Politics: EU:- in or out?

61 to 90 of 996

- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016
Employees of European Commission + Council of Europe secretariat + European Parliament employee = ~36,500 people.

Does that include those implementing EU policy, or are they added to the respective national figures. Historically the EU have been coy about the numbers employed. It probably takes a few thousand of those alone to move the circus to Strasbourg each month. Something the Elected MEPs voted against, but it still continues, to hell with the expense, let alone the environmental impact.
- CommentAuthorbot de paille
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016 edited
Its all a puppet show designed to distract

The real people in power don't care either way,they still own all the banks and mass media

How did Blair and Obama work out for you? Hollande and Sarkozy? they all work for the same masters.
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016
Out definitely and I have had that opinion for about 10 years!

Wars - The Balkans was solved by NATO as the EU wrung its hands. Ukraine - caused by Europe with all the Russian repercussions still to fully emerge (G7 now not G8).

Economic - all the experts forecasting woe are the same ones that have consistently been wrong for the last 10 years so why will they suddenly be right?

Bureaucracy - Paying for another layer of government (actually 2) is bound to be more expensive and every one of us is paying for it. The people really holding the power are the appointed commissioners not the elected MEPs.

We will lose money - no we won't. The grants paid to farmers, arts etc etc are simply paid from money we have sent to Brussels in the first place less the administration fee and who pays those if they can avoid it?

Immigration - I am honestly not sure what the right answer is here but I do know that the EU will never come to any form of decision. The rise of the far right is happening despite the EU. Imagine if they took control of the European parliament? Extreme right wing directives that we were duty bound to follow?

Trade - We currently do not have a Trade Agreement with either Japan or India as the EU countries cannot agree on it. I'm sure we would if we can get out - especially India. We currently have a trade deficit with the rest of the EU - will they really stop trading with us?

TTIP - the feeling is that the Pacific version (TPP) will never be ratified in Congress or else Vetoed by Trump/Clinton so I think it is a moot point.

Our parents voted to join a single market. The EU was foisted upon us.

Whatever you do though, you must vote else you lose the right to complain!
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016
Posted By: owlmanCouncil of Europe secretariat
Think you probably mean the Council of the European Union. The Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU.

It probably takes a few thousand of those alone to move the circus to Strasbourg each month.
It's only the Parliament that moves (though that's stupid enough), not the full 36'000 or whatever of them.
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016
On Scotland, Referendum and the SNP;

I'll declare my interest, English living in Scotland and have done so for more than half my life now.

The problems in Scotland are that;

a. The SNP is a cult not a political party. If it were a political party, the voters would have throw it out due to multiple failures. It restricts its members views - has an SNP member of either parliament ever voted against the party line? If they were clever, they would have got their voters to vote SNP in the constituency vote and Greens (their pet party) in the regional vote and thus kicked out every other party (but they are not clever).

b. A parliament with a single house. Folk mock the Lords, but it works remarkably well. Show me a political system that is better. An upper house that is aPolitical is probably the best sort. Even with the attempt to load the benches it still does its job. In fact, it has become more rebellious recently which is why the Government is planning a bill to restrict its right to veto Statutory Instruments (which is a bad thing the Govt is doing). That in itself should indicate that it is doing what is needed and holding the lower house to account. There is a risk we end up with something as crazy as the US system.

c. The separatists are simply deluded. They hate the English and still blame all their woes on Westminster. Even with more powers they will still blame all their ills on London as they won't have the right/sufficient powers to make Scotland great. Scotland is a mess - education is going down the pan, NHS is is crisis (not just a Scottish problem), and unemployment is rising. Everything is driven by ideology rather than real need.
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016 edited
Posted By: Ed Davies
Posted By: owlmanCouncil of Europe secretariat
Think you probably mean the Council of the European Union. The Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU.
Any there lies one of the problems with it - few folk actually understand all the bits that make up this beast or how they interact! I'm sure it is deliberate obfuscation on the part of the beauracrats as, if we really did understand it, we would cry foul.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016
Posted By: borpinfew folk actually understand all the bits that make up this beast
The Council of Europe is not part of the â€œbeastâ€. Britain was a founding member of the Council of Europe in 1949.

Calling this deliberate obfuscation would be like saying that the naming of the United States of America is deliberate obfuscation because it doesn't contain Brazil which is in America. True in a way but you'd have to be fairly slow not to have worked out by now that the USA isn't all of America and that the EU isn't all of Europe.

The Council of Europe doesn't cover the whole of Europe either but it does cover a much larger percentage than the EU. Bits not in it include Belarus, Kosovo, the Vatican and some minor odds and ends. The only connection between them is the that the Council of Europe deals with the European Convention on Human Rights (and the European Court of Human Rights): being a signatory to which is a condition for EU membership.
- CommentAuthorGotanewlife
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2016 edited
You have just demonstrated that Borpin is right - in that you are one of those 'few folk' - quite an education you are providing - thanks.
- CommentAuthorMike1
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
Posted By: borpin...few folk actually understand all the bits that make up this beast or how they interact!

Well at least we agree on something :-)
So does the independent Electoral Commission who are advising on the running on the referendum. In their 2013 research to test potential questions for the vote they found that there were "low-levels of contextual understanding of the EU, with some participants having no knowledge of the European Union, or the status of UK membership of the EU, at all", with "very few who had a holistic understanding of how the European Union worked". Some people even thought that the vote was about whether or not to join the European Union, not whether we should stay in or leave it!

The Commission also found that (in their test ballots) people voted "based on their attitudes towards the small amount of knowledge they did hold, without tending to realise how little they actually did know. Many participants voted based on single issues which they typically knew about through media coverage or because they had a particular interest in that area."

Full Commission report at http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/163283/GfK-NOP_EU20Referendum20Question20Testing20Research20Report-WEB.pdf (very scary reading).

In fact it seems that the British know fewer basic facts about the EU than everyone else: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/11/27/brits-know-less-about-the-eu-than-anyone-else/

I think there are several reasons for these problems, including:

The UK media is obsessed with what's going on in Westminster, and only mention factual events in Brussels when there's a crisis or a senior Government minister flies in. For example the reporting of the last Commission President election in 2014:
UK press = 27 reports mentioning the two candidates;
German press = 1,905 reports (as well as 2 televised debates).
Though after the election the UK press did find space for 61 reports of David Cameronâ€™s attempts to block Jean-Claude Juncker from becoming President. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/how-the-european-media-drives-different-views-of-the-european-union/)

The right-wing print media frame everything EU-related in a eurosceptic viewpoint, talking in terms of 'EU bureaucrats' that 'impose things on us' and threaten the 'British way of life' - even the very existence of the country - with Government ministers 'fighting Brussels' as if the EU were an enemy, rather than something we belonged to. Not to mention conflating the European Court of Human Rights (not part of the EU) with the European Court of Justice (which is), etc. And there is substantial evidence that this has successfully manipulated public attitudes: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/10/01/uk-media-euroscepticism/

Unless you went to school between 2002 (when Citizenship was introduced in the National Curriculum, including at least some mention of the EU) and 2014 (when all mention of the workings of the EU was removed - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9856220/European-Union-slashed-from-the-National-Curriculum.html), the chances are you were taught nothing about it.
- CommentAuthorCerisy
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Okay, so I live in France and admit I'm biased ... but who would you trust to do the difficult negotiations if the UK left the EU?

Dave and George are a complete waste of space. Every big new policy is quietly dropped when they realise that people / the media aren't right behind it or when it's pointed out that it doesn't work (but then as they have got rid of a vast number of experienced civil servants who have to write these bills what do they expect) and the negotiations that Dave did with the other EU leaders weren't his finest hour.

Boris is a inveterate liar. He was fired from a previous newspaper job for continually writing incorrect articles. His constant reference to EU rules on bent bananas are pathetic. There is no Rule on bananas, there is a grading system agreed with the major producers, wholesalers, etc, which is good for consumers, but of course the press can make fun of bent bananas so he just keeps repeating yet another lie and then laughing it off when challenged.

However much you want the UK to do it's own thing, you have to have the politicians in place to make it happen in the interests of the whole of the population, not this load of self-interest wasters.

The EU isn't perfect by any means and a strong UK that wants to get involved would be a great foil to the Franco / German alliance. If the UK votes to leave I think taking French citizenship would be preferable to coming back to a even more crowded UK - the previously mentioned vast number of British retirees that will return from Spain, etc, who will flood the NHS and the housing market! Good luck guys, you'll need it.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Posted By: GotanewlifeYou have just demonstrated that Borpin is right - in that you are one of those 'few folk' - quite an education you are providing - thanks.
Ta - but I still dispute Borpin's assertion that it's deliberate obfuscation. As Mike1 puts it so well, the problem is the small quantity and quality of the coverage of EU matters in the UK press.

Posted By: owlmanEmployees of European Commission + Council of Europe secretariat + European Parliament employee = ~36,500 people.
That's for 500 million people in the EU so one â€œEurocratâ€ per 13700 heads. GCHQ has 6100 employees for the UK population of 64 million so one per 10500. I.e., each Briton is supporting a larger fraction of a GCHQ employee than a Eurocrat.

Posted By: Cerisyâ€¦and a strong UK that wants to get involved would be a great foil to the Franco / German alliance.
Exactly. Britain's role should, IMHO, be as a leading member of a bloc of the â€œNorth Seaâ€ countries (Britain, Scandinavia, Ireland, Netherlands) as a counter-weight to France and Germany calling for progress on union but at a much slower pace (generations, not deacdes) and for slower expansion. Provide help to countries wanting to join to come up to the standards where free movement is not counter-productive but don't let/make them join until it really makes sense.
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
You're being free and easy with the numbers Ed, not like you. The EU doesn't have military, security forces, or the thousand other departments that make up the administration in each of the member states, many of whom are directly or indirectly employed scrutinising, and implementing EU policy. Apples and Oranges.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
Apples and oranges maybe, but it highlights just how few people are employed.

There has been a total lack of numbers in the campaigns from both sides.

Just had a look at Cornwall Council number of direct employees. Seems there is 5400 employed (down from 10,500 in 2009/10).
So that is 99 people per direct employee.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Right, but GCHQ is a pretty minor part of the UK's military and security forces so comparing the Eurocracy against it as a portion of the overall overhead of government is at least comparing fruit with fruit, showing that it's a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, a lot of the national government function is scrutinising and implementing EU policy but in most cases there'd be similar national policy anyway. E.g., the famous EU banana classification scheme replaced a whole raft of different national and industry schemes. All that doing it at an EU level does is reduce (not eliminate, of course) the friction caused by different countries having slightly different policies.
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
In 2015 from my research, the EU security budget was about 2.5Bn. With no army or security forces one assumes it goes mainly into close protection and policing of one sort or another.
The UK budget for GCHQ is secret but often thought of as about the same including contingencies.
Now given the wider remit for GCHQ and the very nature of its work and the value and benefits to other member states as well as the UK, vis a vis the relatively low level bouncers and cyber security consultants the EU presumably employs, as against the small percentage of the total EU staff thus employed and have a look at per capita cost, per employee and overall value,...... you do the numbers. Same figures different spin, like I said apples and oranges.
- CommentAuthorSteveZ
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Please excuse the length of this rant.

Way back in the Seventies, we were sold an idea that the Common Market would be a tariff-free no barriers trading area. I confess to not reading all the small print in which the aim of a United States of Europe was lurking. I voted to join - it seemed to be a Good Thing.

I don't care about the banana debate, if there ever was one, I care about someone elected being in charge. At least you have an opportunity to change them. If you watched the recent TV series by Paxman, you might be worried about how and by which body the EU Laws are designed/invented. I want us to leave

If TTIP is ever agreed by the EU, it will be the best scam the USA has ever pulled off. I doubt that the EU will go for it, but you can never be sure, so I want out. Trade agreements with other countries can be conclude far more quickly than the 'remain' campaigners claim. (If I can find the details, I'll edit this post)

I watched in amazement when Greece apparently satisfied the EU rules on GDP and National Debt and was admitted. After realising it was mere political and financial chicanery helped by a well-known American financial company, I thought that we should not be in this particular club any more.

Even if the UK is by any normal accounting method technically bankrupt ie we could not cover our outstanding debts if they were called in, some of the Eu members are in a far worse state. Spain and Italy are sitting there while all the attention is on Greece. Greece could be forgiven its debts as it is apparently only around 2% of the EU GDP, but that would trigger demands from the really big debtors for similar treatment and that would cause a financial meltdown. I don't want the UK to be nearby if/when it happens.

I like the idea of helping poorer countries out of poverty - it stops envy and probably wars/terrorism (depending on size of nation) but trying to make the diverse economies of Europe and now beyond, work with the one currency is and always has been a recipe for disaster. If you can't devalue/revalue your currency, you simply remain in debt and the IMF makes you sell your country's assets to their friends. France keeps the CAP for their farming lobby, the monthly trek to Strasbourg because it can and Germany benefits greatly from being a strong economy in a collection of weaker economies.

Here in Cornwall, we have farmers happy(?) with EU subsidies and fishermen struggling with EU quotas. On balance I would rather help our farmers ourselves and set our own fish quotas. Whether the Government will guarantee that is another question and, I suspect, unlikely to be answered before the vote, but let's just leave!

We need immigration. Our nation has always benefited from immigrants from the Huguenots to the Ugandan Asians and we will need more in the future, but we need to be able to choose who comes here. I am not talking about refugees, who should be given a safe haven, but economic migrants. We already denude poor countries of their trained nurses, which in my view is completely immoral. Yes, they come here willingly, but it leaves a poor country even poorer

This is a once in a generation (or lifetime?) opportunity to correct a mistake made in 1974, so please think seriously about the question posed on June 23rd

Phew- that's better! Now retiring to the bunker to await the incoming flak
- CommentAuthorMike1
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
Posted By: borpinOur parents voted to join a single market. The EU was foisted upon us.

No so, the EEC was founded on the Treaty of Rome - and the very first statement in the treaty is that the signatories are "determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" (http://www.gleichstellung.uni-freiburg.de/dokumente/treaty-of-rome). That's part of what our parents voted for.

Though it's true that the dire state of the British economy may have been the top factor in people's minds, since (as mentioned above) the UK's attempts over the previous decade to save it's dwindling economy outside of the EEC, in the (British designed) EFTA, had been a complete economic failure: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12182032/A-British-free-trade-deal-outside-the-EU-History-shows-thats-easier-said-than-done.html And yet Vote Leave think we could succeed second time around?
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
There are many worldwide nations who would love to trade with us, it's crass scaremongering to state that we cant negotiate on our own, or that we need trade deals to buy goods.
If we've got money we can trade, simple as. The spectre of un-negotiable trade deals that's going to leave us unfed/isolated/adrift is silly.
Cast of the shackles and then if we want to buy a boatload of Argentinian beef or Columbian processed coffee we can do it. We don't need a bl..dy trade deal, we have money they'll sell, and only too happy to do so.
If we are going to get to the bottom of the facts we need to cut through that sort of crap.

In the political rant from Greg Rosen he kind of shoots himself in the foot by quoting the fact of Britain's historic Commonwealth trade which we kind of ditched when we joined.
He then goes on to say that they, the Commonwealth trade partners moved on and have now found new markets,......... but isn't that going to be soo difficult for us,..eh, what's he on about!

Think positive, just imagine we're awash with cheaper, (than the EU), worldwide imports. Think of the beneficial effect on tourism from across the water. Cross channel booze cruises in reverse. Oh I forgot the EU will then impose import duty on their citizens, that'll go down like a lead balloon, I'm sure.
We can swamp them with contraband of every description, that'll put the cat among the bleedin' pigeons.

Seriously, we need to leave in order to effect change, we can't do it from the inside, the cards are stacked against us. Talk of us splitting the EU into differing factions to fight the Franco/German axis is surely against everything this harmonious club stands for.
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Might Europe be a better place if the UK leaves.....?

All articles from Guardian on line.

UK lobbying for even weaker EU air pollution laws, leaked papers ...

Aug 12, 2015 ... Conservative government argues that already watered-down laws to limit toxic pollution that causes tens of thousands of deaths each year will ...

UK lobbies against plan to scrap EU's Dublin regulations | World ...

Jan 20, 2016 ... Unless rule forcing refugees to seek asylum in first safe country of arrival stays, UK may opt out of dispersal mechanism altogether.

Tories lobbying to protect Google's Â£30bn island tax haven ...

Jan 30, 2016 ... Britain has been privately lobbying the EU to remove from an official blacklist the tax haven through which Google funnels billions of pounds of ...

UK, France and Germany lobbied for flawed car emissions tests ...

Sep 24, 2015 ... â€œIt is unacceptable that governments which rightly demand an EU inquiry into the VW's rigging of air pollution tests are simultaneously lobbying ...

UK lobbying to keep open one of Europe's dirtiest coal power stations

Aug 19, 2014 ... Aberthaw, near Barry in south Wales, was named in the top 30 highest carbon- emitting power stations in Europe last month. Photograph: Matt ...

Feb 10, 2016 ... David Cameron has been accused of failing the British steel industry after the government confirmed it was blocking proposals from other EU ...

Nov 3, 2013 ...UK backing bid by fossil fuel firms to kill new EU fracking controls ...

Etc., etc....

I. like many of us UK immigrants to Europe I imagine, will just take up the nationality where we live so in or out won't make much difference to us. We'll travel across seamless borders in the EU as usual and get hassled by UK Border Control as we do now when we come to the UK.

As Ed is pointing out to many of you, knowledge of what the EU brings to the table is woefully absent in the UK media. How many of you for instance know about the political position of the Green Party although you contribute to a Green Buiding Forum?
- CommentAuthorMike1
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Posted By: marktimeMight Europe be a better place if the UK leaves.....?

In many respects, yes. Historically the UK has played a positive role in Europe, backing the widening of the single market, EU enlargement, cutting the size of the CAP and fisheries policy, etc. - but as your stories illustrate, we currently seem to be playing a negative role.

Posted By: marktimeHow many of you for instance know about the political position of the Green Party although you contribute to a Green Buiding Forum?

A very good question.
- CommentAuthorMike1
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
Posted By: owlmanThere are many worldwide nations who would love to trade with us, it's crass scaremongering to state that we cant negotiate on our own, or that we need trade deals to buy goods.

Of course it's possible, they already do trade with us. The question is at what cost, on what terms, and over what timescale can we improve that trade.

Posted By: owlmanIf we've got money we can trade, simple as.

Except that the pound has already dropped on the back of Brexit concerns, and chances are it would drop further if there's a Brexit vote, meaning that we'll have less money to trade than we do now. The cost of imports and inflation will tend to rise, and although the cost of British goods sold overseas will fall, we have a substantial trade deficit, so the overall effect on our economy will be negative.

Of course over time we could try to boost output and sell more overseas; we could already have done that, and we have to some extent - but not enough to get close to closing the trade deficit, even with inward investment from around the world. And if the UK isn't in Europe, foreign businesses are likely to prefer to invest in a country within the EU to access the single market, rather than in the UK (not all of them, of course). We could avoid that by doing a deal to continue to access that market - but again the chances are that would mean a Switzerland / Norway type deal, where we remain subject to EU rules and contribute to the EU, without the influence we currently have. And yes, our economy is bigger than Switzerland / Norway, so maybe we can do a better deal, but it's unlikely be open access for zero cost.
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Nah overstated, trade negotiation, or even membership re-negotiation, could take up to 2 years according to some so it'd be business as usual. Plenty of time to re-adjust, the world's not going to stop because we're not in the EU.
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
Okay, so I live in France and admit I'm biased ... but who would you trust to do the difficult negotiations if the UK left the EU?

No problem we would probably just hire a few thousand new bureaucrats with expertise in all the different trades to do the negotiating for us.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Or gobby PR people more likely.

Now to a serious question to all the people that think we should leave:

Q1 What import taxes should we put on:
a) Food
b) Energy
c) Electrical Products
d) Cars and Trucks
e) Financial and Insurance

Q2 What export duty should we put on:
a) Food
b) Energy
c) Electrical Products
d) Cars and Trucks
e) Financial and Insurance
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016 edited
Posted By: owlmanNah overstated, trade negotiation, or even membership re-negotiation, could take up to 2 years according to some so it'd be business as usual.

Not quite business as usual...

The day we leave the EU our exports to the EU become subject to import duties that the EU already imposes on non EU countries. So yes we can continue to export but some new duties might have to be paid until a new trade deal can be negotiated. I would be surprised if it can be done in two years.

As for imports from the EU to the UK, we would have to enact new legislation to impose any import duties we wanted to try and level the playing field.

This could be a big problem for UK car manufacturing that exports something like 75% of production across the channel. Would Germany and France be in a hurry to remove these new duties given that they also make cars? I think they might prefer to wait for the Japanese to move their factories from the UK to Spain.
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Posted By: Mike1Except that the pound has already dropped on the back of Brexit concerns, and chances are it would drop further if there's a Brexit vote
This irritates me as it simply is not true. The pound has not dropped simply because of BREXIT. Over the last 5 years the pound has seen a low of 1.1, a high of 1.44 and currently at 1.29. Last Nov it was at 1.4 and started to fall *before* the referendum was announced. If you look, it has actually been remarkably steady since the date was announced. In fact it is at the same level as on the 20th Feb. The movement of the pound is simply the Fear v Greed balance of the market traders.
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Posted By: CWattersThe day we leave the EU our exports to the EU become subject to import duties that the EU already imposes on non EU countries.
No it doesn't. There is a 2 year period where the current arrangement stay and negotiations can take place on what to replace them with. More FUD.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
There are a number of reasons for currency fluctuation, one being the Productive Gap.
Quite simply, a 'lazy' Frenchman produces more than we do per unit time, as do most people with similar economies to us.
So when a FOREX trader sees that it will cost more to get something done in the UK, he sells the Â£, if he sees that something can be done cheaper in the UK, he buys Â£s.
Not as clear cut as that, but it is a big part of it.
So with our low productivity in the UK, I fail to see how we can compete for long in a global market without large currency fluctuations.
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Posted By: Mike1And yes, our economy is bigger than Switzerland / Norway, so maybe we can do a better deal, but it's unlikely be open access for zero cost.
But is isn't about zero cost, it is about whether the economy would be better off, over all, in the *long* run. That is the key thing; *long run*.

The EU is not going to impose tariffs as we would simply impose the same tariffs back. So, we import more cars than we export so who loses? The EU firms, so they are not going to want that.

This all reminds me a bit of the Euro arguments in that it was argued that no one in Europe would want to deal with us if we weren't in the single currency. Well that forecast was right wasn't it.....
- CommentAuthorborpin
- CommentTimeMay 22nd 2016
Posted By: SteamyTeaQuite simply, a 'lazy' Frenchman produces more than we do per unit time, as do most people with similar economies to us.
Mmmm, Lies Damm lies and Statistics. Some interesting stuff recently suggesting that part of this conundrum is that we are predominately a service based economy and measuring that output is more difficult. I do actually find this statistic difficult to believe.

61 to 90 of 996



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

Politics: EU:- in or out?