UK to discuss EU withdrawal referendum

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

Ahhhh, diddums.

A wonderful point, well delivered.

Batsy wrote: »

Stop trying to make it look as though the 87% of the world's countries who aren't in the EU are poor nations inhabited by peasants. It's just sheer and utter ignorance and arrogance..

Nothing contained in his post could be taken to imply or mean such.

You have yet to explain your rather strange wish for the EU to collapse.

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

Stop trying to make it look as though the 87% of the world's countries who aren't in the EU are poor nations inhabited by peasants compared to those in the wonderful, magnificent, wealthy EU.

Nobody is saying anything if the sort. Now stop trying to make out that the EU is not one of the most lucrative markets in the world.

Batsy wrote: »

I'd wager £100 that people in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and other wealthy, non-EU nations get paid, on average, more than they do in almost every - or every - EU nation.

I’ll take that bet – let’s see your figures.

Batsy wrote: »

Of the ten most liveable nations of 2007, six of them were non-EU nations.

If we were to take all the non-EU nations and average their “liveable” score, do you suppose it would be higher or lower than the EU average?

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

I doubt that very much. The EU has always been a political project.

Britain didn't join the EU in 1973. It joined the EEC - the European Economic Community, or the Common Market.

Back then, it was just a trading and economic entity, so Britain thought it would be a good idea to join. The British people also thought it was just a trading block - that's why they voted to stay as members in 1975.

In 1993, however, the EEC became the EU, and it was then that it started getting all silly and Eurocrats started saying: "I know, instead of a mere trade block, why not turn the EU into a country? We got a flag in the 1980s, so why not have a national anthem and military, too? The ruling body of the then EEC in Brussels could become the parliament of this new country. We could become a superstate to rival the US, even though Europe's population is shrinking and America's is growing and will one day be larger than the whole of Europe?"

But the British people don't want this. They want their nation to be an independent nation. And who can blame them?

I also reckon that all those Irish republicans who gave their lives for Irish freedom and independence will be turning in their graves at the sight of the Irish giving their country to Brussels on a plate a mere 50 years after independence was finally achieved.

Batsy

Nodin wrote: »

You have yet to explain your rather strange wish for the EU to collapse.

I'm not bothered whether the EU collapses or not. I just don't want Britain to be in it.

The Irish, French, Germans, Italians and everyone else can do what they like.

Musiconomist

Batsy wrote: »

No. The ones who are irritating are those like Ireland who bang on about how "great" the EU is and that we must remain members to get all the "advantages" that being in the EU entails whereas the rest of the world knows that the EU is sinking and will soon be dead. But if the British do the right thing and leave the EU then they'll have the last laugh when the EU finally goes below the waves taking Ireland with it.

The difference between the British and the Irish is that the British stand up to the EU and value their freedom, democracy and sovereignty and tell the EU to get stuffed when they need to, whereas the Irish queue up to lick the boot of every EU commissioner who visits Dublin and to tell him how they always be the EU's good little lapdog.



The EU won't have any profile on the world stage at all in the not too distant future when it has ceased to exist.

For the love of God..... Let their people go.

So sick of British people moaning about Europe. If they leave, there should be a clause that says that they cant mention "Europe" unless it's followed by "The Final Countdown".

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll take that bet – let’s see your figures.

The average British take home pay alone is higher than it is in most, if not all, other EU countries.

I'd wager there are many countries outside the EU, such as America, in which take home pay is even higher than it is in Britain.

The fact that there are people on this forum who think that all the world's wealthiest people live in the EU and that all people outside the EU - even those in countries like America, Canada and Australia - are poorer is EUcentric ignorance and sheer, utter arrogance to the extreme.

Tell Americans or Australians that they'd become even wealthier if their countries joined the EU and you'd be met with a mixture of amazed looks and a few sniggers.

Batsy

Musiconomist wrote: »

For the love of God..... Let their people go.

So sick of British people moaning about Europe. If they leave, there should be a clause that says that they cant mention "Europe" unless it's followed by "The Final Countdown".

The difference is is that the British people value their country's freedom and independence and are actually doing something about it - trying to get a referendum on membership. We try not to let the EUSSR walk all over our nation.

