Can someone give me five reasons why it would be better that we leave? Just the bullet points, not the rhetoric.

Ha - without the rhetoric this would be a very short discussion :rofl:

It seems that many in Britain are failing to look at the present day and the future consequences. Bitterness at things that happened in the past is a dangerous motivation to vote for something which will only affect the future.

I don't believe you should condemn future generations because you're stuck in the past..

It's small minded and selfish..

For all the "small minded and selfish"!
 

Dear Ted, Oooph, highly controversial and designed to make people bite! Here is the first chomp. It’s selfish to want to stay in just so you can cross borders without having to flash your passport at a border crossing. It’s selfish to say “ I can’t be arsed with all this currency changing malarkey”. It’s selfish to say well there goes my cheap and effortless holidays. It’s selfish to say my bird is an (add any euro country you want in this space) and she won’t be able to work here and I won’t be able to live there. (wrong incidentally) It’s selfish to say to say sod job protection and our ability to make our own rules as long as I get to go where I want when I want. Incidentally all things I have heard people say in conversation very recently.


Five reasons why we should leave? 1) Control over our borders and waterways. 2) Reduction in red tape for small businesses. 3) An end to EU quotas on production for our industries. 4) The end of criminals charter, (Human rights act) 5) More say in who we do business with.


I could go on but 5 reasons were all that were asked for. I will probably be pushing up daisies within 20 years so the past does not bother me as much as many think and as for the future I am not going to see a great deal more of it. As for being selfish and small minded? I am trying to think of what I believe to be in the best interests of the majority of our citizens for the future. Where will the kids of our steel workers and shipbuilders work in the future?

I don't think we should leave. But there are a few point's that could be changed.


Immigration.
Benefit's should be paid by the country they have come from. Until they can show five year's worth of taxed employment.


Travel.
There should be across the board a single rate of road tax for all country's. Then ban toll road's.


Corruption.
Country "A" can investigate country "B" if EU money is involved.


Tax.
A standard rate of corporation tax in all EU country.


Traffic accident's
The country the vehicle come's from should pay. Then re claim the money from the insurance company with in there own country.




You want more???
John933

You started the thread and asked for opinions and it sounds like you don't like what people have to say.

So are you going to report yourself? :rofl:

I said "some people in Britain".

Not "people on this thread "

I'm just sharing my opinion as have many on this thread. If I have offended you I apologise. I can't see how. Unless what I said touched a nerve ???

I have no prejudice against anyone for their feelings and opinions. We can all surely agree to disagree. I read what everyone says and if I agree or not I consider their opinions. What some people have said have actually made me reconsider my stance on Europe.

Let's return to the original point/question in theis thread ;o)

I admit that my 2 (EU-) cents worth on the British Empire grandezza was a bit snotty. And no, most people IMO believe that the UK should stay. No BREXIT.

Why? Economic powers are changing. Compared to the USA and China any European country on its own is just a fart. We only have a fair chance if we stand up together as a group. Naturally every country is different - quite a few are economically much weaker than UK, France or Germany. So here we go and try to support them in their struggle an dhave a fair chance to survive.

Inviting countries to join the EU is unfortunately also driven by politics. So I wonder if the US hasn't exerted some kind of pressure to get Romania & Bulgaria into the club..... :eek3:

I don't recall anyone saying we needed to club together because USA is big. Yes, China is growing but it's still only the GDP of France, Germany and the UK together.

When the Europe Community changed from the EEC to the EU, Europe changed from a trading partnership to a would-be political union, driven by politicians intent on creating a federal Europe.

A federal approach probably works fine for USA and Germany where the language, laws and financial policies of the individual states within the country are pretty much aligned, but it WON'T WORK in the instance of Europe unless the whole of Europe adopts a
- common currency,
- common financial policy,
- common personal and corporate taxation,
- common pension and welfare,
- common foreign policy,
- common defence policy,
- common armed forces...
and so on.

Oh, and a common language would help.

The issue for me is not ease of trade or financial advantages, it's sovereignty. The ever-closer links within the EU coupled with the ever-expansionist policy of the EU leaders will lead to a chaos that will make the Euro crisis look like a storm in a teacup.

27 sovereign states can have as many trade links as they like. One sovereign state cannot have 27 variants of basic freedoms and laws.

Frankfurt is a competitor to London. Munich to Sunderland. Highland Whisky to Bordeaux wine. You build links with your customers and suppliers not your competitors.

Andy

For the record, this is what the UK PM has on the table for negotiation.
The four key points from David Cameron's EU letter - BBC News

Some commentators have said that he may "pull a few rabbits out of the hat" also; I take this to mean that he has other, private, ideas that are subsidiary to these publicly announced concepts.

There can be little doubt that a two stage EU exists already; The countries using the Euro as their currency (the Eurozone) and the 9 remainder.

Arguably, there are even more stages to the EU with countries such as Greece in such great debt to the Euro central bank that they have given up all but a figleaf of their democracy to the "central powers" based in Brussels.
In essence, Greece is bankrupt but is kept afloat under tight control so that it can remain in the Eurozone.
?c?

Ah, logical semantics. My confusion arose because you wrote, "I don't believe you should condemn future generations because you're stuck in the past," which sounds like you are addressing people on the forum.

To indicate you are talking of others, in the old days, one might have written, "I don't believe one should condemn future generations because one is stuck in the past," but nowadays we would use a less formal construct of "I don't believe people should condemn future generations because they're stuck in the past.."

Sorry I misunderstood. ;)

Thank you for the lesson in 19th century grammar.

But let's try to keep the thread on topic. Thanks.

Hmm, it does not matter what century the grammar is from Tim is right and if you had of paid more attention in school you would have known. As it is you don't know the difference between a 7-8ths whitworth spanner and a furlong:innocent:
But fear not for if we go ahead and vote to stay in you will be speaking either Esperanto or German, then you will really have a problem with grammar :(
I am trying to imagine what the lyrics to Deutschland Deutschland uber alles in Eperanto to the tune of La Marseillaise would sound like, perhaps not, lets just get the hell out of it :rofl:

I may not like German sausages, garlic or olive oil but my English and grammar are reasonably OK keepcalm

1. Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.

2. Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.

3. Freedom to control our national borders.

4. Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.

5. Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.

6. Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.

7. Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.

8. Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.

9. Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens.

10. Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.

Wayne

We, the EU should not be keeping Greece afloat, why our hard earned cash should go to prop up another country is beyond me (yes I know we do it in Africa etc...don't agree with that either) We can not look after our own people. I had read somewhere that China was happy to bail them out but a phone call from Germany squashed it.....Thanks Merkel

There are too many countries taking more than they are contributing. Some of those countries are the ones that don't want us to implement Restricting access to in-work and out-of-work benefits to EU migrants. Specifically, ministers want to stop those coming to the UK from claiming certain benefits and housing until they have been resident for four years.
I wonder why that is?!

Wayne

This article sums it up for me.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...u-9213131.html

Out
 

I'm for out.

I don't want unelected government
I don't trust a government that refuses to audit its accounts
I don't want open borders
I do want a points based immigration system like NZ/OZ
I don't want the EU constitution....ours is fine thanks
The Euro would be a disaster for us...keep the pound

It's all a bit fascist for my liking.....

What have you got in mind?

*** big grin ***

But you're right ;o)


True, but somewhere in the future I do believe (hope) that the EU achieves a tighter network regarding their political standing towards other countries.
China's influence is growing at an alarming rate, and the other "Tiger" states are gaining momentum. Europe is definitely loosing its power to influence any global political issues.

"Oh, and a common language would help." Well, we do all speak English. Where's the problem? ;o)

Many are the reasons why we MUST leave the EU; this being a motorcycle forum consider that the (unelected) EU commission actively legislates to eradicate motorcycles (contrary to their own regulations) and has passed or proposed many laws criminalising us for such egregious “crimes” as fitting a crash bar and compelling dealers to report to the "authorities" those of us who modify our own property contrary to their edicts. In small things great truths are revealed.


The EU oligarchs are on their back legs to ensure the status quo and to get us to vote in the “right” way and if we don't they will come back again and again as they did with Ireland until we vote “correctly”!


When contemplating just why these oligarchs wish to keep things as they are here is an example which may be considered a metaphor; The Mercedes Benz truck that takes the cheap goods to the ship in China costs £30k. The Mercedes Benz truck that collects those goods from the ship in the EU costs £130k. You can't buy the Chinese Mercedes Benz truck in the EU.


It is clear to see who benefits from such a state of affairs and ask the young people of Spain, Greece, Italy et al who dis benefits and if in a stronger, federalised EU with a neutered UK (that voted to stay in) will the youth of the UK face a similar fate? For those that don't keep up with these things youth un-employment in those places is as high as 60%.


When faced with the great and the good such as (Sir) John Major claiming they are acting in Britain's interests when advocating staying in you may ascertain in just whose interests they are acting by asking them just how they became multi millionaires on a civil servants pay.


Most of Europe acts under the old “Code Napoleon” in which the people are subservient to the state. In the UK (notionally) it is the opposite. The doctrine of the EU is one of total government the inevitable end point of which is totalitarianism and war. It is the European way, always has been and always will be. Grow a spine and vote leave. You know it makes sense.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Sort out our understaffed and ailing Health Service

Sort out our defence budget and stop axing our forces

More help for the elderly and homeless

Sort out the flood defences

Recruit and train more Police, Fire and Medical services instead of cutting some of them back

Bolster the UK border force

To name but a few

But any way we are off topic

Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while having a cold beer

It's a good article Ted but still there are some things that need to change

Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while having a cold beer

Found this in Money week Mag
 

Taken from Money Week Magazine.........

I am a businessman with investments in the European Union (EU). I am a big fan of a free-trade zone, an aspect of the EU that works well. I am, however, deeply concerned by the EU’s declared agenda of moving to full federalism. This is badly thought out, yet every time the strategy shows signs of faltering, the reaction of the unelected bosses in Brussels is to push for even further integration.

The sensible move would be a pause to allow the EU’s institutions to consolidate and develop. One model might have been the 50-year twin- track absorption of Hong Kong into China, which has worked fairly well so far. In contrast, the EU’s 28 nations, with highly disparate cultures and income levels, simply cannot integrate at the pace that the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, feel is possible. So the fractures are becoming increasingly evident – and dangerous.

The pending euro crisis
In fact, the most prominent example of that attempt at over-rapid integration – the currency union – is in deep trouble. With or without a referendum, and with or without Prime Minister David Cameron’s timid renegotiations, I feel that brutal but necessary reforms – up to and including disintegration – will be forced on the eurozone. These will likely force it back to the model of a free-trade bloc, with different currencies. We don’t want to be a full member of the EU when these events take place, because the cost to us would be huge. Despite the sclerotic influence of the EU on growth and entrepreneurial dynamism, the UK is still growing – and at nearly three times the average rate of our continental neighbours. If we stay in the EU, that growth will come to a shuddering halt – and it’s all because of a looming disaster facing two of Europe’s largest nations.

That might sound extreme, but my forecast is based on a dispassionate analysis of national debts. France and Italy are respectively the second and third-largest eurozone economies. They cannot repay their debts while they remain participants in the euro. They are unable to grow their nominal GNPs fast enough to escape the debt traps they are in. Meanwhile, the maturities (see page 34) of their sovereign debt, at about seven years on average, are short, and the proportion owned by potentially skittish foreign investors, at over 50%, is high. France and Italy have not reformed sufficiently to avoid the simple fact that, one day, markets will take fright at their situation and mark down their bonds. The European Central Bank (ECB) can buy up their bonds for a while, and more quantitative easing (QE) from ECB boss Mario Draghi (assuming the Bundesbank – Germany’s central bank – allows it) could stave off the evil day a bit longer.

But that day is certainly coming. When it arrives, interest rates on French and Italian bonds will rise sharply as risk premia (see page 37) reassert themselves, and we’ll see a crisis that will make Greece look like a picnic. At that point, the most likely outcome is a division of the eurozone into two or more blocs, with Germany heading up the “hard block” zone, and France and Italy either adopting their old national currencies or forming a “soft” southern block. There is no way that Germany either wants to or is able to prevent this, short of allowing a full-scale monetisation of French and Italian debt. That won’t happen because of the inflationary consequences. An “extend and pretend” approach won’t work within a single currency, and France and Italy are about 20 times bigger than Greece in terms of aggregate GNP.

