual members following Britain’s referendum decision to leave the EU, Polish public broadcaster TVP Info has reported.

 

2 The document in which the proposals appear is to be presented to Visegrad Group countries meeting in Prague on Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, TVP Info said, adding that the document was an "ultimatum". TVP Info said the proposals would mean members of a superstate would in practice have no right to their own army, to a separate criminal code or a separate tax system, and would not have their own currency. In addition, TVP Info said, member states would lose control over their own borders and procedures for admitting and relocating refugees. The source 'is' an EU document.  How much more credibility does a source need to have before you can 'see it'? Seeing as you have unequivocally stated you do not 'see' that which comes from the 'horses mouth' I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides.

 

3 You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction.  The problem, as anyone who has an interest in these things will confirm, is that, to update an old hackneyed phrase, "If Mark Carney sneezes....the City catches a cold".   In other words he above all should have been more guarded and circumspect in his pronouncements. I agree the UK has it's self inflicted problems.  However having to deal with the EU diktats as well most certainly adds to the workload of sorting it all out.

 

4 Lastly, and I can not for the life of me understand why it is so difficult to grasp.....It costs the UK approximately £9 billion per year to be a member, £9billion I would rather see our leadership waste instead of letting the EU waste it for us.  For over 20 years the auditors have refused to give the accounts a clean bill of health.  In 2015 alone the amount termed 'error rate' by the auditors reached in excess of £6.4 billion Euro.  Now as you like percentages that is approximately 4.4% of the total budget so I suspect you will consider it to be 'small' in the scheme of things and move on.  As for me, it is simply another reason to get out of the 'club'. 

1 & 2 No, I had not seen that document, mainly I guess because I don't trawl the internet for the output of Polish news organisations! TVP Info seem a somewhat politically biased news organisation, about which Wikipedia says: "Just weeks after winning the 2015 parliamentary elections, the conservative Law and Justice party passed a media law in December 2015 giving the government direct control over public broadcasting. TVP Info is criticized for strong pro-government bias." So, maybe not the least biased source to quote? However, the same paper is openly available from the French diplomatic service website, here: http://tinyurl.com/y7pwmn7j I note that it is neither presented as an EU document, nor is it hidden. It was written in reaction to the UK decision to leave the EU. Much of it concerns the obvious practical and technical shortcomings of the Euro and Schengen, neither of which the UK is in, and European security more generally, including the shortcomings of FRONTEX as a border control authority. It also devotes some time to the ideas, not new, of military integration, about which TVP Info gets (IMO) over-excited, drawing conclusion that go way beyond what the paper proposes. These ideas have been in circulation for a number of years, and do not meet with widespread political support. So, a bit of a curate's egg, much of which, IMO, is good.

 

However, despite being written by two Franco German political heavyweights (Steinmeyer is now German President), it does not represent the settled view of the EU 27. My view is that TVP Info, being under the control of the Polish Law and Justice party, has one off on a bit of a populist right wing excursion, to frighten populist right wing supportes away from greater integration, about which the party is sceptical. Fair enough, but not indicative of the future policy of the EU. A bit of Polish project fear? :-) Shame about the usual personal attack though, especially from someone claiming to have been offended by my use of the phrase "rose tinted specs" - without any personal inference.

 

3 Yet more of the ad hominem! Beyond which, whatever the source (and there were a lot at the time), these were forecasts. It is a mistake to treat a forecast as an infallible prediction of the future, as it seems you seem to want it to be. Future gazing can only be only indicative: it is a policy guidance tool, based on past patterns of change. Think weather forecasts, and their notorious unreliability. So, should Carney have found a different forecast to bolster Brexit, used the one he had, or suppressed it and risked being accused of bias and manipulation? Besides all of which, the point was whether the BoE and others forecast "doom", or merely that Brexit wasn't, based on their economic analysis, the best idea on offer. It think they did the latter, and were misrepresented as having forecast doom by a media that was trying - for political impact - to simplify what lay in the detail.

 

4 Yes I understand that. Please don't confuse disagreement with an inability to understand. I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. Our contribution to the EU is not the highest, and is intended to fund beneficial investment (in infrastructure etc.) in the other, less well developed, weaker, economies, with a view to boosting them toward economic convergence, from which we all, in future, benefit through increased trade. In short, it is intended ultimately to benefit our own economy. One is either in favour of long term investments, or one is not. I gather that you are not. I think that has been clear for a long time. Again, we must agree to disagree.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-12-17 10:15 AM..........................Well if you do manage to scuttle BREXIT then I'm going to vote for Corbyn 8-) ..........

 

I intend to spend very little time in the UK for the foreseeable future, so I reckon a few years with Corbyn at the helm will be suitable revenge, especially when viewed from afar with a vino tinto in my hand >:-) ...........

Well, don't forget where you money comes from, and where it is invested. Seems a bit of a short sighted risk to me, to set out to sabotage the economy that supports you, as a way of getting back at those who support remain. The thing is, would we care that much about what happened to one ex-matelot who could no longer afford his vino tinto, having singlehandedly set out to dump us in the poo? :-D

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-17 12:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-16 10:17 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-16 7:32 PM 2 - 3 That is what you see. It is not what I see. We have to agree to disagree.

