I've just skimmed through all this, will read it when I've more time. But just want to say 2 things.
I agree with Dove on the first page, she has said just what I would have done.
The other thing that caught my eye is that Dave Morgan said Glyphosate was banned in France. It is not banned. I bought some last week. Certain supermarkets said they wouldn't sell it but it seems to be on the shelves, the GCs and farm suppliers have it too.
Dordogne and Norfolk. Clay in Dordogne, sandy in Norfolk.
some very valid and interesting points but we are being starved of information and fed with scare stories from both sides. I find the whole business so far insulting.
Ultimately, we will have to go with our gut feelings and I doubt that any disinformation/information fed to us will make a whole lot of difference.
We might agonise over the issues, but we have no more say than a Sun reader
I, like others have not made a final decision, although I am sort of 'get the hell out of it'. But there have been many points raised and explained on this thread that I wasn't aware of.
I really think that both sides should really explain their reasons. At the moment it is all a load of ifs or maybes etc.
The public have been given the chance to vote (like Hosta I have never known anything else).. But we need to know exactly what we are voting for or indeed against.
Hopefully we will be given far more information before we are asked to vote.
I have to correct the misapprehension that we were EVER given the vote to decide whether or not to JOIN the then Common Market. We were signed up for it, like it or lump it, by one E. Heath Esq. It was Wilson who called the plebiscite for the population to decide if we wanted to remain part of the "club".
At that time, I was an active campaigner for us to remain, believing in better trade (in comparison with EFTA) and a better long term future.
I rather regret my youthful enthusiasm - although I have yet completely to make up my mind on the forthcoming vote.
The problems are well documented - there is endemic corruption (just think of all the subsidies paid for more olives groves than actually exist, for example.) The accounts have not been signed off for two decades (and if a private company was run like that, the directors would get short shrift - assuming that they weren't behind bars).
The project has morphed from a trading agreement to "ever more closer political union" - and that has never been offered to the population as an option. From the Common Market we have had the European Economic Community, The European Community and now The European Union. We have never voted for these evolved manifestations, and our influence is diminished the more we are subsumed by other countries that wish to join.
The Gallic Shrug epitomises the way in which some countries actually implement the European diktats. Sign up for anything and obey it if they feel like it. And we, goody two-shoes, adopt and obey every rule and regulation that comes our way.
Remember the BSE crisis? When our national herd was declared safe, the Germans and French still refused to allow us to send our beef to them. Germany backed down when faced with legal action. France did not, and was due to pay hefty fines as a result.
Guess how much they ever paid for preventing us from trading legally in our quality beef? Nothing. Ever. Gallic shrug again.
They have interfered with all levels of society, and we gardeners have felt the effects in many ways. There have been products withdrawn because they are unsafe, and has been pointed out upthread, they almost certainly would have been banned in any case.
But there are other products that are "banned" because, even though they are safe to use, they are produced by companies that do not have the resources to put them through long and very expensive testing/validation procedures.
And many of the banned products are less to do with inherent dangers per se, but are far too often the result of national lobbying on the grand scale.
I would like to see the whole project re-configured to bring about more simple trading positions, with more local influence restored to national parliaments. I would like to see the whole Schengen experiment consigned to history - a madcap scheme that is reaping mayhem at the moment. I await positive proposals to bring this about from anyone entering the debating arena.
I represented the UK on the programme management committee for one of the R&D programmes for a few years. The budget we managed was over €1Billion. That gave me a small insight into how the Brussels machine works. Watching our partner countries in action always made me wonder where the idea of loss if sovereignty comes from. Every country on that committee and every other similar one fiercely defended their own national interests as did I for the UK but we were all able to come together to deliver a programme suitable for all EU member states. The UK is a well respected voice within the EU and we fight well above our weight when it comes to influencing EU policy. We also do very well in winning funding from those programmes, UK researchers were partners of choice for many international collaborations.
Our biggest problem was with the UK gov side, Ministers often took a "fog in Channel, Europe isolated" view and Treasury only ever asked how we could cut budgets. Germany and France made sure their national R&D programmes complemented EU funding, UK ignored it. One of my bosses thought EU funding was irrelevant until I pointed out that UK researchers got back 3 times our national funding for the same types of R&D from those EU programmes.
So I want to stay in and to play our full part in making the EU a grwat place to live and work.
Aym history is also a strong subject with me. The idea for the EU was thought of by a Nazi industrialist during the last year's of the war. It was obvious to many top Nazi's that they were going to lose the war. So it was decided to try to dominate Europe through economic means if they lost. That was the birth of the idea. It is coincidental that Churchill also proposed stronger economic links with European nations after the war. His view being that war was less likely if nations were joined in a common purpose. France was a willing participant in early negotiations held by leading industrialists and although at the time Britain did not decide to be an initial party to the setting up of the Common Market, it still had a significant Empire, it took a wait and see attitude. The subsequent loss of the Empire was one of the main reasons why Britain had little choice to join the club. The economics of the time meant Britain's outlook in a rapidly changing economic environment was dire to say the least. It made sense to the politicians of the time who were being warned of a dire economic outlook by British industrialists. Germany's rapid growth and economic success was held out to be a panacea which could cure our failing industries.
We were made many promises at the time by the Heath Government, some of which came true but certainly not to the extent promised.
Maybe this is why I am not convinced by those who seek to influence us.
Is this an old versus young conflict? Funny thing is back in the seventies I voted to stay in when I was nearly 20, it seemed the progressive thing to do. Now I am disillusioned with it I want to leave. Probably the thing that has most changed my mind has been contantly being told by politicians over the last 40 years that " Yes the EEC/EC/EU has got big problems with corruption, incompetence and bad laws but the best way to deal with this is to stay in and change it from the inside". Well 40 years on I am still waiting for the changes to be made. I also think that lots of other europeans are getting disillusioned besides us, look how the EU and German Govt managed to annoy most of eastern europe with their arrogant handling of the migrant crisis. Now they begin to see the lack of consultation with people you get from the EU.
Posts
To me the EU is the equivalent to the Titanic and I want to get off before it sinks.
Here are the EUs own breakdown of UKs payments for being a member!
Pays in £18billion per year
Rebate £5billion (Mrs T)
Actual cost £13billion per year
We get back £4billion paid to farmers and poorer regions of UK
So it costs £55 million per day, less the rebate to be a member!
I've just skimmed through all this, will read it when I've more time. But just want to say 2 things.
I agree with Dove on the first page, she has said just what I would have done.
The other thing that caught my eye is that Dave Morgan said Glyphosate was banned in France. It is not banned. I bought some last week. Certain supermarkets said they wouldn't sell it but it seems to be on the shelves, the GCs and farm suppliers have it too.
They are on the point of banning it Busy my mistake sorry.
some very valid and interesting points but we are being starved of information and fed with scare stories from both sides. I find the whole business so far insulting.
Ultimately, we will have to go with our gut feelings and I doubt that any disinformation/information fed to us will make a whole lot of difference.
We might agonise over the issues, but we have no more say than a Sun reader
This has been such an interesting thread to read.
I, like others have not made a final decision, although I am sort of 'get the hell out of it'. But there have been many points raised and explained on this thread that I wasn't aware of.
I really think that both sides should really explain their reasons. At the moment it is all a load of ifs or maybes etc.
The public have been given the chance to vote (like Hosta I have never known anything else).. But we need to know exactly what we are voting for or indeed against.
Hopefully we will be given far more information before we are asked to vote.
I have to correct the misapprehension that we were EVER given the vote to decide whether or not to JOIN the then Common Market. We were signed up for it, like it or lump it, by one E. Heath Esq. It was Wilson who called the plebiscite for the population to decide if we wanted to remain part of the "club".
At that time, I was an active campaigner for us to remain, believing in better trade (in comparison with EFTA) and a better long term future.
I rather regret my youthful enthusiasm - although I have yet completely to make up my mind on the forthcoming vote.
The problems are well documented - there is endemic corruption (just think of all the subsidies paid for more olives groves than actually exist, for example.) The accounts have not been signed off for two decades (and if a private company was run like that, the directors would get short shrift - assuming that they weren't behind bars).
