Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Jack Knave on May 14, 2016, 05:14:33 PM
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/rough-justice/
"Within the UK jurisdiction and in other common-law countries we are allowed to do whatever we please, provided only that there is no law that forbids it. On the continent the boot is firmly on the other foot one may do only that which the law expressly permits!........Said quickly, there may not appear to be much difference, but in reality there is a world of difference, accounting not only for the fact that prior to joining the EU we were a truly free people the European Arrest Warrant changed that but, significantly, that common-law countries have, generally speaking, proved to be more inventive, more industrious, more entrepreneurial and more successful than those countries in which the legal system is purposely designed to maintain the supremacy of the State rather than the liberty of its people."
"...let us not forget the immortal words of a former American President, Benjamin Franklin, who, in stark contrast to the current holder of that great office, warned:"
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Time to vote back our freedoms. Vote to Leave!
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/rough-justice/
"Within the UK jurisdiction and in other common-law countries we are allowed to do whatever we please, provided only that there is no law that forbids it. On the continent the boot is firmly on the other foot one may do only that which the law expressly permits!........Said quickly, there may not appear to be much difference, but in reality there is a world of difference, accounting not only for the fact that prior to joining the EU we were a truly free people the European Arrest Warrant changed that but, significantly, that common-law countries have, generally speaking, proved to be more inventive, more industrious, more entrepreneurial and more successful than those countries in which the legal system is purposely designed to maintain the supremacy of the State rather than the liberty of its people."
"...let us not forget the immortal words of a former American President, Benjamin Franklin, who, in stark contrast to the current holder of that great office, warned:"
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Time to vote back our freedoms. Vote to Leave!
That is almost how Isiah Berlin characterised freedom.
"The two concepts are 'negative freedom', or freedom from interference, which Berlin derived from the British tradition, and 'positive freedom', or freedom as self-mastery, which asks not what we are free from, but what we are free to do. Berlin points out that these two different conceptions of liberty can clash with each other." (Wikipedia)
I think that - in its urgency to transmit a message it does not quite understand - UKIP's transliteration is close to caricature.
-
In a nutshell:
"...... in which the legal system is purposely designed to maintain the supremacy of the State rather than the liberty of its people."
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. ~ Vladimir Lenin
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/rough-justice/
"Within the UK jurisdiction and in other common-law countries we are allowed to do whatever we please, provided only that there is no law that forbids it. On the continent the boot is firmly on the other foot one may do only that which the law expressly permits!........Said quickly, there may not appear to be much difference, but in reality there is a world of difference, accounting not only for the fact that prior to joining the EU we were a truly free people the European Arrest Warrant changed that but, significantly, that common-law countries have, generally speaking, proved to be more inventive, more industrious, more entrepreneurial and more successful than those countries in which the legal system is purposely designed to maintain the supremacy of the State rather than the liberty of its people."
"...let us not forget the immortal words of a former American President, Benjamin Franklin, who, in stark contrast to the current holder of that great office, warned:"
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Time to vote back our freedoms. Vote to Leave!
So you would like this country to be a haven for foreign criminals?
-
Like the Costa del Sol used to be for British criminals?
We have plenty of criminals here, home grown. Why do you think some of the 'foreigners' who will come here are criminals? No doubt we have some already, mafia style millionaires who traffic drugs and girls for a start.
It's very alarmist and typically UKRAP to suggest 'we' will become a haven for 'foreign' criminals. What is a foreigner anyway, a fellow European perhaps.
-
So you would like this country to be a haven for foreign criminals?
You what? ::)
How did you come to that conclusion?
-
That is almost how Isiah Berlin characterised freedom.
"The two concepts are 'negative freedom', or freedom from interference, which Berlin derived from the British tradition, and 'positive freedom', or freedom as self-mastery, which asks not what we are free from, but what we are free to do. Berlin points out that these two different conceptions of liberty can clash with each other." (Wikipedia)
I think that - in its urgency to transmit a message it does not quite understand - UKIP's transliteration is close to caricature.
You're going to have to explain yourself as you don't seem to have understood the issue. And you need to explain what the quote is actually addressing - which two concepts? I make no assumptions here about what is vaguely being aired here.
-
In a nutshell:
"...... in which the legal system is purposely designed to maintain the supremacy of the State rather than the liberty of its people."
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. ~ Vladimir Lenin
Not too sure because of your unclear post but you sound like a Leaver....?
That is what the EU is doing, controlling everything (or trying to or that's their plan : Ever-Closer-Union) just as the USSR did.
-
Like the Costa del Sol used to be for British criminals?
We have plenty of criminals here, home grown. Why do you think some of the 'foreigners' who will come here are criminals? No doubt we have some already, mafia style millionaires who traffic drugs and girls for a start.
It's very alarmist and typically UKRAP to suggest 'we' will become a haven for 'foreign' criminals. What is a foreigner anyway, a fellow European perhaps.
A very weighted and bias bit of prose.
It is about self governess and the ability to control our own borders by choosing who we allow in and who we deport. It is a simple concept that even a chimp could understand yet those on the Remain side don't seem to grasp this easy to comprehend idea.
-
Not too sure because of your unclear post but you sound like a Leaver....?
That is what the EU is doing, controlling everything (or trying to or that's their plan : Ever-Closer-Union) just as the USSR did.
Yes, I'm for leaving. We are controlled by the EU, there is no democracy. The EU was devised so the masses could not control government, ever again.... power without accountability. Democracy means we should have the power to remove the people that govern us. They are meant to serve us, not rule us.
-
Yes, I'm for leaving. We are controlled by the EU, there is no democracy. The EU was devised so the masses could not control government, ever again.... power without accountability. Democracy means we should have the power to remove the people that govern us. They are meant to serve us, not rule us.
All well and good - for that to make any sense you have got to completely revise our voting system to truly reflect the wishes of the electorate - otherwise the only outcome of an out vote would be the sustainment of a perpetual Tory govt under the spectacular guidance of Boris, Gove and Farage. There will still be no true democracy if we leave - at least if we stay we will retain some basic protections. Did you see IDS on TV - he can't wait for workers rights to be more 'flexible'.
Yeah, by flexible he means he gets them to bend over and shafts them even more than he does now.
-
The EU MEPs cannot initiate legislation; propose legislation or even the repeal of legislation, all of which comes from the unelected European commission.
At least, every five years we have a chance to vote for a possible change in government.
