The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Scuffers said:
FiF said:
Problem is though, that if immigration is THE issue that gets those people to vote Leave then they're going to be disappointed.
In the event of Brexit then immigration is probably only going to drop to the level where it was when UKIP et al started griping about it, and/or the reality of any deal will mean that for quite some time freedom of movement will still be in place.
care to quantify that?In the event of Brexit then immigration is probably only going to drop to the level where it was when UKIP et al started griping about it, and/or the reality of any deal will mean that for quite some time freedom of movement will still be in place.
UKIP's stated aim was to return net migration to the ~30,000 PA level of the pre-blair era.
that would be a dramatic change from the current levels.
spaximus said:
I am not against immigration, far from I but with the EU we have to take both the cream, in small quantities and the crap in seemingly huge quantities. Now if we had control of our own boarder and destiny we could choose the cream from which ever country in the world we choose.
For me though is that time after time we have seen how corrupt the EU is and yet they investigate themselves, demand money when they feel like it and change things we will slavishly adhere to.
My brother lives in France and they say that sometimes the French agree to something knowing the English will implement it whilst they will ignore it.
It needs to change or we need to be out.
The problem is that from what has happened in recent weeks, as well as in the past it seems that the EU has no intention whatsoever of changing its corrupt ways.For me though is that time after time we have seen how corrupt the EU is and yet they investigate themselves, demand money when they feel like it and change things we will slavishly adhere to.
My brother lives in France and they say that sometimes the French agree to something knowing the English will implement it whilst they will ignore it.
It needs to change or we need to be out.
spaximus said:
I am not against immigration, far from I but with the EU we have to take both the cream, in small quantities and the crap in seemingly huge quantities. Now if we had control of our own boarder and destiny we could choose the cream from which ever country in the world we choose.
For me though is that time after time we have seen how corrupt the EU is and yet they investigate themselves, demand money when they feel like it and change things we will slavishly adhere to.
My brother lives in France and they say that sometimes the French agree to something knowing the English will implement it whilst they will ignore it.
It needs to change or we need to be out.
For me though is that time after time we have seen how corrupt the EU is and yet they investigate themselves, demand money when they feel like it and change things we will slavishly adhere to.
My brother lives in France and they say that sometimes the French agree to something knowing the English will implement it whilst they will ignore it.
It needs to change or we need to be out.
tim0409 said:
Really good, thanks for sharing...Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet again the EU`s accounts have been rejected by auditors for the 21st year in a row, with up to 4.5 billion pounds unaccounted for / miss spent, and yet with the exception of 3 countries of which the UK was one, all the other members have nodded the corrupt accounts through.
How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
This alone should encourage any right thinking person to want to get the hell out. It's odd that the TV media seem not to highlight this matter.How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
powerstroke said:
tim0409 said:
Really good, thanks for sharing...Mate's cartoon in the Telegraph for Valentine's day. I wouldn't have used the words mildly disappointing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Guybrush said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet again the EU`s accounts have been rejected by auditors for the 21st year in a row, with up to 4.5 billion pounds unaccounted for / miss spent, and yet with the exception of 3 countries of which the UK was one, all the other members have nodded the corrupt accounts through.
How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
This alone should encourage any right thinking person to want to get the hell out. It's odd that the TV media seem not to highlight this matter.How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
If a member of the public was asked if they wanted to be a member of a `club' which fleeced them on its entry /membership fees, then fleeced them all the time they were members, regularly coming up with `surprise' fleecings, (which enabled the `club' to spend the ill gotten money only on what `IT' wanted to do for itself and its cronies) and promising things (for a little extra fleecing) whilst at the same time giving them nothing that they had the temerity to ask for. Most sensible people would say F**k Off. We now have to wait to see how many sensible people we have in the UK. the fear is there may not be enough.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Sunday 14th February 11:01
Pan Pan Pan said:
Guybrush said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet again the EU`s accounts have been rejected by auditors for the 21st year in a row, with up to 4.5 billion pounds unaccounted for / miss spent, and yet with the exception of 3 countries of which the UK was one, all the other members have nodded the corrupt accounts through.
How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
This alone should encourage any right thinking person to want to get the hell out. It's odd that the TV media seem not to highlight this matter.How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
Trif said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Guybrush said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet again the EU`s accounts have been rejected by auditors for the 21st year in a row, with up to 4.5 billion pounds unaccounted for / miss spent, and yet with the exception of 3 countries of which the UK was one, all the other members have nodded the corrupt accounts through.
How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
This alone should encourage any right thinking person to want to get the hell out. It's odd that the TV media seem not to highlight this matter.How could anyone with more than a few brain cells consider staying in an organization as corrupt as the EU (unless of course like most of the countries who nodded the false accounts through, they are on the take, or stand to gain financially through having unaudited accounts for yet another year) The sooner we are out of the EU the better.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Yup! the EUs corrupt accounts for the last year which the auditors have rejected, as it has a 4.5 billion pound hole in them, have been nodded through by all but 3 of the member states for the 21st time in a row just this week. 3 countries one of which was the UK did not agree them, but what difference does that make to those who stand to gain by having unaudited accounts? If the EU was a business it would have been shut down by the courts years ago for dishonest accounting.
Tried many Google searches and found this, 2 days old, so guessing this is the source? https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/...I thought the gross contributions were nearly £20Bn, net about £10Bn? Out of interest, what is the accounting error rate for a small country?
Trif said:
Tried many Google searches and found this, 2 days old, so guessing this is the source? https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/...
I thought the gross contributions were nearly £20Bn, net about £10Bn? Out of interest, what is the accounting error rate for a small country?
I would not believe a word in this document. Data received from two organizations, the first being the EU who are unable to ratify their accounts for 21 consecutive years and operate with a declared 4.4% variance, the second from CMD and his cronies...issued in timely fashion to coincide with the EU 're-negotiations' and given a half truth of legitimacy being issued through the ONS...the very same ONS who are renowned for their inaccuracies. Even page one shows inaccuracies...I thought the gross contributions were nearly £20Bn, net about £10Bn? Out of interest, what is the accounting error rate for a small country?
1. [Note.1] All euro figures on this page are sourced from the European Commission[!]
2. Since 1994 the European Court of Auditors has given an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of EU payments.[!]
3. 4.4% The European Court of Auditors’ estimated level of error in EU payments during 2014, above its 2% materiality threshold[!]
Materiality threshold, that's bulls
t for, "We have zero ability in issuing bona fide accounts so our fiscal variance is accepted by the EU commissioners and gives us a perceived get out of jail free card." If I operated my accounts at 2-4.4% variance HMRC would be asking me some very serious questions.As always in the pursuit of truthful comment, whether it helps or hinders my considered view that we need to leave the EU, would like to make the following observation.
It's been claimed for years that the EU auditors refuse to sign off the accounts due to fraudulent activity. This claim isn't strictly true. As ever the truth is somewhat nuanced.
The auditors regularly sign off the accounts as "reliable" but then put a note that the accounts are "materially affected by errors."
Now every accounts contain errors, otherwise why audit. Well of course they could find evidence of illegal transactions as opposed to mistakes.
The auditors cannot check the entire accounting system, so they adopt a sampling strategy and then comment on that. Of course if the sampling reveals things worthy of further investigation then imo they should follow where the evidence leads, exhaustively.
Anyway what do the auditors mean by materially affected? It seems that they have adopted a rule whereby if more than 2% of spending falls outside proper procedures, then that classes as materially significant. Looking back over the years the amount of the budget spend with significant question marks varies from about 4 to 7%. Applying error margins to those figures means that in the good years, eg 2009 it might have been as low as 2.5, the lowest estimate on the mean of 3.25%, or in bad years it could be as high as 9%.
So let's say it's 5%, +/-1.2% just for the purposes of picking a typical figure. Say the budget is 140 billion, then the implication could be that 7 billion +/- has some question marks attached to it. It may not be fraudulent, it may simply be administrative errors in a massively complicated system, and of course it may genuinely be fraudulent and corrupt. Plus of course the sample selected by the auditors may not be representative.
The sceptics then immediately infer that the EU is corrupt throughout and spending money Willy Nilly, though one does question the wisdom of some of it. The example usually quoted is the farmer who claimed subsidy for 140 sheep when he really owned zero sheep. If the auditors found something like this it would be reported to the courts.
But equally much of the dubious dealings go on out in the member nations. No comment on that possible really.
Anyway sorry if this upsets fellow Euroscepticism, but like to see things straight.
What I can say is that before retirement was in charge of a function with budget of ~40 million, if our accounts had been out or questionable by 1% would have been out on my arse pronto, never mind 2% or even 7%.
Leave.
It's been claimed for years that the EU auditors refuse to sign off the accounts due to fraudulent activity. This claim isn't strictly true. As ever the truth is somewhat nuanced.
The auditors regularly sign off the accounts as "reliable" but then put a note that the accounts are "materially affected by errors."
Now every accounts contain errors, otherwise why audit. Well of course they could find evidence of illegal transactions as opposed to mistakes.
The auditors cannot check the entire accounting system, so they adopt a sampling strategy and then comment on that. Of course if the sampling reveals things worthy of further investigation then imo they should follow where the evidence leads, exhaustively.
Anyway what do the auditors mean by materially affected? It seems that they have adopted a rule whereby if more than 2% of spending falls outside proper procedures, then that classes as materially significant. Looking back over the years the amount of the budget spend with significant question marks varies from about 4 to 7%. Applying error margins to those figures means that in the good years, eg 2009 it might have been as low as 2.5, the lowest estimate on the mean of 3.25%, or in bad years it could be as high as 9%.
So let's say it's 5%, +/-1.2% just for the purposes of picking a typical figure. Say the budget is 140 billion, then the implication could be that 7 billion +/- has some question marks attached to it. It may not be fraudulent, it may simply be administrative errors in a massively complicated system, and of course it may genuinely be fraudulent and corrupt. Plus of course the sample selected by the auditors may not be representative.
The sceptics then immediately infer that the EU is corrupt throughout and spending money Willy Nilly, though one does question the wisdom of some of it. The example usually quoted is the farmer who claimed subsidy for 140 sheep when he really owned zero sheep. If the auditors found something like this it would be reported to the courts.
But equally much of the dubious dealings go on out in the member nations. No comment on that possible really.
Anyway sorry if this upsets fellow Euroscepticism, but like to see things straight.
What I can say is that before retirement was in charge of a function with budget of ~40 million, if our accounts had been out or questionable by 1% would have been out on my arse pronto, never mind 2% or even 7%.
Leave.
One thing that I'm finding especially interesting is that now I consider myself to be on the "leave" side I'm sat in the same spot as the "leave" people in the Scotland referendum who I was ridiculing a while back.
Is the situation really that different to Scotland, I keep wondering. Are we really doing this for the right reasons, or are we just conjuring up imagined memories - not of Mel Gibson covered in woad, but of Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson, and probably Cecil Rhodes and Enoch Powell too?
We will never stride the world like a Colossus again, never again enforce the Pax Britannica like a slightly menacing uncle. But what will our new narrative be? It can't be "We will fight them on the beaches", although it's beginning to sound like it might be.
Is the situation really that different to Scotland, I keep wondering. Are we really doing this for the right reasons, or are we just conjuring up imagined memories - not of Mel Gibson covered in woad, but of Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson, and probably Cecil Rhodes and Enoch Powell too?
We will never stride the world like a Colossus again, never again enforce the Pax Britannica like a slightly menacing uncle. But what will our new narrative be? It can't be "We will fight them on the beaches", although it's beginning to sound like it might be.
davepoth said:
Is the situation really that different to Scotland, I keep wondering. Are we really doing this for the right reasons, or are we just conjuring up imagined memories - not of Mel Gibson covered in woad, but of Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson, and probably Cecil Rhodes and Enoch Powell too?
yes it's not the same deal.Scotland can't survive without handouts from England
The EU can't survive without the handouts from the UK.
Spot the difference.
davepoth said:
We will never stride the world like a Colossus again, never again enforce the Pax Britannica like a slightly menacing uncle. But what will our new narrative be? It can't be "We will fight them on the beaches", although it's beginning to sound like it might be.
Why not just take Churchill's quote?“We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”
Or, in other words; 'hello world'
Interesting post davepoth.
I don't envision striding the world like a Colossus again and we can't (and probably don't really want to) turn back the clock to those days.
But I do agree that we need a narrative and this is the failure of the Out side as I see it. Even if they/we do win. Fine, we would then be a western European democracy without the EU and that's good, but not in itself inspiring.
We do need some sort if vision and UKIP, nor anyone else, has provided one. My big hope for a referendum for the last 15 years or so was that this vision would emerge during the campaign. Sadly this just hasn't happened.
My own preference would be a sort of Atlantic Hong Kong (that's HK c. 1990), vigorously free market, liberal and democratic in our institutions, conscious of but not beholden to its much larger, dirigiste neighbour.
We're not HK and there would be significant differences. We could have an assertive independent foreign policy without being aggressive or imperialist. We could promote and favour our own industry without being protectionist. We could radically reform and reduce our welfare state without being a heartless society of haves and have nots.
It's all there to be done, I believe Britain has the appetite and the capacity for that more than any other European country. But the Out side so far has been almost entirely negative. Which is understandable as being negative about the EU is like shooting fish in a barrel and could well be enough to get us out.
It won't though be enough to build a healthy functioning democratic Britain fit for the modern world. For that you need an idea.
It may come. GE 2020 outside the EU would be fascinating as outside the straight jacket of the EU we would have far more freedom to set the policies we choose.
That would mean freedom to slap import duties on foreign cars, nationalise key industries and a host of other wrong headed, inward looking folly, but I am confident that wouldn't win an election.
It would also mean the freedom to pursue true global free trade, to abandon the global warming scam and make an open yet unashamedly self interested immigration policy.
What is really missing is someone, anyone, campaigning for 2020 on the basis that we would be outside the EU. This is what we will do with farming, fishing, trade, immigration etc. And we can only do it outside.
I don't envision striding the world like a Colossus again and we can't (and probably don't really want to) turn back the clock to those days.
But I do agree that we need a narrative and this is the failure of the Out side as I see it. Even if they/we do win. Fine, we would then be a western European democracy without the EU and that's good, but not in itself inspiring.
We do need some sort if vision and UKIP, nor anyone else, has provided one. My big hope for a referendum for the last 15 years or so was that this vision would emerge during the campaign. Sadly this just hasn't happened.
My own preference would be a sort of Atlantic Hong Kong (that's HK c. 1990), vigorously free market, liberal and democratic in our institutions, conscious of but not beholden to its much larger, dirigiste neighbour.
We're not HK and there would be significant differences. We could have an assertive independent foreign policy without being aggressive or imperialist. We could promote and favour our own industry without being protectionist. We could radically reform and reduce our welfare state without being a heartless society of haves and have nots.
It's all there to be done, I believe Britain has the appetite and the capacity for that more than any other European country. But the Out side so far has been almost entirely negative. Which is understandable as being negative about the EU is like shooting fish in a barrel and could well be enough to get us out.
It won't though be enough to build a healthy functioning democratic Britain fit for the modern world. For that you need an idea.
It may come. GE 2020 outside the EU would be fascinating as outside the straight jacket of the EU we would have far more freedom to set the policies we choose.
That would mean freedom to slap import duties on foreign cars, nationalise key industries and a host of other wrong headed, inward looking folly, but I am confident that wouldn't win an election.
It would also mean the freedom to pursue true global free trade, to abandon the global warming scam and make an open yet unashamedly self interested immigration policy.
What is really missing is someone, anyone, campaigning for 2020 on the basis that we would be outside the EU. This is what we will do with farming, fishing, trade, immigration etc. And we can only do it outside.
AJS- said:
Interesting post davepoth.
What is really missing is someone, anyone, campaigning for 2020 on the basis that we would be outside the EU. This is what we will do with farming, fishing, trade, immigration etc. And we can only do it outside.
Is that fair? UKIP has consistently and clearly stated policies on those subjects.What is really missing is someone, anyone, campaigning for 2020 on the basis that we would be outside the EU. This is what we will do with farming, fishing, trade, immigration etc. And we can only do it outside.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff