I note you have not answered my questions.

You questioned my stat so it is reasonable to ask you to put your forward your figures.

I also asked you to state the net monetary benefit or otherwise p.a. to the UK of current EU membership, as you claim to be aware of where to find all the facts?

The UK is about to (or already has) overtaken France as the 3rd largest economy in the EU and a major net contributor financially. Don't confuse the argument by comparing our situation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey. Our position is totally different and the EU would be so much weaker without us and the EU needs to keep open acces to our market.

Do you agree that our PM should try and improve the UK's terms of membership as a time when the EU embarks on a course of change its self?

And as you missed the PM's speech and questions at Davros this morning, have you managed to hear it all yet?

We are the 6th largest trading nation in the world with 63 free trade agreements with other non-EU countries and with a heathly trade surplus unlike the large and growing deficit with the EU. As an autonimous trading nation we would be free to open up free trade with the US and if we were to join in a new EFTA arrangement whilst remaining ‘associated but not absorbed’ as Churchill put it, we could prosper exponentially into the future.

If you think that there are only about 90 MP's who have serious doubts about the EU then why are you so scared of a referendum?

You say the DC has not said what terms he wants to repatriate yet you make employment laws the central plank of your case against him! You have made your decision before hearing the evidence.

The PM has stated that there will be a straight In or Out vote in the referendum which is what you say "is the only valid referendum".......so what's the problem?

A referendum gives the British people the final say on what is such an important decision. If you are so confident that everyone is happy with the EU then why have so little faith in democracy.

Maybe we will have one next on the legalisation of drugs. Im sure the conservatives and the right wing press will be in favour of that.

The "war on drugs" probably costs more anually than the total EU budget

Better than someone who spent 2 hours assembling some largely irrelevant Google and Wikipedia quotes, yes.

You didn't even remove all the quotation marks when you copy-and-pasted them.

What is the alternative? Does the idea of Milliband, Balls, Cooper really fill you with hope for the future?

Cameron and his mob are completely out of their depth but nothing Labour did towards the end of last their term suggests they will be any better. No Brown, no Darling, No David Milliband!!

Some things are guaranteed if Labour get in: debt will rocket, the public sector will grow significantly, those on benefits will get above inflation increases etc You will still get a referendum on Europe.

The caveats included in Cameron's speech do not suggest a referendum is anything approaching a certainty. Look more closely at what he has offered.

Look, I am not the greatest fan of Labour by a very long chalk, but what are you on about?

By 2010, unemployment had stabilised – and there was growth in the economy.

Under the circumstances caused by the 2008 [iglobal [/i financial crisis, which was [inot[/i caused by the UK government of the day, what do you think would have been so much better – not least given the fact that Gideon and this mob actually took that situation and turned it into a double dip and probably now a triple dip, and all without cutting the deficit as they pledged, but increasing it?

Overall, the great British public reaction seems to be "but am I bothered?" zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... splat.html

Overall, the great British public reaction seems to be "but am I bothered?" zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... splat.html

Labour by their own admission would need to reduced the deficit, they would have had cut public spending - the idea that by 2010 the worst was over and the UK was going to see years of sustained growth is simply not credible. Before the election Labour had continued to increase borrowing/deficit in the hope of getting re-elected. Other than cutting spending slower what else would they done differently, the macro economic position would still be the same especially in Europe and the US.

You can blame the banking crisis for all the problems and Labour were completely blameless but some countries haven't suffered anywhere near the issues we have encountered following the banking fall out.

This is going to be an election defining issue - UKIP will gain massively in the next election.

When push comes to shove Labour will also cave in and promise this in their manifesto.

That's not an answer to the questions I posited in response to your claim about the state that Labour 'left the country in'.

Largely from the Tories – if the [iTelegraph[/i forums are anything to go by – thus splitting the Conservative vote.

To begin with, you did not differentiate between trade in Goods and trade in Services.
In terms of trade in goods the UK has had a balance of trade [udeficit[/u with both the EU [uand the rest of the world[/u for quite some time.
Services are what puts us in trade surplus with the rest of the world.
I have already said that the services area needs the same attention to harmonisation that the EU gave to the trade in goods.
Secondly, for some reason, you chose a random stat from 2011 (or nearly, it looked about £2bn out to me) rather than either a trend view over a longer period of time or more recent numbers.
We operate on a more level playing field in the EU these days, if Germany can produce a goods surplus, so could we ... but that would mean being more German in our approach and, going by your comments so far, I can't see that sitting comfortably with you.


