El Cid Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I came across John Redwoods web site, he was saying about the massive monies paid to UK farmers, that money would not be saved, but the money would be paid by UK Government instead. The National Trust was the top receiver of EU money, why do they need £££££? The RSPB received lots of money too, along with Norfolk council and others. Is the problem that some large councils are not claiming money, where as Norfolk council do? Norfolk is a small, Tory council; how come the larger councils are not at the top of the list for EU money, councils in the north? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 That's not even slightly true. Being in means marching ever onward toward a single european state. Sorry to be blunt but it is difficult to discuss this if you are going to resort to lies. This is part of the agreement Cameron just made: “It is recognised that the United Kingdom ... is not committed to further political integration in the European Union ... References to ever-closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) On the contrary I'm making a case for a democratic decision to stay. It's democracy either way. In fact if we were to Brexit and join EFTA we would lose control of our destiny, not gain it. It wouldn't matter which government was elected, they would not have the power to influence the rules in any way. The UK would have the power to influence the rules, the EU will want to sell to us and buy from us, we would want to buy from them and sell to them. We would negotiate the terms of that trade, and each elect British government would have the power to renegotiate the terms of that trade. ---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 11:18 ---------- Sorry to be blunt but it is difficult to discuss this if you are going to resort to lies. This is part of the agreement Cameron just made: “It is recognised that the United Kingdom ... is not committed to further political integration in the European Union ... References to ever-closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.” Its going to be impossible to discus when you accuse others of being lyres, instead of just accepting that they have a different point of few to you. Edited February 21, 2016 by sutty27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Like I say it depends on which side of the fence you sit, you say you are on the in side of the fence and you find their argument more coherent, I am firmly on the out side of the fence and I find the out argument more coherent. No one from the in side of the fence has said anything that makes any sense, they just scaremonger. Staying in the EU doesn't offer continuity, just like I can't show you what will happen if we leave you can't show what will happen if we stay in. If we are out its our hard work or failings will determine our future, if we stay in our future is determined by the rest of the EU, it looks like a sinking ship to me, if we stay in we are guaranteed to go down with it, if we jump ship our own survival will be down to us, and I am confident that the UK can survive and prosper outside the EU. You may feel confident but making a leap in the dark with the future prosperity of 65 million people seems a massive risk with no coherent plan in place. Don't misunderstand though, I'm sure the electorate will listen carefully when the 'leave' campaign does eventually outline a post-Brexit plan. ---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 11:20 ---------- Its going to be impossible to discus when you accuse others of being lyres, instead of just accepting that they have a different point of few to you. It quite clearly is a lie given the agreement Cameron just made. Cameron has very effectively dismantled one of the cornerstone arguments of Brexiters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The UK would have the power to influence the rules, the EU will want to sell to us and buy from us, we would want to buy from them and sell to them. We would negotiate the terms of that trade, and each elect British government would have the power to renegotiate the terms of that trade. ---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 11:18 ---------- Its going to be impossible to discus when you accuse others of being lyres, instead of just accepting that they have a different point of few to you. It's actually Cameron who is being called the liar here,because he is the one who is telling the nation that this is indeed what he secured in his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 You may feel confident but making a leap in the dark with the future prosperity of 65 million people seems a massive risk with no coherent plan in place. Don't misunderstand though, I'm sure the electorate will listen carefully when the 'leave' campaign does eventually outline a post-Brexit plan. Leaving isn't a leap in the dark nor does it pose a risk to 65 million people, the prosperity of the UK is at greater risk by staying in. ---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 11:25 ---------- It quite clearly is a lie given the agreement Cameron just made. Cameron has very effectively dismantled one of the cornerstone arguments of Brexiters. No he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 It's actually Cameron who is being called the liar here,because he is the one who is telling the nation that this is indeed what he secured in his deal. He actually did secure that agreement as it happens. It strengthens a previous formal European Council announcement in 2014 that effectively made provision for a two-speed Europe anyway. The argument about ever closer union has effectively been dead since 2014 but there's no harm tapping an extra nail in the coffin. ---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 11:33 ---------- No he hasn't. Humour me then. Explain why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 He actually did secure that agreement as it happens. It strengthens a previous formal European Council announcement in 2014 that effectively made provision for a two-speed Europe anyway. The argument about ever closer union has effectively been dead since 2014 but there's no harm tapping an extra nail in the coffin. You obviously believe the agreement is a guaranteed, I don't believe its a guaranteed, you trust what Cameron says I don't trust what Cameron say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 “It is recognised that the United Kingdom ... is not committed to further political integration in the European Union ... References to ever-closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.” Stay on topic. This is not about the 2020 election. Oh it is. Very much. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Equato Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 So staying in the EU provides us with security of trade and national security does it? Surprised no one has quoted Benjamin Franklin who is credited with saying "Those that give up their liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts