The BBC at it again - EU referendum
Discussion
Smollet said:
Don said:
You know those "Shy Tories".
I'll bet there are bazillions of 'em with an opinion on the EU who will vote with their conscience whichever way the BBC tries to spin it.
I hope we stay in personally but if the will of the people is different...
I think with a lot of people who voted to join the EEC in the 70s if we'd been told the truth about the outcome with it becoming a federal state run by a bunch of unelected idealists the result would've been very different. We weren't and now have to renegotiate. Fat chance of that happening. I'll bet there are bazillions of 'em with an opinion on the EU who will vote with their conscience whichever way the BBC tries to spin it.
I hope we stay in personally but if the will of the people is different...
Edited by Smollet on Wednesday 20th May 14:34
I am for staying in, but only if the advantages / disadvantages of being members is put before the people of the UK to let them make an informed decision, and only if much needed reforms to the way it operates are put in place. I wont be holding my breath waiting for any of that to happen though.
Scuffers said:
DJRC said:
Yes Scuffs I am for real, unlike you though I'm a fairly middle of the road politics chap.
OK, are you trying to say I am some sort of rabid fanatic?Go for it, what brush are you going to try and tar me with?
PS. did you actually re-watch them?
k about it, there are simply more important things in life to care about. You are obsessed about immigration. To me I see the advantages both ways, again its something that Im not going to get fussed over, there are more important things in life. Again you are obsessed about pressure on public resources, again its something that ranks lower than "can I pay my mortgage" on my give-a-fk-o-meter. You obsesses about stuff that to me isn't vastly important. I don't like what the BBC news are saying...I turn over. Its that simple.
Robert Oxley from http://businessforbritain.org/ makes the case for being out of the EU on BBC Wake up to Money this morning. 30 mins in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/money
AJS- said:
I think I know what you're getting at, but I would say that while they might have a preference for certain details of Labour policy - especially spending more money - on the more fundamental political points Labour and the Tories are basically the same. By this I mean EU membership, climate change and a particular type of multiculturalism.
The BBC's bias is party political to a small degree, but it's adherence to this orthodoxy is strong and challenges to it are the enemy.
kind of...The BBC's bias is party political to a small degree, but it's adherence to this orthodoxy is strong and challenges to it are the enemy.
it;s not that they promote one party so much as the leftie socialist wet dream rhetoric.
As you say, they are never going to support EU exit, or cover anti climate change stories in anything other than scathing terms etc.
Smollet said:
I think with a lot of people who voted to join the EEC in the 70s if we'd been told the truth about the outcome with it becoming a federal state run by a bunch of unelected idealists the result would've been very different. We weren't and now have to renegotiate. Fat chance of that happening.
Nobody voted to join the EEC. We were taken in by the euro-obsessive Prime Minister, Ted Heath who applied within 2 weeks of being elected. Even the European Communities Act (1972) squeaked through parliament by 309 votes to 301. Tony Benn described it at the time as a "coup d'état".Mainly due to splits within the new Labour government, Prime Minister Wilson ran a referenda in 1975 to determine if the public supported our continual membership. Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market.
No one aged under 58 has ever had a say on the EU/EEC.
Beati Dogu said:
Smollet said:
I think with a lot of people who voted to join the EEC in the 70s if we'd been told the truth about the outcome with it becoming a federal state run by a bunch of unelected idealists the result would've been very different. We weren't and now have to renegotiate. Fat chance of that happening.
Nobody voted to join the EEC. We were taken in by the euro-obsessive Prime Minister, Ted Heath who applied within 2 weeks of being elected. Even the European Communities Act (1972) squeaked through parliament by 309 votes to 301. Tony Benn described it at the time as a "coup d'état".Mainly due to splits within the new Labour government, Prime Minister Wilson ran a referenda in 1975 to determine if the public supported our continual membership. Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market.
No one aged under 58 has ever had a say on the EU/EEC.
Harold Wilson's "policy" on Europe was such that he was dubbed "The Grand Old Duke of York" by some commentators at the time. He opposed joining mainly because the tories supported it in the first instance, and then swayed with what he saw was the political wind until the referendum.
