Chris Packham charged in Malta (1 Viewer)

lewis20126 said:

OK, let's break this down. Let's consider David Cameron's attempt to secure some changes, such as an 'Emergency Brake' on EU immigration, to enable him to win the EU referendum. The 'Brake' and its effect would have been little different in effect to the transitional arrangements which Tony Blair failed to implement in respect of new accession countries (Romania, Bulgaria). The EU rejected the emergency brake out of hand. That one simple act of compromise would probably have been sufficient for the majority of UK voters to remain in the EU. If the UK has such limited influence even when it is threatening to leave, then how do you expect anyone to believe that we had influence prior to that.

cheers, alan

Click to expand...

mjh73 said:

While the point might be strictly true you used the classic Europhobe game of putting a bizarre spin on reality to come up with "80euro of your money goes to Maltese hunters" claim

Anyhoo.....

Using relatively current (2015) data.

The net per capita distribution of EU funds to Malta is about 97euro
That doesn't all come from the UK. However obviously the UK has (for the moment) a large and strong economy built significantly on trade with our EU compatriots, so we are net contributors to the EU budget.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget is 14% (noting this is about 1% of total UK government spending a minuscule proportion for all the bloody fuss leavers make about it, and this is gross so I have ignored the money we receive back from the EU)

So the per capita distribution of UK EU funds to Malta is less than 14euro

Since you said "80euros of your cash" another way to cut it is per capita distribution from a UK individual to a Maltese individual. In that instance about 0.3euro per UK individual goes to each Maltese per year.

So more accurately each Maltese hunter or police gets about 0.3euro of your cash a year. Probably more like 0.6euro per tax payer I guess.

I hope they don't spend it all at once......

Click to expand...

mjh73 said:

The UK had the ability to apply much stronger restrictions on the EU accession states under EXISTING EU agreements and chose not to (unlike many other EU members).
This was either due to incompetence or, more likely, a deliberate policy that enabled the country to gain economic benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Click to expand...

mjh73 said:

You are assuming immigration is a problem.

Click to expand...

mjh73 said:

Maybe the EU just got over the UK using it's influence to broker special treatment as it has done for years.....

Whatever, good luck with leaving. You'll need it.

Click to expand...

mjh73 said:

You are assuming immigration is a problem. I am not.

Maybe the EU just got over the UK using it's influence to broker special treatment as it has done for years.....

Whatever, good luck with leaving. You'll need it.

Click to expand...

lewis20126 said:

Allen S. Moore said:

Why will bird conservation be poorer? Lack of influence in making the EU enforce the wildbird directive. If it was difficult from within the EU, it won't happen from the outside.
/QUOTE]

IMO we have no influence and that is demonstrable by the 'emergency brake' argument. How can you change things from the inside when an organisation lacks the will,, means or structures to change. The UK can be more direct from outside the block and can make bilateral arrangements.



Yes, separate point and happy to discuss this elsewhere

Click to expand...

This point, which is widely commented on in BF, is that UK taxpayers' money which subsidises grouse moor estates (rural support grants? I'm not familiar with your system) goes equally to estates in which Hen Harriers and other raptors are killed illegally as well as those which do not break the law.

I am glad to read mjh73 successfully demolishing all of your arguments! :t:

Click to expand...