Off Topic Political Debate

I think they will bend over backwards to offer a deal. The French are saying what the cost would be if the UK left.

 

They would also be concerned if it raised more anti-EU sentiment at home I would imagine

 

There is a lot of it already Leo, but generally they want it to change rather than leave it.

 

George Osborne met Rupert Murdoch twice in June, days before the Treasury foisted a controversial funding deal on the BBC in which the broadcaster was told it would have to pay the £700m cost of funding TV licences for the over-75s.

The chancellor also met senior News Corp executives and editors four more times after the general election on 7 May before informing the BBC about the proposed funding settlement officially on 3 July. It was publicly announced three days later.

The records published by the Treasury do not give a precise date for the Murdoch meetings other than to say they were in June, and their purpose is described as “general discussion”.

Details about the funding settlement first emerged in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times on 5 July in an article headlined “Osborne hits BBC to pay welfare bill”. It quoted senior government sources saying a deal was close following meetings over the previous week between Osborne, the BBC director general, Tony Hall, and representatives from the Departments for Work and Pensions and Culture, Media and Sport.

As well as his meetings with Murdoch, the chancellor also had lunch with News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson on 31 May, and met the then Sun editor, David Dinsmore, the following month.

Murdoch’s News Corp owns the Sun, Times and Sunday Times through its subsidiary News UK.

During the same period between the election and the funding deal, Osborne also met BBC executives twice, once with Hall and on another occasion with the head of news, James Harding.

Murdoch’s name appears earlier in the list than Hall’s, suggesting the chancellor met the News Corp mogul before sitting down with Hall to lay out his plans.

The records also list a June meeting with the Sun, the Times and the Daily Mail, and another with the Sunday Times, although who represented the newspapers is not stated.

The only other newspapers Osborne met between the election and the public announcement of the BBC funding deal were the Financial Times and the New York Times, according to the disclosure.

Osborne is understood to have been the driving force behind the BBC settlement, which critics say should have been exposed to greater scrutiny from parliament and the public. It was instead announced as an agreed settlement on 6 July, with the BBC told it could increase the £145.50 licence fee by inflation if the broadcaster’s scale and scope remained unchanged.

Following the settlement, the chancellor wasasked by then shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant to reveal whether he had met Murdoch in the runup to the deal, arguing there was significant public interest in early publication of meetings given the potential benefits to News Corp from a weakened BBC.

The records, which run up until the end of September, also list subsequent meetings with the Telegraph chief executive, Murdoch MacLennan, the Guardian editor, Katharine Viner, and unnamed representatives from the London Evening Standard, as well as additional meetings with the Financial Times and Murdoch.

The chancellor also had dinner with both Murdoch and Thomson on 13 September, and the following evening dined with Aidan Barclay, who manages the Telegraph as part of the UK business of his father and uncle, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay.

Murdoch’s close relationship with the Conservative government was thrown into sharp relief during the phone-hacking scandal, when he told a Commons select committee hearing that he entered Downing Street by the back door to meet David Cameron and celebrate the 2010 general election result to avoid photographers. He also enjoyed similar access to Gordon Brown, he said.

Cameron also met Dinsmore in June, as well as John Witherow, the editor of the Times, and the BBC’s Harding, similar records reveal. He has since met Thomson and Dinsmore, this time accompanied by the newspaper’s political editor Tom Newton Dunn. He has also met Viner and the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland and Patrick Wintour, as well as Hall in September.

The culture secretary, John Whittingdale, whose brief incorporates both newspapers and broadcasting, only held one meeting with senior representatives from the newspaper industry between the election and licence fee settlement, dining with weekday and weekend editors of the Mirror, Peter Willis and Alison Phillips, on 10 June.

It was not until more than four months after the election that he met representatives from News Corp newspapers, having breakfast with Dinsmore on 22 September and lunch with Witherow the following day.

However, in June Whittingdale met unnamed representatives from Sky, which is 39% owned by News Corp, and his special adviser, Mimi Macejkova, met the Sky chief executive, Jeremy Darroch.

That month, Whittingdale also met the ITV chief executive, Adam Crozier, and its chairman, Archie Norman, as well as their counterparts at Channel 4, David Abraham and Lord Burns.

On Tuesday, analysis of ministerial meetings showed that Osborne met Murdoch three times for the year until May. In total, News Corp executives met ministers 18 times over the year.

 

Cameron's negotiations have a real seasonal flavour. It is pure pantomime with a sprinkling of Oliver Twist begging his masters for next to nothing. The current UK demands have been watered down so much they will make very little difference even if he achieves his aims then proclaims a 'fantastic deal for the UK'

The minimum he should be asking for is a guarantee that the UK parliament is sovereign over any proposals coming from Brussels. He should also demand that the UK can exercise full control of its borders. Thirdly we need to loosen the relationship so it more resembles the free trade area which we originally signed up for.