1 As the issues and situations I included there (2&3 above) are mostly all directly sourced from EU documents, memorandum etc, especially this one: Entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties”.  You say "it is not what you see" so I can only conclude that this article, from Radio Poland 27 June 2016, is something you 'do not see'  either: The foreign ministers of France and Germany have proposed creating a “European superstate” limiting the powers of individual members following Britain’s referendum decision to leave the EU, Polish public broadcaster TVP Info has reported. 2 The document in which the proposals appear is to be presented to Visegrad Group countries meeting in Prague on Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, TVP Info said, adding that the document was an "ultimatum". TVP Info said the proposals would mean members of a superstate would in practice have no right to their own army, to a separate criminal code or a separate tax system, and would not have their own currency. In addition, TVP Info said, member states would lose control over their own borders and procedures for admitting and relocating refugees. The source 'is' an EU document.  How much more credibility does a source need to have before you can 'see it'? Seeing as you have unequivocally stated you do not 'see' that which comes from the 'horses mouth' I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides. 3 You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction.  The problem, as anyone who has an interest in these things will confirm, is that, to update an old hackneyed phrase, "If Mark Carney sneezes....the City catches a cold".   In other words he above all should have been more guarded and circumspect in his pronouncements. I agree the UK has it's self inflicted problems.  However having to deal with the EU diktats as well most certainly adds to the workload of sorting it all out.4 Lastly, and I can not for the life of me understand why it is so difficult to grasp.....It costs the UK approximately £9 billion per year to be a member, £9billion I would rather see our leadership waste instead of letting the EU waste it for us.  For over 20 years the auditors have refused to give the accounts a clean bill of health.  In 2015 alone the amount termed 'error rate' by the auditors reached in excess of £6.4 billion Euro.  Now as you like percentages that is approximately 4.4% of the total budget so I suspect you will consider it to be 'small' in the scheme of things and move on.  As for me, it is simply another reason to get out of the 'club'. 

1 & 2 No, I had not seen that document, mainly I guess because I don't trawl the internet for the output of Polish news organisations! TVP Info seem a somewhat politically biased news organisation, about which Wikipedia says: "Just weeks after winning the 2015 parliamentary elections, the conservative Law and Justice party passed a media law in December 2015 giving the government direct control over public broadcasting. TVP Info is criticized for strong pro-government bias." So, maybe not the least biased source to quote? However, the same paper is openly available from the French diplomatic service website, here: http://tinyurl.com/y7pwmn7j I note that it is neither presented as an EU document, nor is it hidden. It was written in reaction to the UK decision to leave the EU. Much of it concerns the obvious practical and technical shortcomings of the Euro and Schengen, neither of which the UK is in, and European security more generally, including the shortcomings of FRONTEX as a border control authority. It also devotes some time to the ideas, not new, of military integration, about which TVP Info gets (IMO) over-excited, drawing conclusion that go way beyond what the paper proposes. These ideas have been in circulation for a number of years, and do not meet with widespread political support. So, a bit of a curate's egg, much of which, IMO, is good.However, despite being written by two Franco German political heavyweights (Steinmeyer is now German President), it does not represent the settled view of the EU 27. My view is that TVP Info, being under the control of the Polish Law and Justice party, has one off on a bit of a populist right wing excursion, to frighten populist right wing supportes away from greater integration, about which the party is sceptical. Fair enough, but not indicative of the future policy of the EU. A bit of Polish project fear? :-) Shame about the usual personal attack though, especially from someone claiming to have been offended by my use of the phrase "rose tinted specs" - without any personal inference.3 Yet more of the ad hominem! Beyond which, whatever the source (and there were a lot at the time), these were forecasts. It is a mistake to treat a forecast as an infallible prediction of the future, as it seems you seem to want it to be. Future gazing can only be only indicative: it is a policy guidance tool, based on past patterns of change. Think weather forecasts, and their notorious unreliability. So, should Carney have found a different forecast to bolster Brexit, used the one he had, or suppressed it and risked being accused of bias and manipulation? Besides all of which, the point was whether the BoE and others forecast "doom", or merely that Brexit wasn't, based on their economic analysis, the best idea on offer. It think they did the latter, and were misrepresented as having forecast doom by a media that was trying - for political impact - to simplify what lay in the detail.4 Yes I understand that. Please don't confuse disagreement with an inability to understand. I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. Our contribution to the EU is not the highest, and is intended to fund beneficial investment (in infrastructure etc.) in the other, less well developed, weaker, economies, with a view to boosting them toward economic convergence, from which we all, in future, benefit through increased trade. In short, it is intended ultimately to benefit our own economy. One is either in favour of long term investments, or one is not. I gather that you are not. I think that has been clear for a long time. Again, we must agree to disagree.

1
The source of the document is the document itself.  Irrespective of who makes it's existence known it is there, it is fact.  Actually I didn't trawl for Polish news I simply looked for EU expansion plans and that was one source that 'popped up'.  I am sure there are a great many other sources that carry the same details regarding the document so your further 'insight' into TVP is rather irrelevant.

2
No personal attack intended Brian....simply a repeat of your own admission that you 'do not see' in reference to that which is fact.

3
Ad hominem?  No.  Once again factual comment.  From your posts of the past, and of late, berating the Government for not, as you champion, having done sufficient work on projecting and forecasting the effects of Brexit.

4
Using our £9billion, and growing contribution to other member states to enable them to grow?  I accept some of the 'pot' does go to good causes and is used wisely.  However  the following is a microscopic example of fiscal impropriety and represents the mindset of those charged with administering 'our' money:

The source is The Guardian 22 Nov 2012:

In the otherwise ugly EU quarter in Brussels, something of a building boom is going on. There's the €300m (£241m)-plus being spent to convert an art deco pile into a palace fit for a European president. In a nearby park another €100m makeover is creating the European parliament's version of the continent's postwar history. That's after the parliament splashed out another €20m just down the street to create a multimedia tribute to itself last year, the Parliamentarium visitors' centre.
Austerity Europe? Not at the European Union's Brussels HQ. While budgets, public spending, and civil service staffing levels are being slashed from Portugal to Poland, Greece to Great Britain, to be one of the 56,000 EU eurocrats is to escape most of the pain felt in almost every country in the union.
Officially, they work a 37½-hour week and some parliamentary staff are entitled to take Friday afternoons off, though many complain those conditions are theoretical and they in fact work inordinately long hours. Their children are educated for free at high-quality private schools – a big new one has just opened near the Belgian monarchy's summer residence in a leafier part of Brussels. They retire at 63 on generous pensions and dozens a year are granted early retirement on full pensions. According to UK government calculations, 214 of the most senior eurocrats get paid more than David Cameron's £178,000 a year. Staff not living in their native country – almost all – receive a 16% top-up on their salary for being expatriates.
Despite their insulation inside the Brussels bubble from the economic storm battering Europe, the eurocrats are revolting. There was a small strike a couple of weeks ago and several hundred staff staged a lunchtime protest outside the European commission on Wednesday complaining about the impact of proposed cuts on people "who provide the necessary human resources for achieving the union's tasks".

Source Sunday Express 7 Nov 2012:

Official EU spending watchdogs raised questions over a colossal £89billion of spending during 2011. And for the 18th year in a row, they refused to sign off the EU’s annual accounts.
Now those articles are both from 2012.....5 years ago and since then what has the EU done to rectify the problem of fiscal ineptness?,........Nothing that seems to make any difference.

Dec 2014:

FRESH anger over EU waste flared today after auditors found that Eurocrats have squandered more than £500 million on a string of failed airport projects.

Nov 4 2017:

Sunday Express:

An investigation found that Brussels blew the colossal sum of cash on a drive to build underground storage facilities for CO2 emissions - but no such facilities were ever constructed.
This week the architect of the scheme, a former Lib Dem MEP, admitted this was because officials bungled their predictions for the environmental costs facing businesses.

RT.com Dec 2014:

To the south, Spain received the second biggest allowance from the EC to build airports, which are also failing to attract commercial flights. The situation is so dire that one of them, Ciudad Real airport in central Spain, is up for sale at 10 percent the price it cost to build. The airport opened in 2008 and cost €1.1 billion to construct, and closed in 2012, and it now has a price tag of €100 million. No commercial flights have operated since 2011.
On the eastern coast, the €150 million Castellon-Costa airport in Valencia built in 2011 has never seen a single plane land. The runway isn’t long enough to get the license needed to run commercial flights.

These relatively 'small' in terms of expenditure concerns are in themselves to a degree insignificant. However if just a little research can uncover these scandalous misuses of our money what do we uncover if we dig a little deeper because the figure is huge:
Extract from the  European Court of Auditors delivered on Oct 13 2016 which is tasked with auditing the EU finances:
QUOTE
" “As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”.
“In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”.
President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %.
“The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”. UNQUOTE

The bottom line is the EU can not adequately account for 5.5 billion Euro in 2015 alone. Hardly a glowing series of findings which would make one join that particular 'Golf Club' I feel.

So in a nutshell.... ad hominem?  No.  It is merely a reuse of that which you have previously posted about yourself and no to the EU which is in so many ways something I would rather we were not a part of any more.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-17 9:14 AM

RogerC - 2017-12-16 10:17 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-16 7:32 PM 2 - 3 That is what you see. It is not what I see. We have to agree to disagree.

As the issues and situations I included there (2&3 above) are mostly all directly sourced from EU documents, memorandum etc, especially this one:

Entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties”.  you say "it is not what you see" so I can only conclude that this article, from Radio Poland 27 June 2016, is something you 'do not see'  either:

QUOTE
The foreign ministers of France and Germany have proposed creating a “European superstate” limiting the powers of individual members following Britain’s referendum decision to leave the EU, Polish public broadcaster TVP Info has reported.
The document in which the proposals appear is to be presented to Visegrad Group countries meeting in Prague on Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, TVP Info said, adding that the document was an "ultimatum".
TVP Info said the proposals would mean members of a superstate would in practice have no right to their own army, to a separate criminal code or a separate tax system, and would not have their own currency.
In addition, TVP Info said, member states would lose control over their own borders and procedures for admitting and relocating refugees. UNQUOTE

The source 'is' an EU document.  How much more credibility does a source need to have before you can 'see it'?

Seeing as you have unequivocally stated you do not 'see' that which comes from the 'horses mouth' I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides.

Point 5:

You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction.  The problem, as anyone who has an interest in these things will confirm, is that, to update an old hackneyed phrase, "If Mark Carney sneezes....the City catches a cold".   In other words he above all should have been more guarded and circumspect in his pronouncements.

I agree the UK has it's self inflicted problems.  However having to deal with the EU diktats as well most certainly adds to the workload of sorting it all out.

Lastly, and I can not for the life of me understand why it is so difficult to grasp.....It costs the UK approximately £9 billion per year to be a member, £9billion I would rather see our leadership waste instead of letting the EU waste it for us.  For over 20 years the auditors have refused to give the accounts a clean bill of health.  In 2015 alone the amount termed 'error rate' by the auditors reached in excess of £6.4 billion Euro.  Now as you like percentages that is approximately 4.4% of the total budget so I suspect you will consider it to be 'small' in the scheme of things and move on.  As for me, it is simply another reason to get out of the 'club'. 

Your as bad as the Daily Mali Roger when promoting your views. Im always suspicious when someone quotes some mysterious article without a link to the source. Conveniently clipping the bit they want without reference to the actual article. http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-causes-alarmThe views of one bloke it seems and quickly discounted by the EU and other EU leaders.People talk about the EU like its some Darth Vader lead evil, all powerful organisation sitting in some "death star" somewhere plotting evil deeds when actually its just the administration centre for the 28 countries that are members.Nobody wants their country to become a nameless part of some super state but lets not let that fact get in the way of a good, made up anti EU story huh?

