Messages

46

The B-Ark / Re: O/T In or out

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:07:12 AM »

Its simply not the way someone who wishes to remain in the EU would look at it, but it is the way it looks if you wish to leave and you read the EEA Agreement.
There are currently 49 separate Protocols covering everything from transitional periods in FoM, safeguard mechanisms, abolition of technical barriers, and the development of cooperation etc...the EEA is open to negotiation, and with the UK being the fifth largest economy in the world we are in a strong position to negotiate.
We import far more than we export, and that further strengthens the UK's position.
Just as the obvious example, if Germany and France stopped selling cars in the UK it would cause serious problems to their economies, so that's not going to happen no matter what Cameron and Osborne would have us believe. 
The EU countries are concerned about a possible Brexit but, if it were to happen, they would be even more concerned about losing the UK market completely.

We need to start trading globally rather than just with the EU.  Cameron stated that the Chinese visit last year heralded a new golden era of trade that was vital for our economy.  If the EU was working so well the Chinese deal wouldn't be quite so 'vital' but the only country with a slower economic growth rate is Antarctica,  the Eurozone is about to implode, and the EU just has no way of dealing with the migrant crisis.

Cameron's attempt to renegotiate our position was a complete farce, all he got was the square root of zero.  The EU doesn't do change, your local MEP will confirm that   

No, it wouldn't. Exports to the UK are 7% of German's total and less than that for France. Only for those superpowers Ireland and Cyprus are we more than 10% of total exports. The EU is over 40% of our exports.

The correct measure is the relative importance of that trade to your economy, not the level of it; for the same reason that if I win £1,000 it helps me a lot more than it would Richard Branson.

47

The B-Ark / Re: O/T In or out

« on: June 13, 2016, 09:52:45 PM »

On access to the single market - there are certain safeguards built into the EEA  Agreement which make it clear that, in the event of a Brexit, we can negotiate a bespoke deal for the UK during the two years it takes to withdraw from the EU. There are transitional protocols already in place in the Agreement for FoM (Switzerland and Liechtenstein), and there is no reason why the UK cannot negotiate its own transitional protocols invoking some of the existing safeguards.
The EU countries are not just going to stop trading with us on the 24th if we vote for a Brexit.  They are already trading with many countries outside of the EEA and we will join that list.
The balance of trade with the EU is in our favour to the tune of around 60 billion, so any tariffs that might apply will not adversely affect trade. According to some economists we would introduce similar tariffs on EU imports to this country, trade being a two way deal  8)

But this is simply not the correct way of looking at it. Yes, we import a bit more form the rest of the EU than we export to it - so the absolute figures are roughly in balance. But our GDP is (relatively) small compared to the rest of the EU summed together, ergo this trade is a much higher proportion of - and more important to - our national income than that of the EU.

This is explained here.

Incidentally, being able to impose tariffs ourselves is not a good thing - it would just make goods more expensive here.

48

The B-Ark / Re: O/T In or out

« on: June 13, 2016, 08:35:28 PM »

It strikes me that Brexiteers are willfully ignorant to the options that face us following a Leave vote. If we want to control migration - rightly or wrongly probably the number one concern of Leave votes - we will not have anything like access to the single market on the terms we do now. That would be somewhere between very bad and catastrophic for the economy. It'll mean something between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost. Just look at what has happened to indicators of business confidence and investment in 2016 at the mere possibility of an exit.

Who will it be who loses their jobs? It certainly won't be people like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove - recessions don't hit Westminster. Could that be why they're so carefree about the prospect of exit? Could it also be one of the reasons why pensioners - whose incomes are not linked to economic performance in the way those of working age people are - are more prone to voting for leave?

49

The B-Ark / Re: Southwell on the move?

« on: August 20, 2015, 10:36:45 PM »

Whether HITC Sports is remotely legitimate or not is doubtful, but it's probably inevitable that he leaves at some point. Championship clubs sounds a bit bonkers, but great if true: probably £50-100k without even trying, and the possibility of a loan back agreement in the short run?

50

The B-Ark / Re: what's a shambles

« on: September 10, 2014, 07:43:29 AM »

Obviously we were a bit naff, etc etc - but I can't be the only one thinking Oxford were absolutely bloody brilliant?

51

The B-Ark / Re: DO NOT BUY ANYTHING INSIDE THE GROUND

« on: August 26, 2014, 08:59:45 PM »

I have a response:

Daniel,
 

Tamworth FC have had this policy for six seasons and has worked well within this time, I trust  you will also write to Stockport as they charge £15 for every game where supporters enjoy cheaper prices for less attractive games where support is not too great.

 

I would think that you would like to be considered a big club and these games have to segregated which means extra costs.

 

I hope that you have enjoyed your stay in Tamworth and hope that we all see a good game of football. I am afraid boycotting food outlets will only hit hard working people who are not involved in the club as the sites are franchised.

 

Have a safe journey home

 

Regards

 

Rod Hadley

General Manager/ Secretary

Tamworth Football Club Limited

The Lamb Ground sponsored by O2 Tamworth
Kettlebrook
Tamworth
Staffordshire
B77 1AA

Ultra tinpot passive-aggressive reply. Haven't they ever thought that maybe the extra 200 fans through the gate might cover the 'extra cost' of segregation?

Glad to hear about those who went being as awkward as possible about it. Good work.

52

The B-Ark / Re: O/T Our beloved MP resigns

« on: August 12, 2014, 07:27:36 PM »

Mark Simmonds is a first class MP. He has done a lot of work for our area as has Lord Tapsell in the Horncastle area. A great deal of the work isn't seen by the general public, but believe me these two MP's have worked hard for Lincolnshire. God help us if Ukip get in.

IF YOU HAVE  been watching and listening the last 24hrs you will realise what a arrogant devious chap he is .  Dispised by many local tories who will be delighted to to the back of him .
Now the £120k he speaks of is made up of ..... £120k MPs pay but he forgot to remember the following ,
£60k  + £10k from directorships + £20-25k taxpayers money to his wife  as office manager .  £205k is a little more than £120. oh and don,t forget the expences claimed .
Simmonds like other MPS sprouts  rubbish which some constituents believe .  I just look at the mail I recieve from him and realise what a disgrace he is .
As P86 says show us what he,s done .
A very sad day for UKIP in Mark they have lost their best recruiting agent .

As David Cameron rightly pointed out last year, many local Tories are swivel eyed loons. I don't really see what Simmonds has ever done particularly good or bad. He's just been a passable constituency MP, nothing to write home about but there are plenty who are much worse/scandal prone. It's just become a bit fashionable round here because he's been here for 13 years and not said anything particularly xenophobic yet.

I doubt UKIP will get anywhere next May, firstly because all the normal people come out and vote for proper parties when the important elections come round, and secondly because the Tories will flood any potential UKIP-voting seats with campaign resources.

53

The B-Ark / Re: Boston Standard

« on: August 01, 2014, 11:36:49 PM »

Typical of the level of the arguments put forward by objectors thus far. In a place like Boston, if they'd got their house together I think they'd have got a lot of sympathy and frankly had a good chance of stopping the thing. As it is, they've gone for a patently absurd 'referendum' AND HYPERBOLE, USUALLY IN CAPITAL LETTERS, about how the Quadrant will overload GPs/dentists with demand (yet force the local post office to close!), turn Wyberton into a congested favela and further the spread of Ebola. Very little appears to actually be grounded in reality - in fact there are documents in the submitted plans that show how they're outright wrong with regards to overburden medical facilities. The Chestnuts must be laughing - they're too professional to get tripped up by any of that. Now the planning officer has told them to provisionally approve it, the only way it's not going to get passed is if the councilors vote it down - which would send out the message that their vision for Boston is firmly grounded in the Medieval Ages.

54

The B-Ark / Re: Not good enough

« on: July 31, 2014, 06:23:11 PM »

It's early days and, as ever at this level, I'm sure our squad (and league position) will look much different in February/March to what we expect now - but I am a bit concerned by the idea of Garner playing up front. At first I thought the stuff in the press was a bit of a joke from all concerned, but it seems to be a permanent switch from the position where he was one of the league's best players last year. It's OK as a 'last 10 minutes' tactic, but really he should be skippering the tram from the back. Truth be told, it seems to have come about at least partly because DG's summer dealings with respect to strikers have not gone to plan.

55

The B-Ark / Re: Trust formed to safeguard BUFC & Quadrant

« on: July 17, 2014, 01:30:38 PM »

Regardless, the model would presumably be such that the board of any Trust type organisation wouldn't need to run the club on a day-to-day basis. They would delegate that to a professional Chief Exec type figure, who would then run the club in line with the broad aims set down by the board - which you would expect to be to keep BUFC heavily involved in community programmes (as it is nowadays) and to achieve/invest as much in the first team playing side as is financially sustainable.

Under such a setup, you would expect BUFC to be stable, and not to come into difficulty. But even if it did, as Pete says, the ground would still be secure thanks to the community interest company, who could then let it to a phoenix club. It's effectively a double-lock to ensure there can always be a senior football club in Boston.

56

The B-Ark / Re: Trust formed to safeguard BUFC & Quadrant

« on: July 17, 2014, 01:13:45 PM »

I cannot for the life of me imagine BUSA being able to run BUFC in any way, shape or form.

As willing as some of the volunteers are they are not businessmen and not conversant with how to run a football club.

I'd like to see a proposal of how they would intend to run the club, should they ever be given the opportunity to do so.

Show me a successful 'fan run' club outside of AFC Wimbledon the size of BUFC..........its a non starter, the club must look beyond a well intention ed supporters club for stewardship.

Bayern Munich?

57

The B-Ark / Re: Looks like it's job done.

« on: July 07, 2014, 11:39:25 AM »

Well this has to be great news in terms of the Chestnuts being able to secure all the funding necessary to actually build the Quadrant if and when planning permission is secured. This funding is presumably completely independent of the planning process, but equally it is a sign that the Chestnuts are pretty damn good at jumping through the sorts of hoops that public officials like, and that is a skill that makes a positive planning decision more likely.

I'd be interested to know to what extend this funding was being relied on - ie whether this really is a big fillip or if it was always part of the budget and not getting it would've been disastrous etc. Perhaps a question for Thursday.

58

The B-Ark / Re: Council to set out rules for Quadrant development plan Boston District Council

« on: June 23, 2014, 09:47:11 PM »

Sadly, this is already starting to turn into prevaricating, cold feet and "no risk taking in this little old town." I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I'm old enough to know the history of these sorts of opportunities and the regularity with which the council has scuppered them over the years.

Agreed. It terrifies me that Boston Borough Council are in charge of this.

59

The B-Ark / Re: england talk banned?

« on: June 22, 2014, 11:49:03 AM »

174 is still plenty from which to draw a 23-man squad from.  If the top 174 English players don't contain many world class players, it seems doubtful to me that numbers 175 to 561 would...

60

The B-Ark / Re: Today's Referendum

« on: June 20, 2014, 03:07:19 PM »

I'm pretty sure even the council will be able to recognise how utterly worthless and unrepresentative this poll was, and so will treat it with the disdain it deserves. 483 against and 2,502 either in favour or unconcerned.