I think my mind is already made up.

 

Even a year ago I could not have imagined I might vote to leave the EU - but now I am really undecided. Almost the only thing making me hesitate is some of the people who want out - do I want to align with them?

 

I wonder who will be leading UKIP by the time of the vote. Seems that efforts are being made to move Farage on.

 

Farage was always a Tory puppet .Entertaining , but a Tory . Ukip set up to take away a significant part of the Labour vote . Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool !

 

I think otherwise - and am not a fool. There are such things as having different thoughts and opinions without insulting people with different opinions.

 

I'm a fool then. I believe UKIP was a setup by a deranged ultra right egotist nothing to do with being tory and I would not vote for him even given the choice of Farage and Stalin!

 

Ooooh! I think you probably would - especially if you were on the inside of a gulag.

 

Farage represented the eurosceptic wing of the Tory party - I do not think any Tory leader has had any truck with him since. I would guess he has taken votes from both Labour and the Tories as he appeals to people who dislike immigration and they seem to be spread across both those parties.

 

One aspect which has not as yet come into the EU. in or out debate is the amount of areas of the UK. designated by the European Commision as qualifying for European State Aid - ie. economically disadvantaged places which benefit from additional support for development. Assisted areas include Cornwall and many parts of Wales in catagory 'a', which is the highest catagory, the next highest being category 'c', which includes Ulster, parts of North East England, Merseyside and the ex mining areas of South Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Notts. All of these areas are in receipt of European money. Will the UK. government step in with some kind of economic rebalancing of this in the event of withdrawal from the EU ? Just one of many other questions which the 'leave Europe' camp cannot answer - others include the question of whether the Americans will be interested in the UK. outside of the EU. and also the conditions of future trading with the EU. which Britain, despite protestations to the contrary, could no longer influence.

 

There is so much hoo haa about the cost of being in the EU (someone the other day said it is £55m per day) but I have no idea where they got that figure. In the event we did leave then I guess it would be possible to replace EU subsidies with UK subsidies and still have money over - but I would need to research that to have a better understanding. I am sure the leave EU camp would argue exactly that though so can answer - but who knows if they are correct?
Outside the EU the Americans will of course continue to trade as much as they can - and given we can set our own trade barriers in that case then it should get better not worse.
I think the question that is harder to address is how many international companies will want to move their headquarters to be within the EU - not an easy question to answer but you have to assume that some will want to move from the UK.

 

Nowt wrong in being a fool , there are loads of us out there .
Some would say any thoughts re football and politics are wasted time/ effort ... but it keeps the likes of you and I mildly entertained .

 

That's the thing that gets me about the whole EU debate. Many posters on here can provide facts and figures to support almost argument they make (I offer no comment about the origin of some of them...). Bizarrely it doesn't really follow for this case as some of the key figures being discussed are not available. That in itself is a concern I would say.

 

I don't think anybody disagrees that the UK is, and has always been, a net contributor. I'm not sure the main issue is financial but the speed in which the EU is morphing into something which most people dislike and of course immigration.

 

Britain is indeed a net contributor - the 3rd highest after Germany and France and just ahead of Italy. The other contibutors are the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark. I am very disappointed that immigration is considered such an important issue. Firstly because the majority of immigrants to Britain are not from the EU. Secondly because the European segment of Britain's immigrant population is smaller than people think, pays at least as much into the system as it takes out, and also is counterbalanced by a British ex pat. population in Europe which is nearly as big. Thirdly because all of the prospective refugees waiting in Calais would be there even if Britain was not in the EU. So, why should immigration be the main issue ? When you say you do not like what the EU. is morphing into then I would say that most people in Europe feel the same - would it not be better to join with them and take it back into the hands of the people ? People often do not know where the laws that effect them come from - and there are so many layers of government that passing the buck is always possible ie. for civil servants to say 'not our fault this comes from Brussels' whether it does or not. In contrast to national governments the EU. has no direct medium of communication with the people of Europe.

 

I would be happier with being part of a European "superstate" if I thought that state listened to its people. But I don't - it seems to be run by overpaid, unresponsive bureaucrats with an agenda that suits only themselves. I am not sure anyone in Europe has much liking for it's proto-government

 

From my perspective the migration becomes an issue if the EU Shenghen area allows what is effectively uncontrolled immigration which will in a couple of years convert into millions of extra EU passport holders that we will not have any control over entering into the UK and doing whatever they wish. Most of these would if they came across be contributors but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. If even 0.1% were extremists in say 5 million migrants that would amount to 1000 likely terrorists. That is probably a best case scenario and the reality would be the destabilization of minority communities to the detriment of society as a whole. Either the EU listens to it's people and the valid concerns of both majority and minority traditional communities or it suffers the consequences and ends up disintegrating and/or more internal strife.