The Irish, on the other hand - the same Irish who once bloodily fought the British to be free from their rule - meekly surrender their country to the EU and just sit on their arses and let the Eurocrats rule the roost over their nation. You seem to have lost that fighting spirit and meekly let the EU walk all over Ireland. Those Irish republicans who fought for Irish independence gave up their lives so that Ireland can be free for a paltry 50 years.

The British, though, try to do something about it. If you've got a problem with that then that's exactly what it is - your problem, not ours.

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

I'm not bothered whether the EU collapses or not. I just don't want Britain to be in it..

You've a funny way of expressing this indifference -

No. The ones who are irritating are those like Ireland who bang on about how "great" the EU is and that we must remain members to get all the "advantages" that being in the EU entails whereas the rest of the world knows that the EU is sinking and will soon be dead. But if the British do the right thing and leave the EU then they'll have the last laugh when the EU finally goes below the waves taking Ireland with it

...what might be there to laugh at in the collapse of Britains markets is a question you might fill us in on as well.

Batsy wrote: »

I'd wager ..

You seem to be wagering a lot. The facts are doubtless there for you to check and make a definitive statement either way.

stewie01

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Very poor comeback to be honest.

how so?

Nodin

mlumley wrote: »

Human rights act????......oh yes, thats the one that lets murderers have the right to stay in the uk, cos their human rights would be compramised:eek:. What about the countries right to safeguard its citizens?? HRA is a criminals charter, s*d the victim, help the poor cretin. One couldnt be evicted from the uk cos he had a CAT FFs.

Nein, as the man says.

In her speech, Mrs May listed a number of cases which she said demonstrated that the Human Rights Act was being abused - citing the example of illegal immigrant who "who cannot be deported because - and I am not making this up - he had a pet cat".
But a spokesman for the Royal Courts of Justice said that was not the reason for the tribunal decision in that case and that the Home Office had failed to apply its own rules for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal
decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/oct/04/conservative-conference-2011-live-coverage

oscarBravo

Batsy wrote: »

Ahhhh, diddums.

As far as intelligent arguments go, that's pretty much on a par with everything else you've posted.

What's your issue with the concept of honouring legal agreements you've signed up to?

meglome

Musiconomist wrote: »

For the love of God..... Let their people go.

So sick of British people moaning about Europe. If they leave, there should be a clause that says that they cant mention "Europe" unless it's followed by "The Final Countdown".

I wouldn't mind but they usually don't even have basic facts straight. They're just too used to using the EU as someone to blame their own failures on.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

The average British take home pay alone is higher than it is in most, if not all, other EU countries.

I'd wager there are many countries outside the EU, such as America, in which take home pay is even higher than it is in Britain.

The fact that there are people on this forum who think that all the world's wealthiest people live in the EU and that all people outside the EU - even those in countries like America, Canada and Australia - are poorer is EUcentric ignorance and sheer, utter arrogance to the extreme.

Tell Americans or Australians that they'd become even wealthier if their countries joined the EU and you'd be met with a mixture of amazed looks and a few sniggers.

PPP UK is $39,000
Ireland is $35,000

not exactly a huge difference is it?

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

Britain didn't join the EU in 1973. It joined the EEC - the European Economic Community, or the Common Market.

Back then, it was just a trading and economic entity...

No it wasn’t. The European Coal & Steel Community, the pre-cursor to the EEC, was established to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe, the principle industries of war at the time. The EU (and it’s precursors) has always been a political project.

Batsy wrote: »

In 1993, however, the EEC became the EU, and it was then that it started getting all silly and Eurocrats started saying: "I know, instead of a mere trade block, why not turn the EU into a country? We got a flag in the 1980s, so why not have a national anthem and military, too? The ruling body of the then EEC in Brussels could become the parliament of this new country. We could become a superstate to rival the US, even though Europe's population is shrinking and America's is growing and will one day be larger than the whole of Europe?"

The idea of a United States of Europe was around long before 1973 – PanEuropa, for example, was founded in 1923.

Batsy wrote: »

The average British take home pay alone is higher than it is in most, if not all, other EU countries.

I'd wager there are many countries outside the EU, such as America, in which take home pay is even higher than it is in Britain.

Less wagering, more facts please.

Batsy wrote: »

The fact that there are people on this forum who think that all the world's wealthiest people live in the EU and that all people outside the EU - even those in countries like America, Canada and Australia - are poorer...

