Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Here's quite a bit on the detail of it: Withdrawal from the European Union - Wikipedia

For a start, it should be much easier to do because we are not in the Euro zone.

Personally speaking, I do want us to come out and I actually think it will be greatly beneficial to our trade with the rest of the world and won't harm our trade with the EU one jot.

The benefit to staying in, that I would wish to keep, is the virtual impossibility of going to war with any of the other current fellow members. As to how to nail this for sure has to be the subject of some type of membership association and we already have this - in the form of our membership of the EU. I guess we might need to either stay in then or swap it for membership of something else.

Hmmm?

Just the membership of NATO should be sufficient to stop war with our neighbours.

I'm not sure whether I would want to bet we would be the first to leave. I just want to make a bet that we leave - and not before too long either.

The first illustrative example of how I am not alone in feeling like this, will be the phenominal success that is about to be shown by UKIP when they compete with the other parties in the Elections to the European Parliament between 22 and 25 May 2014.

I will be voting for UKIP in that election just to 'make a statement'. However, I would not wish to vote for them in the General Election, where I will be voting for my current local MP, Andrea Leadsom. I do have an extremely high regard for her and feel lucky to have her. She actually got a promotion too yesterday, I see:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/andrea-leadsom-joins-the-treasury/

I think leaving (them leaving) would rescue the financial state of Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal (and maybe even more countries too), and particularly so or primarily so, if they also leave the Eurozone too.

This would come about by a massive devaluation in their currencies. Their income would then rise massively and their exports would be much cheaper - not that they have much to export. I guess tons of people would want to buy properties in such countries and this might also help to rescue their ailing businesses and property markets - and indirectly, be helpful to the banks too.

I doubt that we will leave. The only way we could leave would be if the Conservatives win the election with a majority.

If that happens the Cameron will have discussions about changing the rules of the EU. I can see him getting some changes and then we will have a referendum about leaving. The government's stance will be that the new rules are good for the UK. The government will then recommend that we vote Yes to stay in. With much publicity supporting the stay in case, we will do just that. You have to remember that Cameron and other senior Can nservatives are not in favour of leaving the EU. There are no scenarios where UKIP has any influence on events.

You are probably right. But for UKIP it's 'watch this space' in the European Elections!

The Heartbleed Bug.....

This week it has emerged that a major security flaw at the heart of the internet may have been exposing users' personal information and passwords to hackers for the past two years.

It is not known how widely the bug has been exploited, if at all, but what is clear is that it is one of the biggest security issues to have faced the internet to date.

Where it says, "HTTPS" in a URL address, doesn't necessarily mean that the information the User is about to use is going to be private.

Security expert Brue Schneier described it as "catastrophic". He says, "On the scale of one to 10, this is an 11."

There are numerous comments about how everyone should 'change their passwords immediately'.

Hmmm?

None of the online financial institutions I use have said anything to me about it.

It's really down to how UKIP do in the upcoming elections.

If they do well, as expected...then the shit will hit the fan, as incumbent mp's look forward to losing their seats on the gravy train.

If ukip fizzle, then it will be business as usual, and referendums and such will be quietly forgotton.

UKIP will do well in the EU elections. The polls are showing UKIP second to Labour or third after Conservatives. The general election is another matter. They need more than double their current percentage to start getting MPs. They are a one policy party and won't get the votes at the GE.

I was thinking more along the lines of the uncertainty that mp's, especially those in marginal seats, will feel if they have ukip standing against them. Nobody knows how it will go, as they seem to be able to rob votes off all sides.

That's certainly true. Some Conservative MPs may lose their seats to Labour because of UKIP. Other combinations are possible, but very unlikely.

public apathy and disillusionment will be the winner in the general election, resulting in the activists of all colours having a disproportionate influence - and that will be woe for us all in the longer term


for sure ukip will do well in the eu elections, but again, joe public really has no interest in them, and i doubt if there'll be more than say 35% turn-out ..... anyone disagree?

and for a change, i actually agree with hays, that ukip's performance in these (non)elections has little or no bearing on what will happen in a general election

coal mines shutting
is fred leaping up and down saying this shouldn't be allowed to happen?
while it's certainly a very sad time for the local and involved populations, if the pits really have become uneconomic, would it be remotely justifiable to keep them open purely on "social grounds"?
i think the unions are being pretty quiet too, so i guess they agree, albeit sadly

From end of March this year

Coal find could fuel UK for centuries: Vast deposits totalling up to 23trillion tonnes found under the North

Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.

Experts believe there is between three trillion and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.

Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal - much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas.

I'm sure it'll give the Scots something to do if and when they become indepentent.

Manuel, stop being an idiot as well as a fascist.
I know you memory is getting poorer and you are stumbling a bit more often, but look back what I wrote about Coal Industry post WW2.

It was the Mad Cow Thatcher's approach to the decline of the the coal industry and other heavy industries which was the problem.
(Along with her brilliant strategy for the deregulation of the CITY.)


--------

Exec.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell of the UK exiting the EU.
--------
Cameron and his cronies have made themselves unelectable, whatever the polls and some right wing press are suggesting (That is he press and media, which isn't deserting from the tory camp.)
The majority of Labour MPs, the majority of Lib/Dems and I have a guess the majority of tories, those who aren't lying down or hiding from Nigel’s boys, are in favour of remaining in the EU and will accept what is negotiated. They are not deluded by Little Englanders’ longing for Empire and Greatness.
It is only a group of insular little cons, or look alike Ukippers who are led by a barrow boy as if they have rings in their noses, who wants out.
What they want is pie in the sky, Europe would care little if the population of EU were reduced by 50-60 million little Englanders. They can trade happily amongst themselves with a single currency which many idiots suggested for years would not exist by now.

(Interested, to know the cost to UK industry of dealing in and out of the Euro actually is.)

Many of the Scots would also be happy in the EU and out of the UK.

PS.

If there are stocks of coal in the North Sea and they are accessible by "new mining" methods who do they belong to Scotland or Little England.

Also, how much "clean" energy will be available, less of course you are Nigel and count the profit from a fouled up polluted atmosphere?

---------------------------

fossy .... so in this particular instance, do you agree that the pits in question should indeed be shut down?

Manuel,

To be honest I have only fleetingly look at UK Coal management, or its pits.

The only thing I understand is the the cost of production and usage does not make it sustainable.

Therefore closure seems apt and it is done with respect of environmental needs.

However, I hope that decent and thoughtful planning will have gone into planning for replacement jobs, training and other social needs.

Also, earned pensions are properly protected.

we pretty much agree

when corby steel works were shut down all those centuries ago, i seem to recollect that an awful lot of successful work was done to ensure that the town (and of course its inhabitants) did not just collapse in a heap

Immigration from eastern Europe was massively underestimated, says official report

Office for National Statistics admits it missed an estimated 350,000 in net migration over a decade because of flaws in a key survey


The number of eastern European migrants who came to Britain in the last decade was far higher than previously thought because a crucial airport survey used “inadequate sampling” Photo: London News Pictures



By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent

12:34PM BST 10 Apr 2014


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10757336/Immigration-from-eastern-Europe-was-massively-underestimated-says-official-report.html


The number of eastern European migrants who came to Britain in the last decade was hundreds of thousands higher than previously thought, the Office for National Statistics has admitted.


In a disclosure that will fuel intense national concern about immigration, the agency said it had failed to count an estimated 350,000 migrants who arrived in this country between 2001 and 2011.


The ONS said the mistake occurred because it used “inadequate sampling” in a crucial survey at airports which is used to estimate net migration - the difference between the number of people arriving in Britain and those emigrating.


It said most of the migrants who were omitted from the International Passenger Survey (IPS) were from Poland and other former Communist states which joined the European Union in 2004, known as the “EU8” countries.


The revised totals showed net migration over the decade increased from just under 2.2 million to more than 2.5 million.

The ONS’s highest additional number of migrants was for 2006, when net migration is now thought to have been 67,000 higher than previously thought, reaching 265,000.

Original estimates were too low because the ONS concentrated its survey on main airports such as Heathrow but ignored migrants who were arriving on a growing number of budget airline routes into smaller, regional airports, a report said.

“There is evidence that shows the IPS missed a substantial amount of immigration of EU8 citizens that occurred between 2004 and 2008, prior to IPS improvements from 2009,” said the document.

“This is evident from comparisons of IPS data with a number of other data sources related to immigration.

“The EU8 migrants were missed due to IPS interviewing being concentrated at the time at principal airports, such as London Heathrow, London Gatwick and Manchester.

“During this time, many migrants from the EU8 countries were travelling on the increasing number of routes connecting their countries with the UK regional airports. Many of these routes were not covered, or not fully covered, by the IPS for migration purposes prior to 2009.”

The number of children migrating to Britain was also underestimated, it added.

More regional airports were included in the IPS from 2008 but the improvements were “too late to capture the main wave of increased migration” following EU expansion in 2004.

Labour, which was in power at the time, has admitted it was wrong not to impose restrictions on eastern Europeans’ ability to come to Britain from 2004.


At the time, official estimates predicted just 15,000 people would come from Poland and the other accession countries but the true figures ran into hundreds of thousands.

The ONS said there was “no evidence” that the passenger survey needed further revisions.

Carlos Vargas Silva, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, which has previously raised concerns about the reliability of the IPS, said: "We have known for some time that net migration must have been much higher during the 2001 to 2011 period than the official estimates had suggested.

"This report provides important evidence of the need for better migration data and of the limitations of using a survey to develop net migration data."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for stricter migration rules, said: "This is final confirmation that net foreign migration under Labour totals nearly four million, two thirds from outside the European Union.

"It also shows that the peak of net migration was nearly 275,000 a year, making it even more difficult for the present Government to get the numbers down to tens of thousands."