Wes Tender

These are precisely the areas which would appease me if they could be addressed satisfactorily. By satisfactorily, I mean that they would be overturned completely. These are the sort of things that were introduced by the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties and should have been put to the British people in a referendum at the time.

Give me some examples of products and how they might fall short of EU standards. I see no particular reason why products made over here would fall short of EU standards. The only products that I could stretch my imagination to think of are some food products like our sausages and the mythical requirement for straight bananas, and car exhaust emissions which are strictly regulated if we are to export to places like Japan. Of course, we would also be able to set our own standards for imported products which they would have no say in. Ultimately it is best for both parties that this is approached sensibly, rather than confrontationally. What did you have in mind?

I'm afraid I'm with LD. What you write is largely incomprehensible. If we were to leave the EU, why would we have to still pay into their coffers? Why would we have to abide by their trading rules and why wouldn't we have any say in them anyway? The trading basis between us would be by mutual agreement, not imposed on us without redress. Why would there necessarily be trading tariffs imposed on us? Why would the auto manufacturers and other manufacturers relocate to the European mainland when it would be massively expensive to do so and take a long time to get a skilled workforce up to capable standards? Trade would continue on much the same basis, as it is as much in their interests to continue to trade with us as it is for us to trade with them. If trade tariffs were introduced, we would reciprocate, to nobody's benefit. The Foreign owned car manufacturers are here because they also wish to sell their product to the UK market and in any event, much of that car production is sold outside the Eurozone. If any chose to withdraw, which is unlikely, then we have a very good skilled workforce and the potential therefore to resurrect the British Car industry. My position as stated before, is that I'm happy to remain in Europe, but solely on the basis that we entered it, as part of a Common Trade Market. If we cannot negotiate a return of some distance in that direction, then we should leave. We were one of the poorest nations before joining the Common Market because the war had beggared us and the post war Labour governments and the trade unions made our situation even worse. It is hard to make out a case either way as to where we would have been now not having entered into the Common Market. No doubt we would have intitially been trading more with our Commonwealth, but even from outside the Eurozone we would still have had substantial trade with Europe.

OK, fair enough. The Eurovision Song Contest? That just has to be corrupt.

It seems to me that being party to the EEA, but not becoming full members of the EU must suit those countries. Otherwise, I'm sure that the EU would welcome them joining ahead of all of the recent new members such as the former USSR countries. Therefore the arrangement must suit them, not for the things that they have to opt in to, but for those that they do not have to be a part of. I can't be bothered to delve into that too deeply, as it's mainly our membership and its shortcomings that interest me, but I suspect that they enjoy a higher level of sovereignty in their parliaments than we do and that they might not be as subservient to Brussels as when it comes to the jurisdiction of Brussels over their own legal systems. I don't see cooperation in research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture necessarily as a bad thing. That happens with us where many companies here are now multi-nationals and operate with sister factories in Europe, as is the case in reverse. We have cooperated on joint projects like the Airbus to our mutual advantage, but I see no reason why we should stop this sort of joint project as we are a big customer of the aircraft. If push came to shove however, I don't see why we would be incapable of making our own aircraft in time. But of that list of items of cooperation, I am content that the UK has as great a capability of managing most of them on our own. Yes, it is mainly the loss of sovereignty that annoys me and the subjugation of our legal system to the European Court of Law. Regarding trade, I agree that the World has evolved into trading blocks and that there are advantages of belonging to the European trading block. I voted for the original Common Market and apart from the previously shocking shortcomings of the Common Agriculture Policy, I would still be content to remain in Europe on that basis. But the entire basis of our membership has altered irrevocably via successive treaties and if we cannot revert back towards what we originally signed up for, then there are other trading blocks that we could join or indeed enlarge with our membership if there were obstacles applied to our continued trade with Europe. But as I said, any such obstacles would be counter-productive affecting their major manufacturers and exporters too, so I don't see it happening. Bad example the Jersey Royals, as indeed would be strawberries and the like. When these are in season, there is nothing better in Europe or indeed the World. We might like to eat strawberries at Christmas from Spain, or new potatoes from Egypt before the spring here, but the seasonal produce in this country is generally unrivalled. At the moment the consumer likes to buy their produce out of season from around the World, but much of that comes from outside the EU from the likes of Brazil and Africa. Increasingly though, the attraction of this unseasonable produce is being frowned upon because it is air-freighted halfway across the World which isn't very environmentally friendly on the one hand and often morally suspect when a large percentage of the indigenous population is starving.