Who exactly has said anything of the sort?

Fratton Fred

meglome wrote: »

I wouldn't mind but they usually don't even have basic facts straight. They're just too used to using the EU as someone to blame their own failures on.

Firstly, let me point out that I am pro EU and believe Britain's future lies within the EU, not out of it.

However, the basic facts as you put it are that the UK has, for decades, been a net contributor to the EU, helping to build the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Now that the fund for development has done its job, these countries should be contributing to the EU. Instead, at a time when the UK's economy is going down the crapper and government and local authority jobs are being shed left right and centre, it is having to put its hand in its pocket (or to be more precise borrow more from the markets) to help bail these countries out.

Thems the facts and are you surprised people are complaining?

It is not a massive exageration to say that people in Manchester are losing jobs whilst their government is funding a champagne lifestyle for non tax payers in Greece and pampered social welfare recipients in Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

djpbarry wrote: »

Less wagering, more facts please.

While he is correct, PPP US take home pay is around $45,000 what that does not reflect is that the US has the largest income disparity in the world at the moment - which artificially skews any average PPP household income figures from there.

djpbarry

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

While he is correct, PPP US take home pay is around $45,000 what that does not reflect is that the US has the largest income disparity in the world at the moment - which artificially skews any average PPP household income figures from there.

Oh I don’t doubt for one second that the likes of the US, the UK and Australia have some of the highest average incomes in the world. But as you say, waving those figures about in isolation in order to support an argument for British withdrawal from the EU is pretty meaningless. I would also guess that incomes in the UK vary quite widely from region to region.

Musiconomist

Batsy wrote: »

The average British take home pay alone is higher than it is in most, if not all, other EU countries.

I'd wager there are many countries outside the EU, such as America, in which take home pay is even higher than it is in Britain.

The fact that there are people on this forum who think that all the world's wealthiest people live in the EU and that all people outside the EU - even those in countries like America, Canada and Australia - are poorer is EUcentric ignorance and sheer, utter arrogance to the extreme.

Tell Americans or Australians that they'd become even wealthier if their countries joined the EU and you'd be met with a mixture of amazed looks and a few sniggers.

Source: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2010

25 European, by my count. One UK.

City rankings

Top 50 cities: Quality of living ranking

Base City: New York, US (=100)

Rank 2010CityCountryQol index 20101 VIENNAAUSTRIA 108.6
2 ZURICHSWITZERLAND 108
3 GENEVASWITZERLAND 107.9
4 VANCOUVERCANADA 107.4
4 AUCKLANDNEW ZEALAND 107.4
6 DUSSELDORFGERMANY 107.2
7 FRANKFURTGERMANY 107
7 MUNICHGERMANY 107
9 BERNSWITZERLAND 106.5
10 SYDNEYAUSTRALIA 106.3
11 COPENHAGENDENMARK 106.2
12 WELLINGTONNEW ZEALAND 105.9
13 AMSTERDAMNETHERLANDS 105.7
14 OTTAWACANADA 105.5
15 BRUSSELSBELGIUM 105.4
16 TORONTOCANADA 105.3
17 BERLINGERMANY 105
18 MELBOURNEAUSTRALIA 104.8
19 LUXEMBOURGLUXEMBOURG 104.6
20 STOCKHOLMSWEDEN 104.5
21 PERTHAUSTRALIA 104.2
21 MONTREALCANADA 104.2
23 HAMBURGGERMANY 104.1
24 NURNBURGGERMANY 103.9
24 OSLONORWAY 103.9
26 CANBERRAAUSTRALIA 103.6
26 DUBLINIRELAND 103.6
28 CALGARYCANADA 103.5
28 SINGAPORESINGAPORE 103.5
30 STUTTGARTGERMANY 103.3
31 HONOLULUUNITED STATES 103.1
32 ADELAIDEAUSTRALIA 103
32 SAN FRANCISCOUNITED STATES 103
34 PARISFRANCE 102.9
35 HELSINKIFINLAND 102.6
36 BRISBANEAUSTRALIA 102.4
37 BOSTONUNITED STATES 102.2
38 LYONFRANCE 101.9
39 LONDONUNITED KINGDOM 101.6
40 TOKYOJAPAN 101.4
41 MILANITALY 100.8
41 KOBEJAPAN 100.8
41 YOKOHAMAJAPAN 100.8
44 BARCELONASPAIN 100.6
45 LISBONPORTUGAL 100.3
45 CHICAGOUNITED STATES 100.3
45 WASHINGTONUNITED STATES 100.3
48 MADRIDSPAIN 100.2
49 NEW YORK CITYUNITED STATES 100
50 SEATTLEUNITED STATES 99.8

FreudianSlippers

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh I don’t doubt for one second that the likes of the US, the UK and Australia have some of the highest average incomes in the world. But as you say, waving those figures about in isolation in order to support an argument for British withdrawal from the EU is pretty meaningless. I would also guess that incomes in the UK vary quite widely from region to region.

Yep, couldn't find the ones for England, Wales or N.Ireland, but Scotland was significantly lower than Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

Musiconomist wrote: »

Source: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2010

25 European, by my count. One UK.

City rankings

Top 50 cities: Quality of living ranking

Base City: New York, US (=100)

Rank 2010 / City / Country / Qol index 2010
1 VIENNA AUSTRIA 108.6
2 ZURICH SWITZERLAND 108
3 GENEVA SWITZERLAND 107.9
4 VANCOUVERCANADA 107.4
4 AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND 107.4
6 DUSSELDORF GERMANY 107.2
7 FRANKFURT GERMANY 107
7 MUNICH GERMANY 107
9 BERN SWITZERLAND 106.5
10 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA 106.3
11 COPENHAGEN DENMARK 106.2
12 WELLINGTON NEW ZEALAND 105.9
13 AMSTERDAM NETHERLANDS 105.7
14 OTTAWA CANADA 105.5
15 BRUSSELS BELGIUM 105.4
16 TORONTO CANADA 105.3
17 BERLIN GERMANY 105
18 MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA 104.8
19 LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG 104.6
20 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 104.5
21 PERTH AUSTRALIA 104.2
21 MONTREAL CANADA 104.2
23 HAMBURG GERMANY 104.1
24 NURNBURG GERMANY 103.9
24 OSLO NORWAY 103.9
26 CANBERRA AUSTRALIA 103.6
26 DUBLIN IRELAND 103.6
28 ALGARY CANADA 103.5
28 SINGAPORE SINGAPORE 103.5
30 STUTTGART GERMANY 103.3
31 HONOLULU UNITED STATES 103.1
32 ADELAIDE AUSTRALIA 103
32 SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES 103
34 PARIS FRANCE 102.9
35 HELSINKI FINLAND 102.6
36 BRISBANE AUSTRALIA 102.4
37 BOSTON UNITED STATES 102.2
38 LYON FRANCE 101.9
39 LONDON UNITED KINGDOM 101.6
40 TOKYO JAPAN 101.4
41 MILAN ITALY 100.8
41 KOBE JAPAN 100.8
41 YOKOHAMA JAPAN 100.8
44 BARCELONA SPAIN 100.6
45 LISBON PORTUGAL 100.3
45 CHICAGO UNITED STATES 100.3
45 WASHINGTON UNITED STATES 100.3
48 MADRID SPAIN 100.2
49 NEW YORK CITY UNITED STATES 100
50 SEATTLE UNITED STATES 99.8

Just for ease of reading.

oscarBravo

Better yet:

Rank 2010 | City | Country | Qol index 2010
1| VIENNA| AUSTRIA |108.6
2| ZURICH| SWITZERLAND| 108
3| GENEVA| SWITZERLAND| 107.9
4| VANCOUVER|CANADA| 107.4
4| AUCKLAND| NEW ZEALAND| 107.4
6| DUSSELDORF |GERMANY| 107.2
7| FRANKFURT| GERMANY| 107
7| MUNICH| GERMANY| 107
9| BERN| SWITZERLAND| 106.5
10| SYDNEY| AUSTRALIA| 106.3
11| COPENHAGEN| DENMARK| 106.2
12| WELLINGTON| NEW ZEALAND |105.9
13| AMSTERDAM| NETHERLANDS |105.7
14| OTTAWA| CANADA |105.5
15| BRUSSELS| BELGIUM |105.4
16| TORONTO| CANADA |105.3
17| BERLIN| GERMANY |105
18| MELBOURNE| AUSTRALIA |104.8
19| LUXEMBOURG |LUXEMBOURG |104.6
20| STOCKHOLM |SWEDEN |104.5
21| PERTH| AUSTRALIA |104.2
21| MONTREAL| CANADA |104.2
23| HAMBURG| GERMANY |104.1
24| NURNBURG| GERMANY |103.9
24| OSLO| NORWAY |103.9
26| CANBERRA| AUSTRALIA |103.6
26| DUBLIN| IRELAND |103.6
28| CALGARY| CANADA |103.5
28| SINGAPORE| SINGAPORE |103.5
30| STUTTGART| GERMANY |103.3
31| HONOLULU| UNITED STATES |103.1
32| ADELAIDE |AUSTRALIA |103
32| SAN FRANCISCO| UNITED STATES |103
34| PARIS| FRANCE |102.9
35| HELSINKI| FINLAND |102.6
36| BRISBANE| AUSTRALIA |102.4
37| BOSTON| UNITED STATES |102.2
38| LYON| FRANCE |101.9
39| LONDON| UNITED KINGDOM |101.6
40| TOKYO| JAPAN |101.4
41| MILAN| ITALY |100.8
41| KOBE |JAPAN |100.8
41| YOKOHAMA| JAPAN |100.8
44| BARCELONA |SPAIN |100.6
45| LISBON| PORTUGAL |100.3
45| CHICAGO |UNITED STATES |100.3
45| WASHINGTON| UNITED STATES |100.3
48| MADRID| SPAIN |100.2
49| NEW YORK CITY| UNITED STATES |100
50| SEATTLE| UNITED STATES |99.8

Musiconomist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Better yet:

Rank 2010 | City | Country | Qol index 2010
1| VIENNA| AUSTRIA |108.6

Yeah, but can you put it in a 3d pie chart?

oscarBravo

srsly78

Yet another example of a European court riding rough-shod over British laws: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15162241

An outrage!!!!!

ECJ rules it's ok to use foreign decoder for Sky Sports

meglome

srsly78 wrote: »

Yet another example of a European court riding rough-shod over British laws: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15162241

An outrage!!!!!

ECJ rules it's ok to use foreign decoder for Sky Sports

In the consumer wins out kinda way

Mena

Musiconomist wrote: »

Yeah, but can you put it in a 3d pie chart?

OB did the pie, I prefer this:

oscarBravo

Here's another way of looking at it:

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's another way of looking at it:

BOOM... FACE!

Duke Leonal Felmet

Quality of life index. Immeasurable piffle has reached new heights...

Batsy

Originally Posted by djpbarry
. I would also guess that incomes in the UK vary quite widely from region to region

That's why people have invented a remarkable thing called "average", so you can tot up the regional differences and find the average. The average British salary is higher than it is in all other major EU countries and higher than in almost every other EU nations.

And British average incomes are not only higher than average Irish incomes but they are the highest in the EU:

[SIZE=+1]British get highest incomes in EU[/SIZE]

EUObserver ^

Posted on 31 May 2005 20:08:46 by Alex Marko


BRUSSELS - UK citizens earn the highest incomes within the EU, with average annual earnings of 36,180 euro, statistics show.

The average results for the 25-member-bloc in 2002 were 26,850 euro, according to statistics released by Eurostat on Monday (30 May).

Luxembourg and Germany show respectively the second and third highest earnings, with 35,010 euro and 34,620 euro.

On the other hand, people in Estonia (4,440 euro), Lithuania (3,600 euro) and Latvia (3,240 euro) earn the least, with Lithuanians and Latvians earning over ten times less than the British, according to the EU's statistical agency's figures.

These figures do not reflect purchasing power, however, as they do no take into account the differences in price levels within the EU.

If purchasing power taken into account, people in Luxembourg have the highest average earnings, followed by the Germans and the British, with Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians still at the bottom of the list.

Gender gap In all 25 member states, there is a marked difference between average earnings for men and women, with the gap being the largest in the UK, Denmark and Cyprus.

In these countries, women earn about 30 per cent less than men.

The smallest gaps - 20 per cent - were recorded in Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Belgium, Sweden and Finland.

This can be explained by several factors, such as the type of jobs, age, and other employment characteristics, and does not "necessarily reflect a gap in pay between women and men occupying the same job with the same level of seniority", according to Eurostat.

Another factor influencing the gap in average earnings is the level of education.