-
All well and good - for that to make any sense you have got to completely revise our voting system to truly reflect the wishes of the electorate - otherwise the only outcome of an out vote would be the sustainment of a perpetual Tory govt under the spectacular guidance of Boris, Gove and Farage. There will still be no true democracy if we leave - at least if we stay we will retain some basic protections. Did you see IDS on TV - he can't wait for workers rights to be more 'flexible'.
Yeah, by flexible he means he gets them to bend over and shafts them even more than he does now.
Sorry, Trent, if there was an out vote, I think that could be curtains for the Tories. If anything, it would be curtains as far as holding power for the next 20-odd yars, at least, for all but UKIP with a few ex-Labour and ex-Tories.
-
Sorry, Trent, if there was an out vote, I think that could be curtains for the Tories. If anything, it would be curtains as far as holding power for the next 20-odd yars, at least, for all but UKIP with a few ex-Labour and ex-Tories.
So you think if out, UKIP, a single issue part that would have just won would dominate?
-
All well and good - for that to make any sense you have got to completely revise our voting system to truly reflect the wishes of the electorate - otherwise the only outcome of an out vote would be the sustainment of a perpetual Tory govt under the spectacular guidance of Boris, Gove and Farage. There will still be no true democracy if we leave - at least if we stay we will retain some basic protections. Did you see IDS on TV - he can't wait for workers rights to be more 'flexible'.
Yeah, by flexible he means he gets them to bend over and shafts them even more than he does now.
There is the rub I think, you can't convince the electorate to vote the way you want so at let the bureaucrats run the show.
-
There is the rub I think, you can't convince the electorate to vote the way you want so at let the bureaucrats run the show.
I suggest you reread Trent's post and maybe then apologise for the misrepresenting
-
You're going to have to explain yourself as you don't seem to have understood the issue. And you need to explain what the quote is actually addressing - which two concepts? I make no assumptions here about what is vaguely being aired here.
Wrong. I understand the quotation all too well. It is you who lack the understanding.
What UKIP have done is taken one of the best-known statements on the nature of liberty made by any political theorist in the twentieth century and distorted it to fit their vacuous, negative, bankrupt philosophy.
-
There is the rub I think, you can't convince the electorate to vote the way you want so at let the bureaucrats run the show.
To nail my colours to the mast I would much prefer it if the electorate voted for Labour. However I am realistic enough to know that the likelihood of that is slim given Corbyn's leadership and the array of misinformation presented about him generally; added to which he has to deal with the malcontents in his own party. BUT I have for the last 30 years at least, argued that the electoral system needs reforming so that it more clearly reflects the opinions of voters. Many argue that leads to a lack of strong government. Well I could personally do with a bit less strength - because all the current lot seem to do with the strength is to use it to bully their way through everything. So I was not arguing for bureaucrats to run the show - what I was arguing for was that the slim protection afforded for us via the EU should continue - and that allied to the fact that I have not seen any sensible argument that would explain how we won't be worse off financially leads me to the conclusion that we should stay in. To characterise that as wanting to be run by bureaucrats is quite frankly, disingenuous - and I must say worthy of either Boris, Michael or Nigel.
-
Excellent post, Trent.
Well said.
-
The EU MEPs cannot initiate legislation; propose legislation or even the repeal of legislation, all of which comes from the unelected European commission.
At least, every five years we have a chance to vote for a possible change in government.
You are missing the point. We don't currently live in a true democracy. We have got a majority government in power on 37% of the popular vote. This is a an unrepresentative democracy. It's no good arguing that you want sovereignty (which frankly is a mirage in todays globalised economy) returned to the UK if all it gives you is the same old corrupt electoral system - which will never change under the 2 major parties. And the Lib Dems so beloved of Jakswan messed up the only opportunity they had to get some version of PR installed - so in thrall to Cameron was the Cleggster.
-
Dear Trent,
You are missing the point. We don't currently live in a true democracy. We have got a majority government in power on 37% of the popular vote. This is a an unrepresentative democracy. It's no good arguing that you want sovereignty (which frankly is a mirage in todays globalised economy) returned to the UK if all it gives you is the same old corrupt electoral system - which will never change under the 2 major parties. And the Lib Dems so beloved of Jakswan messed up the only opportunity they had to get some version of PR installed - so in thrall to Cameron was the Cleggster.
Hmmm! Probably says more about me and my total dislike of this present Government but this Referendum bullshit, just another distraction from looking at what we should be focusing on, boy those Tories are better than Houdini. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
That the OP quite thinks that there is a single UK legal system all founded on common law is ironic and ignorant.
-
To nail my colours to the mast I would much prefer it if the electorate voted for Labour. However I am realistic enough to know that the likelihood of that is slim given Corbyn's leadership and the array of misinformation presented about him generally; added to which he has to deal with the malcontents in his own party. BUT I have for the last 30 years at least, argued that the electoral system needs reforming so that it more clearly reflects the opinions of voters. Many argue that leads to a lack of strong government. Well I could personally do with a bit less strength - because all the current lot seem to do with the strength is to use it to bully their way through everything. So I was not arguing for bureaucrats to run the show - what I was arguing for was that the slim protection afforded for us via the EU should continue - and that allied to the fact that I have not seen any sensible argument that would explain how we won't be worse off financially leads me to the conclusion that we should stay in. To characterise that as wanting to be run by bureaucrats is quite frankly, disingenuous - and I must say worthy of either Boris, Michael or Nigel.
Agree with you on voting reform. This 'slim protection' what does that mean?
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/rough-justice/
"Within the UK jurisdiction and in other common-law countries we are allowed to do whatever we please, provided only that there is no law that forbids it. On the continent the boot is firmly on the other foot one may do only that which the law expressly permits!"
Well that is obviously complete bollocks. Have you ever been to the Continent?
For example, I can guarantee you that there is nothing in French law that expressly permits you to pick your nose and yet if you do it in Paris, they won't arrest you.
-
Yes, I'm for leaving. We are controlled by the EU, there is no democracy. The EU was devised so the masses could not control government, ever again.... power without accountability. Democracy means we should have the power to remove the people that govern us. They are meant to serve us, not rule us.
"...that government of the people, by the people, for the people,..."
-
All well and good - for that to make any sense you have got to completely revise our voting system to truly reflect the wishes of the electorate - otherwise the only outcome of an out vote would be the sustainment of a perpetual Tory govt under the spectacular guidance of Boris, Gove and Farage. There will still be no true democracy if we leave - at least if we stay we will retain some basic protections. Did you see IDS on TV - he can't wait for workers rights to be more 'flexible'.
