buctootim

Oddly enough it isnt 1950 any more. For many products there is one factory supplying Europe, and possibly globally. I cant see people going back to eating only seasonal fruit and veg either. The 'Buy British' mantra gets less and less relevant every year because there isnt a UK manfucturer.

So you've decided to take one product made in Britain from British ingredients and tried to pretend Unilever spat is all about Marmite when actually its about hundreds of products. Go you. If you were as bright as you think you are you would realise Tesco's are deliberately removing marmite, an iconic British brand, from the shelves in order to con the credulous like you in a PR exercise to repair their tatty brand. "Ooh look nasty Unilever are putting the prices up, but we are batting for you, please shop here not Sainsbury's". Did the fact the other supermarkets havent got into a public spat with a major supplier not give you pause for thought? You have no idea if Unlilever are raising the price of marmite to Tescos or not and if so by how much. Odd that Tescos are still stocking nearly all the other brands eh? Lux, Lynx and Chicken tonight not so newsworthy?

Thats a lot of words to say "I dont know but will make up some figures that fit my opinion".

There are two conflicting priorities 1. To have a credible poker hand 2. In a democracy to be accountable to Parliament. You cant just present them with a take it or leave deal after two years.

More hacked emails from John Podesta (her campaign manager and Bill's former chief of staff). I haven't seen any news articles that say there is anything juicy in them.

I'm replacing my petrol with some locally sawn logs and expensive imported coffee with nettle tea. So far Ive trashed the car and my mouth hurts. #brexitwevegotcontrolbackbutnomoney

Since when have we been like Greece Spain and Italy? Why don't you compare us with Germany and France - industrialised countries of similar size and wealth? Doesn't show the right picture?

You get ever more bizarre. My position is "we've got a nice house, a good job and th kids are happy at school" . Your position has been "we should sell house because its got big cracks in it, leave the job and get a higher paid one and put the kids in a better school without any liberal carp". You dont know what house, what job or what school, but you want to do it anyway. When asked whether you have actually consulted a surveyor about supposed cracks, looked to see what the labour market is like and whether OFSTED ranks any other schools better you throw a paddy and insist I provide proof to you. Bizarre wishful thinking.

So in short, you have no idea. Your denigration of the EU and claims of Britain doing better outside are based on nothing at all, just wishful thinking. Like every other crackpot claim you make.

So what are you saying? You bang on relentlessly about how the EU is mired in low growth, how it is sclerotic and how Britain needs to cut free. Who are we going to be like? What levels of growth do you think we're going to achieve?

Poor countries grow faster than rich countries. When they grow into rich countries their growth slows. Its not hard. Why cant you get your head around it? This idea that somehow if Britain leaves the EU we are going to get the kind of growth that Vietnam or Bangladesh do are exactly the ignorant uninformed views that led utter utter simpletons like you to vote for Brexit.

Generally its a lot better better than before and some of the issues are just down to lack of familarity. That said I liked the old 'news' section. I spent about five minutes trying to find a Danny Butterfield interview that I knew was there but couldn't track down. Wish I hadn't bothered though - "So Danny (insert name as appropriate) how delighted are you to be at Southampton" etc

I couldn't watch it. I knew it was going to make me feel as if I was watching a bear baiting fight or ****ging a 14 year old in the Philippines. Its hard to reconcile these two candidates with the sane and thoughtful Americans I know.

You can listen to it - if you can stand to have your opinions challenged by reality.

She was a defence lawyer defending a client. Whats your point? - that people shouldn't have defence lawyers, or that lawyers shouldn't be allowed to stand for President?

Thats my problem with this government and Cameron's before - lots of big talk but almost zero results . If they actually delivered on the basics I'd be more inclined to believe the promises about Brexit. If they cant get it together to cut non EU immigration or jail IS fighters forgive me for being sceptical that they are capable of negotiating multiple trade deals that are good for Britain and maintain GDP at least at current levels.

Wishful thinking "The UK's economic performance relative to
the other big EU-15 economies – France, Germany, Italy and Spain – does not stand out
as impressive, at least once we adjust for the different prices of goods and services across these countries. UK economic growth between 2000 and 2015 lagged behind Spain and Germany but also France, a country that has become synonymous in Britain with economic weakness. Looking at economic growth per capita further tarnishes the image of the UK as a strong performer. Germany emerges as by far the best performing big EU-15 economy, with the UK fourth, ahead of only Italy. The British are no richer relative to the EU-15 average than they were 15 years ago. Moreover, the average Briton has to work more hours than the average Frenchman or German to achieve that level of income. Indeed, it is when we turn to productivity that the UK's status as a strong economic performer is most clearly exposed as wishful thinking. Britain's GDP per hour worked has fallen to just 90 per cent of the EU-15 average, 25 percent below French and German levels. Sustainable increases in living standards require economies to combine land, labour, capital and technology in ever more efficient ways; Britain has made a poor job of this, helping to explain why Britons' wages have risen by much less than their French and German counterparts over the last 15 years. Not only is the UK's performance mediocre, it is highly skewed by London and its environs. Apart from London, just one British region – Southeast England – has a GDP per capita in excess of the EU-15 average. And far from catching up with the richer regions of the EU, most poor UK regions have been falling further behind." http://www.freightweek.org/~freightw/index.php/viewpoints-2/2262-britain-already-the-poor-man-of-western-europe

They've got a loyal fanbase, but not a big one. 15,000-16,000 in Lg2 is good but its nowhere near as good as they think it is, We averaged 22,000 in league 1 in 2010. It also doesn't go up much through the leagues. They were regularly bottom for attendances in the PL even along side giants such as Wigan and couldn't consistently sell out a ground with only 20,900 capacity. Like lots of clubs, Accrington Stanley included, they had a few glory days in the past - but its a **** of a long time ago now. No-one cares anymore apart from them because they've got an entitlement complex and us because we think thats funny.

I wanted you to get an education Johnny so np. Three years wasn't enough though apparently.

Thats out of date Johnny, pre bailout. Its now 65 with rise to 67 by 2020 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/greek-debt-crisis-greece-takes-axe-bloated-pension-system-retirement-age-hike-1510281

The blindingly obvious bit he missed was that the continued success of Saints and Brighton will be taking fans away from Pompey. How long have they been out of the PL? and how kids from Fareham, Chichester are going to lured away.

Actually I remembered incorrectly, the money was for Dagenham - although it was just a month before the Transit announcement and does beg the question why similar money wasn't available for Southampton. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29692784 Generally the smaller boats are more labour intensive, environmentally less damaging and land / process locally so its an all round good thing. The larger industrial offshore boats may be fishing in the waters of several countries for the quota reasons already discussed and will want to land in either the nearest port or where they will get the best price (every country has its own favourite fish they are prepared to pay more for). The issue would be who has the most political lobbying power - the organised big companies or the loosely affiliated one and two man bands. I think we know the answer to that.

What I sneer at Wes is you claiming something that is demonstrably untrue as fact. When challenged you put forward opinions of other uninformed people as 'evidence'. Wanting something to be true does not make it so. There are plenty of facts out there which can be selectively presented to argue a case if thats your thing, as many on this thread do. That at least gives rise to debate. The EU decimating British industries is quite a big thing no? Would have made the news once or twice. Economists would have written about it. Where is the evidence? Ford's transit plant is often cited and it was a big loss to Southampton. Lets not forget they also took British Government money to stay in Southampton just months before and gave assurances to the European Investment Bank that their loan would lead to additional, new capacity. Either they lied or their plans changed. The Debating Europe link you gave is great. Of course its legitimate to have opposing interpretations of the same facts. As it happens its out of date, from 2012. The Common Fisheries Policy has already been reformed and is much improved - and it was badly flawed. It basically used public tax money to subsidise fishing activity - leading to too many boats taking too many fish out of the water - and stocks crashed. It didnt discriminate against Britain, we actually did better out of it than many countries. Stocks had been declining for decades and catches peaked over 30 years ago, despite ever better fish finding technology and more powerful, bigger boats. I think the most likely reason for the inshore / offshore discrepancy is basically cheating. Fishermen cheat and exceed their quotas, its in their financial interests to do. Inshore boats are more numerous and smaller, frequently operating from harbours where there is no official to check what they land. They have a hunter mentality instead of a farming one - "I might as well take it now otherwise somebody else will". Offshore boats are bigger and operate from ports which have fishery officials, markets and chillers, its harder to cheat and land what is known as black fish or IUU fish - Illegal, Unreported and Undocumented. "And why is it that just three companies have control of 61% of the England and Wales fishing quota, nearly a quarter of which belongs to that most British sounding of companies, Cornelis Vroljk? " For the same reason that the British car industry is foreign owned, globalisation. Fishing has gradually become more industrialised and the preserve of big businesses rather than family owned boats. Frequently British fishing licence holders sell their quotas to large companies. Is this the fault of the EU? Actually its the reverse - the EU want smaller fishermen to run the industry. Its the British government, who are responsible for allocating and regulating the licences in British waters who are at fault. These short reports are worth reading - the source of the stats you quoted earlier. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-big-fish-quota-barons-squeeze-out-small-scale-fishermen/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-why-this-tiny-boat-has-more-fishing-rights-than-many-trawlers/ If you have 10 minutes and an interest its worth time on this site. It tracks all fishing boats over 12m in the world and shows you their name registry and where they have been in the previous two weeks. you have to register but its free. http://globalfishingwatch.org/

I asked the question knowing full well that you would provide a cretinous response which demonstrated not just your lack of knowledge but a fundamental lack of comprehension. Your 'proof' to justify your claim the EU has decimated UK industry is to cite a reader's letter to the York Press (circulation 25,000) and an obscure blogger who doesn't publish any information about himself. You get more and more bizarre and out there. Do you seriously not know the difference between uninformed opinion and empirical statistics / facts? 1. The EU bank lent $80m to Chinese companies to reduce their GHG emissions, an action which would increase Chinese steel producers costs and reduce their competitive edge over Britain's makers. Why is that a bad thing? The same year they also lent £6bn - some 70 times more - to Britain for industrial investment. Is that bad too? 2. In 1973 when we joined the UK had the second largest fishing fleet after Spain and the second largest waters. We still do. The proportion of the EU catch landed by Britain's fleet has been increasing for at least 15 years not decreasing. If there were any truth in the pathetic hoary old crap trotted out by head banging right wingers at every opportunity then the catch in the EU controlled waters (over 12 miles out) would have performed worse than the UK controlled inshore waters (up to 12 miles) where only UK boats are allowed to fish. They haven't. The EU has managed British waters better than the British government has and stocks / catches are rising . 3. Looking to John Redwood for facts was always going to be a fools errand, aptly enough. He blames the EU for Britains loss of manufacturing since 1973 - ignoring the rise of the pacific rim countries, especially China. Like you he hasnt got any facts either.