Brexit fears are nonsense
Plenty of other arguments can be made for “Brexit” (and, to be fair, there are some good ones for staying too). But the best reason for leaving is that the eurozone will implode sooner rather than later, and it is better to be in a comfortably-appointed lifeboat in the Channel, than to be dragged under by the wake of the doomed eurozone vessel. All the nonsense spoken about Brexit putting jobs at risk, or of the City’s position being under threat, is, in my view, just that – nonsense. I believe the UK’s capacity to grow will be enhanced by Brexit, and very little will change in terms of trade. We can sit out the carnage that is coming in financial markets. And the City, away from the grasping jealousy of Frankfurt and of Paris, will thrive.

So how will it unfold? As follows: first, Greece and Portugal will suffer another bout of financial crisis. But then the real debt implosion – the one involving the really big boys – will arrive. This time, the eurozone will be floored – and unable to rise from the mat. A new EU – a customs union with regulatory agencies supervising trading standards – will probably emerge from the wreckage. My own support for that type of union would be strong.

It's relevant and interesting that just about all of the points mentioned in that article have already been brought out in this thread; to me that indicates that this thread is pretty well informed.

But the article is 22 months old and things have changed greatly since those days. Hence the discussion points in here go in to more detail than the article.

This is the author of the linked article:
Hugo Dixon | Contributor | Breakingviews

There will be many more articles in the main stream media (MSM) between now and the referendum.

Meanwhile, a couple of abstracts from that article in the "Independant" (I can't quite remember who owns it nowadays by the way - it could be a Russian oligarch?)

The chances of this occuring are exceptionally slim:
"The peripheral countries have to solve their own problems. But the EU can help in four ways: it can complete the single market in services, which is patchy; it can open up Europe's markets to trade with other parts of the world, especially the United States and China; it can help develop a modern financial system based more on capital markets rather than banks; and it can lighten the burden of regulation on business by cutting red tape."

As for this; the ECB is the means by which the EU keeps Greece in line.
"The euro crisis is an opportunity for Britain, because all these things would be beneficial for our economy. Just think how Germany is the big winner from the single market in goods because of its prowess as a manufacturing nation. Extending it fully to services, where Britain excels, could be correspondingly beneficial for us. Or think about what would happen if the EU was less "bankcentric" and relied more on capital market instruments, such as shares and bonds, to channel funds from investors to companies. The bulk of the business would flow through the City of London with its army of investment bankers, lawyers and accountants. More trade and less red tape would help our businesses, too"

It's very hard to argue with those points... In fact I agree with them.

I dislike the EU. I'm not pro EU at all.

But perhaps 'Better the devil you know'

What is out future is we close the door to what is by far our biggest trading partner and access to skilled or cheap labour ??

New trade deals aren't going to just appear overnight and our products and services are not going to be cheap. We will end up in competition with the EU and I don't think it's battle we can win.

There are plenty of counties who can beat our prices on pretty much everything..

And we all know those childish beaurocrats in Europe will make us pay for leaving.

And what about the Billions in subsidies we receive from the EU ?? I think it costs every UK citizen about £130 a year for EU membership. I pay more to be in the AA.

Britain is not a global super power. It's a small Island and the actual global powers are not in awe of us any anymore. We can't scare anyone with our Navy and we dont have anything special to sell anymore.

I think if we do leave, it will be painful. There will be severe consequences.

It might be worth it in the long run. With that I agree..

But for those not nearing or in retirement with their own houses or nest eggs, its could be a very bitter pill to swallow and really hurt a lot of people.

So when this vote comes along, are you going to vote what suits the greater good of our nation or what makes you feel better about yourself.

It's a tricky decision and not to be taken lightly. The politicians will just do what suits themselves as always.

China et al
 

I feel that China has peaked, for now at least, and it has enough issues internally to deal with.


Hegemony


China is a block based on a wide spread revolution of the 1940s that consumed those areas involved in considerable pain and extensive loss of life.
Nowadays, it is a one party state based on absolutism of control at the highest level whereby it is possible for individuals to feel some sense of individual freedom so long as they toe the line.
5 individuals in neighbouring Hong Kong who broke these rules are currently missing, location unknown.


Russian society has only recently come out of 300 years of serfdom based on autocratic monarchy closely followed by a similar level of autocratic rule via a communist party and the associated dogma.
They are finding their feet, in summary.


The USA is based on the outcome of a relatively recent civil war from which there could be but one winner and it is now a grouping of 50 states with a federal structure to deal with international interests.


The middle east consists of autocratic rule in the main, via Kingdoms or single party military government, or it is in turmoil and potentially throwing off those nominal national borders imposed upon it post WW1.
It is highly tribal in nature.


Africa is consumed with throwing off the vestiges of earlier colonial rule; they got what they asked for post WW2 and are making something of it.
For instance, there are various regional currency and custom unions among some of the nations but no obvious appetite for closer union.


Asia. I will omit from comment on this on the grounds that there are far more independent countries there and
they are in very different levels of development.
In other words, it is best to refrain from over generalising.
The same goes for South America.


Notably, the large blocks that exist today all arrived at that state via years of immense bloodshed.


Europe.
What is one to think?

Europe won't ever achieve any sort of geopolitical influence and it's physically impossible that it does. Each country has its interests, its international affiliations, its internation partnerships, etc, etc, which positively prevent that the EU as a whole can have any sort of geopolitical influence. Quite the opposite, in fact! And, as things go, it's loosing the little it had in the past and what is worst, the geopolitical influence of Europe in the world is smaller than the UK alone or France alone had 20 years ago. I think that the French already started seeing this and taking steps to regain back what little of what they lost they can.

The power axis of the world is moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific in large part because of Europe's actions towards itself which prevents it from having a real world influence. The EU as a whole, under influence from several countries, behaves like an old ruined lady which preaches moral standings that nobody neither cares about nor listens to. One of the itens where this matherialises is pacifism which led to an enormous reduction in military power in several countries, the UK one of them. Well, it's simply impossible to have geopolitical influence without a strong military and the declared will to use it behind diplomacy.


BINGO! It's not an option. It's either yes or yes. See what was the Europe Constitution which, after being refused by referendum in a few countries, was replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon which is the European Constitution with some minor changes. Without any referendum, of course, except the one in Ireland.


Quite true. Very, very true indeed. But then, even in continental Europe there are certain differences, very different societies in the continent which is impossible to mix.