Yeah, by flexible he means he gets them to bend over and shafts them even more than he does now.
But the long term plan of the EU is not for those protections it is total rule from Brussels, just as Moscow had total rule over the Soviet Union. The Ever-Closer-Union is for all the power to be centralised in Brussels and who can tell if and when a Stalin type figure will come along in the future and rule like the last Stalin. We are not voting to get the UK out of the EU we are voting to free the European people. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow but for some future generation who will not thank us if we allow them to be born into slavehood.
-
Wrong. I understand the quotation all too well. It is you who lack the understanding.
What UKIP have done is taken one of the best-known statements on the nature of liberty made by any political theorist in the twentieth century and distorted it to fit their vacuous, negative, bankrupt philosophy.
I asked you to explain your position but that explains nothing. All it does is show you up as a wild arm waver, and no doubt a heavily flushed face...
-
To nail my colours to the mast I would much prefer it if the electorate voted for Labour. However I am realistic enough to know that the likelihood of that is slim given Corbyn's leadership and the array of misinformation presented about him generally; added to which he has to deal with the malcontents in his own party. BUT I have for the last 30 years at least, argued that the electoral system needs reforming so that it more clearly reflects the opinions of voters. Many argue that leads to a lack of strong government. Well I could personally do with a bit less strength - because all the current lot seem to do with the strength is to use it to bully their way through everything. So I was not arguing for bureaucrats to run the show - what I was arguing for was that the slim protection afforded for us via the EU should continue - and that allied to the fact that I have not seen any sensible argument that would explain how we won't be worse off financially leads me to the conclusion that we should stay in. To characterise that as wanting to be run by bureaucrats is quite frankly, disingenuous - and I must say worthy of either Boris, Michael or Nigel.
But that is exactly what the EU is about!!!
-
You are missing the point. We don't currently live in a true democracy. We have got a majority government in power on 37% of the popular vote. This is a an unrepresentative democracy. It's no good arguing that you want sovereignty (which frankly is a mirage in todays globalised economy) returned to the UK if all it gives you is the same old corrupt electoral system - which will never change under the 2 major parties. And the Lib Dems so beloved of Jakswan messed up the only opportunity they had to get some version of PR installed - so in thrall to Cameron was the Cleggster.
No one said the system we have is of a superlative standard. But to have unelected and out of reach bureaucrats who run our lives is even worse. At least if we only have the Westminster set-up then we have a chance of changing it and they won't have the EU gravy train to pull them away from focusing on the UK's needs. But all this requires the voters to wake up and see and understand what is going on and so stop voting for the two main parties, like a Ping-Pong game.
-
Well that is obviously complete bollocks. Have you ever been to the Continent?
For example, I can guarantee you that there is nothing in French law that expressly permits you to pick your nose and yet if you do it in Paris, they won't arrest you.
That's the best you're got? ;D
The I've got nothing to worry about!
-
Well I could personally do with a bit less strength - because all the current lot seem to do with the strength is to use it to bully their way through everything.
They're only copying the administrations that have been in power since Harold Wilson, perhaps even the National Government of the 2nd W. W.
-
That's the best you're got? ;D
It's better than any of that effluent you've got.
-
unelected and out of reach bureaucrats who run our lives
Can you list some of the ways in which EU bureaucrats run your life?
-
They made us clean up our beaches so they aren't covered in raw sewage.
The bastards.
-
"...that government of the people, by the people, for the people,..."
Yeah! Just like the United Kingdom and its 412,00 civil servants (not to mention police, miltary, NHS and local government) - self-effacing Humphrey Applebys all ensuring that the will their political masters will prevail. All without any organisational agenda born of the knowledge that their posts are permanent while those of their political masters are only transient and ephemeral.
"Europe" - of course - is real bureaucracy with 55,000 bureaucrats totally dominating the democratic will in 28 countries.
-
Can you list some of the ways in which EU bureaucrats run your life?
The Express informs us that the EU has passed over one hundred laws that have ruined Britain and affected all of us.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/484419/New-EU-laws-ruining-Britain
Like reports like this, although they claim to lay it bare they only cite a couple, one of which seems to involve ferrets ;)
It made me laugh. Was that the best example they could find to drag out?
Ferrets?
They have a "merciless grip" on our ferrets? :o
Papers are funny sometimes.
;D.
-
I asked you to explain your position but that explains nothing. All it does is show you up as a wild arm waver, and no doubt a heavily flushed face...
I apologise.
I am truly sorry.
I asked you to consider a statement by one of the world's leading political philosophers about the nature of liberty that is clearly beyond your limited and constrained intellectual capabilities. I hadn't realised that you have difficulty with tri-syllabic words.
I won't cause you such embarrassment again.
-
Yeah! Just like the United Kingdom and its 412,00 civil servants (not to mention police, miltary, NHS and local government) - self-effacing Humphrey Applebys all ensuring that the will their political masters will prevail. All without any organisational agenda born of the knowledge that their posts are permanent while those of their political masters are only transient and ephemeral.
"Europe" - of course - is real bureaucracy with 55,000 bureaucrats totally dominating the democratic will in 28 countries.
Exactly - classic naive thinking of the Brexiter to see the EU run by bureaucrats and undemocratic while the UK is democratic. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So in the UK - laws are drafted by civil servants, who last time I looked were undemocratically appointed 'bureaucrats'. For a law to be enacted it needs to be approved by the HoC which is democratically elected, albeit I only have a say in 1 in 650 of its members, and by the HoL which is completely undemocratic.
In the EU - laws are drafted by the EU commission, who just like civil servants are undemocratically appointed 'bureaucrats'. For a law to be enacted it needs to be approved by the EU parliament which is democratically elected,and despite covering a far larger area than the UK I have a say in the election of a greater number of its members than the UK parliament. It also has to be approved by the Council of Europe, with is made up of the democratically elected governments of the member states so as democratic as the HoC is, and way more democratic than the HoLs.
So if anything the EU is more democratic than the UK in terms of the laws it passes that affect the people living there.
-
The Express informs us that the EU has passed over one hundred laws that have ruined Britain and affected all of us.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/484419/New-EU-laws-ruining-Britain
Like reports like this, although they claim to lay it bare they only cite a couple, one of which seems to involve ferrets ;)
It made me laugh. Was that the best example they could find to drag out?
Ferrets?
They have a merciless grip on our ferrets? :o
Papers are funny sometimes.
;D.
