Of Interest to those Who want to Remain in the EU

[Toodles McGinty]

There are no Remain people with whom you can have any debate simply because they have nothing to say.

Just go back to post #42. A couple of posts. There are several dozen reasons for staying in the EU. And that's just for starters. There are hundreds more.

What you mean is you just either ignore or refuse to accept what remainers say. That's not the same thing at all.

If you decide to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'La la la', then you're right, you can't have any debate. Just as whenever the word 'tariff' is mentioned, Brexiteers just shut down the conversation or blindly refuse to accept their existence.

Sorry, said, you're wrong. Plenty of debate has been offered. You just shut it down.

[local]

Just go back to post #42. A couple of posts. There are several dozen reasons for staying in the EU. And that's just for starters. There are hundreds more.

What you mean is you just either ignore or refuse to accept what remainers say. That's not the same thing at all.

If you decide to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'La la la', then you're right, you can't have any debate. Just as whenever the word 'tariff' is mentioned, Brexiteers just shut down the conversation or blindly refuse to accept their existence.

Sorry, said, you're wrong. Plenty of debate has been offered. You just shut it down.

How about the 12,561 tariffs we pay because of EU membership la la la

[Toodles McGinty]

How about the 12,561 tariffs we pay because of EU membership la la la

Yes, on things like unicycles, riding crops, asbestos, fireworks. All of those useful things. Mostly from places with third country duty. There's a comprehensive list here.

However, within the EU, you'll find that most of life's essentials - food, medicine etc, are tariff free.

Don't take my word for it, just check. Although it is a government publication that might have been drawn up within 3 miles of a Liberal Democrat, so you probably won't accept it.

But at least you've acknowledged the existence of tariffs.

Baby steps.

[Alikado]

How about the 12,561 tariffs we pay because of EU membership la la la

That is only on stuff imported from outside EU so come 1st Nov that or more will be payable plus it would be payable if it was imported from the EU.

[said]

Damage means the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country will be hit the hardest.



'Uncomfortable' for whom? Oh yes, the poorest and most vulnerable in this country.



And the point of that is? What interest is their in being 'anti-democratic'? A day out in the capital for an occasional demo?



The attraction: Worker's rights. Human Rights laws. Laws that don't turn us into a deregulated tax haven. The EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. European regional development fund. Paid annual leave. Maternity rights. Clear food labelling - including allergies. Cleaner water and air. Anti-discrimination laws. Health care abroad. Freedom of movement. Safety at work. 17 transformative developments, including of formerly derelict land around Lime Street station, major improvements to Liverpool John Lennon airport, and the arena and convention centre on the waterfront. Merseyside qualified for £1.6bn “Objective One” EU funding between 1994 and 2013 to try to haul it out of decline. the £5.6bn rebate or the annual £4bn invested back into the UK. £11bn allocated from 2014 to 2020, with a further £25bn available for rural development and agriculture. Better education (Erasmus scheme). Social market economy. Promoting fair trade. Actions against cartels. Travelling rights. Consumer rights. Cheap air travel. Clean beaches. Problem free imports and exports. Data protection. Environmental protection. According to CBI figures, our EU membership is worth £3,000 per household – thanks to all the trade, investment, jobs and lower prices that come from us being a member. Regional food protections. No paperwork for customs within the EEA. Anti-trust laws. Bans on growth hormones in food. Peace after centuries of bloodshed. Europol. The EU Common Security & Defence Policy.

Shall I go on? Because there is much, much more.



Obviously not. Is yours 'Make Britain Great Again' syndrome?

OK! I have picked up on this thread. So what are the most vulnerable people in the UK who are likely to be affected by Brexit? Do you mean the disabled, the unemployed, the elderly? Each of these groups of people have experienced disadvantage even while in the EU. Do you mean price increases? You do not give these people much credit do you? They will manage as they have done over previous price increases - of which there have been many. While in the EU. Their benefits will not decrease, they are more likely to increase to support any price increases. Especially now the government are calling a halt to austerity.