I did give the source had you bothered to read my post properly....

"The document in which the proposals appear is to be presented to Visegrad Group countries meeting in Prague on Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier"

The source:

Entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties”.

You posted:

"....its just the administration centre for the 28 countries"

Sorry Barry but that is plain laughable but it does go to show the difference in outlook on the EU.

So now you have the facts....which you had previously had you bothered to read my post thoroughly I reckon your last comment...."Nobody wants their country to become a nameless part of some super state but lets not let that fact get in the way of a good, made up anti EU story huh?" is, as far as some overly ambitious EU politicos are concerned quite some way off the mark.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-12-17 3:12 PM.................................The source of the document is the document itself.  Irrespective of who makes it's existence known it is there, it is fact.  Actually I didn't trawl for Polish news I simply looked for EU expansion plans and that was one source that 'popped up'.  I am sure there are a great many other sources that carry the same details regarding the document so your further 'insight' into TVP is rather irrelevant. ..................No personal attack intended Brian....simply a repeat of your own admission that you 'do not see' in reference to that which is fact....................Ad hominem?  No.  Once again factual comment.  From your posts of the past, and of late, berating the Government for not, as you champion, having done sufficient work on projecting and forecasting the effects of Brexit....................Using our £9billion, and growing contribution to other member states to enable them to grow?  I accept some of the 'pot' does go to good causes and is used wisely.  However  the following is a microscopic example of fiscal impropriety and represents the mindset of those charged with administering 'our' money:The source is The Guardian 22 Nov 2012In the otherwise ugly EU quarter in Brussels, something of a building boom is going on. There's the €300m (£241m)-plus being spent to convert an art deco pile into a palace fit for a European president. In a nearby park another €100m makeover is creating the European parliament's version of the continent's postwar history. That's after the parliament splashed out another €20m just down the street to create a multimedia tribute to itself last year, the Parliamentarium visitors' centre. Austerity Europe? Not at the European Union's Brussels HQ. While budgets, public spending, and civil service staffing levels are being slashed from Portugal to Poland, Greece to Great Britain, to be one of the 56,000 EU eurocrats is to escape most of the pain felt in almost every country in the union. Officially, they work a 37½-hour week and some parliamentary staff are entitled to take Friday afternoons off, though many complain those conditions are theoretical and they in fact work inordinately long hours. Their children are educated for free at high-quality private schools – a big new one has just opened near the Belgian monarchy's summer residence in a leafier part of Brussels. They retire at 63 on generous pensions and dozens a year are granted early retirement on full pensions. According to UK government calculations, 214 of the most senior eurocrats get paid more than David Cameron's £178,000 a year. Staff not living in their native country – almost all – receive a 16% top-up on their salary for being expatriates. Despite their insulation inside the Brussels bubble from the economic storm battering Europe, the eurocrats are revolting. There was a small strike a couple of weeks ago and several hundred staff staged a lunchtime protest outside the European commission on Wednesday complaining about the impact of proposed cuts on people "who provide the necessary human resources for achieving the union's tasks". Official EU spending watchdogs raised questions over a colossal £89billion of spending during 2011. And for the 18th year in a row, they refused to sign off the EU’s annual accounts. Now those articles are both from 2012.....5 years ago and since then what has the EU done to rectify the problem of fiscal ineptness?,........Nothing that seems to make any difference. FRESH anger over EU waste flared today after auditors found that Eurocrats have squandered more than £500 million on a string of failed airport projects. Sunday Express: An investigation found that Brussels blew the colossal sum of cash on a drive to build underground storage facilities for CO2 emissions - but no such facilities were ever constructed. This week the architect of the scheme, a former Lib Dem MEP, admitted this was because officials bungled their predictions for the environmental costs facing businesses. To the south, Spain received the second biggest allowance from the EC to build airports, which are also failing to attract commercial flights. The situation is so dire that one of them, Ciudad Real airport in central Spain, is up for sale at 10 percent the price it cost to build. The airport opened in 2008 and cost €1.1 billion to construct, and closed in 2012, and it now has a price tag of €100 million. No commercial flights have operated since 2011.

On the eastern coast, the €150 million Castellon-Costa airport in Valencia built in 2011 has never seen a single plane land. The runway isn’t long enough to get the license needed to run commercial flights. These relatively 'small' in terms of expenditure concerns are in themselves to a degree insignificant. However if just a little research can uncover these scandalous misuses of our money what do we uncover if we dig a little deeper because the figure is huge: Extract from the  European Court of Auditors delivered on Oct 13 2016 which is tasked with auditing the EU finances: “As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”. “In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”. President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %. “The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”. The bottom line is the EU can not adequately account for 5.5 billion Euro in 2015 alone. Hardly a glowing series of findings which would make one join that particular 'Golf Club' I feel. So in a nutshell.... ad hominem?  No.  It is merely a reuse of that which you have previously posted about yourself and no to the EU which is in so many ways something I would rather we were not a part of any more.

1 I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-17 4:28 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-17 3:12 PM.................................The source of the document is the document itself.  Irrespective of who makes it's existence known it is there, it is fact.  Actually I didn't trawl for Polish news I simply looked for EU expansion plans and that was one source that 'popped up'.  I am sure there are a great many other sources that carry the same details regarding the document so your further 'insight' into TVP is rather irrelevant. ..................No personal attack intended Brian....simply a repeat of your own admission that you 'do not see' in reference to that which is fact....................Ad hominem?  No.  Once again factual comment.  From your posts of the past, and of late, berating the Government for not, as you champion, having done sufficient work on projecting and forecasting the effects of Brexit....................Using our £9billion, and growing contribution to other member states to enable them to grow?  I accept some of the 'pot' does go to good causes and is used wisely.  However  the following is a microscopic example of fiscal impropriety and represents the mindset of those charged with administering 'our' money:The source is The Guardian 22 Nov 2012In the otherwise ugly EU quarter in Brussels, something of a building boom is going on. There's the €300m (£241m)-plus being spent to convert an art deco pile into a palace fit for a European president. In a nearby park another €100m makeover is creating the European parliament's version of the continent's postwar history. That's after the parliament splashed out another €20m just down the street to create a multimedia tribute to itself last year, the Parliamentarium visitors' centre. Austerity Europe? Not at the European Union's Brussels HQ. While budgets, public spending, and civil service staffing levels are being slashed from Portugal to Poland, Greece to Great Britain, to be one of the 56,000 EU eurocrats is to escape most of the pain felt in almost every country in the union. Officially, they work a 37½-hour week and some parliamentary staff are entitled to take Friday afternoons off, though many complain those conditions are theoretical and they in fact work inordinately long hours. Their children are educated for free at high-quality private schools – a big new one has just opened near the Belgian monarchy's summer residence in a leafier part of Brussels. They retire at 63 on generous pensions and dozens a year are granted early retirement on full pensions. According to UK government calculations, 214 of the most senior eurocrats get paid more than David Cameron's £178,000 a year. Staff not living in their native country – almost all – receive a 16% top-up on their salary for being expatriates. Despite their insulation inside the Brussels bubble from the economic storm battering Europe, the eurocrats are revolting. There was a small strike a couple of weeks ago and several hundred staff staged a lunchtime protest outside the European commission on Wednesday complaining about the impact of proposed cuts on people "who provide the necessary human resources for achieving the union's tasks". Official EU spending watchdogs raised questions over a colossal £89billion of spending during 2011. And for the 18th year in a row, they refused to sign off the EU’s annual accounts. Now those articles are both from 2012.....5 years ago and since then what has the EU done to rectify the problem of fiscal ineptness?,........Nothing that seems to make any difference. FRESH anger over EU waste flared today after auditors found that Eurocrats have squandered more than £500 million on a string of failed airport projects. Sunday Express: An investigation found that Brussels blew the colossal sum of cash on a drive to build underground storage facilities for CO2 emissions - but no such facilities were ever constructed. This week the architect of the scheme, a former Lib Dem MEP, admitted this was because officials bungled their predictions for the environmental costs facing businesses. To the south, Spain received the second biggest allowance from the EC to build airports, which are also failing to attract commercial flights. The situation is so dire that one of them, Ciudad Real airport in central Spain, is up for sale at 10 percent the price it cost to build. The airport opened in 2008 and cost €1.1 billion to construct, and closed in 2012, and it now has a price tag of €100 million. No commercial flights have operated since 2011.
On the eastern coast, the €150 million Castellon-Costa airport in Valencia built in 2011 has never seen a single plane land. The runway isn’t long enough to get the license needed to run commercial flights. These relatively 'small' in terms of expenditure concerns are in themselves to a degree insignificant. However if just a little research can uncover these scandalous misuses of our money what do we uncover if we dig a little deeper because the figure is huge: Extract from the  European Court of Auditors delivered on Oct 13 2016 which is tasked with auditing the EU finances: “As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”. “In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”. President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %. “The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”. The bottom line is the EU can not adequately account for 5.5 billion Euro in 2015 alone. Hardly a glowing series of findings which would make one join that particular 'Golf Club' I feel. So in a nutshell.... ad hominem?  No.  It is merely a reuse of that which you have previously posted about yourself and no to the EU which is in so many ways something I would rather we were not a part of any more.

1 I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides.

Statement of fact.  You clearly said:

"  That is what you see. It is not what I see."....in response to my posting documentary proof regarding thoughts of expansionism within influential places in the EU.

So when faced with factual evidence that there are those within the upper echelons of the EU administration, who are part of the machinery that determines EU direction, that have grandiose ideas of expansionism and 'superstate' ambitions you say you can't see it.  My comment stands.

[Brian Kirby]

Sorry, got timed out on the above incomplete post.

RogerC - 2017-12-17 3:12 PM

1 The source of the document is the document itself. Irrespective of who makes it's existence known it is there, it is fact. Actually I didn't trawl for Polish news I simply looked for EU expansion plans and that was one source that 'popped up'. I am sure there are a great many other sources that carry the same details regarding the document so your further 'insight' into TVP is rather irrelevant. ..................

 

2 No personal attack intended Brian....simply a repeat of your own admission that you 'do not see' in reference to that which is fact

 

3 Ad hominem? No. Once again factual comment. From your posts of the past, and of late, berating the Government for not, as you champion, having done sufficient work on projecting and forecasting the effects of Brexit.

 

4 Using our £9billion, and growing contribution to other member states to enable them to grow? I accept some of the 'pot' does go to good causes and is used wisely. However the following is a microscopic example of fiscal impropriety and represents the mindset of those charged with administering 'our' money:..............................................

 

These relatively 'small' in terms of expenditure concerns are in themselves to a degree insignificant. However if just a little research can uncover these scandalous misuses of our money what do we uncover if we dig a little deeper because the figure is huge: Extract from the European Court of Auditors delivered on Oct 13 2016 which is tasked with auditing the EU finances: “As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”. “In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”. President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %. “The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”.

 

The bottom line is the EU can not adequately account for 5.5 billion Euro in 2015 alone. Hardly a glowing series of findings which would make one join that particular 'Golf Club' I feel.

So in a nutshell.... ad hominem? No. It is merely a reuse of that which you have previously posted about yourself and no to the EU which is in so many ways something I would rather we were not a part of any more.

1 You claimed the document to be an EU document. It was not.

 

You went on to say "The graphite was hardly dry on the Brexit ballots when TVP Info, a Polish broadcaster, leaked a 9-page document drawn up by the German and French foreign ministers calling for an EU superstate, complete with an EU army, integrated border controls and common taxation. The German foreign minister discussed the plans — which are being described as “an ultimatum” — with his counterparts in the Visegrad Group of countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) this week. .......................... The document, bearing the Orwellian title of “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties,” lays out the exact tyrannical plans that the EU’s critics have been warning about for years."

 

The document was not leaked, it was openly available. What you say does not represent what the document says, it is drawn from the hyperbolic interpretation of the document by TVP Info. Orwellian? Tyrannical? Did you actually read the document? I did, and I saw no trace of Orwell or tyranny. That is what I meant when I said: "That is what you see. It is not what I see." I'm afraid you just have to accept that I do not see the threats to the UK that you appear to see.

 

2 Your comment was: "I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides." Not personal, then?

 

3 Your comment was: "You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction". How does that deal with the point I made? It is against me, my claimed "changing determinations like the wind changes direction". It seeks to discredit me, but does not address my point. That is the very meaning of ad hominem. Now, to my point. You have shifted ground from criticising Carney for issuing a forecast that was later changed, which I answered, to my criticism of the government (in fact David Davis) for claiming not to have conducted risk assessments on Brexit, which is a completely different point. The two points are not connected.

 

4 As I said, I understand your point. However, I do not agree. I have long said the EU is imperfect. I have frequently agreed that its accounts remain a cause for concern.

 

As you quote:

 

“As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”.

 

“In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”.

 

President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %. The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”.

 

You may have overlooked that a decline in error from 4.4% to 3.8% is an improvement. That is what I am looking for. It would be unrealistic to expect so large and multi-faceted an organisation to produce accounts that were 100% accurate. The accounts of all large corporations contain a "fudge factor" somewhere. However, the central issue is whether this scale of error is a ground for leaving. It seems you think it is, whereas I do not. I think "could do better". I also think "will do better". It is not as though the Court of Auditors is ignoring the problem, they are the ones demanding improvement.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-17 5:27 PMSorry, got timed out on the above incomplete post.

RogerC - 2017-12-17 3:12 PM1 The source of the document is the document itself. Irrespective of who makes it's existence known it is there, it is fact. Actually I didn't trawl for Polish news I simply looked for EU expansion plans and that was one source that 'popped up'. I am sure there are a great many other sources that carry the same details regarding the document so your further 'insight' into TVP is rather irrelevant. ..................2 No personal attack intended Brian....simply a repeat of your own admission that you 'do not see' in reference to that which is fact3 Ad hominem? No. Once again factual comment. From your posts of the past, and of late, berating the Government for not, as you champion, having done sufficient work on projecting and forecasting the effects of Brexit.4 Using our £9billion, and growing contribution to other member states to enable them to grow? I accept some of the 'pot' does go to good causes and is used wisely. However the following is a microscopic example of fiscal impropriety and represents the mindset of those charged with administering 'our' money:..............................................These relatively 'small' in terms of expenditure concerns are in themselves to a degree insignificant. However if just a little research can uncover these scandalous misuses of our money what do we uncover if we dig a little deeper because the figure is huge: Extract from the European Court of Auditors delivered on Oct 13 2016 which is tasked with auditing the EU finances: “As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”. “In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”. President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %. “The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”. The bottom line is the EU can not adequately account for 5.5 billion Euro in 2015 alone. Hardly a glowing series of findings which would make one join that particular 'Golf Club' I feel. So in a nutshell.... ad hominem? No. It is merely a reuse of that which you have previously posted about yourself and no to the EU which is in so many ways something I would rather we were not a part of any more.

1 You claimed the document to be an EU document. It was not. You went on to say "The graphite was hardly dry on the Brexit ballots when TVP Info, a Polish broadcaster, leaked a 9-page document drawn up by the German and French foreign ministers calling for an EU superstate, complete with an EU army, integrated border controls and common taxation. The German foreign minister discussed the plans — which are being described as “an ultimatum” — with his counterparts in the Visegrad Group of countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) this week. .......................... The document, bearing the Orwellian title of “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties,” lays out the exact tyrannical plans that the EU’s critics have been warning about for years." The document was not leaked, it was openly available. What you say does not represent what the document says, it is drawn from the hyperbolic interpretation of the document by TVP Info. Orwellian? Tyrannical? Did you actually read the document? I did, and I saw no trace of Orwell or tyranny. That is what I meant when I said: "That is what you see. It is not what I see." I'm afraid you just have to accept that I do not see the threats to the UK that you appear to see.2 Your comment was: "I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides." Not personal, then?3 Your comment was: "You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction". How does that deal with the point I made? It is against me, my claimed "changing determinations like the wind changes direction". It seeks to discredit me, but does not address my point. That is the very meaning of ad hominem. Now, to my point. You have shifted ground from criticising Carney for issuing a forecast that was later changed, which I answered, to my criticism of the government (in fact David Davis) for claiming not to have conducted risk assessments on Brexit, which is a completely different point. The two points are not connected.4 As I said, I understand your point. However, I do not agree. I have long said the EU is imperfect. I have frequently agreed that its accounts remain a cause for concern.As you quote:“As in previous years, we conclude that the 2015 EU accounts are reliable but spending continues to be affected by a material level of irregularity”.“In our opinion, because of the significance of the matters described in the basis for adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are materially affected by error”. President da Silva Caldeira observes candidly that “Our estimate of the overall level of error in 2015 is 3.8 %. The Court found that, in particular in cohesion policy and agriculture, the overall estimated level of error for payments has further declined from 4.4% in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015”. You may have overlooked that a decline in error from 4.4% to 3.8% is an improvement. That is what I am looking for. It would be unrealistic to expect so large and multi-faceted an organisation to produce accounts that were 100% accurate. The accounts of all large corporations contain a "fudge factor" somewhere. However, the central issue is whether this scale of error is a ground for leaving. It seems you think it is, whereas I do not. I think "could do better". I also think "will do better". It is not as though the Court of Auditors is ignoring the problem, they are the ones demanding improvement.