Jeremy Paxman is doing a programme on BBC1 tomorrow looking at the EU and "sovereignty".
-
Jeremy Paxman is doing a programme on BBC1 tomorrow looking at the EU and "sovereignty".
Ok, perhaps I'll record it :)
Thanks :)
-
I am of the opinion we will regret it if we leave the EU.
-
The Express informs us that the EU has passed over one hundred laws that have ruined Britain and affected all of us.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/484419/New-EU-laws-ruining-Britain
Like reports like this, although they claim to lay it bare they only cite a couple, one of which seems to involve ferrets ;)
It made me laugh. Was that the best example they could find to drag out?
This is why I asked the question of Jack about how he thinks the EU bureaucrats run his life. The only EU legislation I can think of that directly impacts me is the Working Time directive. Bastards, how dare they prevent me from being exploited by my employer. Also, there is, as Rhiannon pointed out, the fact that I have fewer opportunities to swim in sewage. Bastards! Frequently, when I drive my car into pedestrians, they survive because of meddling EU car safety legislation. Bastards!
By the way, there are no EU laws in force in the UK. Every time the EU come up with a new rule, it has to be enacted as British legislation by the British parliament. None of that will disappear in a puff of smoke if we leave the EU, neither will any of the alleged bureaucracy
-
They made us clean up our beaches so they aren't covered in raw sewage.
The bastards.
Didn't we just ignore them?
-
Exactly - classic naive thinking of the Brexiter to see the EU run by bureaucrats and undemocratic while the UK is democratic. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So in the UK - laws are drafted by civil servants, who last time I looked were undemocratically appointed 'bureaucrats'. For a law to be enacted it needs to be approved by the HoC which is democratically elected, albeit I only have a say in 1 in 650 of its members, and by the HoL which is completely undemocratic.
In the EU - laws are drafted by the EU commission, who just like civil servants are undemocratically appointed 'bureaucrats'. For a law to be enacted it needs to be approved by the EU parliament which is democratically elected,and despite covering a far larger area than the UK I have a say in the election of a greater number of its members than the UK parliament. It also has to be approved by the Council of Europe, with is made up of the democratically elected governments of the member states so as democratic as the HoC is, and way more democratic than the HoLs.
So if anything the EU is more democratic than the UK in terms of the laws it passes that affect the people living there.
This is right.
However might be worth pointing out that the EU is run by civil servants because that is the way it was designed by the democratically elected governments and civil servants that created it. Similarly the European Parliament is toothless because those same governments don't want to be usurped by the EU. Could extend this to why so many of the procedures and methods employed by the Commission are so hopelessly bureaucratic, even insane, and their staff (and MEPs) so well rewarded and privileged.
It is certainly a mess, but we wouldn't be in any less of mess out of it.
-
This is right.
However might be worth pointing out that the EU is run by civil servants because that is the way it was designed by the democratically elected governments and civil servants that created it. Similarly the European Parliament is toothless because those same governments don't want to be usurped by the EU. Could extend this to why so many of the procedures and methods employed by the Commission are so hopelessly bureaucratic, even insane, and their staff (and MEPs) so well rewarded and privileged.
It is certainly a mess, but we wouldn't be in any less of mess out of it.
Which translates to it being as democratic as the democratic credibility of the member state governments. And yes you are right the way in which the EU is set up gives the greatest power to the member state governments - so for Brexiters to complain about the EU if decisions we don't like are passed, particularly on issues where unanimity is required is absolute rubbish. The buck stops at the door of the UK government as in these cases they have an absolute veto.
So we keep hearing about the 'dangers' of Turkey joining the EU. Let's set aside whether it is a danger or not and also accept that Turkey joining will impact the UK whether or not we are members of the EU. But the point is that while we remain a member Turkey cannot join without our agreement - if the UK government says no, even if all other 27 countries say yes, then Turkey doesn't join. The ability to stop Turkey joining rests entirely with the UK government - so if Turkey does join it will mean that the UK government has agree and that's where complaints should be laid, at the UK government, not at the EU. To blame the EU for a decision that rests with the UK government is a smokescreen.
Of course if we leave the EU we will no longer be able to block Turkey joining although their membership will impact on us.
-
Can you list some of the ways in which EU bureaucrats run your life?
When you say 'your life' do you mean personally or Britain i.e. directly or indirectly due to their effects?
-
I apologise.
I am truly sorry.
I asked you to consider a statement by one of the world's leading political philosophers about the nature of liberty that is clearly beyond your limited and constrained intellectual capabilities. I hadn't realised that you have difficulty with tri-syllabic words.
I won't cause you such embarrassment again.
You seem to think that an explosive rant is a cogent explanation or request. The idea is that you put forward your proposed angle on things in a clear fashion and then I respond to the details you have aired. Farting madly doesn't count as a considered proposition to the argument and discourse.
-
Exactly - classic naive thinking of the Brexiter to see the EU run by bureaucrats and undemocratic while the UK is democratic. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So in the UK - laws are drafted by civil servants, who last time I looked were undemocratically appointed 'bureaucrats'. For a law to be enacted it needs to be approved by the HoC which is democratically elected, albeit I only have a say in 1 in 650 of its members, and by the HoL which is completely undemocratic.
In the EU - laws are drafted by the EU commission, who just like civil servants are undemocratically appointed 'bureaucrats'. For a law to be enacted it needs to be approved by the EU parliament which is democratically elected,and despite covering a far larger area than the UK I have a say in the election of a greater number of its members than the UK parliament. It also has to be approved by the Council of Europe, with is made up of the democratically elected governments of the member states so as democratic as the HoC is, and way more democratic than the HoLs.
So if anything the EU is more democratic than the UK in terms of the laws it passes that affect the people living there.
Well, that comparison is bollocks and spin.
As for the bit about the UK they are all in the pocket of Brussels, hence why it hasn't a hope in hell of becoming even remotely democratic.
-
By the way, there are no EU laws in force in the UK. Every time the EU come up with a new rule, it has to be enacted as British legislation by the British parliament. None of that will disappear in a puff of smoke if we leave the EU, neither will any of the alleged bureaucracy
Reading from your Annual Book of Crap are we? Where do you get your rubbish from?
-
Which translates to it being as democratic as the democratic credibility of the member state governments. And yes you are right the way in which the EU is set up gives the greatest power to the member state governments - so for Brexiters to complain about the EU if decisions we don't like are passed, particularly on issues where unanimity is required is absolute rubbish. The buck stops at the door of the UK government as in these cases they have an absolute veto.