I'm saying that we have already been the victims of most of the EU laws affecting our trade with them and would be interested in what they might have in mind that would represent a problem for us in the future. The mention of fishing was just one illustration of how various industries would actually benefit from not being tied to EU laws and quota systems. I can't remember which programme it was, but to illustrate how many laws come out of the EU, they showed shelf after shelf of weighty legal tomes stretching back over several years. What was noteworthy, was that whereas they showed the number of shelves that showed one year's legislation previously, the same number of tomes now filled that space each month. Greece isn't exactly a good example, as they had to rely on the EU to bail them out financially.

I agree that length of residency would be the most effective measure for benefit entitlement, but that is possibly the most difficult to get EU agreement on. I agree that there are some complications to the Health Service refunds from other member states because of the involvements of doctors outside of hospitals as an example. However, while on holiday in Austria a couple of years ago, my son fell and broke his arm and the reimbursement of the Austrian hospital for X-Rays and the plaster cast was relatively straightforward, in that we paid for it and then claimed it back. But the payment of benefits is surely much easier to monitor and reclaim, as it is already administered by career bureaucrats for whom it should be a doddle. All that would be required, was the sending to the fellow EU state of all of the relevant paperwork in triplicate, fastened in red tape. Alternatively, if it proved difficult to get the benefit outlay reimbursed by the parent country, then all we would need to do is reduce our EU contributions by the same amount.

Which laws are these? We have already historically been forced into laws regarding food preparation for example. I don't see what type of laws will adversely affect us. In any event, we are hardly comparable to Norway and Switzerland in terms of them being able to bully us, as there is much more at stake with our mutual trade with the EU. On the other hand, we would be free to re-establish our own rules regarding our fishing industry, as one example of a positive outcome. I reiterate; it isn't in anybody's interests if we left the EU for them to place trade restrictions on us, inviting us to reciprocate.

Why? Please do explain which laws will inpinge on our ability to trade with them. It will not be in anybody's interest if they were to seek to place restrictions on our exports to them and risk us placing counter-restrictions on their exports to us.

As Charles and his horsey wife arrive for the Queen's Speech, two of the Royal Footmen indulge in an act of gross indecency

Blatter's background suggests that we might have a worthy successor right here in our own ranks. Don't we have a significant comparable connection what with our Chairman's background as coach of the Swiss National Ice Hockey team, our Swiss owner, and a Swiss watchmaker as a sponsor at Saints? Step forward Ralph Krueger, your time has arrived.

I didn't see the thread here and would not have thought that it was Saints related. So I might as well transfer my posts from the Lounge thread over here.

Maybe when they have finished with investigating the corruption and bribery in FIFA, they can start work on the Olympic organisation, which is probably an even bigger can of worms.

It is largely irrelevant whether Blatter is implicated in these allegations. As the head of this corrupt organisation, the buck (or the millions of bucks) stops with him. If there was a shred of integrity in the man, he would withdraw from the election to be President, but integrity, honour, morality, honesty are not words that immediately spring to mind when one thinks of him. With luck, when some of his crooked henchmen are being cross-examined by the FBI, they will snitch on him and confirm that he was well aware of what was going on.

When the thread is about what constitutes a fair deal for the UK within the EU, then what could be fairer than a fellow member state repaying the benefits claimed by their own nationals who have moved to other EU countries. No doubt it will be argued that the fact that people choose to be economic migrants moving to wealthier countries indicates that those poorer countries they left would be put under financial strain to reimburse those benefit payments, but equally the freedom of movement surely wasn't intended to encourage people to go to the wealthier countries to sponge off their tax-payers. The Government is attempting to introduce a policy of not having to pay benefits for a period of two years, isn't it? If we have any opposition from the EU to that policy proposal, then this is perhaps a viable alternative strategy which is harder to argue against on moral grounds.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the parent EU country of those working in other parts of Europe had to reimburse the host country for any benefits that were paid to their country's nationals living and working elsewhere in Europe? I'm pretty sure that then there would be a great deal of support to tightening up on economic migration within the Euro-zone. This is effectively what happens with health care within the Euro-zone, so why not with benefits?

