Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
Ah, very good. Swerving the point again Fiiish. The phrase that you were picked up on was "The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round."
Is the bit about UK having no voice on global bodies true? Yes or No?
Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
Ah, very good. Swerving the point again Fiiish. The phrase that you were picked up on was "The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round."
True or false, the EU was more likely to come about due to its founder nations currently being at peace as opposed to its founder nations being at war.
Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
Ah, very good. Swerving the point again Fiiish. The phrase that you were picked up on was "The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round."
True or false, the EU was more likely to come about due to its founder nations currently being at peace as opposed to its founder nations being at war.
I hate these difficult multiple choice questions....
I'll select "or", as it's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation.
As in, yes the EU was more likely to come about due to founder and later member nations being at peace, and, also, yes peace is more likely to be the norm where there is a mutually beneficial structure to which these nations could belong (ECSC, EEC, EC & EU).
This probably counts as having my fence and eating it, or sitting on the cake, or something....
Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
Ah, very good. Swerving the point again Fiiish. The phrase that you were picked up on was "The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round."
True or false, the EU was more likely to come about due to its founder nations currently being at peace as opposed to its founder nations being at war.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
Ah, very good. Swerving the point again Fiiish. The phrase that you were picked up on was "The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round."
True or false, the EU was more likely to come about due to its founder nations currently being at peace as opposed to its founder nations being at war.
I hate these difficult multiple choice questions....
I'll select "or", as it's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation.
As in, yes the EU was more likely to come about due to founder and later member nations being at peace, and, also, yes peace is more likely to be the norm where there is a mutually beneficial structure to which these nations could belong (ECSC, EEC, EC & EU).
This probably counts as having my fence and eating it, or sitting on the cake, or something....
Careful with that kind of non-answer, our resident Europhile will be apoplectic with that kind of 'swerving'.
Although tellingly it does imply that you agree with me: the EU was only possible due to peace already existing. Therefore my original assertion is completely true.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
I will leave others to decide which one of us is closer to the truth.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
I will leave others to decide which one of us is closer to the truth.
Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
Ah, very good. Swerving the point again Fiiish. The phrase that you were picked up on was "The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round."
True or false, the EU was more likely to come about due to its founder nations currently being at peace as opposed to its founder nations being at war.
I hate these difficult multiple choice questions....
I'll select "or", as it's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation.
As in, yes the EU was more likely to come about due to founder and later member nations being at peace, and, also, yes peace is more likely to be the norm where there is a mutually beneficial structure to which these nations could belong (ECSC, EEC, EC & EU).
This probably counts as having my fence and eating it, or sitting on the cake, or something....
Careful with that kind of non-answer, our resident Europhile will be apoplectic with that kind of 'swerving'.
Although tellingly it does imply that you agree with me: the EU was only possible due to peace already existing. Therefore my original assertion is completely true.
Right, as a Europhile, just off to be very annoyed at myself...
The straight answer is that nothing, with the exception of keeping my soup hot, occurs in a vacuum.
I still can't believe that people are defending the EU's assertion to being the reason there has been peace in Europe since 1945, despite the fact the EU has only existed since 1993. Unless you're claiming the EU has access to time machines.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
But what the infographic infers, by the way it states what it states, is that the UK has no input or influence. The premise is that the Big Bad Commission tells us what we have to do, without us having any say. My premise is that the Big Bad Commission does what the member states agree that it should. If we take the position (and admittedly do because I think I always am) that I might be correct in my view, it logically follows that the UK has influence, but it is combined with other European countries.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
But what the infographic infers, by the way it states what it states, is that the UK has no input or influence. The premise is that the Big Bad Commission tells us what we have to do, without us having any say. My premise is that the Big Bad Commission does what the member states agree that it should. If we take the position (and admittedly do because I think I always am) that I might be correct in my view, it logically follows that the UK has influence, but it is combined with other European countries.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
But what the infographic infers, by the way it states what it states, is that the UK has no input or influence. The premise is that the Big Bad Commission tells us what we have to do, without us having any say. My premise is that the Big Bad Commission does what the member states agree that it should. If we take the position (and admittedly do because I think I always am) that I might be correct in my view, it logically follows that the UK has influence, but it is combined with other European countries.
Wasting your time mate.
Can't believe you of all people would post this, given how you constantly refuse to countenance any point-of-view that does not match your own.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
But what the infographic infers, by the way it states what it states, is that the UK has no input or influence. The premise is that the Big Bad Commission tells us what we have to do, without us having any say. My premise is that the Big Bad Commission does what the member states agree that it should. If we take the position (and admittedly do because I think I always am) that I might be correct in my view, it logically follows that the UK has influence, but it is combined with other European countries.
Admittedly I never actually gave any support to the infographic. I just posted it to see if anyone had anything to say to it. I took it for granted that it might not be 100% accurate, but then again the previous infographic that was pro-EU was not 100% truthful.
The wider point is the debate is muddied by both sides pushing misinformation. If you only accuse the other side of lying whilst simultaneously defending the lies told by your own side you are further propagating the cycle of lies and counter-lies.
The infographic says 'global bodies' not 'ALL global bodies'. On certain bodies the EU has to negotiate on behalf of its member nations. So in that sense it is true.
But what the infographic infers, by the way it states what it states, is that the UK has no input or influence. The premise is that the Big Bad Commission tells us what we have to do, without us having any say. My premise is that the Big Bad Commission does what the member states agree that it should. If we take the position (and admittedly do because I think I always am) that I might be correct in my view, it logically follows that the UK has influence, but it is combined with other European countries.
Admittedly I never actually gave any support to the infographic. I just posted it to see if anyone had anything to say to it. I took it for granted that it might not be 100% accurate, but then again the previous infographic that was pro-EU was not 100% truthful.
The wider point is the debate is muddied by both sides pushing misinformation. If you only accuse the other side of lying whilst simultaneously defending the lies told by your own side you are further propagating the cycle of lies and counter-lies.
I am pro-European but, I must agree, there will be very little "information" provided in the next few months on either side that will be unbiased.
Part of the problem is that we want answers in bite sized chunks, and the truth almost always (not just regarding the EU) requires too much explanation.
Oi, Fishy. Came across this while reading more Belgian coverage of the STVV 20.
It was you, I think, who claimed I was making it up about the Eurostar terminal being under threat if we left. Quite scathing, you were, if I recall. Suggested I'd made it all up
IDS not impressive on Andrew Marr this morning. His responses lacked credibility to a) what will happen with the jungle migrants in Calais, and, b) Scotland leaving the Uk if we do exit the EU.
In the interests of balance, Alan Johnson was also weak on the Sunday Politics programme.
2 weeks ago I was on the fence but I'm coming down more now in favour of staying in. I am concerned about the medium term economic impacts of leaving. I'm in the 'end game' of my financial life and can see my route for the next 5 years. I don't want that put in jeopardy for what I see as very unclear gain.
A selfish view, yes, but many people will decide based on their own situations.
It seems that tens of millions of displaced refugees moving into an already unstable part of Europe via Turkey is the kind of thing that usually to leads to war. Some country or region in the area will inevitably create camps into which the poor sods can "disappear". Their neighbours will get a bit upset especially when some of their own citizens accidentally end up in the camps. And it all kicks off from there!
Then the Americans will join in (hopefully on our side) and everything will get sorted.
Ironically the reason it probably won't happen is that the Germans and their closest allies are working desperately to prevent it. But trying to enforce some sort of collective responsibility amongst the nations of Europe must feel like dealing with teenage children.
Amongst all this the UK is throwing a wobbly about a few Romanians being allowed to camp on Hampstead Heath and wants to "regain its sovereignty". FFS!
On balance, the scientists quoted by the article agree Brexit would hurt UK science win the day, although there are clearly great research projects which don't involve the EU.
The basic numbers to support their premise are:-
"The flows of European science funding:-
The UK is a net contributor overall to the EU budget However, it is a net receiver of EU funding for research In 2007-2013, the UK gave a total of 78bn euros to the EU Of this, 5.4bn was specified to go to the EU's R&D programme But in return, 8.8bn euros came back to the UK for R&D In 2007-2013, funding from EU sources more than doubled In this period, UK research council spending increased by 7%".
Taken from Telegraph today, countering the £55m per day the "Out" team have claimed the EU costs the UK.
The bottom line final net number is around £18m per day (£6.5b per annum) and "EU supporters say this money is more than worth it, since it is prerequisite of membership and thus access to the single market, which they say profits the UK by far more than £6.5 billion."
Text of the article:-
"How much does Britain pay to the EU?
In 2015, the UK’s full membership fee would have been £17.8 billion. However, Britain doesn’t pay that full fee. Because of a deal negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, Britain gets a “rebate”, an annual reduction in contributions. Last year, that rebate reduced our contribution to £12.9 billion. That’s around £200 for every person in the UK. For context, that is more than the annual budget of the Home Office, which spends about £9 billion a year. It’s around a tenth of the budget for the NHS in England. It’s also enough to reduce the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound.
How much is that a day?
£12.9 billion is around £35 million a day. That’s less than the £55 million-a-day figure that a lot of people campaigning the leave the EU cite. That’s because the £55 million figure is based on the EU contribution before the rebate is applied. Brexit campaigners use the phrase “£55 million is sent to the EU every day” to suggest that the gross sum is paid to Brussels before a portion is sent back to the UK. In fact, the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all. Using the post-rebate figure, it’s more accurate to say the UK sends £35 million a day to the EU.
What do we get back?
Some of our contribution comes back to the UK in the form of subsidies and grants. British farmers get money from the Common Agricultural Policy and various economic development and scientific research projects get EU cash. The Treasury says total EU payments to British public were £4.4 billion in 2015. Payments to private organisations were worth another £1.4 billion in 2013 (the most recent year on record.) That suggests we get back almost £6 billion a year. EU supporters say that shows how valuable membership is to Britain. Brexiteers argue that outside the EU, the Government would still be able to spend that money in EU, quite possibly more effectively too.
Anything else?
Almost £1 billion of British money given to the EU is spend on international aid. That spending is counted towards the UK Government’s target of spending 0.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product on aid. In other words, it’s money the UK would have to spend anyway outside the EU, for as long as the Government remained committed to the aid target. How does it all add up? Taking account of the money that comes back and the aid spending, Britain last year gave almost £6.5 billion to the EU that would otherwise not have been paid out if we were not members of the club. That’s almost £18 million a day. EU supporters say that money is more than worth it, since it is prerequisite of membership and thus access to the single market, which they say profits the UK by far more than £6.5 billion. Leave campaigners argue that outside the EU, Britain could still negotiate access to the single market while keeping some or all of that membership money.
How does Britain compare with other EU countries?
For many years, Britain and Germany were the only significant net contributors to the EU budget. Now, however, there are ten countries who pay more in than they get back. In terms of total contribution, Britain remains the second biggest payer behind Germany. But when each contributor’s payment is divided by the number of people in the country, Britain sinks down the table. On a per-head basis, Britons are the eighth-biggest contributors to the EU. The biggest payers are the Dutch: every one them sends almost four times as much to Brussels."
Comments
Is the bit about UK having no voice on global bodies true? Yes or No?
I'll select "or", as it's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation.
As in, yes the EU was more likely to come about due to founder and later member nations being at peace, and, also, yes peace is more likely to be the norm where there is a mutually beneficial structure to which these nations could belong (ECSC, EEC, EC & EU).
This probably counts as having my fence and eating it, or sitting on the cake, or something....
(That's brilliant spin by the way!)
Although tellingly it does imply that you agree with me: the EU was only possible due to peace already existing. Therefore my original assertion is completely true.
The straight answer is that nothing, with the exception of keeping my soup hot, occurs in a vacuum.
I am a minority. Money is money, it goes up, it goes down, not a worry for me.
The wider point is the debate is muddied by both sides pushing misinformation. If you only accuse the other side of lying whilst simultaneously defending the lies told by your own side you are further propagating the cycle of lies and counter-lies.
Part of the problem is that we want answers in bite sized chunks, and the truth almost always (not just regarding the EU) requires too much explanation.
Anyway, here's the views of the Belgian PM, which may be of interest: blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2016/02/27/everything-will-be-called-into-question-belgian-prime-minister-talks-brexit/.
Oi, Fishy. Came across this while reading more Belgian coverage of the STVV 20.
It was you, I think, who claimed I was making it up about the Eurostar terminal being under threat if we left. Quite scathing, you were, if I recall. Suggested I'd made it all up
Well,how does the Belgian Prime Minister's view on the matter hold with you?
In the interests of balance, Alan Johnson was also weak on the Sunday Politics programme.
2 weeks ago I was on the fence but I'm coming down more now in favour of staying in. I am concerned about the medium term economic impacts of leaving.
I'm in the 'end game' of my financial life and can see my route for the next 5 years. I don't want that put in jeopardy for what I see as very unclear gain.
A selfish view, yes, but many people will decide based on their own situations.