So we keep hearing about the 'dangers' of Turkey joining the EU. Let's set aside whether it is a danger or not and also accept that Turkey joining will impact the UK whether or not we are members of the EU. But the point is that while we remain a member Turkey cannot join without our agreement - if the UK government says no, even if all other 27 countries say yes, then Turkey doesn't join. The ability to stop Turkey joining rests entirely with the UK government - so if Turkey does join it will mean that the UK government has agree and that's where complaints should be laid, at the UK government, not at the EU. To blame the EU for a decision that rests with the UK government is a smokescreen.
Of course if we leave the EU we will no longer be able to block Turkey joining although their membership will impact on us.
This is crap because all those who work for the EU are being bought off by the EU and so will do what Brussels wants. In effect we have no British people in the EU system because they are all EU-philes; EUers. You can only have one master!!! any others you may have you will despise.
-
You can only have one master!!
Too true - Roger Delgado all the way.
BTW do you need a tissue for that froth at the corners of your mouth.
-
Too true - Roger Delgado all the way.
BTW do you need a tissue for that froth at the corners of your mouth.
Ooh! Yes he was my favourite Master too.
He was brilliant! 😀
-
This is crap because all those who work for the EU are being bought off by the EU and so will do what Brussels wants. In effect we have no British people in the EU system because they are all EU-philes; EUers. You can only have one master!!! any others you may have you will despise.
But the people you are talking about are the UK government - they can veto Turkey joining the EU.
If you don't like the way the UK government decides these matters then campaign for a different government and get them voted in by the great British public - it is called democracy. But it seems that the public have no great appetite for people standing for the UK government who are europhobes.
You cannot have it both ways - you cannot want decisions made by the UK government elected by the UK people and then complain about decisions made by the UK government elected by the UK people.
-
But the people you are talking about are the UK government - they can veto Turkey joining the EU.
If you don't like the way the UK government decides these matters then campaign for a different government and get them voted in by the great British public - it is called democracy. But it seems that the public have no great appetite for people standing for the UK government who are europhobes.
You cannot have it both ways - you cannot want decisions made by the UK government elected by the UK people and then complain about decisions made by the UK government elected by the UK people.
All this assumes that the people consider all the options and policies, which they don't. They just look at what they are going to get and the overall economic feel good lies they get fed and that's basically it. The fact is they are lied to and when they find this out there will be riots. The system is rotten and so it seems reasonable to want it to be changed.
If it is a Leave vote will you shut up and accept the democratic decision?
-
When you say 'your life' do you mean personally or Britain i.e. directly or indirectly due to their effects?
I mean your life directly.
Or your life indirectly, but only if you can provide a concrete link.
-
If it is a Leave vote will you shut up and accept the democratic decision?
I won't have a lot of choice will I - but I'd be deeply concerned and I'd certainly be pushing for the government that is in charge of the negotiations to opt for as near to what we currently have in terms of free trade and labour in our settlement with the EU. So I'd certainly hope (and push for) us to join the EEA.
Will you accept the democratic will of the people if we vote to stay and accept that to be the settled decision for the foreseeable future?
-
Reading from your Annual Book of Crap are we? Where do you get your rubbish from?
No. That is the way the mechanics of European laws work. The Working Time Directive, for example, holds force in this country because the government enacted a British law to uphold the provisions of the EU directive.
Did you not already know that? Do you realise it sounds as though you are arguing from a position of total ignorance?
-
I mean your life directly.
Or your life indirectly, but only if you can provide a concrete link.
A concrete link? Hold on I'll get the Polish labourer to make one up for me!
Arh, yes, immigration - free movement. Not allowing us to deport criminals as we wish or stop them from entering this country. Telling us how much VAT we should put on things...
The issue isn't about how it affects me directly, I'm not selfish like that, it is about my country and my culture.
-
Trent, I hear what you are saying in replies, 10, 12 and 17. There is a case for remaining in or leaving the EU, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Most posters on this forum (I think) are around or over 40 years of age. We have to think about what the future holds for our children and grandchildren and while globalisation grows the globalists gain power.
Jack explains very well in the post below what that can lead to.
But the long term plan of the EU is not for those protections it is total rule from Brussels, just as Moscow had total rule over the Soviet Union. The Ever-Closer-Union is for all the power to be centralised in Brussels and who can tell if and when a Stalin type figure will come along in the future and rule like the last Stalin. We are not voting to get the UK out of the EU we are voting to free the European people. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow but for some future generation who will not thank us if we allow them to be born into slavehood.
Look at the background of the EU, it was formed by the Bilderberg group. If you do some research you will find much secrecy surrounding their activities.
-
SP, were it not that group, it would have been another. There are many semi-secret organisations in our world, if we left the EU another group would be involved (or even the same, time changes perspectives). It's good to be aware of them and I think many are oblivious of the NWO etc, or don't believe there is such a place as Bohemian Grove, but we can only do what we think is right for us and our neighbours, at the time.
I want to stay in the EU but if the majority of people want to leave, so be it. We're fortunate to live in a country where we can vote on such things. I daresay my life will go on much the same, younger people can change the status quo in the future if they aren't happy with it.
-
Bohemian grove, sounds like time for a new thread :)
-
Well done Rose! :D
Now, what's next? The New World Order or perhaps, the Illuminati.
-
SP, were it not that group, it would have been another. There are many semi-secret organisations in our world, if we left the EU another group would be involved (or even the same, time changes perspectives). It's good to be aware of them and I think many are oblivious of the NWO etc, or don't believe there is such a place as Bohemian Grove, but we can only do what we think is right for us and our neighbours, at the time.
I want to stay in the EU but if the majority of people want to leave, so be it. We're fortunate to live in a country where we can vote on such things. I daresay my life will go on much the same, younger people can change the status quo in the future if they aren't happy with it.
Brownie, I don't know how you've got away with mentioning the NWO, a couple of hours ago, without someone stepping in and calling you a conspiracy theorist. It's quite funny.
Yes, there are many secret societies around the world, but the thing is they are all working together and have been for almost 500 years, but they are not interested in the welfare of the common man.
I'd recommend 'Pawns in the Game' (which we all are) by William Guy Carr. Written in the 50s, Carr gives a very detailed history on the foundations of the NWO going back to the English and French Revolution. He shows how the banksters/bankensteins, through the House of Rothschild, gained their wealth and grew in power with an aim to ultimately control all governments.
-
Dear Sweetpea,
Secret societies that are not so secret, G8 summits,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/3777557.stm
Maybe old Jack Knave has a point :o world dominance :o WOOOHAHA :P
Gonnagle.
-
Mmm 'bankensteins' Rothschilds, synagogue of Satan,no, not anti-Semitic at all.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Guy_Carr
-
Well, as a Christian, I can see the link to 'Synagogue of Satan'.
I can only say, to read the book yourself.... Wiki is always biased.
Regards me referring to 'Bankensteins' to me it's a reference to 'frankenstein'. And it is as it is, the Rothschilds are behind the banks.
-
Well, as a Christian, I can see the link to 'Synagogue of Satan'.
I can only say, to read the book yourself.... Wiki is always biased.
Regards me referring to 'Bankensteins' to me it's a reference to 'frankenstein'. And it is as it is, the Rothschilds are behind the banks.
And the anti Semitism continues.
-
Nearly, I am not anti-Semetic.
If the 'Smiths' or 'Browns' or 'Jones's' were behind the banks, what would you call me then.
It doesn't matter who it is.... it's about finding out what's really going-on. And you're not going to find that out in mainstream media, because they are controlled.
-
Nearly, I am not anti-Semetic.
If the 'Smiths' or 'Browns' or 'Jones's' were behind the banks, what would you call me then.
It doesn't matter who it is.... it's about finding out what's really going-on. And you're not going to find that out in mainstream media, because they are controlled.
Said the anti-Semite use the buzz name 'Stein' linked to Rothschild.
-
Others very probably see it like that, but for me it means 'a monster' as Franken-stein is portrayed.
Btw: how come you never hear someone shout... "anti-Christian". Christians have seen their fare share of genocide throughout history... right up to present day.
-
Others very probably see it like that, but for me it means 'a monster' as Franken-stein is portrayed.
Btw: how come you never hear someone shout... "anti-Christian". Christians have seen their fare share of genocide throughout history... right up to present day.
I have as regards Saudi, I suggest you stop trying to distract from your antisemitism
-
A concrete link? Hold on I'll get the Polish labourer to make one up for me!
Have you lot a job to a Polish labourer then? If not, that doesn't count. It's things that have affected you personally that I am looking for.
Arh, yes, immigration - free movement. Not allowing us to deport criminals as we wish or stop them from entering this country.
How has that affected you personally?
Telling us how much VAT we should put on things...
Which things have you bought that have a VAT rate set by the EU?
The issue isn't about how it affects me directly,
Yes it is. It's about the fact that, for all the bluster you really don't understand what the EU's impact is. You have no idea how it affects you, how can you be sure of its effect on anybody else?
I'm not selfish like that, it is about my country and my culture.
Yes you are. You want to plunge Britain int what will be at best a period of instability and uncertainty in order to assuage your fear of foreigners. That's selfish.
-
Jeremy Paxman is doing a programme on BBC1 tomorrow looking at the EU and "sovereignty".
Well, that's an hour of my life I shall never get back. I learned nothing from the programme which was studiously following the middle course and revealing nothing.
At the end end it was revealed to be overlong publicity for the Open University.
-
Telling us how much VAT we should put on things...
Tell me something that you buy where you are certain that the rate of VAT would be different were we not in the EU.
You do know that VAT rates are markedly different in the various EU countries and the level of VAT is determined by member state governments not the EU. So, for example, the rate is 20% in the UK, whereas in Luxemburg it is 17% and in Sweden it is 25%.
And even in the UK VAT rates have changed regularly over the past few years under the control of the UK government, so in 2008 it was 15%, it rose to 17.5% in 2010 and to 20% in 2011. Those changes were entirely down to the UK government, and nothing to do with the EU.
There are also massively different lists in each country of items reduced rates of VAT - in all other EU member states nothing is 0% rated, but as you are probably aware the UK has a long list of 0% rates items from children's clothes to books to most food. Again all decided by the relevant member state, not the EU.
-
Have you lot a job to a Polish labourer then? If not, that doesn't count. It's things that have affected you personally that I am looking for.
How has that affected you personally?
Which things have you bought that have a VAT rate set by the EU?
Yes it is. It's about the fact that, for all the bluster you really don't understand what the EU's impact is. You have no idea how it affects you, how can you be sure of its effect on anybody else?
Yes you are. You want to plunge Britain int what will be at best a period of instability and uncertainty in order to assuage your fear of foreigners. That's selfish.
The personal issue isn't here nor there!
A minimum VAT is set on everything by Brussels.
Your argument is weak. It is the effect on the country as a whole that concerns me.
As for your last comment that is pure guesswork. And you are also guessing as to how I see and feel about these things. You are the one who wants the UK to sink with the EU ship. The EU is cracking up - do your homework and open your eyes - it is a dysfunctional and undemocratic institution run by the venal and greedy Elites.
-
Tell me something that you buy where you are certain that the rate of VAT would be different were we not in the EU.
You do know that VAT rates are markedly different in the various EU countries and the level of VAT is determined by member state governments not the EU. So, for example, the rate is 20% in the UK, whereas in Luxemburg it is 17% and in Sweden it is 25%.
And even in the UK VAT rates have changed regularly over the past few years under the control of the UK government, so in 2008 it was 15%, it rose to 17.5% in 2010 and to 20% in 2011. Those changes were entirely down to the UK government, and nothing to do with the EU.
There are also massively different lists in each country of items reduced rates of VAT - in all other EU member states nothing is 0% rated, but as you are probably aware the UK has a long list of 0% rates items from children's clothes to books to most food. Again all decided by the relevant member state, not the EU.
VAT was brought in by the EU to create a more level playing field. All items have a minimum rate. If individual members want to apply higher rates than the minimum then they can.
-
The personal issue isn't here nor there!
Yes it is. The point is to demonstrate to you that the EU hate that you have bought in to is for the most part a myth.
A minimum VAT is set on everything by Brussels.
What is that minimum rate?
How do you explain that some of our goods and services are exempt from VAT?
Who set our VAT rate? Was it the EU or the UK government?
It is the effect on the country as a whole that concerns me.
But you don't know what that effect is. You don't know how the EU has affected you, how can you know how it has affected anybody else?
it is a dysfunctional and undemocratic institution run by the venal and greedy Elites.
Ironically, many people would claim that description applies to our government.
-
Yes it is. The point is to demonstrate to you that the EU hate that you have bought in to is for the most part a myth.
What an amateur! Is this your best argument?
What is that minimum rate?
How do you explain that some of our goods and services are exempt from VAT?