The Europe issue has been causing uncertainty for the past 20 years or more. Had we been given a chance to vote on the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties, they would either have received the support of the electorate, or the terms of these treaties might have been amended, as they were when the French, Dutch or Irish voted against one or other of them in Referenda. In that event, UKIP would not be the force it is today. As it is, UKIP will not be going away anytime soon and now as a credible force in British politics, they will have a strong say in the way that a referendum pans out. Had there not been this deliberate procrastination by successive governments over Europe, there would be no reason for UKIP to exist, whereas because of the success of the SNP, they have potential next to address the West Lothian question and an independent Parliament for the English.

So near but so far this season. I think that even the loss of Schneiderlin during a couple of periods of injury made the difference of a couple of places. Spurs were fortunate to have discovered the abilities of Kane, as he was apparently responsible on his own for 22 points for them. They were lucky he didn't suffer a serious injury or they would have been only mid-table. It is small factors like this that can make or break a season

Several factors point to the potential position that CL football was not an impossibility this season, and had some of those factors gone in our favour rather than against us, we could have achieved that goal. There were significant injuries to key players for a start. At various times we lost Schneiderlin, Wanyama and Forster to injury and Rodriguez was out al season. Suspensions meant the loss of Wanyama and Bertrand at key stages of the season in particular. But this list of injuries during a season is just something that the increased depth of squad that the big teams have would have benefited us, but we are not at that stage just yet. Then there is the luck of refereeing decisions and other factors that could have made the difference of the few points that would have placed us above Liverpool and Spurs. It is argued that over the course of a season these level out, but I still suspect that it continues to favour the big teams. However, it has been a magnificent season all told and depending on the Summer transfer activities, we have a solid base on which to build. I pray that Arsenal thrash Villa like we did and that we have European football next season. That in itself will take us up a level and make us a more attractive target for inbound transfers and it might also play its part in keeping players here too.

I'm surprised at you WG. At the very least, it's worth asking the question because successive governments of this country have signed treaties that substantially amend the entire basis of what it was that we originally joined and have not had the guts to put it to the electorate to ask for their acceptance of those changes. On that basis alone, it is worth asking the question.

Well, I'm saying that you are wrong on the basis that your position lacks consistency between the two positions. Or would you have it that comparisons cannot be made between them? In any event, if you care to read my comment more carefully, I didn't actually say that they had a mandate. I suggested that recently the elected parties of government of the UK in general elections had less reason to claim a mandate on Europe than UKIP had, because UKIP were the biggest party in an actual European election, whereas the policies on Europe of the major parties had been part of a basket of manifesto policies.

This is the level of cynicism that strikes a chord with me too. We need to tie the EU down on these promises/assurances before voting.

So what you are saying is pretty well that no party has had a mandate during the past several General Elections, as the same situation applies for them too. In any event the assumption that just because Labour and the Conservatives combined recorded more votes overall than UKIP in the European Elections that all of those who voted for them do not support similar policies is nonsense.

Polls suggesting that if there were to be an in/out vote that we would vote to stay in are misleading. I would vote to stay in if we managed to negotiate a substantial curtailing of the EU's powers over us on the issues that are most contentious for the electorate and I would vote out if we didn't manage to achieve that. I suspect that a lot of those who voted "in" also share that view. The referendum should only be held once there has been some resolution of that situation so that the choice is clearer. Even then, a "no" vote could be a strong bargaining position to renegotiate continued membership under our terms. I deplore the way that our governments since the last referendum have signed several treaties dragging us towards a federal Europe without giving the electorate a referendum on each one. It is also a nonsense for parties to claim that having won an election, they have a mandate on whichever European policy they are espousing; they don't. The nearest thing to a mandate on Europe was achieved by UKIP in the last European Elections, as that was an election solely for European representation and because they became the largest British Party, that gave validity for us to pursue their agenda that the electorate voted for then.

So you agree that they didn't out-sing us for the full 90 minutes as Sour Mash believes? They did pick up a bit in the second half for a while when we sat back and let them on to us a bit more, but IMO it was a bit half-hearted, lacking conviction that they would actually turn things around. We picked it up a bit with the "Oles" and the "standup if you love the Saints." They were lucky that they had the upcoming FA Cup final to give themselves something to sing about as consolation, otherwise they would have had nothing to chant about.