Have you never taken part in a demo? I did, can't even remember what it was for - but there was transport laid on free into the City of London, loads of my mates going - we stood around with the protest for about ten minutes and then went sight seeing. We had a good free time!

Worker's Rights were originally developed in the UK and the EU adopted those same laws. There have been a few controversial additions since then - but I can see no reason as to why they would change. Imagine if there were no workers, they all went on strike in protest about losing their rights. The Government would not allow that to happen.
Human Rights - everyone will always enjoy their human rights even if this is contradictory. If two people disagree over something where they have equal rights - who has the greater claim to human rights? Hope fully, there will be a change to reflect British human rights as Cameron stated. It is not right that someone can promote terrorism in the UK then when told they will be deported - claim their human right to appeal, again and again! Far better if it were British human rights that were protected in such an instance.
Uk Tax Haven - I see no problem with this. If the UK attracts wealthy people to put their money into British banks, or those Banks on British soil - then the UK gets to use that money and make interest on it. Obviously it would be regulated as it is on the Isle of Man. Where is a problem in that?
The Anti Tax Avoidance directive I really think the UK woudl be far better off dealing with British taxes than any outside agency who is trying to deal with 27 other countries. The UK has its own tax departments - I should know, my cousin works as a manager in one and he would sell his own grandmother out, the little sh..! If you are talking about the companies who pay very little tax in the UK - their investments in the UK, were attracted on agreement that they paid less tax. I daresay that those companies who gain profits from the UK, whose head offices are elsewhere in Europe will now have to face paying their way.
European regional development fund - Bit of a blinder this one. Is it better to fund a few park benches and park gardens to various areas - or would it be a far better idea if councils applied to central government for funding to pay for larger scale important modernisation plans? For instance - I believe we have had two payments from the EU to pay for the indoor market restoration. The situation is worse - not better!
Paid annual leave. Maternity rights - come under worker's rights which I have dealt with.
Clear food labelling - including allergies. In all honesty I cannot see that changing except to increase the identities on them. Industry already has the machinery to deal with this - why would they just throw those away?
Cleaner water and air. The UK already has the least polluted air and water in Europe and will continue to improve this for its own benefit. Although this has to be traded off agaisnt new housing projects, the destruction of habitats due to housing projects and the inclusion of more central heating and conditioning units per house. But that will happen all across Europe.
Anti-discrimination laws. are also included in Worker's rights. But discrimination against what? Smoker's are discriminated against! Coloured people are discriminated against. LGBT people are discriminated against. People of short stature are discriminated against, etc., etc., even though it is illegal in Europe! It does not matter how many laws are applied, it will not stop people having an opinion. Murder is illegal, there is a law against it - does that stop people from murdering someone?
Health care abroad - people carry Holiday Insurance, don't they? I carried mine even though we are in the EU.
Freedom of movement. There will not be any sanctions placed on people wanting to travel abroad - although if anyone wanted to settle in another European country they would have to obey the laws relating to that, in which ever country they wish to settle. They will not be refused - but there will be delays as they will have to reside in a country for a few months and pay for their own keep while they do so. There will be no problems if they have a job to go to and have already obtained a Work Permit.
Safety at work. I could find hundreds of negligence cases under this title claim. While we are still in the EU. Health and Safety have actually declined while under the EU! The UK had strict ruling before we joined the EU - but the number of deaths and severe injuries that have occurred because companies cannot afford to engage professional staff, would amaze you. No this should improve.