It seems that tens of millions of displaced refugees moving into an already unstable part of Europe via Turkey is the kind of thing that usually to leads to war. Some country or region in the area will inevitably create camps into which the poor sods can "disappear". Their neighbours will get a bit upset especially when some of their own citizens accidentally end up in the camps. And it all kicks off from there!
Then the Americans will join in (hopefully on our side) and everything will get sorted.
Ironically the reason it probably won't happen is that the Germans and their closest allies are working desperately to prevent it. But trying to enforce some sort of collective responsibility amongst the nations of Europe must feel like dealing with teenage children.
Amongst all this the UK is throwing a wobbly about a few Romanians being allowed to camp on Hampstead Heath and wants to "regain its sovereignty". FFS!
Link to BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35668682
On balance, the scientists quoted by the article agree Brexit would hurt UK science win the day, although there are clearly great research projects which don't involve the EU.
The basic numbers to support their premise are:-
"The flows of European science funding:-
The UK is a net contributor overall to the EU budget
However, it is a net receiver of EU funding for research
In 2007-2013, the UK gave a total of 78bn euros to the EU
Of this, 5.4bn was specified to go to the EU's R&D programme
But in return, 8.8bn euros came back to the UK for R&D
In 2007-2013, funding from EU sources more than doubled
In this period, UK research council spending increased by 7%".
The bottom line final net number is around £18m per day (£6.5b per annum) and "EU supporters say this money is more than worth it, since it is prerequisite of membership and thus access to the single market, which they say profits the UK by far more than £6.5 billion."
Text of the article:-
"How much does Britain pay to the EU?
In 2015, the UK’s full membership fee would have been £17.8 billion. However, Britain doesn’t pay that full fee.
Because of a deal negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, Britain gets a “rebate”, an annual reduction in contributions.
Last year, that rebate reduced our contribution to £12.9 billion. That’s around £200 for every person in the UK.
For context, that is more than the annual budget of the Home Office, which spends about £9 billion a year. It’s around a tenth of the budget for the NHS in England. It’s also enough to reduce the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound.
How much is that a day?
£12.9 billion is around £35 million a day. That’s less than the £55 million-a-day figure that a lot of people campaigning the leave the EU cite.
That’s because the £55 million figure is based on the EU contribution before the rebate is applied. Brexit campaigners use the phrase “£55 million is sent to the EU every day” to suggest that the gross sum is paid to Brussels before a portion is sent back to the UK.
In fact, the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all.
Using the post-rebate figure, it’s more accurate to say the UK sends £35 million a day to the EU.
What do we get back?
Some of our contribution comes back to the UK in the form of subsidies and grants. British farmers get money from the Common Agricultural Policy and various economic development and scientific research projects get EU cash.
The Treasury says total EU payments to British public were £4.4 billion in 2015. Payments to private organisations were worth another £1.4 billion in 2013 (the most recent year on record.) That suggests we get back almost £6 billion a year.
EU supporters say that shows how valuable membership is to Britain. Brexiteers argue that outside the EU, the Government would still be able to spend that money in EU, quite possibly more effectively too.
Anything else?
Almost £1 billion of British money given to the EU is spend on international aid. That spending is counted towards the UK Government’s target of spending 0.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product on aid.
In other words, it’s money the UK would have to spend anyway outside the EU, for as long as the Government remained committed to the aid target.
How does it all add up?
Taking account of the money that comes back and the aid spending, Britain last year gave almost £6.5 billion to the EU that would otherwise not have been paid out if we were not members of the club. That’s almost £18 million a day.
EU supporters say that money is more than worth it, since it is prerequisite of membership and thus access to the single market, which they say profits the UK by far more than £6.5 billion.
Leave campaigners argue that outside the EU, Britain could still negotiate access to the single market while keeping some or all of that membership money.
How does Britain compare with other EU countries?
For many years, Britain and Germany were the only significant net contributors to the EU budget. Now, however, there are ten countries who pay more in than they get back.
In terms of total contribution, Britain remains the second biggest payer behind Germany.
But when each contributor’s payment is divided by the number of people in the country, Britain sinks down the table. On a per-head basis, Britons are the eighth-biggest contributors to the EU. The biggest payers are the Dutch: every one them sends almost four times as much to Brussels."
Link to the article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12176663/EU-Facts-how-much-does-Britain-pay-to-the-EU-budget.html