Tim, I'm not sure he was refering to those times. I believe he meant before the EU but during the times of the EEC, this being, after 1986 (not 1977) when Spain joined the EEC.

The question is.. Can we leave the EU without shooting ourselves in the foot.

__________________
Did some trips.
Rode some bikes.
Fix them for a living.
Can't say anymore.

Top eight economy, nuclear armed power with a bluewater navy, use the international language as standard, fluent in metric and imperial, world class educational institutes, powerhouse for music and other arts, reputation for financial honesty....

Is there that much to fear beyond what we do to ourselves?

Andy

and Bond

.. James Bond

In short I would vote out, then I would watch the eastern European governments panic when they realise their nationals won't be entitled to UK benefits, hence Poland s move
recently in backing down over their disagreement with the suggested four year term before benefits can be obtained when you come to work here, in exchange for nato bases over there. Will also be interested in france and Germany s position when they have to cover whst we used to contribute, that will bring on the pain. Am convinced that when one leaves others will follow and there will be a two tier eu. Any institution or business that has not signed off its accounts for as long as the eu should fold full stop Imho.

Many would say that the two tiers exist already; ask Greece about how the Euro operates in practice.
Actually, it is spelt out in this thread, during the last year or thereabouts of postings:
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...c-crisis-59853

As for the EU accounts, no self respecting accountancy company would touch them, much less sign them off as a true and accurate account of the EU affairs; what is it now, something like 20 years since any accounts were published?

__________________
Dave

It's all relative.
UK folks should give a great deal of thought about where they believe this country fits into the future world, based on our history and upon our potential.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself" or words to that effect.
A US President named Franklin D Roosevelt

__________________
Dave

[QUOTE=Tim Cullis;527343]The problem with Abu Hanza was down to European Human Rights legislation which is nothing to do with the EU.

QUOTE]

The prime advocate for the establishment of the said European Court of Human Rights was none other than Winston Churchill who saw it as a counter-balance within the post-WW2 "new" Europe.

Nowadays, the ECHR is reported to be stuffed with nominees from Eastern Europe, many political appointees, and some are reported to not have legal qualifications. ie some may not be qualified to hand down a parking fine much less sit in judgement across the whole of Europe.
Warning: Mainstream media reporting, so it may not be totally accurate but Winston certainly wanted a ECHR.

__________________
Dave

Ok I thought it was all part of the same package?!

Thats good and I hope it comes off, and why shouldn't we have Sovereign? We have sought old cronies of our own making bad decisions with out some old cronies from another country (who's probably never been to the UK
) telling us what we can and can not do

Freedom of movement on the mainland, good trade between the countries is good

Being used as food and shelter refuge, and paying through the nose for other countries is not good

Wayne

__________________
The Balkans
https://new.horizonsunlimited.com/poi_entity/8417

I am sure that would depend on the package deal we got when that time came.

I personally don't think it will be all doom and gloom

Wayne

__________________
The Balkans
https://new.horizonsunlimited.com/poi_entity/8417

Plooking in particular is making a fine job of coming up with the facts of the history of the EEC etc.

It is all too easy to forget - memories really are short - which is an issue that politicians will play on as the debate opens up in earnest and the propaganda flows.

__________________
Dave

Whilst Mr Churchill wanted the hrc it was for a totally different set of circumstances eg after the war.

Free movement was introduced to allow business mem or women to move between countries for trade purposes thus avoiding visas etc, it was not meant so that other nationals could move en masse to other countries. If you think it's bad here try Norway
who opened their gates to foreign workers and got a nasty shock, they may deny it but I have two Polish friends who work there and even they raise their eyebrows.

It's been interesting to read Plooking's posts and it's made me wonder just how long a memory the politicians expect us to have over stuff like this. Or even whether memory is a relevant factor; should the here and now be the essence of our decision?

There does seem to be an element of "I've made my mind up, don't confuse me with facts" with the debate, with emotionally based arguments coming from both sides - "we'll be bust in a week and living on third world handouts if we leave" from the INs vs "they're robbing us blind and taking control by stealth" from the OUTs.

If you have some kind of passing interest in these things (as I admit I do) without going to ridiculous lengths all you can do is read some of the middlebrow publications (like the Economist) and hope that the journalists output has some kind of evidence based balance to it. Without that you're at the mercy of party political ranting and rabble rousing newspaper headlines.

I am fairly certain it is down to an age thing. Those old enough to remember going into what was then the common market will remember that that is what it was sold as, a common market. Cheap , fags and inexpensive holidays. Ted Heath did not tell us until we had signed that we would lose our 12 mile territorial waters and that within a relatively short time Spanish super trawlers would have emptied our fish stocks and decimated the fishing ports of Grimsby and other towns that relied upon the industry. Quotas for steel production were imposed and not long after British steel went tits up. Trade with New Zealand, Australia (butter and lamb) were restricted as we had to buy so much from within the Common Market, trade with the West Indies went the same with banana and sugar restrictions. Even in the early 70’s it was not all plain sailing and the Utopia the politicians would of had us believe did not materialise. Our shipyards could produce either war ships or commercial vessels but not both. Ask anyone who used to work at Cammel Lairds how that panned out for them?
What we did get was a massive bill for the common Agricultural policy to subsidise French farmers to keep on producing stuff we did not need or want (remember the wine lakes, butter mountains and beef stored in huge freezers?) as inefficiently as possible. There have been some benefits but I only see that they are grossly outweighed by the cons, restrictions and ever growing tighter regulations that grow year by year. Having spoken to many people about the subject I have to conclude that most people over 50 will vote to come out and those too young to remember all the things we have lost will vote to stay in as the current state of affairs is normality to them.
It won’t be all doom and gloom if we come out, people will not stop buying Rolls Royce engines, Scotch whiskey or many of the other world class products we supply and we will be able to start supplying again without quotas to restrict us. We can form our own trade agreements with the growing world such as India and China without the restrictions of Brussels and unelected, anonymous bureaucrats. I will be voting out and I suspect the result will depend upon are there more people over 50 in the UK than under?

__________________
www.frothandflames.com
2012 Kawasaki W800
1997 NX 650 Dominator

This is a major sticking point in the "negotiation" which is likely why the UK "demands" changed considerably by the time the UK PM wrote his letter of last year to the EU (to the commission I think it was addressed, I would have to check that bit).
Whatever the reasons given at the time of first implemention, you will find that the EU bureaucrats will not concede the "right of nations" to stop free passage of citizens of member states across national borders.
Which they are doing right now actually, and that falls in to the category of "emergency powers" or somesuch words (just as France "declared war" after the incident in Paris).
What was not foreseen in all this was the free movement of refugees, illegal migrants and other classifications of mankind, including infants and other children who are old enough to travel without adults.

__________________
Dave