17 transformative developments, including of formerly derelict land around Lime Street station, major improvements to Liverpool John Lennon airport, and the arena and convention centre on the waterfront. Merseyside qualified for £1.6bn “Objective One” EU funding between 1994 and 2013 to try to haul it out of decline.
Yes, Liverpool has received huge funding from the EU. It is all investment versus returns. The EU's own financial accounts - also show that Liverpool is indebted to the EU central bank for £billions. You also need to include Merseyrail, China town, etc., Not only indebted to the central bank - but overseas investors have also invested £millions into the city for establishments to be built - not only have the buildings not been built but the investors have never received a penny of their money. These cases are now, as I understand it - facing the courts. Found on Freedom of Information - What do they know.
£5.6bn rebate or the annual £4bn invested back into the UK. Was due to an agreement reached between Thatcher and the EEC. Although classed as a rebate, £5 billion is deducted by the UK before the UK pays over the balance of £13.9 billion for membership.
The Common Agricultural Policy - this was heavily criticised as it created butter mountains, wine lakes and much overproduced farm foods which were then dumped on third world countries. This meant that prices remained high for produce - artificially high! The intial scheme was then revised in, I think, 2005. There were then two forms of payment made to farmers. 1. Is direct support based on the amount of land a farmer has. This was to reduce the inclination for farmers to overproduce. If you consider the amount of land that the Royal Family own, you can see where most of this money went. Tate and Lyle, now an American company - received around £130 million the highest after nobility owned land, and others received amounts accordingly. Our own farmers received the least as they had less land. The second payment is made in accordance with our own Governments support to farmers. This is to ensure that there is less competition between farmers and to maintain foreign employment programmes. Last year, France received the highest amount of money, £8.5 billion, followed by Germany, Spain and Italy. Last year our own government paid £250 million to farmers.
Better education (Erasmus scheme). Initially this was rejected by the UK and France because each had a far superior scheme already in action. But the EU sought court action and all members had to take part in it. The Erasmus Scheme was introduced in the UK in 1987 basically to give students a University placement even though they were not at University level, and to give them experience of living abroad. How this affected UK education was not good. It meant overseas students would come and attend UK University education without even having achieved even a GCSE level of education in their own country, and a UK Student could obtain a place in exchange in another country. The fall out from this was that University education was at a far lower attainment level to allow for the foreign students - but had to be equally applied to UK students. Basically, it means that students who gain a degree have about the same level of education as an "A" level student in the UK. Bad idea! However, Universities gained a lot of money from it - at the expense of our students futures.
Social market economy. Thisconcept was first introduced by the Conservative Joseph. It involves consideration being given to people's attitude to work. To ensure that workers could create a greater output if they were content in their own circles. It covered nurturing such activities of church, family, sports etc., There is no handbook on it - but it was brought in in 1990, I think when the Germans introduced a monetary, economic and social union. This has evolved into the Socail Market Economy which allow for a free market in private property, exchange of goods, etc., along with pensions, unemployment insurance, social security etc., while protecting the system against abuse. It carries government regulation to prevent this abuse.
So what has ever been different in the UK - that was in existence long before the EU?
Promotions for Trade Napolean, or some such person - said when he came to the UK that England was a nation of Shop keepers! Does that give you a hint as to what the UK became known for before the EU? In the City of London, there are hundreds of businesses, employed purely to promote UK trade.
Actions against Cartels that is a joke! The number of massive companies taking over cash strapped businesses in the UK just to destroy them and make money on the buildings is disgusting! Price fixing continues on a regular basis. As does collusion among companies to provide higher profits. UK authorities have dealt with this for years and are quick to take companies to court. The Authority in the UK are the CMA. The situation has deteriorated over the more recent years with overseas businesses starting up in the UK.

To be continued.....................................
For every question you have asked there is a reasonable, truthful and common sense answer. Leaving the EU is the best thing we will ever do for our children's future! Th EU only exhibits yet another layer of corruption that we can well do without.

[Toodles McGinty]

OK! I have picked up on this thread. So what are the most vulnerable people in the UK who are likely to be affected by Brexit? Do you mean the disabled, the unemployed, the elderly? Each of these groups of people have experienced disadvantage even while in the EU. Do you mean price increases? You do not give these people much credit do you? They will manage as they have done over previous price increases - of which there have been many. While in the EU. Their benefits will not decrease, they are more likely to increase to support any price increases. Especially now the government are calling a halt to austerity...

...To be continued.....................................
For every question you have asked there is a reasonable, truthful and common sense answer. Leaving the EU is the best thing we will ever do for our children's future! Th EU only exhibits yet another layer of corruption that we can well do without.

Sure, but your answers are basically 'we already did these things' and 'we'll carry on doing that after we leave', which I and many like me simply do not believe.

Suggesting it is OK to be a deregulated tax haven is terrible.

Suggesting poor people will just get on with it shows no understanding of the struggles they have. Austerity is supposed to be over. Wonderful. But nothing will change for those worst off. Councils won't suddenly have more to spend on services. Foodbanks won't disappear as they aren't needed. You have to know this. You might not want to believe it, but the evidence is there. That has nothing to do with the EU, but I'm pretty sure that the removal of people's rights, or the removal of EU laws from our books, will make a lot of difference.

I'd guess you are old enough to recall when we were the 'sick man of Europe'. When our economy was in the toilet. We've thrived since joining. The woes we have suffered since joining have been at the hands of successive governments, not the market we joined.

There's a huge difference between the problems we've got as a country and our membership of the biggest single market in the world.

We'll see. One of us is going to be right. If we do leave, I sincerely hope you are right. Because if you aren't, you'll have one hell of a lot to answer for.

[seivad]

The Anti Tax Avoidance directive I really think the UK woudl be far better off dealing with British taxes than any outside agency who is trying to deal with 27 other countries. The UK has its own tax departments –

The directive won’t be administered by the EU. It’s a directive to all member countries to write the EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance law into their domestic tax laws. The law will be applied by the British tax authorities.

I should know, my cousin works as a manager in one and he would sell his own grandmother out, the little sh..!

It was your nephew the last time

If you are talking about the companies who pay very little tax in the UK - their investments in the UK, were attracted on agreement that they paid less tax.

No, that’s not what the law is addressing. Governments often try to attract foreign investors by offering sweeteners such as tax credits or a set period of lower corporate tax rates. A short term loss of tax revenue that will (hopefully) result in greater future benefits for the investee country.

The law is designed to close the loophole whereby companies can move profits made in the country they’re operating in, to a related company in another country with lower corporate tax rates. It’s tax avoidance, which, up until the directive is applied, is perfectly legal, but morally wrong. Companies will still be able to transfer profits to an entity in another country, but taxes will then be payable at the EU member country’s corporate tax rate.

Other than those who practice and profit from this loophole, I can’t understand why anyone would oppose anti tax avoidance laws, It’s a global problem, and all of our countries lose billions in tax revenue, revenue that could be used to pay for our public services.

[said]

Sure, but your answers are basically 'we already did these things' and 'we'll carry on doing that after we leave', which I and many like me simply do not believe.

Suggesting it is OK to be a deregulated tax haven is terrible.

Suggesting poor people will just get on with it shows no understanding of the struggles they have. Austerity is supposed to be over. Wonderful. But nothing will change for those worst off. Councils won't suddenly have more to spend on services. Foodbanks won't disappear as they aren't needed. You have to know this. You might not want to believe it, but the evidence is there. That has nothing to do with the EU, but I'm pretty sure that the removal of people's rights, or the removal of EU laws from our books, will make a lot of difference.

I'd guess you are old enough to recall when we were the 'sick man of Europe'. When our economy was in the toilet. We've thrived since joining. The woes we have suffered since joining have been at the hands of successive governments, not the market we joined.

There's a huge difference between the problems we've got as a country and our membership of the biggest single market in the world.

We'll see. One of us is going to be right. If we do leave, I sincerely hope you are right. Because if you aren't, you'll have one hell of a lot to answer for.

Obviously it is not me who is biased. I have given you open and honest answers to your questions. Any alternatives just would not be workable. I do not remember the 'Sick Man of Europe' depiction - bur economies rise and fall all the time. What I do know is that just at the point of joining the EEC, the UK's economy was picking up. This is evidenced by the fact that out of all the EEC members at that time - the UK had the fastest economic growth. We did not need the EU!

It is the people who are being taken advantage of - all the people, people of the UK and the immigrants who are used. People need freedom - not just those of national liberties, but personal freedom. When we have that, we will have a far happier nation.

From another perspective. Do you honestly believe that the EU Commission is acting voluntarily to be a humanitarian organisation for World betterment? That would be very naive! The EU is a business, not just a business but a massive conglomerate. Do you think they are concerned about people's welfare? Of course not! They are only concerned with the people in that they need to control people to obtain the greatest output from them. They are concerned with making money, more money towards the goal of an Empire. In past history it worked because an Empire was a common goal for everyone - in the present day, people are far more nationalistic and want to stand up and be counted.

First and foremost, the EU stands for itself - not its member countries, nor by any chalk - the people of those countries. The ONLY people to benefit from the EU are those who engineer the payments to support it, and those receiving direct payments. Those who support remain - are those who kiss the hand that beats them!

We will be better off - not immediately, that is true. There may be price increases, we don't know because we don't know what deals have been agreed. Air fares may increase - but this would incur inequality among the people which the EU has taken great pains to uphold. It would mean that a Polish person resident in the UK, would also have to pay increased fares to visit his homeland which would be discriminatory against a European person. No-one knows everything - but we will have more hope for the future than we have now.

[seivad]

I'd guess you are old enough to recall when we were the 'sick man of Europe'. When our economy was in the toilet. We've thrived since joining. The woes we have suffered since joining have been at the hands of successive governments, not the market we joined.

I don't think he was even born in 1973. If he was born before then, he would have been able to read by 1980.

[Toodles McGinty]

Obviously it is not me who is biased. I have given you open and honest answers to your questions. Any alternatives just would not be workable.

You didn't answer any questions. I didn't ask any. I just gave a list of reasons to stay in the EU. You countered those with your opinions. Such as it would be OK to be an unregulated tax haven.

I do not remember the 'Sick Man of Europe' depiction - bur economies rise and fall all the time. What I do know is that just at the point of joining the EEC, the UK's economy was picking up. This is evidenced by the fact that out of all the EEC members at that time - the UK had the fastest economic growth. We did not need the EU!

This is blatantly untrue. It's on another thread, but I'll C&P it again:

"since 1973, the year in which the UK joined the EU. Per capita GDP of the UK economy grew by 103%, exceeding the 97% growth of the US. Within the EU, the UK edged out Germany (99%) and clobbered France (74%).

The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.

An important bonus is that the benefits of growth in Britain have been divided much more fairly than in the US. Statistics compiled by the Institute for New Economic Thinking show that Since 1974, median income in the UK grew by 79%, in contrast to 16% for the US. Thus, Britain has had the best of both worlds while a member of the EU -- not just strong growth, but more equal growth.

As the UK economy has grown, it has become more dependent on trade. Since 1973 the ratio of trade to economic output increased from 48% to 67%. At present 45% of the UK’s exports go to other EU member countries. In response to the concern that the EU might impose high tariffs or punitive measures if the UK leaves, some Brexiteers have said that we can “just trade with Australia and Canada”. These two countries, however, only account for a meagre 2.9% of British exports.

History is clear: things have gone very well for Britain as a member of the EU."

It is the people who are being taken advantage of - all the people, people of the UK and the immigrants who are used. People need freedom - not just those of national liberties, but personal freedom. When we have that, we will have a far happier nation.

How? How are you personally being taken advantage of? What personal freedoms are you lacking? The only people taking advantage of immigrants are doing so illegally. That isn't going to stop.

From another perspective. Do you honestly believe that the EU Commission is acting voluntarily to be a humanitarian organisation for World betterment?

No. Parts of the EU commission works for human rights. It is first and foremost a single market. It's a political union. As I already said, it isn't UNICEF or the Boy Scout movement.

