Sponsored Links
Just to clear one point Damocles, as you point out on here there was shall we say a right point of view as regards the election, but on the EU, as you know where i live even here i have never met anyone who wants to go further or deeper all they are worried about is the money may stop from the EU which was the same point when they had to re-vote on enlargement. I dont thimk that that is a way to bring in any new constitution do you ????
On the points raised on here--you never answered any of them properly,---- you never persueded anybody to your point of view,---- you never convinced me at all and it doesnt really affect me one bit what Britain does-----all you did was twist things so they appeared to mean something else
On the points raised on here--you never answered any of them properly,---- you never persueded anybody to your point of view,---- you never convinced me at all and it doesnt really affect me one bit what Britain does-----all you did was twist things so they appeared to mean something else
Freddie, you put your point of view on issues and I put mine. I think at least as many people would think that I was correct as would agree with you. I never post anything which I believe to be untrue.
As to 'twisting' facts. From time to time I DO take a fact and present it in a different way. For example, making a net contribution to the EU nowadays is essentially giving aid to the rather underdeveloped new member states. I think this is rather a good plan and something which furthers the national interest by reducing the chance of chaos in those countries. Look on it as the equivalent to the previous cost of keeping tanks in Germany in case they invaded.
Anyway, one man's true way of looking at something is another man's twist. Like the above example, both can be true. It does cost us to be a member, but we do get things for that money. Depending on how you do the counting it may not even be costing us anything. This is a contribution from our earnings. But if our earnings now are higher than if we had not joined, then we are still be quids in.
I think you are talking from an Irish perspective? Well, which money? would that be the money paid to Ireland as a poor member of the EU which was coming from Britain? A bit rich of you to go on about the British EU defecit if you are in a country which is benefiting from that money!
If you mean farm subsidy, then enlargement is very likely to mean that it will go down. Plans already in hand. If you mean structure fund and whatever they call it money for poor regions, then it will go to the poorest. Which is increasingly likely to mean the newest members. But quite a lot of people believe in helping poor people. Especially if you are helping them to develop so that in the future they will be rich and able to pay back that money. Just like Ireland now.
As to 'twisting' facts. From time to time I DO take a fact and present it in a different way. For example, making a net contribution to the EU nowadays is essentially giving aid to the rather underdeveloped new member states. I think this is rather a good plan and something which furthers the national interest by reducing the chance of chaos in those countries. Look on it as the equivalent to the previous cost of keeping tanks in Germany in case they invaded.
Anyway, one man's true way of looking at something is another man's twist. Like the above example, both can be true. It does cost us to be a member, but we do get things for that money. Depending on how you do the counting it may not even be costing us anything. This is a contribution from our earnings. But if our earnings now are higher than if we had not joined, then we are still be quids in.
I think you are talking from an Irish perspective? Well, which money? would that be the money paid to Ireland as a poor member of the EU which was coming from Britain? A bit rich of you to go on about the British EU defecit if you are in a country which is benefiting from that money!
If you mean farm subsidy, then enlargement is very likely to mean that it will go down. Plans already in hand. If you mean structure fund and whatever they call it money for poor regions, then it will go to the poorest. Which is increasingly likely to mean the newest members. But quite a lot of people believe in helping poor people. Especially if you are helping them to develop so that in the future they will be rich and able to pay back that money. Just like Ireland now.
Sponsored Links
I make that about 35 acres? Now some people would consider that a lot and very much worth the hassle of filling in a few forms. I think some more people will be giving up real farming under the new scheme. Our neighbours fields are right now a loveley sea of grass. Guess he will make hay. All his sheep seem to have disappeared.
I dont agree with you about the money. It may well be that a lot of it has not gone exactly where intended. But still the result has been that Ireland on the whole is now richer. More capable to pay into the EU rather then receive back.
I dont agree with you about the money. It may well be that a lot of it has not gone exactly where intended. But still the result has been that Ireland on the whole is now richer. More capable to pay into the EU rather then receive back.
Have to agree with you there, We tend to not realise what is a dead horse and lose out on what the goldmines are, but then again is the government to blame for lack of investment when private british backers should be taking up these schemes, after all the government is there to govern not be bankers and investors that should be left to the experts.Freddie said:
I'm not sure about your stone walls. Most of the things they would like seem to be leaving things to grow wild rather than cutting them back. But as far as I remember the new scheme didn't compel you to do very much if you were farming something. If you were just 'maintaining the ground' then you are supposed to do so in a good management way. You could get extra (though not much) if you went in for some of the conservation options.
Again you start to argue about what are the facts, i am not going into detail cause it will take forever but i do wish you would either learn to read or get out a bit and experience a bit of life then you wouldnt talk such ******
Just checked your stone walls. GAEC13, that the one? Says you may not dismantle a stone wall on your farm without prior permission unless it is either to repair a different wall or to repair a footpath. But it doesn't say you have to do anything to maintain it 
Did sound like if you have a wall which you don't want but are lucky enough to have a footpath, then you can knock down the wall so long as you dump the stone on the footpath. Curious sort of rule. Conservation, that's what we pay for.
D
david and julie
Damocles wrote,
I am also uncertain as to whether we weren't better off leaving the military in Germany.
Of course we have no need to worry as we have the EU protecting us.
But the current rebate issues are surely more about France getting CAP aid rather than the newer members?
I am not sure what part the EU played (if any) in the collapse of communism, however I do know the cost of keeping the tanks is probably unchanged. They are only moving them down the road! (so to speak).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,893068,00.html
I am also uncertain as to whether we weren't better off leaving the military in Germany.
http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/new_arms_race.htm
Of course we have no need to worry as we have the EU protecting us.
I seem to remember we reduced the size of our armed forces after reunification of Germany. Supposedly a 'peace dividend'.
Expansion means more money is needed for the new countries which frankly have a better claim than France. So either France must lose some, or find more money elsewhere. So we get round to the British rebate again. Of course they knew that before the extra countries joined. It is just convenient to mention it now.
Though I suspect the reality is that the French leader would very much rather talk about trying to screw extra money out of the British than abouthis own unfortunate failed treaty.
Expansion means more money is needed for the new countries which frankly have a better claim than France. So either France must lose some, or find more money elsewhere. So we get round to the British rebate again. Of course they knew that before the extra countries joined. It is just convenient to mention it now.
Though I suspect the reality is that the French leader would very much rather talk about trying to screw extra money out of the British than abouthis own unfortunate failed treaty.
D
david and julie
Yes but who asked for expansion and where or when, does it actually stop? Is the objective to carry on until we reach China?
Sponsored Links