Imagine that you are in Morocco and reach the border with Mauretania. You see that no-man's land which you know have mines here and there, you can't immediately discern what is the best route, you think about Mauretania being an islamic country, etc, etc, etc. What do you do? Go back to the safety of the known Morocco or do you move forward towards Nouadhibou?


That access to skilled or cheap labour has nothing to do with the EU. The UK can design its immigration laws in order to keep attracting those. Just like Canada or Australia do.


It's up to Her Majesty's Government to acquiesce to Brussels demands or not. Or even simply ignore them.


Who cares about Europe outside of Europe? :)



twowheels03, just love that article you posted. It reflects practically the views that I have on the subject being the major point of contention the view of the author regarding a future rebirth of the EEC out of the ruble of the EU's implosion where I tend to think that right now, with so much bad blood between several countries that isn't really an option anymore.

I know this is a mainly British topic, but:

- as a German I would love to see Britain staying in the EU. Britain has always been a voice of reason in a circus of 28 highly different countries. Britain is dependable. The EU would be even more of a totalitarian regime sans British influence.

- Now Britain out of the EU would give me a place to emigrate to, if things get uglier on the Old Continent ... :oops2:

You guys have good reasons for both staying and leaving.

Good luck!

Ain´t that the truth! :thumbup1:bier

"Outside of Europe?"
The thread is about in or out of Europe for the UK (or the rump of the UK when Scotland splits away).

But, my main point is in the heading of that post.
What price Hegemony?

Its good to see Germany and The Netherlands warming to the UK demands, maybe they are starting to think its time for change
Cameron optimistic of February EU deal but France downbeat — EU - European Union business news and information | eubusiness.com

Even Michael Caine has has his 2 pence worth :rofl:
Michael Caine 'certain' Britain should leave EU — EU - European Union business news and information | eubusiness.com

Wayne

Another island far away
 

Japan and GB.


There is much to learn from the other island at the other end of the world.


From a couple of years ago, this article provides an overview of the relations between the two nations over the past 400 years and it comments on the current situation.
A tale of two islands: England, Japan and 400 years of shared history | Asia | News | The Independent


There is much in common nowadays, apart from the historical view above and, again, there is food for thought within the bare statistics.
Comparison of the UK with Japan
(Credit to the junior school in Kent that produced this data).


There is no nation in the world that does not want to trade with Japan.
It is a highly stable society with a strong work ethic, it is highly industrialised and it relies on exporting to earn its way in the world.
Japan has very little in the way of natural resources other than it's forests -- It imports raw materials, adds value to them via a highly developed economy and exports.
If the island of Japan can exist independently by judicious use of treaties and trade agreements with other nations such as Australia then can the islands of Great Britain do the same?


If not, then why not?

Cameron knows full well that both France and Germany have stated they do NOT want the Brexit referendum held in 2017 as it will interfere with their own elections.
Until now Cameron has helpfully—and in my view, rather optimistically—suggested the UK referendum will be in 2016, so long as an early agreement with EU leaders can be achieved. But today Cameron is saying, "I'm not in a hurry, I can hold my referendum at any time up until the end of 2017."

The other EU leaders realise that Cameron has a recent mandate from the British electorate (i.e. the renegotiation was in the Conservative manifesto and the party got elected). I think Cameron is in a fairly strong position and what he's asked for isn't outrageous. And that's unfortunate because if he achieves his demands it weakens the exit campaign.

Main difference between UK and Japan is they have a very strong and thriving industrial manufacturing sector. Ours got sold down the river years ago.
We don't invest in training and the training now given is a joke.
We have a trainee that's given a certificate in changing a wheel, really?
The only remaining manufacturing industries are now under foreign ownership, which to be honest usually do far better than when they were under British management.
Our economy is far too reliant on the financial sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed.
Including Japanese ownership of car assembly plants in the UK.

It is clear that the UK/GB would have to change its whole outlook in a manner to which you allude. But, again, the UK needs to do this in any case if globalisation of the world economy continues apace.
(I mentioned the Japanese work ethic which means a lot more than simply being prepared to undertake hands on work - it was the Japanese who took on the principle of Quality Control and developed it to the status of a semi-religion which may be in accord with their own "Zen").

Cameron has turned his back on almost every other pre-election promise so why would the referendum be any different.

In rough figures
 

Japan has about 1 lawyer per 4000 head of population.
Too many lawyers in Japan, says Ministry of Internal Affairs | Majirox News
For the UK, we have about 10 times more per head of population (ie about 1 per 400), and, for comparison, the USA has 1 lawyer per 250 citizens.
(Mr Cameron was talking about another subject today, related to these statistics and mentioned earlier in a broad description of the UK - the compensation culture).

So you are saying that he won't hold a referendum???

I'm no dyed-in-the-wool Tory, so I had to google this for you, but here's a helpful link to the Conservative Manifesto so you can check the accuracy of what you just wrote...

(I did the link in Cameron Blue rather than my normal Corbyn red) :D

Another very good observation, in the uk sector too much emphasis is put on quantity and efficiency over quality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5-11 year old statistics
 

Reference the title I mean the statistics published by the junior school in my link above - a teacher produced them for the pupils use; let's assume they are correct, for these purposes at least.

Health figures: The Japanese spend 3 times more on their health than we do in the UK. (3% to 1%).

Alcohol consumption: we drink a bit more, but hey, that's not excessive. :innocent:

Savings: private savings rates are extremely different - 3% UK to 13% for Japan.

Land under agriculture: How does Japan feed it's population??

Other:
To match the head of population per land area of Japan, the UK would need to increase the current population by about 20m people.
Each of the 4 named cities outside of London (Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds) should about triple in size, assuming that enough meaningful employment would be developed to support such increases.

These stats probably identify some key differences between the two countries and why Japan can make a living in the world via its manufacturing capability, including the export of motorcycles of course.

?c?

More statistics
 

The Japanese have to be living on Sushi and whale meat + some moss growing on the 67% of land given over to forestry.

Land under Agriculture:
Japan 45.6 : 171.64 UK

GDP:
J 6 : 2.44 UK

Average income/head:
J 35.9 : 36.6 UK

Exports:
J 776.6 : 473 UK

Countries Compared by Agriculture > Agricultural land > Sq. km. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

I certainly hope he does. But it's not beyond comprehension that it will be delayed or cancelled with some bullsh*t reason. Or perhaps severely watered down in some way.

A manifesto pledge is just a half arsed promise to gain votes in my opinion. There is no legal obligation for them to hold a referendum is there ? He's not going to be re-elected so he's got nothing to loose. He's got 500 Million in the bank to ease his conscience.

But please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm no political guru.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is already a contingency plan with a room full of spin doctors already in full preparation for that scenario.

Here's a link for some other broken pledges.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette-cooper/election-promises-broken_b_7949232.html]Nine Broken Promises From the First 100 Days of This Conservative Government

I haven't checked it's accuracy. You're doing such a good job of that. I don't want to ruin your fun ;)

Politicians lied? You'll be telling me next BMWs aren't the ultimate ( as in last ) and I shouldn't eat yellow snow.:offtopic:

:rofl:

This one is too big to avoid. The con will be pictures of princess Charlotte and a puppy the day they announce it, the repeat votes in2018, 19 & 20 until we get it right etc.

The Euro trough is too big for them to avoid. Heck it's even managed to keep our rejects like Kinnock, etc. in luncheon vouchers when even the UN wouldn't have them. They aren't going to set their pension pot on fire when the only alternative is waiting for God in the House of Lords.

Andy

For sure, politicos lie through their teeth - it is in the job description and their training - but in this case I seem to recall that a bill went through parliament for this one, some time ago perhaps??

Isn't that why it is constantly said that the referendum must occur by the end of 2017? 'Cos that is what the law says at present.

Anyone see a pattern appearing in the Jap statistics by the way??


A couple of more stats from the original link:

Japan has about twice the population, in rounded figures, but 3 times as many privately owned vehicles.

Their built up areas are 20% of land use, but ours is only 13%.
So, we might only have to build on another 7% of the UK to accommodate another 20 million workers (the earlier figure to match Japans' head of population to the total land area).

:offtopic:
Slightly off topic but this is to do with helping mitigate the housing crisis brought on by EU and non-EU migration.

I know the green belt is supposed to be sacrosanct and I appreciate there's some way to go with redeveloping brownfield sites, but I can't help thinking we need something really big to kickstart the solution to the housing crisis. There's no point building houses where there's no jobs, so in my mind one part of the solution is to move tens of thousands of government and other jobs out of London to new cities built on the green belt.

One site could be the fenland farmland south of Peterborough between Yaxley and Sawtry. It's on the main east coast rail line from London to Edinburgh and is next to the A1(M) so the complex transport infrastructure is already in place. There's even a small airfield at Connington (ex RAF Glatton) that could be extended back to its wartime runway lengths.

What government departments could be moved? How's about the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall for starters?

A similar suggestion from an MP for the Birmingham area: Move Government departments out of London and into the Midlands

I think that was said because he want Europe to except the British interests and that he was telling Europe that he has a long time to get it before he has to have the referendum

Wayne

Funny.

Japanese Productivity
 

Thanks.


I have been reading this observation about the Japanese economy, which is quite astounding when considered fully:-
"it is not remarked often enough that, in terms of its working age population, Japan's growth has outpaced that of many of its advanced economy peers, not least the United States. On that basis, in 2000-07, Japan grew at a cumulative rate of 15%, almost twice as fast as the United States (8%) - the reverse of what headline growth rates show (10% and 18%). The difference is even bigger if the post-crisis years are also considered."

The "crisis" referenced therein is also called the "Great Financial Crisis" in the source document (below) i.e. that which occured in 2007-08.


Abstracted from: Is the unthinkable becoming routine?

In an earlier post, about two days ago, there was mention of the concept of "bail ins" rather than bail outs of the banks.

The cashless society idea is also very handy for the imposition of negative rates of interest.
This does not get a lot of discussion in the public theatre, but it is already in use in, say, Switzerland, which continues to have a very strong economy.
So far, the national bank of Switzerland has only used negative interest rates in dealing with external banks to deter them from parking money in the Swiss domain; thereby the concept is both trialled and becomes an acceptable policy instrument for future use.

Some would say that the monetary raid on the Cypriot banks - the "haircut" - was intended to hit the Russian oligarchs who had, indeed, parked large amounts of cash in that country.
Again, the trial has been conducted and found to be successful.

Among others, that's the main purpose of this crazy idea of cashless societies although the official retoric goes by the lines of fighting dirty money flows.

Many, many banks around the world along with many, many countries are virtually bankrupt. Warren Buffet once said that it's only when the tide goes that we see who's been swimming naked. Soon will come the day when the tide goes, this being, when interest rates start going back to more usual levels. Then, many banks and governments won't be able to refinance their current debt so this thing of the cashless comes very handy. It becomes easy to just do a haircut on depositors or even confiscate money directly from people's bank accounts effectivelly bailing-in banks and countries. The owners of the money won't have a say in the subject, at all.

It's one of the issues which concerns me most in the last year or so.

The US and Nato were supposed to back the Ukraine simply over turning over their Nukes shotly after they became independent. The US with the usual jelly backbone of Obuma did nothing to support, not even a show of strength which in all reality would have been enough. As you said Putin is laughing at how easy all this is. Putin is playing chess while Nato is playing hop scotch.

As for interests, actually there is a major energy interest in the area which I am surprised the EU did not stand and do more to secure. The Gas Interests for the EU come in a large part though the Ukraine.
Russia, Ukraine Reach Deal on Gas Supplies in EU-Brokered Talks - Bloomberg Business

Russia is owning this, now, and especially in the Future as their oil/gas reserves are absolutely Immense and the world will be wondering what happened in the not so distant future as Russia laughs all the way to the bank.

Thanks for your valuable input :rofl:

Wayne

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

I have voted both Labour and Conservative and to be quite honest even my neighbours dog would be better to have in than Corbyn, god help use if he gets his claws in

Wayne

The KGB offered Michael Foot a job when he had naff all chance of picking anything else up. He was also in with a chance in Scotland. I doubt either opportunity will be offered to Corbyn!

Andy

Energy supplies
 

This reflects on "real politik" - how the rhetoric rarely matches the reality, especially because the public have short memories.


That gas supply has been something of a political football for a while.
It amounts to about 10% of the gas supplies from East to West into Europe (from reading elsewhere) and most of it ends up in Germany, as it happens.
The Ukraine takes a "piece along the way" as payment for the leasing of the pipeline which is handy for them because their economy is bust.

Some commentary says that a reason to depose the Assad regime in Syria is to enable the construction of a "Sunni" pipeline from the middle east into Europe, thereby putting more pressure on Putins' Russia.

The new world order
 

Just to pick up on a couple of points.

The money that "you have in a bank account" is no longer yours.
By putting it on deposit into the account you become a creditor of the bank and the bank is a debtor to you.

It may be a matter of "if interest rates return to normal levels" whatever we may define as normal.
Arguably, the world cannot afford the historical interest rates and so they won't occur despite what the USA Fed tried to do recently.

That is correct. Unfortunatelly that relation is rarely understood by the people. However, you are a creditor to the bank, this being, the bank must pay you back what you borrowed it. The main purpose of this rubish is that, if the bank is in trouble, that contract is severed and you don't receive a part of what you borrowed to the bank.

There are ways around this state of affairs, of course. However, mostly these are not available to the main street by a long shot. Therefore, when worst comes to happen, it will be the middle classes the ones who will end up hurting much. Those who can afford it already took the necessary steps to protect the bulk of their assets.


The world can not afford them... today. Give it time. The return of the interest rates to normal levels, however, is just one of the things that can start a cascade of events. There are others. A new crash which deplects further the value of bank's assets, another example.

If this thing of the cashless society moves forward (DNB in Norway said something on that particular yesterday which should be read carefully) it won't be a transitory thing. It will be permanent. Can you say how will the world be in, say, 10 years?

Quite so.

As for forecasting the future, no one 10 years ago would have said that we are where we are now.

Perhaps, more relevant, is that those pulling the strings don't need to look forward anything like 10 years.
It may be that they only have to look forward, say, 3 months and pull the strings to suit their purposes. We puppets will dance accordingly.

Do the pupeteers still really control events? Or do they even exist?

There are tons of issues in the world right now which seem to have gone astray. The world economy is just one of them but look at the MENA region, even Europe in several itens, the South China Sea with several itens there as well, Japan both internally and in what concerns its relations with China, the strong possibility of a major world war, etc, etc, etc. There is too much going wrong for one to think about some sort of pupeteers. Maybe several "pupeteers", each trying to defend its interests but which in the end will be bad for almost everybody. Not everybody, though.

Eu
 

Out of Eu.

Stuff the EU
 

Stuff the EU, with all the rules and regulations. The EU is just one big black hole sucking money in from the rich countries and giving to the poor. Britain is not been any better off with all of the foreigner's flooding into the country claiming benefit. I think that if Britain gets out of the EU then that will be the beginning of the end of the EU. It is strange now that Britain can get many rules changed now that they indicated they want out. They should of listened to Enoch Powel.

As a dearly departed atty friend said, so long as people have their bread, they are happy.

Rarely are our conflicts ever about anything other than industry in some capacity.
I would encourage anyone to read http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...e_Pirate_Coast which covers how Americas policy of installing puppet dictators for commerce got started.

This guy can write on the subject better than I.
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/01...d-why-we-wont/
He doesn't always get things right in his blog - in the sense that I don't always agree with him - but he always writes from the heart as he sees things and he is entitled to that, for now anyway :innocent::innocent:

It does lie in the nature of man himself - the selfish gene basically.

You guys were latecomers to this - 1804 and just finding your feet in the world - and went about displacing the British Empire.
In turn we had done for the Spanish interests in the new world and had a fair amount of effort directed toward the Dutch, to name two other nations.
But, most of our effort was directed to "enabling" compliant foreign governments to trade with us - at the latter we were pretty successful e.g. in India.
Some historians would say that Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown because he couldn't be bothered any longer - he had a better job to go to, as Governor of India.

Cashless coming sooner than we realise
 

Just to add to the cashless society equation, the money in circulation as notes and coins is about 3% of the economy in the UK. I would think that the % is similar for other "advanced" economies.

Therefore, it would just be a case of removing a small element of the role of money from the economy - we are on the way with contactless cards as a recent device to convince us all of the convenience factor.

I expect that the gypsies would develop a work-around however, for their own purposes.
Crypto-currencies perhaps?

Who is John Ward??
 

Thanks!

Your right wing comment is bizarre though: do you know this John Ward?
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/about/

After reading all of these posts and being inspired to research a lot more about this issue, I've now changed my mind on the E.U.

I think an exit is probably favorable.

However, that would mean every decision about the U.K. and it's citizens would be made by our current government of cold blooded millionaires aristocrats. I don't know whats worse !!!

We'll end up like North Korea :eek:

Nervous comedy aside, this is a 'In a nut shell' in / out summary.

UK and the EU: Better off out or in? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642

So perhaps being free for Europe would be a good thing. But its hard to imagine it's going to be anything else than a painful and expensive divorce as confusion and uncertainty in the market and economy cause havoc. Id expect some kind of recession while the pieces of chessboard are reset.

Oprah, I said Oprah :helpsmilie:

Don't do it Ted!

It's a lot easier to argue for throwing all of the toys out of the pram and flouncing off than it is for maintaining the arrangements, procedures and agreements we currently have. The BBC link does a passable job of summarising the pros and cons but the whole article is laced with ambiguities and guesses - the economy (for example) will be up 1.6% (outs) or down 9.5% (ins) if we leave. No one knows. If we do leave and then have to renegotiate trade arrangements or any other agreements just hope there isn't a latter day DeGaulle on the other side of the table.

God knows the EU isn't perfect but it is and we are not only part of it, we have to take our share of responsibility for the way it is.

Whatever this nation decides, it will be HUGE gamble with endless consequences.

You actually believe the BBC ? No less a propaganda machine than RT.

DeGaulle was the best friend Britain ever had in Europe. He was honest enough to say we didn't fit their plan. No trade deal disguise there.

Andy

Now there's a dilemma: to bite or not to bite, that is the question. Tell you what, post up some links to an accepted, authoritative and neutral assessment of the pro's and con's of the debate and I'll read it / them with an open mind. After all that's all Ted was asking for in the first place and here we are on, what is it, page twelve?

