jimsleftfoot

Does anyone think this whole thing is a massive waste of public money. As Cameron tries to appease people in the Tory party who have been squabbling about Europe for the last 30 years and in some cases people are using this to drive tgeir own personal agendas.

 

Brexit is based on a grievance no plan whatsoever to improve Britain.

 

Yes - My feeling is that Cameron didn't want it but put it on the table to appease his own party, in the belief that they wouldn't get a majority and any party sharing power would veto it straight away.

 

I don't think there's any such thing. EPPP is a fixed formula. It really does shaft smaller clubs. IIRC the bigger clubs threatened to cut or withhold solidarity payments unless the rest of the League accepted EPPP.

Payments for every 10 first team appearances he makes up to 100 appearances. A potential maximum of £1.3m in the PL.

 

Also potentially a 20% sell on relating to transfers before 23 years of age and a 5% loan fee (conditions attached).

The most reprehensible, profiteering airline known to man - RyanAir - have sent out an email urging people to vote to remain if anyone is still undecided.....

 

I hope people make such decisions based on what is said and not merely who says it (though Gove to me is equally reprehensible).

Meanwhile, Switzerland are struggling so much they've been considering giving everybody 2 grand a month as a guaranteed minimum income work or play...

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YR0CW

Not quite, the government were against this and thought it would damage the economy but it was debated as a result of a petition getting 100k + signatures. I'll admit that I'm not sure how it turns into a referendum but it was pretty much shot down.

Might as well

 

You can access it from the Brass Bank charge number.

Seems to be some sort of loan or mortgage agreement between Brassbank and OAFC. Is the money being called in?

If you look at Britain on a map of economies you will find we are the 5th largest, and very significant. Too significant for the EU to ignore as a trading nation.

I agree, they will give us a deal. But there is a world of difference between the deal we want and the deal we will get. We're sticking two fingers up at them, its not in their interests to see the UK doing well out of a Brexit.

Purely that some people use the word "police" to sum up everyone rather than individuals - I have spoken to many who refuse to see that some police officers (those on the front line) did their best to help that awful day and what triggered to me to "post that" was the fact that that very well done documentary highlighted the decent officers and their actions. I despise the other aspects as much as anyone

Someone raised the same point with Guardian's David Conn last night and he responded that many of the rank and file officers were involved and they also gave evidence at the inquest against the fans. Not everyone should be tarred with the same brush and some individual officers did help the fans but it was not just SYP leadership who are to blame. As an organisation, it's fair to say the police were at fault.

will add this to the debate copied from facebook

I have considered carefully what I want to say here about Hillsborough. The media coverage over the past few days, comments in the House of Commons and the suspension of the South Yorkshire Chief Constable all persuade me to post my thoughts.

I was a Constable, Sergeant and Inspector in South Yorkshire Police and served 17yrs before leaving to run a family business. I was there on the pitch at Hillsborough when the tragedy occurred working as a PC in a public order serial which had been called into the ground when the shout went up for assistance.

I witnessed the lack of command. The almost complete radio silence from the control room at the ground and the ridiculous decision to line up our serial in front of the Notts fans to prevent a pitch invasion whilst people at the Leppings Lane end were in obvious trouble.

I broke ranks at that moment with several other officers and began helping the injured from the pitch because it was obvious that senior commanders were not reacting to the situation as they should have been.

There is no doubt in my mind that poor policing decisions led to the deaths that day and it comes as no surprise that those in charge tried to deflect the blame. The culture in the force at that time was demonstrated in person by the majority of the Chief Superintendents and senior Command team. I have never come across a more arrogant, pompous and unlikeable group of individuals. They had absolute power over their Divisions (Districts now) and were completely unaccountable. What they said went and they were completely but mistakenly self assured in their ability.

That it took so long to discover the depth of the cover up from the then Chief Constable Peter Wright to the Chief Superintendents and those under their direct command is no surprise to me as no one would have dared to speak out.

What does offend me however is the headline in todays edition of i which screams ROTTEN TO THE CORE. Well that's not true either. The huge majority of officers on duty that day did just that their duty. They helped where they could, used initiative when the chain of command failed and should be commended for their work.

The current Chief Constable David Compton has been suspended by the Police and Crime Commissioner Dr Alan Billings. Yes he takes responsibility for the force but he wasn't there 27 years ago. It looks as though he was suspended because he tried to defend his force during the inquest proceedings. I think our Dr Billings is coming up for re election and needs to be able to say to the electorate look how tough I am. This has nothing to do with proportionality.

And the fans yes like all football crowds some of their number were intoxicated. I know because I saw it and we were confiscating beer from vehicles all morning. A huge haul of trays of lager and beer cans which had been brought to drink before the match. This was nothing unusual. This was the culture at the time and the reason fans were penned in like sheep at all grounds. Their behaviour in the previous decade had necessitated separation because of continued violence. So to say the fans had no responsibility is also wrong. Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces.

Yes, let the people responsible face the music. Yes let Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and his immediate team be called to account but please don't call South Yorkshire Police rotten to the core. It wasn't then and I don't believe it is now.

As I understand, the defence lawyers at the inquest repeated long discredited slurs against the fans and this is the primary reason why Compton was suspended.

 

As for levels of intoxication amongst fans, probably the most important thing to say is that it's quite acceptable today for people to drink and be drunk at many different events (up to certain levels) and for it not to cause major issues and so I can only think the point he is trying to make is the same 2+2=5 crap that we've already heard.

 

I quite agree that the culture within football didn't help leading up to Hillsborough, but there should have always been a greater duty of care in looking after the fans, the families and children attending football. Is it any surprise that with greater planning, health and safety etc. that a similar issue hasn't occurred since? Fan behaviour didn't lead to conditions at Hillsborough, the authorities chose that pathway.

90 mins was great. I won letter of the week having a go at Ian Stott and Graeme Sharp but got told off by my mum for swearing. I also wrote a rather tongue in cheek letter comparing Ian Ormondroyd to God that was published. The equivalent of an Internet forum in the mid 90's.

Who on earth said this was caused by fans? I said that I don't believe that the fans were innocent.

 

Maybe it's just my sterling education, but if you try and understand the point, then you'd realise that what I am arguing is that I don't believe that fans were blameless.

 

That does not exonerate the police, or turn the fans into mindless hooligans. Life isn't binary, it is possible for there to exist shades of grey.

The evidence points to the crowd behaving as you would expect a crowd to behave in such circumstances. It means that there could have been some ticketless fans and people who were drunk, but nothing beyond what was normally expected and could have been dealt with.

I'm a bit confused about where you're going with that one to be honest

Fair enough, I think it sounded better in my head that one.

 

I can't say the Tories are my choice of government, but I think Cameron/Osborne are more middle of the road than the rest of the party. Osborne for example, has continually missed his spending cuts targets. Perhaps because he doesn't actually believe in them? He's an interventionist, he likes his projects like HE and Science and hopefully the Northern Poorhouse/Poorhouse. He has links to Manchester and Manchester has benefitted as a result.

 

However, arguably the anti-EU Tory view is movement is about opposing big government. Post-Brexit, more control would be given to what is the new Tory party (minus Cameron and Osborne). Will they cut harder, how will deal with the North with Osborne no longer our champion? What will happen to the NHS, public services etc? They could do a lot of damage in the 8+ years they have probably got. Brexit could be vote for a government we never voted for and we might not be able to vote them out for a long time.

Leaving aside your silly use of the word fascist, I don't think so. I do find it worrying that people think that it's a sensible answer to losing an election to transfer power to systems and processes that can't be voted out. You'll find yourself a bit :censored:ed if that same body moves in a direction that you don't like.

A bit like what happens to the North and this current government. Incidently, if we leave, Osborne will be out of a job and our only link to Tory investment will leave and that will probably be that.

Are you sure about that? Don't forget that we are in a much stronger position trading with the rest of the world as part of the EU, the time we'll spend renegotiating deals from a weaker position will see us go into a recession.

Rotterdam effect is true but it means at its lowest, it could be 46% exports to the EU but there is a 4% upwards margin of error so it's likely to be higher but it's hard to tell accuratley.

They are also discounting the £10bn per year we save by not paying into the EU. It doesn't appear anywhere in the document apparently..

Because we have to pay in anyway to get access to the free market. Norway for example pay slightly less than we currently do per capita.

The European parliament has no control. The EU is run by 28 unelected commissioners.

Incorrect. Each country puts forward a commissioner chosen by the elected government of that nation (and so representative of that elected governments views). They can propose law but it is adopted by the European Parliament which is made up of voted for MEP's.

I see staying in the EU like staying in a loveless marriage where you're not allowed to do anything without your controlling wife's say so. Better stay with her rather than risk looking for someone better?

On that basis the UK will get walked over by anyone. How about we assert ourselves and get involved. If the EU is so controlling, why doesn't the media report on it in the same way as it does with Parliament? We could vote in MEP's based on policy rather than protest. Maybe the 'wife' will have a new found respect for GB then.

Staying in the EU is also a risk. They will take it as a green light to continue with their plan of a US of Europe. Mark my words their are far more risks staying in than leaving. If we eave our future is in or own hands (like Latics at the moment). If we stay in we will be subservient to our EU rulers for years to come.

 

5 countries are wanting to join Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. All these countries will be taking money out of the EU, not paying in. Our rebate will again be targeted to fund this expansion or our contribution will rise significantly. Not to mention more people wanting to work here.

 

I received the propaganda brochure the other day. The very 1st point is a blatant lie. Ask any European if the UK has a special status and they will laugh in your face and say "of course not". When was the EU reformed?

 

Even the people saying we should stay in admit the EU doesn't work as it is and needs changing. That's why they can't sing it's praises from the rooftops. They say we need to be in the EU to change it. We have been attempting to do that for over 40 years without success. Why should we expect success in the future. The vast majority of other countries in the EU are happy the way it is because they receive far more from it than they put in. If we leave France may have to start putting money in and the other contributers like Germany will have to fork out more. That's why they need us in.

If the argument for leaving is clearer and stronger further down the line, im sure a further referendum will be demanded and we could leave at that point.

There's more to the costs though, a lot of the money we supposedly get but is effectively wasted, for example all the EU funding given to organisations who then publish reports saying we should stay in.

 

Person is employed to write report, uses remuneration to buy goods and services, other people are employed as a result and so on...

 

So UKIP's nicked the tories manifesto now?

 

Well UKIP does have core right wing Tory ideals at its heart.

So the net EU contribution is £8.5 bn which obviously is a big number. However in terms of gross domestic product, it's about 0.45% approx, less than we give in foreign aid (0.7%).

 

As it stands, no one can tell if we will be worse off or better off, but a 0.1% loss or gain in growth is worth £2bn. If this continued over 10 years, that would increase/decrease to £20bn a year (1%) either way. Much more relatively to the current net contribution.

 

Think Tank Open Europe has stated a best case scenario of 1.6% gain by 2030 but more realistically between a 0.8% loss and 0.6% gain.

 

The Centre for Economic performance at the London School of Economics predicts a worse case scenario of between 6.3% and 9.5% reduction and best case a 2.2% loss.

 

The IMF yesterday stated that a Brexit could cause 'severe damage'. The leave response was that IMF has been wrong before (is that a good response to counter doubt with more doubt?)

 

Leaving the EU is a bet and a risk. The vote leave campaign can only offer 'might' and 'could be' which isn't a good reason for changing the status quo in my book. They need to offer a more sound platform and they can't.

Apart from all the slaves. An industry which is booming under the EU.

I think you should explain that one.

Nowrigans and Swiss would give a similar answer.

 

And not being in the Euro has certainly benefited us.

 

The failure to sign off accounts tells me it's broken. That needs changing.

Norway though has the biggest oil wealth fund in the world, a large percentage of its workforce is employed by the state off the back of this.

Now this is the typical incorrect logic that really winds me up!

Its saying dont vote based on the pros and cons of the body that we are voting on-vote on the pros and cons of another seperate body

Rubbish summary mate. I was supporting the notion that the EU is at least partly responsible for peace in Europe and not just NATO as a seperate organisation.

I'm not sure it was fear of the Belgian army that deterred the Warsaw Pact. The US provided the forces for Western Europe, and paid for them. West Germany still had thousands of American and British tanks across it throughout the EU years. Who could have fought each other?

Any such military agreement between countries needs political and diplomatic will. Do you really think NATO can be put in one box and the EU in another?