As somebody else said earlier, De Gaulle did not want the UK in the "club" because it was primarily being run at that time by the French for the French. It was also not quite that Germany was suffering a post-WW2 guilt trip (although that may have been partially the case) but there was also the little matter of partition into East and West Germany in 1945. They were not the powerful nation that they are today. Italy rarely kept a government more than a month and there was also their skeleton in the cupboard (or was it on a lamp post) of Mussolini. Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were quite happy to go along with anything if it meant the French and the Germans didn't have a punch-up on their soil again.
As regards your comment: "Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market" , if you were not around at the time then you are being rather insulting and a little naïve. If you were around at the time then you might have selective amnesia, perhaps brought on by your own prejudices. I voted in that referendum and I voted yes. I voted yes because I wanted to see the end of pettily-feuding European states and I wanted a United States of Europe. What was on offer to me in 1975 was a first step in that direction. There may be some hope for it yet
rs1952 said:
I don't know if you were around at the time, but I was.
Harold Wilson's "policy" on Europe was such that he was dubbed "The Grand Old Duke of York" by some commentators at the time. He opposed joining mainly because the tories supported it in the first instance, and then swayed with what he saw was the political wind until the referendum.
As somebody else said earlier, De Gaulle did not want the UK in the "club" because it was primarily being run at that time by the French for the French. It was also not quite that Germany was suffering a post-WW2 guilt trip (although that may have been partially the case) but there was also the little matter of partition into East and West Germany in 1945. They were not the powerful nation that they are today. Italy rarely kept a government more than a month and there was also their skeleton in the cupboard (or was it on a lamp post) of Mussolini. Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were quite happy to go along with anything if it meant the French and the Germans didn't have a punch-up on their soil again.
As regards your comment: "Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market" , if you were not around at the time then you are being rather insulting and a little naïve. If you were around at the time then you might have selective amnesia, perhaps brought on by your own prejudices. I voted in that referendum and I voted yes. I voted yes because I wanted to see the end of pettily-feuding European states and I wanted a United States of Europe. What was on offer to me in 1975 was a first step in that direction. There may be some hope for it yet
NATO and nukes had put paid to any problems with European war a long time before 1975.Harold Wilson's "policy" on Europe was such that he was dubbed "The Grand Old Duke of York" by some commentators at the time. He opposed joining mainly because the tories supported it in the first instance, and then swayed with what he saw was the political wind until the referendum.
As somebody else said earlier, De Gaulle did not want the UK in the "club" because it was primarily being run at that time by the French for the French. It was also not quite that Germany was suffering a post-WW2 guilt trip (although that may have been partially the case) but there was also the little matter of partition into East and West Germany in 1945. They were not the powerful nation that they are today. Italy rarely kept a government more than a month and there was also their skeleton in the cupboard (or was it on a lamp post) of Mussolini. Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were quite happy to go along with anything if it meant the French and the Germans didn't have a punch-up on their soil again.
As regards your comment: "Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market" , if you were not around at the time then you are being rather insulting and a little naïve. If you were around at the time then you might have selective amnesia, perhaps brought on by your own prejudices. I voted in that referendum and I voted yes. I voted yes because I wanted to see the end of pettily-feuding European states and I wanted a United States of Europe. What was on offer to me in 1975 was a first step in that direction. There may be some hope for it yet
rs1952 said:
I don't know if you were around at the time, but I was.
Harold Wilson's "policy" on Europe was such that he was dubbed "The Grand Old Duke of York" by some commentators at the time. He opposed joining mainly because the tories supported it in the first instance, and then swayed with what he saw was the political wind until the referendum.
As somebody else said earlier, De Gaulle did not want the UK in the "club" because it was primarily being run at that time by the French for the French. It was also not quite that Germany was suffering a post-WW2 guilt trip (although that may have been partially the case) but there was also the little matter of partition into East and West Germany in 1945. They were not the powerful nation that they are today. Italy rarely kept a government more than a month and there was also their skeleton in the cupboard (or was it on a lamp post) of Mussolini. Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were quite happy to go along with anything if it meant the French and the Germans didn't have a punch-up on their soil again.