Failing that, explain to me, line by line, what it is that my gullible gene has been taken in by on that BBC report. If I am too stupid to see the bias or untruths in it at least you'll have saved me from that pitfall. While you're doing that I'll just be talking to the bloke from Microsoft who's just phoned to say they've discovered a problem with my computer and wants to fix it .... :rofl:

DeGaulle was one of those who adhered to the concept of some sort of European Union (back then the EEC but the idea of some sort of Union already existed since the early days of the thing) paid by Germany and rulled politically by France. The presence of the UK in such contraption would go strongly against French interests. Historically, the UK always favoured an equilibrium of forces in the continent. Whenever the German states and later Germany were stronger the UK would favour France and vice-versa. This policy was strongly against DeGaulle's intentions.

It really is a large can of worms you've opened up here Ted!

I'm sat on the fence still, I can see good and bad sides to both sides of the debate.

The media, taking sides and embellishing views to coerce the population? Surely not....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No news provider in the world is unbiased some how. The BBC is very Royalist etc. It's paid for by the licence payer who is an audience that needs to be kept happy with what they see.

One has to read news from as many sources as possible and evaluate to their best ability what they believe to be reliable. The more sources the better. My mum is an old women and she reads the Daily Mail. She thinks that's what really goes on in the world and is scared of immigrants because it tells her too. I think it's a vile hatred spreading right wing rag. But I still read it every day.

Know thy enemy :)

Sensible way of looking at it Ted.

I've gone the other way over the last few years, and I don't really follow any of the media. Most was just scaremongering at best, most was bad news.
I'm of the opinion that if you fill your life with too much negativity that some of its got to rub off on you, so I'd rather make my own mind up and react accordingly.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As others have mentioned I don't take much notice of the media, especially MSM.
A skim read of the BBC article indicates to me that it is more or less balanced in that it gives a pros and cons view for each major consideration - the latter have been pretty much covered in here also.

Notably, the two most prosperous countries in the world (according to this think tank, which itself has plenty of journos on its books) are highlighted in the BBC article:
Norway is the Most Prosperous Country in the World

ps
Statistics in the Legatum article are taken with a dose of scepticism, as is normal for me.

Al Jazeera, at present anyway, makes a better job of covering world news.
But it too can have agendas, being based in Qatar.

Strangely, The USA channel of Al Jaz is closing down in April this year, just as the Presidential elections are under way.

I was in a WH Smith branch (a High St newsagents for anyone not from the UK still reading this "debate") yesterday and saw they had a whole shelf of own brand publications about the royals.There was one for each of the main players, complete with suitably regal looking portrait picture on the front cover. What made me smile though was that they'd put them on the top shelf not far from the porno mags, an irony that must have been lost on the store manager.

We probably wave the royals the way Americans wave the stars and stripes - it's a way of giving the population something to gather around / identify with, the feeling that there's something above the money grubbing sleaze that is politics. A kind of national version of good cop / bad cop.

I've been trying for some time to work out whether the Daily Mail is cause or effect. Whether it's leading the charge or just the mouthpiece of people who've "come to that conclusion all by themselves". I'll probably never find out until one of the papers does an article on it :rofl: - and not even then as I don't buy any of them any more.

Do people buy newspapers to broaden their minds or confirm their prejudices? I used to be an avid reader up until about 10yrs ago but something changed and I still haven't worked out whether it was me or them. Whether the internet forced them into niche areas or whether out of on-line, tv, radio, papers etc something had to give and it was the papers. Now my cynicism knows no bounds, particularly with the Mail's partner in crime, the Daily Express. Their "health miracle of the day" headlines are about as blatant an attempt to sell newspapers to the old, infirm and ill as it's possible to get short of employing Indian computer virus salesmen to do it for you.

Here's a candidate, and the comments to this blog post add a few more:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/01...-correction-3/

The Greeks must be tired of eating stale bread.

Not on my UK TV.
Talking of TV, UK kids are online more hours per day than they watch TV (says the BBC) - smart kids I say, who know not to waste their time.

Reading into the prosperity index a little further, specifically the table that shows most countries and the basis for how the table was constructed:
http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking

It turns out that a small country in the far east is the most prosperous country in the world, measured solely in economic terms, and it is an ex-British colony.

Namely, Singapore.

Now there’s a thing – The good ol' BBC. Overly liberal-biased news broadcasting aside, the Beeb is a world-leading export, as many of us here who have travelled overseas, will know and appreciate.

Nothing produced abroad comes even close to the high standards of the BBC when it comes to their superb drama productions and documentaries, the natural history docs in particular. The rest of the world looks-on with envy. :yes:

Hell, the licence fee is worth every penny just to watch and listen to Carol Kirkwood present the weather forecasts! :tt1:

Thought of the day
 

That is really sad!
:rain:


I was reminded of an important concept contained in the earlier link to the BBC summary: the concept that it takes 2 or more entities to trade, and it has little to do with politicos and their "inteference" via trading laws.

The reminder was this:
The big cheese of Iran, Rouhani, is currently on a shopping trip in Europe, now that the assets of Iran have been released from sanctions.
a. He went to Italy and bought a few Billion worth of steel products from that country.
b. Now he has bought over 100 Airbus aircraft from France.
He probably doesn't really care that the wings of that aircraft are manufactured in Wales, so he is supporting UK exports.
Nor does it seem feasible for France to stop trading wings for the Airbus in the event of a Brexit decision.

Unelected suited crooks !!!
 

The European Union is futile, corrupt and saturated with fraud, Margaret Thatcher’s former press secretary has said.
Writing in the Yorkshire Post, Sir Bernard Ingham, Thatcher’s longtime trusted press secretary, asked why Britain should cast £12 billion a year down an assorted array of “criminal drains.”

"Europhiles might usefully address themselves not to the question why we should stay in the EU, but why we should ever want to be a member of it at all when the institution is corrupt and so riddled with fraud that the auditors have felt unable to sign off its accounts for nigh on 20 years,” he said.

Drivel
 

Also world class leader in Peado cover ups....Pro eu biased reporting....reinforcing government agenda....breaking its charter....putting out endless mind numbing drama and fake reality drivel. And worst of all.....Chris ######g evans.

No arguments from me over Chris Evans. :thumbdown:

You should get up earlier. Vanessa ****y Feltz rambling aimlessly about her mates. The Ginger Whinger is an absolute relief.

Andy

Anyone votes for Piers?