The project has morphed from a trading agreement to "ever more closer political union" - and that has never been offered to the population as an option. From the Common Market we have had the European Economic Community, The European Community and now The European Union. We have never voted for these evolved manifestations, and our influence is diminished the more we are subsumed by other countries that wish to join.
The Gallic Shrug epitomises the way in which some countries actually implement the European diktats. Sign up for anything and obey it if they feel like it. And we, goody two-shoes, adopt and obey every rule and regulation that comes our way.
Remember the BSE crisis? When our national herd was declared safe, the Germans and French still refused to allow us to send our beef to them. Germany backed down when faced with legal action. France did not, and was due to pay hefty fines as a result.
Guess how much they ever paid for preventing us from trading legally in our quality beef? Nothing. Ever. Gallic shrug again.
They have interfered with all levels of society, and we gardeners have felt the effects in many ways. There have been products withdrawn because they are unsafe, and has been pointed out upthread, they almost certainly would have been banned in any case.
But there are other products that are "banned" because, even though they are safe to use, they are produced by companies that do not have the resources to put them through long and very expensive testing/validation procedures.
And many of the banned products are less to do with inherent dangers per se, but are far too often the result of national lobbying on the grand scale.
I would like to see the whole project re-configured to bring about more simple trading positions, with more local influence restored to national parliaments. I would like to see the whole Schengen experiment consigned to history - a madcap scheme that is reaping mayhem at the moment. I await positive proposals to bring this about from anyone entering the debating arena.
I represented the UK on the programme management committee for one of the R&D programmes for a few years. The budget we managed was over €1Billion. That gave me a small insight into how the Brussels machine works. Watching our partner countries in action always made me wonder where the idea of loss if sovereignty comes from. Every country on that committee and every other similar one fiercely defended their own national interests as did I for the UK but we were all able to come together to deliver a programme suitable for all EU member states. The UK is a well respected voice within the EU and we fight well above our weight when it comes to influencing EU policy. We also do very well in winning funding from those programmes, UK researchers were partners of choice for many international collaborations.
Our biggest problem was with the UK gov side, Ministers often took a "fog in Channel, Europe isolated" view and Treasury only ever asked how we could cut budgets. Germany and France made sure their national R&D programmes complemented EU funding, UK ignored it. One of my bosses thought EU funding was irrelevant until I pointed out that UK researchers got back 3 times our national funding for the same types of R&D from those EU programmes.
So I want to stay in and to play our full part in making the EU a grwat place to live and work.
Aym history is also a strong subject with me. The idea for the EU was thought of by a Nazi industrialist during the last year's of the war. It was obvious to many top Nazi's that they were going to lose the war. So it was decided to try to dominate Europe through economic means if they lost. That was the birth of the idea. It is coincidental that Churchill also proposed stronger economic links with European nations after the war. His view being that war was less likely if nations were joined in a common purpose. France was a willing participant in early negotiations held by leading industrialists and although at the time Britain did not decide to be an initial party to the setting up of the Common Market, it still had a significant Empire, it took a wait and see attitude. The subsequent loss of the Empire was one of the main reasons why Britain had little choice to join the club. The economics of the time meant Britain's outlook in a rapidly changing economic environment was dire to say the least. It made sense to the politicians of the time who were being warned of a dire economic outlook by British industrialists. Germany's rapid growth and economic success was held out to be a panacea which could cure our failing industries.
We were made many promises at the time by the Heath Government, some of which came true but certainly not to the extent promised.
Maybe this is why I am not convinced by those who seek to influence us.
Is this an old versus young conflict? Funny thing is back in the seventies I voted to stay in when I was nearly 20, it seemed the progressive thing to do. Now I am disillusioned with it I want to leave. Probably the thing that has most changed my mind has been contantly being told by politicians over the last 40 years that " Yes the EEC/EC/EU has got big problems with corruption, incompetence and bad laws but the best way to deal with this is to stay in and change it from the inside". Well 40 years on I am still waiting for the changes to be made. I also think that lots of other europeans are getting disillusioned besides us, look how the EU and German Govt managed to annoy most of eastern europe with their arrogant handling of the migrant crisis. Now they begin to see the lack of consultation with people you get from the EU.