EU to flush your money down your toilet?

[Adrian]

Which makes _no_ difference whatsoever to the statement you just replied to.

[Java Jive]

I was looking for some relevant facts to counteract Harry's usual drivel of factless bigotry.

Then why are we arguing?

They are mostly both among the bottom contributors and the bottom receivers, so his point was invalid, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.

It's got nothing to do with mind reading. You made a claim that I was being biased, and cited as 'evidence' a page which not only did not invalidate what I had shown, but even contained a section which supported my argument more strongly. That suggests to me that your reading of the page you linked was itself biased.

Exactly, so Harry's original claim was even more wrong than I originally proved.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

I really think it's about time we renamed this ng to uk.bigots.anonymous.

Have you forgotten to take your medicati>

[John Williamson]

A business can be perfectly viable until the government brings in rule changes, adding regulatory burdens which then make the business unviable.

As was pointed out, the design costs for a new product are minimal. What costs the money is redesigning, rebuilding and debugging the production process and testing the new product for compliance with the new rules, especially as, when so often happens with British governments, the EU rules are extended in their scope by the British implementation.

If you've got a dozen production lines, as the big manufacturers have, then it's a small proportion of your output lost at any one time. At the other extreme, if you only make one item, then it's *all* of your production capacity that's out of commission, and very few companies can survive that for any length of time..

[Roger Chapman]

Careful, your bias is showing again.

We are arguing because you can't see through the fog of your prejudice to the fact that the eastern European countries get much more out of the EU than they contribute. It doesn't matter whether or not they deserve the largesse from the positive contributors to the EU. The fact is they get it.

Take another look at the net contributions pages. They are all in the negative tail. It is there in black and white and nothing you can say will alter the facts how ever hard you try.

There is no support for your position. The net contributions page must take into account the rebate otherwise the contributions wouldn't be net.

The UK pays less than it otherwise would but it is still a major contributor and gets much less back than it pays in.

"Even taking into account the rebate, the UK is one of the largest net contributors to the EU budget. Had it not been for the rebate, its net contribution would have been even bigger than Germany's in 2007."

You have proved nothing other than you are as good as TFP in arguing that black is really white when it suits your purpose and ignoring anything that doesn't. You even have another of his traits - ignoring and editing out particular points you don't have an answer to. Recognise this bit you silently snipped?

"How about a little bit of that logic you are so keen on. It is nonsensical to draw up a table for net contributions if the rebate is not included."

Roger Chapman

[The Natural Philosopher]

If you are a large business you can afford to pay the lobbyists to make sure your product is the one the regulations are designed to meet.

The EU and big manufacturing are a cartel.

EU emissions laws are framed by and for large European companies. As are banking regulations.

[Adrian]

Is it quite so simple? Harry's "drivel" (OK, that is personal perception, but - when you take into account his posting across all subjects - it is a fairly accurate and widely shared one) is undeniably and easily provably factless. It is also, without doubt, bigotry. Just look at the way he showed his true colours the other day in this very thread...

# From: harryagain # Subject: Re: EU to flush your money down your toilet? # Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:36:49 -0000 # Message-ID: # #>> Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents #>> had moved to the area from 50 miles away? # #> Typical socialist drivel. #> These people are parasites on our system. #> All thanks the Bliar.Brown. #> Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated #> peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc. #> They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable #> school places. #> #> They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge. #> The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so #> shifting the financial burden to us.

If that isn't "factless bigotry", how else would you describe it?

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant distinction, do you not think?

[harryagain]

Do you not comprehend "other agricultural work"? Other things grow besides apples you (don't) know. Many require year round attention.

[harryagain]

Well now then that just shows your ignorance.

[Tim Streater]

I wasn't, and haven't anywhere in this thread, talked about "other agricultural work". I was talking specifically about fruit picking, as described to us by the owner of the farm I visited. In his case there is an intensive "picking season", outside of which the intensity of activity is a lot lower.

[harryagain]

The NHS for years has had at least one person in every local finance deprtment whose job it was to recover money for treatment to dwellers from any countries that had no reciprocal health agreement with the UK. ie Mostly Americans. Mostly it was about getting their medical insurance details. This was exactly what would happen to them in the USA, so they were entirely familiar with the idea. However with the multitude of illegal immigrants/other undesireables the job has got a lot tougher.

[harryagain]

He is exactly correct. It's you that is the dopey half wit that can't see it.

[John Williamson]

But to nowhere near the same extent as they do at harvest time. Fruit trees need looking after,but one worker can look after a much larger orchard than he can harvest. Grain,again needs the occasional walk through and spray if required except at harvest time, when it all needs to be reaped within a few days. The peak labour needs for arable crops are for ploughing, planting and harvest, and nowadays that's all normally done by contractors who work as many hours as possible during those periods and loaf around or do non-agricultural work for the rest of the year.The only types of farming which have a fairly constant labour requirement are dairy farming and growing animals for meat. Another one I just remembered is tomato growing, and such farms often have a permanent floating population of immigrant workers living in caravans on site, as the locals won't (can't afford to) work for the wages the farmer can afford to pay, as the supermarkets pass on the British retail customers' dislike of paying a reasonabe price for anything.

People often knock the Archers, but the agricultural stories are well researched and, even now, accurately portrayed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

so far a reasonably accurate picture..

Grain,again needs the occasional walk

that is not.

average grain crop needs ploughing or subsoil work first, then drilling, then spraying with at last 4-5 sprays a year plus fertilizer, plus there is a huge amount of work servicing machinery and getting it ready for all the other jobs a modern farmer has to do, like hedge maintenance, headland controls, filling in a small bible of regulatory paperwork, monitoring spot and forward grain prices, running the driers and stores, signing futures contracts, looking for buyers, shipping stored grain

The only types of farming which have a fairly constant

Total bollocks.

[Tim Streater]

Well possibly, but you'd hardly notice that here, where we have a several-acre field to one side and behind us, and a larger field across the road (no hedges). This is so, to the extent that when someone appears to do any of the above, it's a bit of an event, but they're usually gone within an hour. An hour six or seven times a year doesn't amount to much

Yeah but none of this requires itinerant workers.

[dennis]

I don't think anyone is supporting *illegal* immigrants sucking resources out of the system, but who are the undesirables you speak of, remember that in the eyes of many in this group you are an undesirable.

We already deport illegals BTW.

[Adrian]

There ought to be a law against illegal migration!

[Adrian]

There ought to be a law against illegal migration!

[Adrian]

There ought to be a law against illegal migration!