I surrender.  Leaked.....shmeaked.....it's description regarding the source or how it was made public is irrelevant.  The Foreign Ministers of the two strongest, most influential, persuasive nations in the EU have joint expansionist dreams and you can't see it as a threat?

Yes I did read it.  Very worrying indeed.

Orwellian, tyrannical?  So you don't consider the desire to forge ahead with ever greater integration regarding:
QUOTE:
 We will therefore move further towards political union in Europe and invite the other Europeans to join us in this endeavour.

 France and Germany will promote integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all EU policy instruments.

Large-scale migration towards Europe will be the key challenge for Europe’s future. .....There shall be no unilateral national answers to the migration challenge....

 The euro reflects our commitment to the irreversibility of European integration.  (Now this is, IMO, a very illuminating and dangerous ideology).

Surplus and deficit countries will have to move, as a one-sided alignment is politically unfeasible.

....... as a general principle, any step to further deepen the EMU should be accompanied by progress in the field of common taxation.    REALLY!!!

No debating with etc......if the cap fits etc.  I provide clear evidence that there are, within the EU hierarchy, albeit Foreign Ministers who have undoubtedly a great deal of 'clout',  disconcerting ideals regarding integration, standardisation and fiscal standardisation....including the adoption of the euro and a commitment to 'irreversible integration' and taxation and you can't see it.  Therefore my comment stands.

Written and read,  intent and meaning both are clearly applicable in this case.

My comment "You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction"..... clearly did not convey as intended.  My intent was 'you like forecasting'(statement) however 'forecasting in this area changes direction and determinations like the wind (comment on the fluidity of forecasting)'.  Clearly your liking of forecasting does not waver.  Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Regarding the accounts.....how much longer is one expected to accept this level of 'error'?  It has gone on almost unabated for decades.  It is fiscally irresponsible for billions and billions over the years,  Yes 4.4% to 3.8% is an improvement but is nowhere sufficient to demonstrate a realistic approach and rectification of the gross mismanagement of funds.

Clearly we are at polar opposites. Any further comment is likely to be futile as it is clear you are prepared to accept that which I am unable to.  You apparently see a silver lining whereas I see the clouds of ever greater domination. 

[antony1969]

Never mind Brexit ... Could be the Italians next https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/893736/Italy-eurosceptics-Five-Star-referendum-euro-membership-poll-lead and what to EU do about a problem like Austria ???

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-12-17 9:47 PM.................

1 I surrender.  Leaked.....shmeaked.....it's description regarding the source or how it was made public is irrelevant.  The Foreign Ministers of the two strongest, most influential, persuasive nations in the EU have joint expansionist dreams and you can't see it as a threat?

 

Yes I did read it.  Very worrying indeed. Orwellian, tyrannical?  So you don't consider the desire to forge ahead with ever greater integration regarding........ as a general principle, any step to further deepen the EMU should be accompanied by progress in the field of common taxation. 

 

No debating with etc......if the cap fits etc.  I provide clear evidence that there are, within the EU hierarchy, albeit Foreign Ministers who have undoubtedly a great deal of 'clout',  disconcerting ideals regarding integration, standardisation and fiscal standardisation....including the adoption of the euro and a commitment to 'irreversible integration' and taxation and you can't see it.  Therefore my comment stands.

 

2 My comment "You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction"..... clearly did not convey as intended.  My intent was 'you like forecasting'(statement) however 'forecasting in this area changes direction and determinations like the wind (comment on the fluidity of forecasting)'.  Clearly your liking of forecasting does not waver.  Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

3 Regarding the accounts.....how much longer is one expected to accept this level error'?  It has gone on almost unabated for decades.  It is fiscally irresponsible for billions and billions over the years,  Yes 4.4% to 3.8% is an improvement but is nowhere sufficient to demonstrate a realistic approach and rectification of the gross mismanagement of funds. Clearly we are at polar opposites. Any further comment is likely to be futile as it is clear you are prepared to accept that which I am unable to.  You apparently see a silver lining whereas I see the clouds of ever greater domination. 

1 I am not surprised, that is all. This drive for greater integration has been present in the EU and its predecessor organisations since the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951. It begat the EEC, which in turn begat the EU. The real questions are whether the Ayrault-Steinmeier paper accurately reflects both French and German government official policy (which I suspect it does not, fully) or whether they were merely flying a policy debating kite (which I suspect they were). There is then the question of whether the document would attract support from the 28 member state governments and their populations, which I am quite sure it would not. Much of the paper is fairly anodyne and reflects common sense. Other bits go out on a limb. Why? Is this any more than trying out a few contentious ideas on a particular audience (the Vizegrad Group), to see which they would accept, and which they would not?

 

2 Accepted, and thank you. All I would add is that I do not "like" forecasts, I merely see them as the best aid we have to making complex decisions. But, they have to be treated as what they are: forecasts!

 

3 I don't know if you have read this: http://tinyurl.com/zrfaxaj But it sets out the arguments over the EU's accounts far better than I could. I'd be surprised if any set of company accounts is found to consistently achieve (even achieve :-)) zero errors when audited. I believe 0 - 5% error is generally accepted as good, but I am not an accountant so do not know how that 0 - 5% is measured. However, bearing in mind that the accounts are derived from 28 member states, presumably with different accounting conventions, some of which are not that long removed from communism, some from extremely dubious accounting practices, I would have thought the direction of travel encouraging, and the most recent audit comforting.