Good Morning Britain (2015–present)

I know, different toilet [ITV network]

In the picture below he reminds me of a film star, like ..

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...-4HvMD6m-S.jpg

Lassie having a sh!t!

That sounds like the perfect new Top Gear line up - Chris "Ego" Evans and Vanessa "Earplugs" Feltz. You'd just need to add Janet Street-Porter as a kind of reverse Stig - one that never stops talking, and you'd see a huge rise in the sales of TVs as people put their foot through their old ones. :rofl:

Here's a view from someone who lives in Sweden:-
"If you think it's not going to happen anytime soon, then you should try living here in Sweden for a while.
Most bank offices no longer handle cash at all. The very few remaining ones that do, will endlessly humiliate a customer and literally treat him like a petty criminal when he tries to deposit cash to his account, even a miserable sum like, say, 5,000 SEK (around 500 USD).
Shops, restaurants and other business, even state agencies, slowly follow the suit too, placing signs that they don't accept cash and citing "security reasons" and fear of robberies. (Did I mention that even doctors' offices and emergency wards get robbed in this country? Guess who commits such crimes - but that is another story.)
In conclusion - Sweden is a proving ground for many NWO phenomenons and experiments. Transgender children, extreme multiculturalism, destruction of nuclear family, all your nightmares begin here. Cashless society is only one of them."

An abstract from, What A Cashless Society Would Look Like | Zero Hedge
That article gives a few pros and cons about the cashless society concept, and there is a lot of commentary thereafter including the quote above..............
On the main topic, is a cashless system more or less likely inside the EU?

Makes it sound like some Orwellian dystopia where the inhabitants live in a form of state induced darkness. My son lives in Sweden at the moment after living in (as well as the UK) Holland, France and China and isn't reporting any form of unusual social circumstances. In fact he quite likes the way things work in the country. As it took him a few months to get the Swedish version of a social security number he's had to live in the "cash economy" during that time and didn't find it particularly restrictive - or never mentioned it if he did.

Whether the Swedes are more cashless than us or any other country can only be a matter of degree though as that's the way things have been moving for a number of decades and continue to do so. Whether this is driven by some kind of Machiavellian cabal, consumer preference or commercial pressure it is a fairly universal shift. Even "backward" countries - sub Saharan Africa, the USA etc have embraced it to some extent. For the most part it does make life on the road easier than it used to be. When I first started travelling we had to take most of our funds in cash (I never trusted travellers cheques). That was fine until one trip to Greece when the money bag fell off the bike and we lost it. It took two weeks to get money transferred from the UK. Try living in a cash economy with no cash.

Taxation is the least of it - see Common Law
 

I've been reading into this further and came upon a very fundamental, if not controversial, view.
It is a long article and an abstract is below, which gives a feel for the myriad of issues contained in the article itself.

"Just to clarify the situation, breaches of The Law are dealt with in a genuine court with a jury. All other matters, such as taxation, bank loans, parking restrictions, speed limits, and the like, are dealt with in a fake "court" which is a commercial company and part of a violent protection racket style scam which is wholly unlawful, but enforced by violence, threats and intimidation using bailiffs and police to protect the bailiffs from being attacked."

Abstracted from (and toward the end of the article):
http://www.yourstrawman.com/

Legal or Lawful?
 

For some kind of "completeness", it was this blog posting that led me to consider more about the issue of the law.
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/01...in-your-ear-2/

I believe the majority of the worlds lawyers practice in the USA, although some dispute this statistic.
In any case, practice probably does make for perfection.

Anyone else had one of these through the door. It's a very pro EU 'Newsletter' from the 'stronger in' department.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...37c61b10aa.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e82ef83b73.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...9bc7f9db56.jpg

You will get an increasing number of pro and anti communications over the next few months, all of which are likely to be misleading to a degree.

I think we need to wait until a draft settlement is actually agreed by the other countries in the EU before it makes any sense analysing what it means.

Not surprising nowadays
 

I find this disturbing:



EU twisting facts to fit political agenda, chief scientist says | EurActiv

Walkabout, that is not new, at all. As a matter of fact that is the basis of the EU's construction. Since day one it has been a political thing with actions dictated politically with no regard whatsoever for reality or science in several fields. The most notorious is the Euro but it's far from being alone in the bag.

Speaks volumes
 

I get that.

Politics dictats in the fields of methods of government, transportation, taxation, housing policy and international relations et al is understood; they are all based on consensus, to use that hackneyed terminology.
But, when a chief scientific advisor feels it necessary to make the statement in that link, after 3 years in post, then it rings alarm bells, of the nature that has been posted in another thread in here - the thread about climate change.

To add:
Science dragged us out of our mud hut hovels and brought us untold benefits - the very basis of modern societies.
The age of enlightenment no less, which was pretty much based on free thinking individuals who gave their all, including their health and their lives in some cases (Madam Curie), for such betterment.

It is an utter disgrace that any politician should think that they can pervert science toward their own ends, their own dogma, their own small mindedness.

The problem with the EU is that the 28 nations are not really in control of the EU leaders. People might scorn the lack of accountability of UK government politicians and officials, but in reality the MPs and Select Committees do a pretty good job of holding them to account and nothing of that ilk seems to exist in the EU.

The EU is broken. I see no good alternative for the UK other than withdrawal.

A reflection of the differing expectations of the differing populations? The British democracy with inherited "safety valve" structure has been pretty stable for 200 years and there for close to 400. Our dictators give up the job by themselves when whatever emergency is over. The nearest similar set up is the Netherlands, but only 200 years in total with a gap when things spilled over from Germany. Germany was a dictatorship 70 or 30 years ago depending where you were, Spain 40 years ago and Poland 30. If the population remember Erik Honeke, General Jaraselski and Franco, Jacques Delores and the grey men of the commission seem benign and more stable that students with flags and petrol bombs. This is especially true when they are buying you motorways and handing out cash not to grow stuff.

Giving up freedom for stability seems mad to someone who's never had a Soviet or Nazi secret policeman kick in their front door.

If the UK manages to free itself I wonder how the rest will take their promotion to the rich, developed and therefore contibutable part of the membership?

Andy

After hearing the latest idea, all twenty eight states getting different amounts of benefit, for differing periods, I am even more convinced we need to go. The poor old benefits dept can't cope now, God knows what that will do to it. Cameron calls that a good deal, I think not.