People with only a lower education earn 20,420 euro per year on average, whereas those who have university education or equivalent, have an average annual income of 41,080 euro within the EU.

And the level of education seems to have a particularly important role in the new member states, where those who have a university diploma sometimes earn twice as much as those only having completed upper secondary education.

Highest incomes in the financial sector Another common tendency within the EU is that the financial sector records the highest annual earnings, with an average of 43,550 euro.

Annual average salaries in Luxembourg (59,200), the UK (56,710 euro), Germany (45,600 euro), and the Netherlands (44,110) have levels above the average, whereas Slovakia (9,950 euro), Latvia (8,000 euro) and Lithuania (7,360 euro) are lagging far behind.

The services and industry sectors follow in second and third place after the financial sector, with respectively 27,200 euro and 27,050 euro on average.

Hotels and restaurants record the lowest figures (17,510 euro on average), with the best results appearing in Finland (24,700 euro), Sweden (24,330 euro), the Netherlands (23,660 euro) and Luxembourg (21,140 euro).
The Eurostat study does not present data for Greece, Portugal and Malta.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413887/posts

Musiconomist

Batsy wrote: »

That's why people have invented a remarkable thing called "average", so you can tot up the regional differences and find the average. The average British salary is higher than it is in all other major EU countries and higher than in almost every other EU nations.

And British average incomes are not only higher than average Irish incomes but they are the highest in the EU:

[SIZE=+1]British get highest incomes in EU[/SIZE]

EUObserver ^


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413887/posts

I'd prefer to live in a city with a high standard of living, than one where I'll earn relatively more money. Surely, standard of life is more important?

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

That's why people have invented a remarkable thing called "average", so you can tot up the regional differences and find the average. The average British salary is higher than it is in all other major EU countries and higher than in almost every other EU nations.

..........

So Britains done well out of being in the EU then.

mlumley

Lockstep wrote: »

Please provide some evidence for the above. As it stands, it comes across as a 'mate told me X' post.

Did you not see the Home Secriteries speach at the conservitive party conferance. She mentioned it in her speach. The judge said that as he and his girlfriend had a cat, it showed the had a family relationship. It'll probably be on youtube. It was also reported in the papers.:D

Nodin

mlumley wrote: »

Did you not see the Home Secriteries speach at the conservitive party conferance. She mentioned it in her speach. The judge said that as he and his girlfriend had a cat, it showed the had a family relationship. It'll probably be on youtube. It was also reported in the papers.:D

This is the second time I've posted this....

In her speech, Mrs May listed a number of cases which she said demonstrated that the Human Rights Act was being abused - citing the example of illegal immigrant who "who cannot be deported because - and I am not making this up - he had a pet cat".
But a spokesman for the Royal Courts of Justice said that was not the reason for the tribunal decision in that case and that the Home Office had failed to apply its own rules for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326

spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal
decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

A
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/b...-live-coverage

(my bold and underline where present).

mlumley

professore wrote: »

If it leaves fully the EU Sarkozy or his successors will waltz in and set up big tariff walls with the UK so it will be much more difficult to sell any products or services into Europe. This will hurt the UK's economy.

.

But will they, EU needs to sell to UK just as much, it is a rich nation and buys lots of goods from the EU. Trade war anyone?

oscarBravo

mlumley wrote: »

But will they...?

Probably not. It's in the interests of both the EU and the UK to continue to have free trade. Which means that the UK would end up in a similar situation to Norway: having to implement EU directives in order to gain access to a wider market, but without any say in the formation of those directives.

Well played, UK.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

Probably not. It's in the interests of both the EU and the UK to continue to have free trade. Which means that the UK would end up in a similar situation to Norway: having to implement EU directives in order to gain access to a wider market, but without any say in the formation of those directives.

Well played, UK.

That's the most overlooked aspect tbh. Why would you sign up to play by rules that you don't get a part in creating. IMO that's why the UK joined in the first place.

Batsy

stewie01 wrote: »

anyway can we hold a referendum to have them kicked out of the euro zone. see how long they last going it alone.

Yet more Euro-arrogance.

Britain won't suddenly disappear when it's outside the EU. 87% of the world's countries are outside the EU and most of them are smaller than Britain and they are hardly suffering for not being a member of the EU.

Britain has only been a member of the EU since 1973, a mere 38 years of its long history. It got along okay for centuries before then and it'll continue to get along for centuries long after the EU has gone. In fact, Britain will be better off outside the EU than it is in it.

It's just such breathtaking arrogance to assume that Britain - a nation of 63 million people with one of the world's largest economies - cannot "go it alone" outside the EU and that such a country needs to hang on to Brussels's coat-tails to survive.

oscarBravo

Yes, Britain would survive outside the EU. Yes, the EU will survive without Britain.

The question is whether Britain would be better off in or out of the EU. Outside of Union-Jack-waving chest-thumping nationalism, it's pretty clear that it's better to be on the inside. There's almost nothing to be gained in real terms from leaving the EU.

That said, I'm not convinced a referendum wouldn't result in a vote to leave. As I've said elsewhere (and often), people are piss-poor at rational decision-making, and will be swayed at least as much by the chest-thumping as by the logic - quite possibly more.

jimmycrackcorm

Seeing as the UK have their own currency already I cannot see what advantage there is in them leaving the EU other than they can have bendy bananas

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

That's why people have invented a remarkable thing called "average", so you can tot up the regional differences and find the average.

You've totally missed my point - there are areas in the UK were people earn considerably less than the national average. The wealth distribution is heavily skewed towards London – most people in the UK earn far less than the national average. The median income would be far more informative.

Batsy wrote: »

And British average incomes are not only higher than average Irish incomes but they are the highest in the EU:

That was six years ago dude - apart from anything else, the British pound is worth considerably less now, relative to the Euro, than it was in 2005.

Batsy wrote: »

87% of the world's countries are outside the EU and most of them are smaller than Britain and they are hardly suffering for not being a member of the EU.

Let's flip that around - you think any of those countries might benefit from being in the EU?

meglome

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Seeing as the UK have their own currency already I cannot see what advantage there is in them leaving the EU other than they can have bendy bananas

Of course that also depended on what newspaper you read about the bendy bananas in.

The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers. The main provisions of the regulation are that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not rotten, clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste. The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II). Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape". This is not true, however, of the size specifications; sale of bananas below the minimum size is almost always prohibited (with exceptions only for bananas from a few regions where bananas are traditionally smaller).

This regulation requires that bananas of the highest quality classification not have "abnormal curvature".

It's quite obvious it was done to protect consumers but the usual suspects in Britain did what was expected of them and made the EU out to be crazy/irrelevant.

Icepick

Actually, it's not possible to "leave" the EU.
This is just nationalistic BS.

Master and commander

i would fully support the UK and Irelands withdrawal from the EU. It would give British and Irish people actual control over their own turf, rathar than being a yes man. At the very least, it would mean an end to the seemingly endless barrage of EU directives telling us what we can and can't do.
Hopefully it would be the thin edge of the wedge that would result in a wave of withdrawals of other countries.

The EU is a redundant entity anyway. It was only created to be an opposing force to the USSR and since that is no more, the EU is a bit of a pointless project. Bollox to it i say.

FreudianSlippers

Icepick wrote: »

Actually, it's not possible to "leave" the EU.
This is just nationalistic BS.

Lisbon Treaty introduced a method of secession.

K-9

You'll get a whole list of other myths here:

News from the European Commission in the UK

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/archive_euromyths_2_en.htm

I whole heartedly support the campaign for the British sausage though.

FreudianSlippers

Master and commander wrote: »

i would fully support the UK and Irelands withdrawal from the EU. It would give British and Irish people actual control over their own turf, rathar than being a yes man. At the very least, it would mean an end to the seemingly endless barrage of EU directives telling us what we can and can't do.
Hopefully it would be the thin edge of the wedge that would result in a wave of withdrawals of other countries.

The EU is a redundant entity anyway. It was only created to be an opposing force to the USSR and since that is no more, the EU is a bit of a pointless project. Bollox to it i say.

I take it you mean the European Communities since the primitive EU didn't exist until a year after the fall of the USSR?

Master and commander

Yes i do. EC EU, same thing really in practical terms

FreudianSlippers

Master and commander wrote: »

Yes i do. EC EU, same thing really in practical terms

They're definitely not.

storker

Sand wrote: »

I think the general dream is that theyd be able to wind the clocks back to August 1940. Forever.

I imagine they'd probably prefer May 1945.

Stork