I have never claimed to be aware of all the facts.
Perhaps you can oblige?
How you are going to monetarise the EUs geopolitical clout remains to be seen.


As contributions are calculated by the richest putting the most in and the poorest getting the most development out, that is not a surprise.


At present there are a limited number of ways that a non-EU state can trade with the EU, by mentioning Norway/Turkey/Switzerland I was considering whether we could emulate any of the current examples.
Regarding your assertion that the EU needs us more than we need them ... about half of our exports go to the EU, but only about 20% of the EU's exports come to us ... we must also remember that the impact of possible loss of that 20% is diluted by a spread of up to 26 countries ... who has the whip hand?


Of course .... but that would naturally be part of the discussions, as it has been with all treaties preceding it ... it doesn't require a) Advance veto (as Cameron tried and failed with before, and excluded himself from discussions) or b) Posturing and a promise of a referendum years ahead, as a sop to the Bill Cash tendency, whilst destabilising inward investment as investors try to second-guess the outcome of a referendum to decide whether the terms gained were satisfactory, when those desired terms have not yet been articulated in anything other than a vehement but vague desire for repatriation of powers. (I am in favour of subsidiarity where it is warranted ... so might be happy to see specifics be discussed).


Who said I missed it?


Whoah there, those free trade agreements were all negotiated and put in place by the EU.


Earlier you said that I was confusing the argument by mentioning Norway and other traders into the EU but now you bring up EFTA, of which Norway is one of the the biggest economies, if not the biggest.
I had chosen Norway as an example precisely because it is an EFTA member.
Would you have preferred me to compare the UK with Lichtenstein or Iceland?

I don't follow you.
If everyone offers a referendum, why would UKIP gain?

I do love a good old-fashioned spot of S&M. And you do seem to have the whip hand, so to speak, oh bearded one.

UKIP gain because disgruntled voters are looking for a protest vote away from the Tories/Clegg, what are their alternatives BNP, ED & ED?

Even you didn't seriously think the rise in UKIP popularity had anything to do with membership of the EEC?

The point is Labour could have taken action earlier so that by now we would have potentially been passed the worst. They gambled on retaining power on the back of less pain now more pain later. Sadly for them the some voters were able to see through their "Its not our fault its a global issue" excuses. Taking unpopular decisions is sometimes required at the point it was required Labour didn't take them.

They would say they had and with growth in the economy starting again key investments in house building, not increasing VAT and not front loading the cuts would have seen us escape what is looking like a triple dip.

Yes, indeed I did (do), and that's why I have to disagree.
I reckon any apparently Europhobic move Cameron makes, takes votes away from UKIP.

Maybe I'm being thick today but you've lost me again.
Was the banking crisis not a global issue? Did not the government take the unpopular decision to bail the banks out?

We were going to build houses just at the point when banks stopped lending!! that's really joined up. Look at Germany there growth has stagnanted and they are a serious manufacturing country. Where was the sustained growth going to come from?

How was the deficit going to be reduced - even they had agreed that it had to come down. They would have had to raise monies somehow if not VAT then direct taxation. At least it appears that despite all the recessions unemployment continues to reduce.

The cuts have cost how many jobs exactly and how many fewer jobs would have been lost under labour?

So, this global financial crisis – it didn't happen, then?

And if it did, it had absolutely no affect on the entirely separate crisis that occurred in the UK?

It was global issue - did the banks in China need bailing out or Australia, South American banks, African banks, Russian banks how global was the crisis - US and Europe?

The government took the only realistic decision open to it, if their would have been any other choice they would have avoided nationalising these banks. The sad thing is that it ever got to that position, but I suppose - despite 10+ years of Labour - that was all Maggie's fault?

Unemployment reducing is partly myth – a bit like Cameron's lie about jobs created, when in fact most of the jobs he mentioned were simply privatised public sector jobs in education.

And as for new jobs – that'll be all the part-time ones, will it? Well, that'll help the economy hugely.

The deficit could be reduced by a variety of measures aimed at increasing employment, which in turn increases tax revenue and cuts benefit payments.

That Labour, for 20-odd years, has followed the same core economic philosophy as the Tories should have you applauding them. Except that you appear to believe the propaganda and, in spite of having had it explained to you time and time again – not least by the excellent and very knowledgeable Sally Cinnamon – persist in peddling the same propaganda again and again and again.