Europe. In or out?

[12321]

I am very much IN, through a combination of long term understanding of the subject ( geography A level teaching), belief that conspiracy theories and the utter drivel being served up by Brexit is tosh, the type of person who is leading the out campaign ( noxious, nasty and self seeking. Why on Earth does Gove support the R's, the most repugnant man I have ever encountered, save for Farage oh another Brexiters. I could go on and on..... However
Getting back to the point.
The reason why so many say they are for Brexit is that it is the easy, populist answer for a typical bloke in the pub type chat, because it LOOKS like the right thing to do. You know, bash the pompous big businessmen and bankers, bash the prime minister, let's show those pesky foreigners a bit of British pluck, long live Dads Army etc.. If you dare to express a trust in the vast ranks of learned bigwigs who say out is a disaster ( and they are almost certainly right by the way ) then you risk being ostracised and dare I say bullied in certain friendship groups. Watch this space and see if I'm not right.
Proud to be an R and a Europhile !!!!!

I think this is a perfect example of what is known as swimming against the tide

[jmelanie]

My reasons for wanting to leave the EU are purely personal and sentimental. My parents spent nearly 6 years of their lives fighting for the U.K. to remain a free country (my father was bombed out of Coventry). In the first referendum they actually voted for the common market believing it would simply be a trade agreement (I believe many of us did the same). Then they watched as various governments changed the rules so that gradually it became closer and closer to a Federal Europe with major decisions being taken out of our hands. They were very upset that they had no say in these decisions. It is now too late for them to be have any influence. So I will be voting no (as will most of my family) in their honour.

I was actually hoping to be able to make a decision for myself based on discussions during the campaign, but unfortunately this hasn't happened.

[lymehoop]

My reasons for wanting to leave the EU are purely personal and sentimental. My parents spent nearly 6 years of their lives fighting for the U.K. to remain a free country (my father was bombed out of Coventry). In the first referendum they actually voted for the common market believing it would simply be a trade agreement (I believe many of us did the same). Then they watched as various governments changed the rules so that gradually it became closer and closer to a Federal Europe with major decisions being taken out of our hands. They were very upset that they had no say in these decisions. It is now too late for them to be have any influence. So I will be voting no (as will most of my family) in their honour.

I was actually hoping to be able to make a decision for myself based on discussions during the campaign, but unfortunately this hasn't happened.

I think a lot of the young are influenced by their teachers, I was. Fortunately for me my teacher was an Aussie and it swayed me to vote No in that 1975 referendum. Nothing in the last 41 years has made me think that was a wrong decision. More passionately out now and posts like that from Worton should sway others

[stainrodisalegend]

21 YEARS now since the EU last signed off their accounts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-spending.html

Yep because one or two individual countries have refused to sign them off purely because they have some completely unrelated dispute - no one is actually doubting the accounts (except perhaps Nigel Farage when he pops over once a week to collect his hefty EU salary and massive expenses).

Yet another EU myth - up there with Boris and his bendy bananas...

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

(except perhaps Nigel Farage when he pops over once a week to collect his hefty EU salary and massive expenses).

Yet another EU myth - up there with Boris and his bendy bananas...

Yea because only Nigel Farage collects a hefty EU salary and expenses

[Derry's Girl]

Out, out, out, out, out,
Out, out, out, out, out,
Out, out, out, out, out,
Out, out, out, out, out,
Out, out, out, out, out,

You could make a song out of it

[Hoop-du-Jour]

Voting across QPR forums at the moment

WATRB

53 - OUT
29 - IN

Not606

41 - OUT
49 - IN

LFW

47.8% - OUT
46.3% - IN

QPRDOT.ORG

19 - OUT
27 - IN

what does that say about each messageboard. Are we the most working class where the EU has affected us more?

It shows we have a bad case of The Hokey Cokey, in out, in out. Fortunately we'll be cured on the 24th June and that's what it's all about!

Money and greed is all I'm hearing from the Remainians, if money is all that matters to them, then I can safely say my moral compass is pointing in the right direction... OUT!

[dogsrrs]

Yea because only Nigel Farage collects a hefty EU salary and expenses

Yeah Jimbo none of his knocker say he takes it and tells the world that it's wrong to get his point over where as the the others just take and stay schum , no wonder ! they want to stay on the gravy train ay

[Olly]

It's full steam ahead dirty tricks like the Scottish referendum. Cameron has been booked to do an ITV debate with only Farage where he's hoping he can show him up as a racist, and destroy the OUT campaign as the public will associate all 'outers' with Farage's views.

I hope he's wised up to it because he's well capable of giving Cameron a bloody nose. But Cameron's ducking a debate with anyone else - a scheming coward.

[Stanley]

It's full steam ahead dirty tricks like the Scottish referendum. Cameron has been booked to do an ITV debate with only Farage where he's hoping he can show him up as a racist, and destroy the OUT campaign as the public will associate all 'outers' with Farage's views.

I hope he's wised up to it because he's well capable of giving Cameron a bloody nose. But Cameron's ducking a debate with anyone else - a scheming coward.

But Call me Dave told LBC yesterday he was planning to do town halls where he can be grilled on any issue at all, with no scripted questions...

[Stanley]

Yet another example of the insanity we're up against folks:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity...

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hydration.html

[Ginger Ninja]

Yet another example of the insanity we're up against folks:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity...

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hydration.html

That is probably the single most ridiculous thing I've read in a long, long time. I want to think that the tabloids made this up and that, surely, for god's sake surely nobody is thick enough to actually pass a law like this...but I just don't know.

[Stanley]

That is probably the single most ridiculous thing I've read in a long, long time. I want to think that the tabloids made this up and that, surely, for god's sake surely nobody is thick enough to actually pass a law like this...but I just don't know.

The Telegraph aint no tabloid Ginge.

[Ginger Ninja]

The Telegraph aint no tabloid Ginge.

The media then, they all make stuff up sometimes, and I refuse to believe otherwise lol.

[Stanley]

The media then, they all make stuff up sometimes, and I refuse to believe otherwise lol.

Well I hadn't quoted the full article. Here's the rest of it and you can make your own mind up:

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.

EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.

Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.

Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.

“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.

“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”

Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.

He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct. This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim."