It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Referendum 23 June 2016 - Will it be an EU BREXIT or Not?

page: 52
32
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: 83Liberty
I guess that the people who answer online polls are struggling financially so want to make some extra money/get free gifts?

Maybe it's a class issue? The rich usually want to stay in (selfishly keeping the status quo), while the poorer people are more likely to want to Leave?

I have no evidence or data, just a thought that came to me.
Those that have get more from within the EU and those that don't have don't get any benefit. The British people as a whole will be much better off outside the EU! And there will be more jobs and more training for skilled jobs particularly in the NHS.




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The UK has sent five trillion pounds to brussels since joining, just how many schools, hospitals, flood defences, doctors, nurses, teachers, para medics and police would that have paid for???
Also railroads, roads, airports, sea defences?



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
The UK has sent five trillion pounds to brussels since joining, just how many schools, hospitals, flood defences, doctors, nurses, teachers, para medics and police would that have paid for???
Also railroads, roads, airports, sea defences?
Exactly. Enough is enough! Assume you are voting to leave!



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
The UK has sent five trillion pounds to brussels since joining, just how many schools, hospitals, flood defences, doctors, nurses, teachers, para medics and police would that have paid for???
Also railroads, roads, airports, sea defences?

Is it really that much since joining?!

Makes the £1 million a day losses at Port Talbot steel works seem like small beans, and to put it into perspective, if the plant (one of the last remaining blast furnace steel works in the UK) had lost a million pounds a day since joining (1973) it would have cost fifteen billion six hundred ninety-five million £'s GBP.

2 years EU membership fees would ensure that the UK could continue to produce steel for 43 years, even with the current dumping of cheap Chinese steel onto the markets.
Just think what could happen when the UK relies on foreign imports and the Chinese decide to jack the prices up artificially.

EU membership prevents the UK from long term state help for primary industry. It is another reason I am voting leave.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
We need our own steel in this Country with the dangers in the World. Or will we have to buy steel from Germany or China to make weapons if the SHTF. Couldnt make it up one of the leading Countries in the Industrial Revolution and all gone because of the greedy fat cats! Makes my blood boil they dont care about the livelihoods of these peoplr. How much will it cost to put them all on Jobseekers Allowance?a reply to: grainofsand



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

I must declare a conflict of interest in my attempts to be impartial, 8 close family members will be unemployed if the steel plant closes, I know many more back home who work for sub-contractors and suppliers. Everyone does in the whole Swansea bay area.

But for the UK to be one of the only developed nations in the world which does not produce it's own steel for naval ships and everything else, that is potentially a national tragedy.
There are short term fixes that prickface Cameron can employ, but under EU rules, no long term state help. Even if it was a Labour government, EU rules prevent Corbyn doing anything to overtly protect the UK steel industry. He just pretends he could.

#voteleave



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I could save the steel works in one simple measure without nationalisation.



Engery substances to vital industrys.


There solved.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

True, the plant uses more power than the whole of Swansea, and in the UK we pay the highest prices for energy anywhere in Europe.
Corporation tax and VAT amendments for primary industry would also help, but again, EU rules prohibit much of the ideas.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Time for OUT!! The EU is dragging us down with them!



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Time for OUT!! The EU is dragging us down with them!


Another quality post full of great information for anyone who is undecided on this most important issue.

Huzza!



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
EU membership means we have lost control of our borders and have been unable to

prevent dangerous criminals from settling in the UK. Judges are among those, who

have voiced outrage that the UK is unable to stop these offenders settling in the

UK despite having been convicted of heinous crimes in their own countries.


One of these is a Latvian Arnis Zalkains who had been convicted of murdering his

wife in 1998.Zalkains who was found hanged in Oct 2014, is believed by police to

have murdered a 14 year old school girl whose body was found in Sept 2014 after

having disappeared in the August.


Another Victor Akulie had several convictions in his home country of Lithuania,

including the rape of a seven year old girl. After moving to the UK in an horrific

attack he beat up and raped a woman, which he filmed.


The campaigners for *stay in* the EU love to talk of the risks of leaving, and claim

that staying in will keep us safer!! SAFER??..when we are obliged to let every

foreign dangerous criminal in who wants to be in, If we wish to have a safer

country for our people we first need to take back *CONTROL OF OUR OWN BORDERS*


Then there are the *benefits Tourists* They only wish to stay long enough to

accumulate enough money to build mansions in their own dirt poor countries.

There is apparently a town in the country that the *Roma* people come from

(I forget the name of the town or country) But in that town there are numerous

mansions built on benefits claimed in the UK. The occupants openly boast that

their mansions in the dirt poor EU country have been bought and paid for by the

UK benefits system!!


The only sane option for the UK to be *safer and stronger is to vote *OUT*






edit on 31-3-2016 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok

True, the plant uses more power than the whole of Swansea, and in the UK we pay the highest prices for energy anywhere in Europe.
Corporation tax and VAT amendments for primary industry would also help, but again, EU rules prohibit much of the ideas.


Labour and the conservatives should be hung for the state our power grid been left in.

If Camron had any balls he would authorise the construction of a dozen nuclear plants across wales and the north and suspend the ability of greenies and other protest groups to delay or block it.

And yes we need to leave the EU so we can have control over the buisness we can subsidise.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: anxiouswens
We need our own steel in this Country with the dangers in the World. Or will we have to buy steel from Germany or China to make weapons if the SHTF. Couldnt make it up one of the leading Countries in the Industrial Revolution and all gone because of the greedy fat cats! Makes my blood boil they dont care about the livelihoods of these peoplr. How much will it cost to put them all on Jobseekers Allowance?a reply to: grainofsand



Whilst i agree we need to keep hold of at least some steel production, the cold hard reality is that whether we remain or leave, we are part of a global economy. As China dominates the global steel industry, us being members of the EU or not would not make the slightest bit of difference to our ability to keep hold of steel production.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok

True, the plant uses more power than the whole of Swansea, and in the UK we pay the highest prices for energy anywhere in Europe.
Corporation tax and VAT amendments for primary industry would also help, but again, EU rules prohibit much of the ideas.


Foreign companies own our energy firms - how would leaving the EU help that? I am not saying it is a reason to stay in or anything, just curious as to what difference you think it would make?



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
Foreign companies own our energy firms - how would leaving the EU help that? I am not saying it is a reason to stay in or anything, just curious as to what difference you think it would make?


Ah that wasn't the stance I was taking, I was thinking of subsidised energy through tax breaks on steel plant bills, that, and reduced/zero corporation tax would absolutely help to retain steel production in the UK
All these things are not allowed as long term measures while we are members of the EU though, so yes that directly affects the measures the UK government can take.

I believe completely that the costs of saving the last blast furnaces in the UK is a worthwhile investment, but the government's hands are tied under the strict 'state help' rules. A sovereign UK would be free to help it's businesses in any imaginative way it likes.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
A sovereign UK would be free to help it's businesses in any imaginative way it likes.


Great sentence and I think this point is often overlooked.

Here is the consolidated version of the EU Treaty regarding 'state help' rules...



1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

2. The following shall be compatible with the internal market:

(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned;

(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences;

(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision repealing this point.

3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market:

(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to in Article 349, in view of their structural, economic and social situation;

(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State;

(c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest;

(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest;

(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a proposal from the Commission.


Source

There seems to be no special concession for our steel industry.

The banks were able to be bailed out because it falls under 3b.. "aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State"



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

Nice one posting the link, it was exactly the constraints I was referring to but now the nay-sayers can read it for themselves.
It will be interesting to see the results of the referendum from the Aberavon constituency which covers the Port Talbot area.
Interestingly, the current MP there is the son of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock.

My family members who work at the steel works tell me that everyone they know will be voting 'leave' for a couple of reasons, (1) because membership of the EU prevents the UK government providing medium to long term support to save a primary industry, (2) because Cameron is supporting 'remain' and he's a rich Tory # who doesn't give a # about any citizens outside of the 'home counties' in SE England, so staying in the EU must be bad for the common citizen if that bastard wants it for us.

I'm voting leave mostly for ideological reasons of wishing for a sovereign UK and smaller government. Any other benefits and/or challenges are born of that.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

The benefits are not English benefits they are UK and are still controlled by Westminster for the whole of UK.

Another case of dilusion



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

This is what happens to Scottish earnings. They are given to Westminster and they give us back a fraction of what we would have if we kept the lot to ourselves.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Does this mean anything to you



Ravenscraig known to be most profitable steel plant in Europe in 1988, shut by Tories in 1992



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join