As regards your comment: "Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market" , if you were not around at the time then you are being rather insulting and a little naïve. If you were around at the time then you might have selective amnesia, perhaps brought on by your own prejudices. I voted in that referendum and I voted yes. I voted yes because I wanted to see the end of pettily-feuding European states and I wanted a United States of Europe. What was on offer to me in 1975 was a first step in that direction. There may be some hope for it yet
I was around, but too young to vote. It's hard to believe that anyone could be naive enough to see the EU like it was some sort of "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" Coke advert. But I guess they do.Harold Wilson's "policy" on Europe was such that he was dubbed "The Grand Old Duke of York" by some commentators at the time. He opposed joining mainly because the tories supported it in the first instance, and then swayed with what he saw was the political wind until the referendum.
As somebody else said earlier, De Gaulle did not want the UK in the "club" because it was primarily being run at that time by the French for the French. It was also not quite that Germany was suffering a post-WW2 guilt trip (although that may have been partially the case) but there was also the little matter of partition into East and West Germany in 1945. They were not the powerful nation that they are today. Italy rarely kept a government more than a month and there was also their skeleton in the cupboard (or was it on a lamp post) of Mussolini. Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were quite happy to go along with anything if it meant the French and the Germans didn't have a punch-up on their soil again.
As regards your comment: "Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market" , if you were not around at the time then you are being rather insulting and a little naïve. If you were around at the time then you might have selective amnesia, perhaps brought on by your own prejudices. I voted in that referendum and I voted yes. I voted yes because I wanted to see the end of pettily-feuding European states and I wanted a United States of Europe. What was on offer to me in 1975 was a first step in that direction. There may be some hope for it yet
Y
Get over it!No.
The problem is that most EU laws don't come from the European Parliament. They come in the form of "directives" from the unelected "commission". The people that we elect have very little say at all in the laws that get imposed on us.
The WEEE directive costs my small company £1000.00 a year. As far as I can see, MEP's had no input at all.
The RoHS directive closed down one of our North Wales suppliers(with the loss of 80 jobs). Again, MEP's had no input.Did yourespond to the wrong post?
In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.
MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ENLIGHTENING US.The chances of enlightening you are slim to non-existent. Zod I think you are being a bit unfair there.
Without your transparency we would have never known you are actually a (small as you said yourself) part of the system that aims for the elimination of Great Britain and the rise of a European Dictatorship.
Once again are in your debt, it is no wonder you patrol these threads with such...vigour.
Zod said:
Mojocvh said:
Zod said:
don4l said:
Zod said:
Mojocvh said:
Well they manipulated the election very well this this will be a walk in the park.
The trouble is not Europe, not the population, not trade, it's the encroaching, hidden, undemocratic policy making.
Yes, because without the BBC and the MSM conspiracy, UKIP would have won plenty more seats and Farage would be telling Cameron what to do!The trouble is not Europe, not the population, not trade, it's the encroaching, hidden, undemocratic policy making.
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 20th May 14:21
Get over it!
The problem is that most EU laws don't come from the European Parliament. They come in the form of "directives" from the unelected "commission". The people that we elect have very little say at all in the laws that get imposed on us.
The WEEE directive costs my small company £1000.00 a year. As far as I can see, MEP's had no input at all.
The RoHS directive closed down one of our North Wales suppliers(with the loss of 80 jobs). Again, MEP's had no input.
In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.
MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.
Without your transparency we would have never known you are actually a (small as you said yourself) part of the system that aims for the elimination of Great Britain and the rise of a European Dictatorship.
Once again are in your debt, it is no wonder you patrol these threads with such...vigour.
Zod said:
id yourespond to the wrong post?
In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.
MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.
would it not be better for the uk to be creating any legislation that is required rather than having to spend all that money ( 20% or so of your earnings it would appear, depending how many hours you work per year) and time altering legislation created by someone else in a different country that does not have the the interests of the uk as their prime concern ?In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.
MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.
as for the charities , think tanks and all the other groups with vested interests , i personally think they have done enough damage and would prefer individuals with the required competence that work for the government to be driving policy in all areas for the benefit of the uk as whole.
s2art said:
NATO and nukes had put paid to any problems with European war a long time before 1975.
Yes we hear this so often: "NATO has kept the peace in Europe since WW2, not the EU." The trouble is, it misses much of the point.NATOs job, put over-simply, was to tell the Russians that we were quite prepared to bung nukes at them if they threatened to bung nukes at us. That made sure that any further expansion of Russian influence in Europe post-WW2 didn't happen.
NATO and nukes would not have stopped France declaring war on Germany, or the Spanish declaring war on us (they do have a bit of a problem with us about a large lump of rock on their southern coast so nothing is impossible), or any other European combination you might care to think of.
And if you think inter-European war is unthinkable, then only a couple of generations before you and me they has first hand experience of them. Not only the two big ones, but also the Franco-Prussian, much of western Europe was involved in one way or another with the Spanish Civil War, and so on.
NATO hasn't stopped that - a united Europe has.
Now I stop and think about it (and CBA to check mid-way through typing a post) weren't you the person who was suggesting we could tell other European states to FO out of our fishing grounds by boarding and detaining ships? Personally I think that that sort of thing could go well past "diplomatic incident status" in a very short space of time.
rs1952 said:
s2art said:
NATO and nukes had put paid to any problems with European war a long time before 1975.
Yes we hear this so often: "NATO has kept the peace in Europe since WW2, not the EU." The trouble is, it misses much of the point.NATOs job, put over-simply, was to tell the Russians that we were quite prepared to bung nukes at them if they threatened to bung nukes at us. That made sure that any further expansion of Russian influence in Europe post-WW2 didn't happen.
NATO and nukes would not have stopped France declaring war on Germany, or the Spanish declaring war on us (they do have a bit of a problem with us about a large lump of rock on their southern coast so nothing is impossible), or any other European combination you might care to think of.
And if you think inter-European war is unthinkable, then only a couple of generations before you and me they has first hand experience of them. Not only the two big ones, but also the Franco-Prussian, much of western Europe was involved in one way or another with the Spanish Civil War, and so on.
NATO hasn't stopped that - a united Europe has.
Now I stop and think about it (and CBA to check mid-way through typing a post) weren't you the person who was suggesting we could tell other European states to FO out of our fishing grounds by boarding and detaining ships? Personally I think that that sort of thing could go well past "diplomatic incident status" in a very short space of time.
Yes it was me regarding fishing grounds. What is the problem? It is exactly what we do now with illegal fishing boats (amongst others) it is exactly what just about every nation in the world that has the capability does. There would be no 'diplomatic incident' if we simply applied the law, just as every other nation with the capability, does.
Why do you have a problem with this?
Edited to add; From Wiki
'Royal Navy officers assigned to the Fishery Protection Squadron have a secondary role as British Sea Fisheries officers.[1] There is a formal contract between the Ministry of Defence, the Marine and Fisheries Agency and DEFRA that allows the squadron to conduct inspections of all fishing vessels in all UK (excepting Scottish) waters.[1] Fishery Protection Squadron vessels can also stop British fishing vessels in international waters.[1] In the 2008/09 contract year, the squadron spent 700 days at sea on patrol, conducting 1,102 inspections.[1] From the inspections, 231 ships broke UK or EU law.[1] As a result, 144 verbal warnings, 33 written warnings and 10 financial administrative penalties were handed out.[1] The most serious breaches resulted in eight vessels being detained at UK ports.[1] When a vessel is detained, the captain of the squadron ship contacts the DEFRA operation centre in London, which formulates a decision based on information provided to it by ships, aircraft, district fishery inspectors and fishermen, and then relays this decision back to the fishery protection ship.[1][2]'
Edited by s2art on Friday 22 May 19:48
rs1952 said:
As regards your comment: "Sadly, few people did any due diligence and fell for the line that it was just a common market" , if you were not around at the time then you are being rather insulting and a little naïve. If you were around at the time then you might have selective amnesia, perhaps brought on by your own prejudices. I voted in that referendum and I voted yes. I voted yes because I wanted to see the end of pettily-feuding European states and I wanted a United States of Europe. What was on offer to me in 1975 was a first step in that direction. There may be some hope for it yet
I was around at the time, and I voted yes, because everything I saw was about a common Market, Nothing else. In fact, nobody I knew, had any idea of a "United States Of Europe" at all. Additionaly some of those senior figures who were involved at the time in the referenda have admitted that matters were held back/suppressed from the electorate, shoved under the carpet. The government issued Q/A pamphlet of the day, totally fudges and skirts round the sovreignty matters. (Although must admit I cannot recall seeing it at the time)
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm...
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Friday 22 May 20:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff