CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Far from being a bad thing foreign investment into the UK is actualy a crucial component of our relative economic success. For example official statics show that in 2014-15 alone some 100,000 jobs were either created, or a least secured, by Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the UK. The record also shows that not only are we highly successful in attracting this type of investment, but we are in fact the number one destination for foreign investment into the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-wins-a-record-number-of-investment-projects-and-maintains-position-as-top-investment-destination-in-europe So if you want to sell stuff in the EU Single Market area then the evidence is that the world sees the UK as a pretty good place to 'set up shop' as it were. Yet another reason methinks why leaving the EU would imperil our future prosperity.

Well we could replace the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with a UK equivalent I suppose and we already have a long established 'Judical Review' system. But is it not desirable that a international organisation exists that can protect the Human Rights of a individual against the overwhelming power of the state? If we withdrew from the ECHR then might that not 'send a message' to some more oppressive regimes than ours that would be highly undesirable from a wider Human Rights perspective? In any case this has nothing to do with the EU question. As a matter of fact Teresa May from the 'Remain' camp wants us to leave the ECHR while the Justice Secretery Michael Grove rejects that notion.

Many of the measures introduced into our law by the EU are technical matters few could sensibly object to. For example, if we didn't have a Common Fisheries Policy that applied throughout the EU then the UK would surely need to bring in its own version or else fish stocks would soon became exhausted. But fish are of course notorious for not taking very much notice of territorial boundaries and a dozen different national fishery policies would be utterly chaotic. Yes the UK is in effect sharing its soverengthy with other nations. But we do so not out of charity but because international cooperation often leads to a better outcome for all. Indeed, if the EU did not already exist then we'd probably need to invent it.

Well I see on the news today that the '£350m' number is there 'bold as brass' (as my old dad would have said) on the side of Boris Johnson's so-called battle bus. So your man is going into battle armed with a lie then.

So basically you are conceding that you choose to believe everything the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage tell you, while anything that does not fit into that picture is dismissed out of hand as enemy propaganda. Has it ever occured to you that BOTH sides here can be quite 'economical with the truth' when it suites them to be? As it happens that '£350m' number was comprehensively demolished by Andrew Neil on his programme weeks ago.

So we see yet another on here revert to the usual 'leave' campaign tactic of attempting to discredit any evidence that does not happen to fit into their preconcieved version of reality. If the numbers are wrong then show the forum why they are wrong.

Your numbers would appear to be in question: http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/

Nearly half of all UK exports still go to the EU Single Market area. Nearly 7 out of 10 of our larger (i.e. over 250 employees) businesses favour that we remain in the EU.

Equating the noton of a 'EU Army' with some sinister German attempt to recreat the WWII Wehrmacht and blitzkrieg Poland again is high order paranoia. Whatismore, this is a real threat to my status as this forum's leading Godwin offender! I might also ask how we would possibly stop such a development if we left the EU? Divorce yourself from the baggage of history - if you can - and think about the issue on its merits, then it probably does make a good deal of sense that in the light of Vladimir Putin's current behaviour the EU28 should coordinate their individual defence efforts better. It seems to me that 28 different European nations each attempting to fund their own little army, air force and (sometimes) a navy must be grossly inefficient. For example, if perhaps Germany diverted resources away from their (quite large) navy and towards their army - and the UK did the reverse of that - then Europe might field a more capable set of armed forces overall. We should all do more methinks to help modernise the Polish army as this force is effectivly our front line in the east now. If it is still felt that Europe needs a nuclear deterrant then combining the current independent UK and Frence forces might save a vast amount of money for both nations. Indeed, a widespread policy of common EU military equipment and bulk purchasing would I believe greatly increase the effectiveness and decrease the cost of our joint European defence if that could be agreed. Furthermore, we have here in Europe assumed for too long that the US will in effect provide for our defence - how many on here know that the US Army has virtually withdrawn from Europe now? The real problems with the idea are establishing a effective command and control arrangement for this force that takes into account different national sensibilities and that doesn't needlessly duplicate what NATO already provides. Additionally, some EU nation states will still need to maintain what we might call a 'full spectrum' of independent military capabilities because they can foresee national requirements occurring that have nothing to do with the EU or NATO - our 1982 Falkland War comes to mind here. The many 'vested interests' of those who profit from our current military isolationism would also prove to be highly problematic to overcome one suspects. However, all these points are of course entirely moot, from a UK perspective, as your government has firmly rejected the notion and (to the best of my knowledge) no mechanism exists in EU law that could possibly force us into taking part against our will.

A strong Europe that speaks with a single voice and one that can meaningfully contribute towards its own defence is a good thing on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is it not? Furthermore, the notion that a distinguished group of US National Security Advisors etc would be interested in somehow undermining NATO strikes me as odd to put it mildly.

I read that in a letter published in 'The Times' today some 13 former US Scretaries of State and National Security Advisers have written to express their collective view that the UK's influence in the world would be much reduced were we to leave the EU. It is worth noting I think not only the obvious seniority of these people, but fact that they come from BOTH sides of the political debate in the US.

Unfortunetly it is in the nature of things that tragedy is often required to overcome inertia and complacency - the reform process initiated in the wake of Hillsborough by the Taylor Report mirrors closely how civil aviation has over time become the relativly safe business it now is. If only the rest of the establishment reaction to this event had been as honest and unbiased as Lord Tayor's was then a lot of Human suffering could have be avoided. It is surely only right that the many errors and injustices committed on and after that terrible day in Sheffield are now widely acknowledged - indeed I hope that there is a special place in hell reserved for the bastard who told that poor grieving mother that she couldn't hold her dead son's body one last time becaue he was now quote "property of the coroner". But the real monument to the Hillsborough 96 is not the verdict of history or any court, but rather the safe all seater stadia we now see in our game. The matchday experience we football fans enjoy today is a far better one that what it once was I think - so it may be that the 96 did not die entirly in vain.

I can only recommend that anyone interested in this tragedy should make sure that they watch Daniel Gordon's sombre, but quite brilliant, 'Hillsborough' documentary shown on BBC 2 yesterday - indeed I think that EVERY football fan should watch this. In particular, the key role that Professor Phil Scraton has played in exposing the truth of what happened on that terrible day, and therefore obtaining at least a mesure of (horribly delayed) justice for the many victims is beyond praiseworthy. NEVER AGAIN.

• There is no suggestion of the UK ever being forced to join some so called 'EU Army' if it did not wish to do so. • New nations seeking to join the EU are subject to veto power from any existing member state. • The UK gains far more from its single market access than it makes in (net) contributions to the budget. • Around half of all net immigration into the UK is from OUTSIDE of the EU. Our economy relies on migrant labour. • The House building issue is a problem that long predates our EU membership. • The European Commission has confirmed that health services are not included in the (unsigned) TTIP. • Fishing quotas are required to maintain fish stocks. • The European Commission is appointed by the elected governments of member states. MEP's are directly elected. • The UK is already part of the largest tariff free international market in the world.

Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII - by Robert Hutchinson. The story of England's most famous - and indeed infamous - monarch, from his childhood up to the birth of his second daughter by his second queen - Elizabeth and Anne Boleyn of course. The story is a well known one as the cast of familar Tudor charectors are trotted out to play their parts in what is in many ways a unfolding tragedy. Aged just 17 when his father died, the young Henry was then far from the monster he was to become. So the question is what happened to him? This book is a meticulously reaserched history that I found easy enough to read for sure. But for all the author's effort and learning it left me feeling that I understood Henry little better after I had finished reading it. Nevertheless, if Tudor history is not so familiar a subject to you then this book is well worth seeking out.

I think you will find that the EU Commission's 'Mandatory Infanticide (2013) Regulation was blocked when France vetoed the proposal on the grounds that they sounded too Jewish.

I myself favour that the MOD spends all that it can on procuring the very latest military equipment and ensuring that we still have enough trained personnel to do the job. But 'each to his own' I suppose.

So we agree then that moving out of Faslane and Rosyth would involve the MOD in considerable expense and is therefore undesirable - however indifferent one person on here is to the prospect.

If one base can accomodate all these nuclear boats then why do we now use two sites? You tell me. Again the real point here is the expense involved in moving out of Scotland.

As you know any SSBN found in Devonport will be unarmed, in refit and therefore not operational. The real 'base' for our nuclear deterrent force is in Scotland rather than Devon. The record shows that I have never claimed that moving UK nuclear facilities out of Scotland would be impossible. I do say however that this problem would surely be a expensive, difficult and time consuming matter. That is the point here. As for potential overcrowding, we now have some 19 old decommisioned nuclear submarines still in existance - with more coming as new boats are completed - and a operational fleet of a further 11 boats. I'm not sure that Devonport could easily accomdate that number of hulls without further difficulty and investment.

Always a sure sign methinks that when you see people resorting to the pettiness of critcising spelling mistakes, rather than attempting to address the issue at hand properly, then you know that they are losing the argument. As for my replies not being comprehensive enough I can only appolgise for this oversight. It is rather difficult however to reply to a large number of different matters in a single post without it starting to resemble a small book! So if you would kindly highlight which particular example of "Brussels meddling" has got you so hot under the collar this morning then I'd be more than happy to address the point - is it the outrage of the new digital tachograph regulations? In the meantime perhaps you would comment on this latest evidence to emerge showing that leaving the EU would be highly disadvantageous to UK science. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/07/uk-life-sciences-health-wealth-would-benefit-from-staying-in-eu Or is this something else that doesn't much bother you?

Any SSBN to be found in Devonport would surely be in the refit facility rather than at a operational berth. Furthermore, Devonport is most certainly NOT at all equipped and licensed to handel Trident D5 missiles and their associated thermonuclear warheads - you obviously know that fact of the matter but failed to mention it for some reason. Preliminary research shows that moving UK nuclear facilities out of Scotland might cost £20bn (or more) and take over a decade to realise. Furthermore, if UK armed forces were to have to move out of Scotland alltogether where do you propose we relocate the decommissioned (but still radioactive) RN nuclear submsrines currently located in Rosyth? Devonport is going to get a bit crowded is it not - which is perhaps why a potential alternative base at Milford Haven was also under consideration. Again, there are good reasons I think why we chose (back in the 1960's) to base our SSBN force well away from a heavily populated area.

You tell me - is reconstructing the Faslane and Coulport nuclear facilities in (or around) a densly populated city of over 250,000 people going to be a straightforward business? Is it even a good idea anyway? I take it you have been to Faslane - that base is set in its relativly rural and isolated location for a reason is it not?

Yeah, in my experience the English people can become enraged whenever someone plans to put it a loft extension in next door. So one suspects that in reality constructing a substantial new nuclear weapon facility in and around the city of Plymouth may just had been just a tad contraversial ..

They asked everyone did they?