The 'No to the EU' campaign

[Scuffers]

Looks like the IN'ers are already getting desperate..

http://order-order.com/2015/10/26/in-claim-out-uk-...

[FiF]

They are focussing on the Norway option because it scared them and exposes the global governance, the global rules and regulations making that reduces the EU to an expensive and useless middleman. Plus the Norway option isn't for UK an end in itself, but merely one step along the way.

[jjlynn27]

Scuffers said:

Looks like the IN'ers are already getting desperate..

http://order-order.com/2015/10/26/in-claim-out-uk-...

I like that link. I like the graphs showing how little influence UK has. What I'd like even more is superimposed attendance of UK MEPs.
And I do like comments section.

order-order poster said:

Victoria Linnell • an hour ago
out out EU NOT WORKING. MERKAL IS ATRAITOR. TO GERMAN PEOPLE. EVIL bh PREFERES THE SAND MONKEYS TO HER OWN KIND

Quality.

[brenflys777]

The winners of the Polish election have said that they want significant reform of the EU including border control. The IN campaign must be aware that when a country like Poland who've benefitted so much financially from EU membership elect a party that wants change or exit, they're going to have to deliver something pretty special to persuade the undecideds in this country. Presenting no change as safe won't cut it when events like the migrant crisis are evidence of a change in practical conditions.

[FiF]

More on the issue of what use is the EU?



EU isn't the top table

[Scuffers]

When you watch stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBBwhJx11Bc&fe...

you have to question the quality/capabilities of the muppets in the EU parliament.

Let's face it, Farage is not a genius, just a decent enough intelligent bloke, but is easily able to run rings round the EU muppets.

This example, what sort of stupid question did she come up with when the answer is as black and white as you can get and instantly makes her look not only dimwitted but stupid enough not even to understand how she's just made herself look that stupid to the world.

[jjlynn27]

Esseesse said:

EU forcing farmers to advertise the EU on their land!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/...

So farmer gets e50k and has to put up a sign 300x300mm (slightly larger than a4) to say that he/she is receiving EU funding, for the duration of the contract? What's the problem with that?

[Scuffers]

jjlynn27 said:

Esseesse said:

EU forcing farmers to advertise the EU on their land!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/...

So farmer gets e50k and has to put up a sign 300x300mm (slightly larger than a4) to say that he/she is receiving EU funding, for the duration of the contract? What's the problem with that?

quite apart from the obvious, (EU forcing people to advertise the EU), it's not EU money at all, it's UK Taxpayers money.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

Esseesse said:

EU forcing farmers to advertise the EU on their land!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/...

So farmer gets e50k and has to put up a sign 300x300mm (slightly larger than a4) to say that he/she is receiving EU funding, for the duration of the contract? What's the problem with that?

Barely concealed self-interest and self-promotion effectively paid for under argumentum ad baculum by the interested party.

It's well away from the spirit of the Nolan Sisters Principles.

[jjlynn27]

Scuffers said:

jjlynn27 said:

Esseesse said:

EU forcing farmers to advertise the EU on their land!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/...

So farmer gets e50k and has to put up a sign 300x300mm (slightly larger than a4) to say that he/she is receiving EU funding, for the duration of the contract? What's the problem with that?

quite apart from the obvious, (EU forcing people to advertise the EU), it's not EU money at all, it's UK Taxpayers money.

The article says that the money is from EU grants, is that not true? The sign needs to say that they receive money from EU grants. The scheme is voluntary.

[Scuffers]

jjlynn27 said:

The article says that the money is from EU grants, is that not true? The sign needs to say that they receive money from EU grants. The scheme is voluntary.

some points:

1) where do you think the EU's money comes from? some magic money tree? (as Labour seem to think)
2) voluntary? really? well, yes, they can opt out no problem, then go bust the following week as they will be seriously undercut by subsidised competition! The EU's CAP is massively out of control and always has been, problem is global subsides, and nobody is interested in sorting it out, much like Steel dumping but on a much larger scale.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

Barely concealed self-interest and self-promotion effectively paid for under argumentum ad baculum by the interested party.

It's well away from the spirit of the Nolan Sisters Principles.

Not interested enough to google all of that, but, scheme is voluntary, right?

[jjlynn27]

Scuffers said:

some points:

1) where do you think the EU's money comes from? some magic money tree? (as Labour seem to think)
2) voluntary? really? well, yes, they can opt out no problem, then go bust the following week as they will be seriously undercut by subsidised competition! The EU's CAP is massively out of control and always has been, problem is global subsides, and nobody is interested in sorting it out, much like Steel dumping but on a much larger scale.

1) Is that magic tree in the same forest that MEPs salaries come from?
2) Yes voluntary, ie they are not forced to participate. For that kind of money, I'd happily erect double sized posters, triple sized if they'd pay more. It does seem like that applications are competitive, so I'd imagine that they'll have more applicants than grants available. Aren't these grants for environmental improvements of the countryside?

[Scuffers]

jjlynn27 said:

1) Is that magic tree in the same forest that MEPs salaries come from?
2) Yes voluntary, ie they are not forced to participate. For that kind of money, I'd happily erect double sized posters, triple sized if they'd pay more. It does seem like that applications are competitive, so I'd imagine that they'll have more applicants than grants available. Aren't these grants for environmental improvements of the countryside?

1) so what? any money the EU gets from us and then deems to give back is vastly inefficient and would be better dealt with locally.

and what relevance is MEP's salaries? if we were not in the EU we would not have any MEP's!

2) Eh? I don't think you have a clue about the CAP do you? Please do some reading up on it first before making any more of a prat of yourself.

[jjlynn27]

Scuffers said:

1) so what? any money the EU gets from us and then deems to give back is vastly inefficient and would be better dealt with locally.

and what relevance is MEP's salaries? if we were not in the EU we would not have any MEP's!

2) Eh? I don't think you have a clue about the CAP do you? Please do some reading up on it first before making any more of a prat of yourself.

You are always angry, it's funny. I don't see the problem with a sign saying 'I'm receiving money from EU fund, and not scuffer's magic tree' for the money received from EU fund, where money originally comes from seems to be irrelevant to people choosing to participate in the scheme, as the scheme is already oversubscribed.
The relevance of MEPs salaries is, if they were slightly more efficient of what they do, while we are in, we'd get more money back. As for 'prat' part; lol.


ETA: One of the three elements of the scheme : "Mid Tier: multi-year agreements for environmental improvements in the wider countryside, including multi-year management options and capital grants"

But rant away, it is funny.

[Scuffers]

jjlynn27 said:

You are always angry, it's funny. I don't see the problem with a sign saying 'I'm receiving money from EU fund, and not scuffer's magic tree' for the money received from EU fund, where money originally comes from seems to be irrelevant to people choosing to participate in the scheme, as the scheme is already oversubscribed.
The relevance of MEPs salaries is, if they were slightly more efficient of what they do, while we are in, we'd get more money back. As for 'prat' part; lol.


ETA: One of the three elements of the scheme : "Mid Tier: multi-year agreements for environmental improvements in the wider countryside, including multi-year management options and capital grants"

But rant away, it is funny.

you do make me laugh!

How have you deduced that I am 'always angry'?

is it coming up in an 'angry font' or something?

What I am is amazed at the ignorance of the subject you seem to be displaying, ie. the total cost of ALL MEP's is trivial in comparison the the costs of the EU's CAP (currently running at some 64 Billion Euro's PA)

[jjlynn27]

Scuffers said:

you do make me laugh!

How have you deduced that I am 'always angry'?

is it coming up in an 'angry font' or something?

What I am is amazed at the ignorance of the subject you seem to be displaying, ie. the total cost of ALL MEP's is trivial in comparison the the costs of the EU's CAP (currently running at some 64 Billion Euro's PA)

You rant about everything under the Sun. It's funny. The facts are as they are; people get to display the sign that they are receiving EU funds, under voluntary scheme where they are, guess what, receiving EU funds, for improving the countryside. They seem quite happy to do it. I find that perfectly understandable. But then again, my sphincter doesn't twitch every time I see letters E and U together.

As for the cost of MEPs, if they were much better at their job, while they are still there and receive substantial perks for being there, if they actually turned up for work, maybe just maybe we'd get some more money back.

[alfie2244]

jjlynn27 said:

But then again, my sphincter doesn't twitch every time I see letters E and U together.

Does it not? Well I'll go to the foot of my stairs.

[Funkycoldribena]

jjlynn27 said:

As for the cost of MEPs, if they were much better at their job, while they are still there and receive substantial perks for being there, if they actually turned up for work, maybe just maybe we'd get some more money back.

If they were non-existent we'd have all our money in the first place.

[turbobloke]

Funkycoldribena said:

jjlynn27 said:

As for the cost of MEPs, if they were much better at their job, while they are still there and receive substantial perks for being there, if they actually turned up for work, maybe just maybe we'd get some more money back.

If they were non-existent we'd have all our money in the first place.

Good point well made.