The EU is a business, not just a business but a massive conglomerate. Do you think they are concerned about people's welfare? Of course not! They are only concerned with the people in that they need to control people to obtain the greatest output from them. They are concerned with making money, more money towards the goal of an Empire. In past history it worked because an Empire was a common goal for everyone - in the present day, people are far more nationalistic and want to stand up and be counted.

Who is making this money? From the Presidents down, they get paid. It isn't voluntary, and why should it be? Working on the trade, laws and rights of 28 countries is probably a bit of a headache.

People are becoming nationalistic, you're right. Led by populists and demagogues. By demonising certain people and organisations. Let's face it, you've proved you're a racist ("...when there was no discrimination against normal white people,.."), so it doesn't take much for you and your kind to be swayed against anything involving other countries or immigrants.

We will be better off - not immediately, that is true. There may be price increases, we don't know because we don't know what deals have been agreed. Air fares may increase - but this would incur inequality among the people which the EU has taken great pains to uphold. It would mean that a Polish person resident in the UK, would also have to pay increased fares to visit his homeland which would be discriminatory against a European person. No-one knows everything - but we will have more hope for the future than we have now.

So why are we taking actions that will cause prices to rise? So food costs more, air fares cost more, virtually everything costs more? To satisfy racists? What hope do you have, that no more Polish people can just stroll in? You'd be happy to increase food bank usage, to increase poverty, because you think white people won't be 'discriminated against'? Will we be throwing everyone who isn't white skinned and 5th generation British out, then?

I know how much a loaf of bread is. I know how much it will cost in a year if we remain. I don't know how much it will cost if we leave the EU. Nor do you, apart from it will cost more. So how and when will we be better off? 5 years? 50 years?

[said]

You didn't answer any questions. I didn't ask any. I just gave a list of reasons to stay in the EU. You countered those with your opinions. Such as it would be OK to be an unregulated tax haven.

This is blatantly untrue. It's on another thread, but I'll C&P it again:

"since 1973, the year in which the UK joined the EU. Per capita GDP of the UK economy grew by 103%, exceeding the 97% growth of the US. Within the EU, the UK edged out Germany (99%) and clobbered France (74%).

The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.

An important bonus is that the benefits of growth in Britain have been divided much more fairly than in the US. Statistics compiled by the Institute for New Economic Thinking show that Since 1974, median income in the UK grew by 79%, in contrast to 16% for the US. Thus, Britain has had the best of both worlds while a member of the EU -- not just strong growth, but more equal growth.

As the UK economy has grown, it has become more dependent on trade. Since 1973 the ratio of trade to economic output increased from 48% to 67%. At present 45% of the UK’s exports go to other EU member countries. In response to the concern that the EU might impose high tariffs or punitive measures if the UK leaves, some Brexiteers have said that we can “just trade with Australia and Canada”. These two countries, however, only account for a meagre 2.9% of British exports.

History is clear: things have gone very well for Britain as a member of the EU."

How? How are you personally being taken advantage of? What personal freedoms are you lacking? The only people taking advantage of immigrants are doing so illegally. That isn't going to stop.

No. Parts of the EU commission works for human rights. It is first and foremost a single market. It's a political union. As I already said, it isn't UNICEF or the Boy Scout movement.

Who is making this money? From the Presidents down, they get paid. It isn't voluntary, and why should it be? Working on the trade, laws and rights of 28 countries is probably a bit of a headache.

People are becoming nationalistic, you're right. Led by populists and demagogues. By demonising certain people and organisations. Let's face it, you've proved you're a racist ("...when there was no discrimination against normal white people,.."), so it doesn't take much for you and your kind to be swayed against anything involving other countries or immigrants.

So why are we taking actions that will cause prices to rise? So food costs more, air fares cost more, virtually everything costs more? To satisfy racists? What hope do you have, that no more Polish people can just stroll in? You'd be happy to increase food bank usage, to increase poverty, because you think white people won't be 'discriminated against'? Will we be throwing everyone who isn't white skinned and 5th generation British out, then?

I know how much a loaf of bread is. I know how much it will cost in a year if we remain. I don't know how much it will cost if we leave the EU. Nor do you, apart from it will cost more. So how and when will we be better off? 5 years? 50 years?

From the answers given to the points you raised - I would have thought it was absolutely clear that if people want to be counted as people and not automatons - the EU is not the place to be! If you want your children to receive a high level of education - the EU is not the place you want to be. If you want your children to have a choice of career - the EU is not the place to be! If you want to live in a happy society - the EU is not the place to be. If you want continuous and ever advancing restrictions placed on you and your family - then the EU is the place to be!

I would not have voted for leaving the EU if I had been convinced it was wrong to do so. It is wrong to remain in the EU as all the points that you have mentioned prove. Your choice is rightfully your own, just as mine is my own choice to make.

I doubt very much that from now on - no-one will know what the outcome of Brexit will be, until the deed is done! Boris Johnston is applying a planned strategy - and will now be playing cards close to his chest. Hopefully, it will be the Brexit that people are waiting for.

[seivad]

Boris Johnston is applying a planned strategy - and will now be playing cards close to his chest. Hopefully, it will be the Brexit that people are waiting for.

I could see that from his success in Luxembourg today. He made great headway and appeared to impress all of the parties involved. Well done, Boris. Keep up the good work!

(I would normally suggest that someone with his diplomatic talents should be employed in the Foreign Office, but in this case............ )

[Mr B S Sniffer]

From the answers given to the points you raised - I would have thought it was absolutely clear that if people want to be counted as people and not automatons - the EU is not the place to be! If you want your children to receive a high level of education - the EU is not the place you want to be. If you want your children to have a choice of career - the EU is not the place to be! If you want to live in a happy society - the EU is not the place to be. If you want continuous and ever advancing restrictions placed on you and your family - then the EU is the place to be!

I would not have voted for leaving the EU if I had been convinced it was wrong to do so. It is wrong to remain in the EU as all the points that you have mentioned prove. Your choice is rightfully your own, just as mine is my own choice to make.

I doubt very much that from now on - no-one will know what the outcome of Brexit will be, until the deed is done! Boris Johnston is applying a planned strategy - and will now be playing cards close to his chest. Hopefully, it will be the Brexit that people are waiting for.

These 2 by any chance?

[Kippax]

It’s bad enough when big businesses / manufacturers decide to move production out of the UK for their own economic reasons.

But when the EU has systematically used our money, in the form of grants, loans or sweeteners to help destroy our manufacturing industry it’s immoral and disgusting.

Who on earth can think that the EU is “good” for the UK ?

Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornbymodels gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
TexasInstruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.


Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.


I haven't detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.
I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.


Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't. If you think the EU is a good idea,
1/ You haven't read the party manifesto of The European Peoples' Party.
2/ You haven't had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.
3/ You don't think it matters.

[Toodles McGinty]

It’s bad enough when big businesses / manufacturers decide to move production out of the UK for their own economic reasons.

But when the EU has systematically used our money, in the form of grants, loans or sweeteners to help destroy our manufacturing industry it’s immoral and disgusting.

Who on earth can think that the EU is “good” for the UK ?

Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant....

etc etc..

Why on earth do you post this stuff without a simple fact check? Took a 10 second Google to discount this rubbish:

No, the EU does not fund companies to move jobs out of the UK

I never expected this post to be so popular, but clearly there is a need to continually refute cut-and-paste lists of nonsense. I’ve recently discovered that the list in question has made a reappearance, and I’m going to update this post if necessary. A handy refutation to that cut-and-paste list that is doing the rounds. I’ve given sources where I can, but for some of these it’s just such a blatant lie that there’s no source possible.


Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Cadbury was bought by Kraft, which is American. Kraft shafted Cadbury. The EU had nothing to do with it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...to-move-101746


Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
Yes, Jaguar Land Rover built a new factory in Slovakia. No it was not with an EU grant. And Tata is Indian so what’s that got to do with it?
https://www.theguardian.com/business...-uk-jobs-union
Update 20/01/2019: There was no EU funding, but there was a grant by the Slovakian government. This document (thank you to a post on our Facebook page bringing it to our attention) is a summary of why the EU found the grant did not break EU rules on state aid. Basically, it was a new factory, it was never going to be built in the UK, no jobs left the UK as a result.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6023_en.htm


Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
Peugeot did move production to Slovakia, but again without an EU grant. There was an investigation as to whether Slovakia improperly gave EU money to Peugeot, but nothing seems to have come of it.
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news...bs-axe-3983259


Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
This is the only one that seems to have some truth in it. Ford did get a loan (not a grant) from the EU for their Turkish plant (which was already building most of the Transits), and after that their Southampton plant closed. The EU had already loaned money to Ford UK but that doesn’t appear to have saved it.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1002...Transit_plant/


British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Yes, the Ajax will be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel (the capitals betray the direct copying from the Mirror headline) but not at the request of the EU. Blame our own government for that one, they commissioned it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...hicles-7928358


Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
All these factories did indeed move overseas. But not with EU money. Sticking “with EU grant” on the end of a sentence doesn’t make it a fact.


Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.
What does this even mean? Hornby is still a UK company, and in fact has bought many European companies. Like many companies it moved some manufacturing to China, but that’s nothing to do with the EU. I’m not sure what the mention of patents is about. Hornby is a UK company that still owns its own intellectual property.


ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Yes ICI was bought by AkzoNobel, but not with EU money. I can find no evidence that factories were closed at the time. Since then, AkzoNobel has closed a couple of plants because it has built a new one in Gateshead.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56d5da5c-a...44feabdc0.html


Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
Stefano Pessina isn’t a company, he’s a person. He bought out his own company, Alliance Boots, in 2007, and is now in charge of Walgreen Boots Alliance, formed in 2012. Boots was not bought with EU money. And although they are headquartered in Switzerland to avoid tax, their UK operations are firmly based here and they are a major UK employer.
https://www.theguardian.com/business.../privateequity


JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU ‘regeneration’ grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
I can’t even find out where this story originated. If you know, please enlighten me! JDSU was an American company; I have no idea where this Dutch element crept in. If they’d left us with a pollution nightmare and raided the pensions I would have thought it would be at least mentioned on their Wikipedia page, under “Controversies” or something….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDSU


Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
A good number of buses are run by UK companies, about the same by EU companies, plus some in Singapore and Australia. (Thanks to The Bus Driver in the comments.) But the EU didn’t subsidise this. It’s irrelevant. Foreign ownership happens without EU subsidies.
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/garages.htm


UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
Yes, most of this is true or mostly true, I’m starting to lose the will to check. But what does any of that have to do with the EU? They didn’t make our companies sell to the Spanish and French and Germans, these things just happen. It’s called capitalism, and UK companies buy out European companies and close down their factories too. And it’s our government who handed Hinckley Point over to the French and Chinese.


Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it’s Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
Yes… except the EU grants bit. Just can’t find any evidence of that.


39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
I’m a UK and European patent attorney. Trust me, this statement doesn’t even make sense. Passed by whom, passed how?
**EDIT** I think I worked this one out. Although I can’t make the numbers fit with any recent statistics, it must mean “granted”. Some number of UK patents have been granted to foreign companies. Well yes, of course, that’s how the patent system works. Ideally, you get a patent wherever you are going to sell your product. You don’t have to be a native of that country to get it. UK companies get patents in foreign countries too, that’s how it works.


Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn’t paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc.,
There’s plenty of UK technology companies. In my job I see them come and go and come and go… it’s just the way things are. Maybe they aren’t the old fashioned build-things-in-a-factory companies, but they’re still technology companies. I work with a lot of software companies, for example, that are innovating and creating UK jobs.


and now we don’t even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.
I give up. Now you’re just making **** up.

We don't teach technology?? Seriously? There are a few links in the comments section debunking this nonsense too.

On the tech front, there's an article here detailing why tech companies are moving to Britain.