[RogerC]

antony1969 - 2017-12-18 2:01 PMNever mind Brexit ... Could be the Italians next https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/893736/Italy-eurosceptics-Five-Star-referendum-euro-membership-poll-lead and what to EU do about a problem like Austria ???

Poland is a likely candidate for leaving.........

[antony1969]

Something else blamed on Brexit ... Islamaphobia in sport ???? ... Interesting to hear this fella talk about teams with all Asians in them because "they feel comfortable together" which translated means they don't want to mix , pretty much the same in sport as in society ... Suppose it makes news though and the numpty wets will lick it up willingly ... https://news.sky.com/video/spike-in-hatred-is-going-into-the-game-11172511

[antony1969]

RogerC - 2017-12-18 2:05 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-12-18 2:01 PMNever mind Brexit ... Could be the Italians next https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/893736/Italy-eurosceptics-Five-Star-referendum-euro-membership-poll-lead and what to EU do about a problem like Austria ???

Poland is a likely candidate for leaving.........

 

It will be interesting to see how the mighty EU treat those Eastern and Central European countries who aren't playing the EU game ... Bet they daren't give them the rollocking they would have a couple of years ago

[Barryd999]

Well maybe the EU will finally take note and the countries that run it will reform it. It could be the UK leaving that triggers such reform. That will be no good to us though if we are out.

 

I dont think anyone thinks its perfect but I also doubt anyone but us would be daft enough to leave.

[antony1969]

EU migration policy explained ... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/18/eu-white-mass-migration-norm/

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-12-18 2:05 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-12-18 2:01 PMNever mind Brexit ... Could be the Italians next https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/893736/Italy-eurosceptics-Five-Star-referendum-euro-membership-poll-lead and what to EU do about a problem like Austria ???

Poland is a likely candidate for leaving.........

 

Face it. No one will want to leave when they see how much it costs Britain.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-18 3:45 PMWell maybe the EU will finally take note and the countries that run it will reform it. It could be the UK leaving that triggers such reform. That will be no good to us though if we are out.I dont think anyone thinks its perfect but I also doubt anyone but us would be daft enough to leave.

I thought it was supposed to be a democratic process with no 'set' of countries running it?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-12-18 6:46 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-18 2:05 PM

antony1969 - 2017-12-18 2:01 PMNever mind Brexit ... Could be the Italians next https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/893736/Italy-eurosceptics-Five-Star-referendum-euro-membership-poll-lead and what to EU do about a problem like Austria ???

Poland is a likely candidate for leaving.........

Face it. No one will want to leave when they see how much it costs Britain.

Costs?...do a little research for yourself and there's a whole raft of information on the intricacies of why Poland might leave.

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-12-18 8:40 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-12-18 3:45 PMWell maybe the EU will finally take note and the countries that run it will reform it. It could be the UK leaving that triggers such reform. That will be no good to us though if we are out.I dont think anyone thinks its perfect but I also doubt anyone but us would be daft enough to leave.

I thought it was supposed to be a democratic process with no 'set' of countries running it?

 

It is. 28, soon to be 27. Possibly. Ive heard French, Italians, Germans etc all moan about it but ive yet to meet any of them that would consider leaving it. Maybe its to do with them being on the mainland and many people here feel more separated from it than they do.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-18 9:42 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-18 8:40 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-12-18 3:45 PMWell maybe the EU will finally take note and the countries that run it will reform it. It could be the UK leaving that triggers such reform. That will be no good to us though if we are out.I dont think anyone thinks its perfect but I also doubt anyone but us would be daft enough to leave.

I thought it was supposed to be a democratic process with no 'set' of countries running it?

It is. 28, soon to be 27. Possibly. Ive heard French, Italians, Germans etc all moan about it but ive yet to meet any of them that would consider leaving it. Maybe its to do with them being on the mainland and many people here feel more separated from it than they do.

You could well be right about the 'separated' thing.  We will have to disagree on who runs the show though.....Germany and France have things pretty cosy between them.  Germany dictates so much to Greece because of their fiscal stranglehold.  Similarly the smaller nations either fall in line or the big guys don't 'play ball'.  Poland is looking at just that scenario right now as is Hungary.

Extract from 'Politico':

"To speak frankly, the real problem in the EU is the European Council, which far too often wields the veto that undermines the decisions taken by the European Commission and the Parliament."

Article attributed to Gianni Pittella, leader of the group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

He has made quite a damning statement regarding 'democracy' within the EU I feel.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-12-18 8:50 PM

there's a whole raft of information on the intricacies of why Poland might leave.

 

Most of it wishful thinking by Brexiteers

You're clutching at straws.

[Bulletguy]

 

There will be no ‘Polexit’ “Poland belongs to the EU and the EU belongs to Poland,” Prime Minister Beata Szydlo affirmed as the European Union considers launching an unprecedented infringement procedure against Warsaw over the rule of law.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. ;-)

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-europe/news/szydlo-poland-is-not-going-to-leave-the-eu/

[John52]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-18 11:53 PM

 

 

There will be no ‘Polexit’ “Poland belongs to the EU and the EU belongs to Poland,” Prime Minister Beata Szydlo affirmed as the European Union considers launching an unprecedented infringement procedure against Warsaw over the rule of law.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. ;-)

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-europe/news/szydlo-poland-is-not-going-to-leave-the-eu/

 

But he's only the Polish Prime Minister.

Wheras we've heard it straight from RogerC *-)