Who set our VAT rate? Was it the EU or the UK government?
The minimum rate is set by the EU. It could be zero for some items.
But you don't know what that effect is. You don't know how the EU has affected you, how can you know how it has affected anybody else?
I've been following the activity of the EU for about a decade now. Yes it's boring shit but it had to be done. The fundamental issue is one of democracy for the UK and the lack of in the case of the EU. All other issues are periphery or secondary factors.
It doesn't matter whether we vote to stay or leave the EU is cracking up. Look at the elections in Austria!!! And these kind of things are bubbling away in many other member states.
Ironically, many people would claim that description applies to our government.
Here we agree and once we are out the EU the next fight will be to deal with this - it ain't gonna be pretty...
-
The minimum rate is set by the EU. It could be zero for some items.
Wrong - the minimum is set by the government of the member states - hence for the UK it is zero, but for all other EU countries it is greater than zero.
And I don't think there is a maximum - so effectively the EU 'allows' member states to set their levels of VAT anywhere between zero and infinity. Hmm and apparently that somehow equates to the EU telling us what to do.
So you can have 0% on some items, 5% on others and 20% on others (as is the case for the UK), you could have 6%, 12% and 21% (as is the case in Belgium). You can even have more rates if you want - so Ireland has 4.8%, 9%, 13.5% and 23%.
You can also decide which items are in which category - so we charge 20% (the highest rate) on cinema tickets, while it is a reduced rate of 13% in Austria.
As far as I can see there is no EU control of VAT rates between countries - neither in theory nor in practice.
Where there are regulations at EU level it to control the way in which the different VAT levels between countries are managed when there is cross border trade - so, for example if a company buy a widget from portugal (with a certain VAT level) uses it in the manufacture of a product which is then sold in the UK (with a different level of VAT) or even in Portugal (where the level of VAT charged on the product might be different from the original widget). This is all very sensible and provides fairness while reducing bureaucracy.
-
What an amateur! Is this your best argument?
Given that you have, yet again, reported to insult, we can deduce it's too good for you.
The minimum rate is set by the EU. It could be zero for some items.
Can you cite any occasion where the British government has had a problem with the EU minimum rate i.e. where the government has ever wanted to set a lower rate than the EU allows?
It doesn't matter whether we vote to stay or leave the EU is cracking up. Look at the elections in Austria!!! And these kind of things are bubbling away in many other member states.
What, the one where the far right candidate failed to get elected?
-
Wrong - the minimum is set by the government of the member states - hence for the UK it is zero, but for all other EU countries it is greater than zero.
And I don't think there is a maximum - so effectively the EU 'allows' member states to set their levels of VAT anywhere between zero and infinity. Hmm and apparently that somehow equates to the EU telling us what to do.
So you can have 0% on some items, 5% on others and 20% on others (as is the case for the UK), you could have 6%, 12% and 21% (as is the case in Belgium). You can even have more rates if you want - so Ireland has 4.8%, 9%, 13.5% and 23%.
You can also decide which items are in which category - so we charge 20% (the highest rate) on cinema tickets, while it is a reduced rate of 13% in Austria.
As far as I can see there is no EU control of VAT rates between countries - neither in theory nor in practice.
Where there are regulations at EU level it to control the way in which the different VAT levels between countries are managed when there is cross border trade - so, for example if a company buy a widget from portugal (with a certain VAT level) uses it in the manufacture of a product which is then sold in the UK (with a different level of VAT) or even in Portugal (where the level of VAT charged on the product might be different from the original widget). This is all very sensible and provides fairness while reducing bureaucracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax
The aim of the EU VAT directive (Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax) is to harmonize VAT within the EU VAT area, and specifies that VAT rates must be within a certain range.[2] It has several basic purposes:[citation needed]
- harmonisation of VAT law (content)
- harmonisation of content and layout of the VAT declaration
- regulation of accounting, providing a common legal accounting framework
- detailed description of invoices (article 226) and receipts (article 226b), meaning that member states have a common invoice framework
- regulation of accounts payable
- regulation of accounts receivable
- standard definition of national accountancy and administrative terms
------------------------------
The zero rate is not featured in the EU Sixth Directive as it was intended that the minimum VAT rate throughout Europe would be 5%. However, zero-rating remains in some member states, most notably the UK and Ireland, as a legacy of pre-EU legislation.
-------------------------------
A small proportion goes to the European Union in the form of a levy ("VAT-based own resources").
-
Given that you have, yet again, reported to insult, we can deduce it's too good for you.
Your arguments are so kindergarten-ish that all they are worth are derision. Educate yourself and then get back to me.
Can you cite any occasion where the British government has had a problem with the EU minimum rate i.e. where the government has ever wanted to set a lower rate than the EU allows?
That points to one of my main points in all this that the UK governments over the decades have been pro-EU and so never kicked up a fuss about it, else we would have been offered a referendum years ago. In fact Labour said they would give us a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and never did. The Tories did a similar thing. When not in power they act as though they want to deal with the EU, because they know the people aren't happy with it, but once in power they fudge it.
What, the one where the far right candidate failed to get elected?
Failed? He missed it by a cat's whisker. That country is divided down the middle and it will show its ugly head in the near future. The migrant crisis will cause a huge amount of problems. And similar splits are occurring right across the EU. ;D
What about France and its strikes. About 25% of its petrol stations have no fuel and it is coming to a stand still. If the labour law goes through there will be total outrage and if it doesn't then the EZ's deficit rule will start to falter and the Euro take a downward plunge. Belgium also has strike problems about the labour/working rules.
https://euobserver.com/tickers/133535
Turkey's parliament will block a deal with the EU on migrants if Turks do not gain visa-free access to the bloc, president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned. "Turkey is not asking for favours what we want is honesty," he said at the end of the World Humanitarian Summit.
----------------------------
https://euobserver.com/tickers/133537
Workers at all of France's eight oil refineries walked out on strike over new labour laws on Tuesday, leaving roughly 20% of petrol stations low on supply or completely out of fuel. In Brussels, 60,000 workers marched in protest at plans to raise working hours and the age of retirement.
----------------------------
https://euobserver.com/tickers/133534
German development minister Gerd Mueller wants 10% of the EU budget spent on solving the refugee crisis. A special commissioner should be appointed to lead a combined European refugee strategy, he told the Guardian in the margins of the world humanitarian summit in Istanbul.
---This could cause a huge amount of backlash at these times of austerity in the EU. It could mean a larger EU budget so members have to pay in more and we could lose our rebate (called an abatement), which we will soon lose if we vote to stay in. Plus the plans to enforce migrant quotas on member states very much in the vein of the USSR!!!---
https://euobserver.com/tickers/133543
The future participation of the International Monetary Fund in the Greek bailout is not 100 percent sure despite Monday's agreement on debt relief, Eurogroup president Jeroen Dijsselbloem said on Tuesday. The IMF's board will decide later this year after an assessment of the Greek debt sustainability.
---This'll make the shit hit the fan!!! Where will the EU get sufficient funds to give the Greeks another bailout? From the members states who are bankrupt themselves? And though we are not in the EZ they'll somehow make us pay by a round about underhand way!!!---
The EU is looking goood!!! ;D
-
and specifies that VAT rates must be within a certain range.
So lets actually cut to the chase here, what actually is that range.
The EU does not set a maximum rate, so theoretically and member state can set an upper level of anything they like.
The EU also allows a reduced rate of 0%.
So the EU is restricting VAT level set by member states to between 0% and infinity.
Yup, the EU really is restricting us.
Numpty.
-
The zero rate is not featured in the EU Sixth Directive as it was intended that the minimum VAT rate throughout Europe would be 5%. However, zero-rating remains in some member states, most notably the UK and Ireland, as a legacy of pre-EU legislation.
Wait! We have been able to ignore an EU directive? I thought the problem was supposed to be we couldn't do that.
-
Your arguments are so kindergarten-isa
Insults noted. You really do have nothing.
That points to one of my main points in all this that the UK governments over the decades have been pro-EU and so never kicked up a fuss about it, else we would have been offered a referendum years ago.
We were offered a referendum years ago. We voted to stay in what was then called the EEC.
The migrant crisis will cause a huge amount of problems.
Only because of unjustified xenophobia.
What about France and its strikes. About 25% of its petrol stations have no fuel and it is coming to a stand still.
Nothing to do with the EU as I've already pointed out, but then this is your MO isn't it: get all frothy at the mouth about some issue that either has no relevance to the EU or won't go away just because we leave.
-
So lets actually cut to the chase here, what actually is that range.
The EU does not set a maximum rate, so theoretically and member state can set an upper level of anything they like.
The EU also allows a reduced rate of 0%.
So the EU is restricting VAT level set by member states to between 0% and infinity.
Yup, the EU really is restricting us.
Numpty.
Read the Wiki link. Except for a few exceptions, due to historical circumstances, the minimum rate is 5%, and could be higher for some items. However, if members states wish to charge more than the minimum then they can.
-
Except for a few exceptions, due to historical circumstances, the minimum rate is 5%,
Right, so the UK can charge between 0% and infinity as Prof D said.
Such a strait jacket, how do we survive.
Are you so naive to think that, if we leave the EU, VAT will be abolished?
Are you so naive to think that, any trade agreement between us and the EU will not contain a clause which says we have to abide by their VAT rules - except that, since it is a new agreement, all our exemptions will go out of the window.
-
Wait! We have been able to ignore an EU directive? I thought the problem was supposed to be we couldn't do that.
Read the Wiki link. You know very well that because the EU has evolved in bits as members joined at different times when different rules were mandatory, and so prior to those mandatory rules some members had acquired opt-outs, this explains your stupid comment. We have an opt-out of the Euro which as I have said else where is one of the pillars of the EU's wet dream.
This was one of the questions during the Scots referendum that if they left the UK and joined the EU would they just carry on from where the UK was related to the EU or would they have to join afresh with all the mandatory rules that apply to a new applicant.
-
1) Insults noted. You really do have nothing.
2) We were offered a referendum years ago. We voted to stay in what was then called the EEC.
3) Only because of unjustified xenophobia.
4) Nothing to do with the EU as I've already pointed out, but then this is your MO isn't it: get all frothy at the mouth about some issue that either has no relevance to the EU or won't go away just because we leave.
1) Only because you leave me with an open goal by your stupid comments. You are like a dog that barks regardless even when I've shown you that you are wrong.
2) That was 40 odd years ago, you idiot - oh dear another open goal. Since then the EU has had two major changes - Maastricht and Lisbon. At no point were the UK people asked if they approved to such a major change to their lives. If it wasn't such a big deal then why the bust up in the Tory party over Maastricht?
3) A totally unjustified comment with no substance or teeth.
4) Like everything else of yours pure assertion and no grounding in reality.
-
Right, so the UK can charge between 0% and infinity as Prof D said.
Such a strait jacket, how do we survive.
Are you so naive to think that, if we leave the EU, VAT will be abolished?
Are you so naive to think that, any trade agreement between us and the EU will not contain a clause which says we have to abide by their VAT rules - except that, since it is a new agreement, all our exemptions will go out of the window.
It is not 0% on all items. Recently the tampon VAT just to highlight that they are not all 0%. Energy as well.
If we leave it will be in our control, our choice, that's the point!
As for your last point any trade with any country, or whatever, comes with conditions that each partner will insist on. That's how things work. The EU can't afford to not trade with us. It is stagnate, its share of global GDP is going down yearly, companies like BMW etc. won't tolerate the arrogant twats in Brussels having a fit and a strop, and without our membership fee there will be large cracks as the finances of the EU and stretched to breaking point. ;D
-
But the long term plan of the EU is not for those protections it is total rule from Brussels, just as Moscow had total rule over the Soviet Union. The Ever-Closer-Union is for all the power to be centralised in Brussels and who can tell if and when a Stalin type figure will come along in the future and rule like the last Stalin. We are not voting to get the UK out of the EU we are voting to free the European people. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow but for some future generation who will not thank us if we allow them to be born into slavehood.
Or, Hitler type ruler where all who do not toe the line are killed. Where disabled people and those whose colour or religion does not fit are removed....
It isn't much different to the Tower of Babel idea or the Hitler with the perfect race.
It is a frightening prospect what the reality could turn out to be... and some thing house prices and expensive holidays are a social threat... Whodathunkit... :(
-
Read the Wiki link. You know very well that because the EU has evolved in bits as members joined at different times when different rules were mandatory, and so prior to those mandatory rules some members had acquired opt-outs, this explains your stupid comment. We have an opt-out of the Euro which as I have said else where is one of the pillars of the EU's wet dream.
This was one of the questions during the Scots referendum that if they left the UK and joined the EU would they just carry on from where the UK was related to the EU or would they have to join afresh with all the mandatory rules that apply to a new applicant.
So you admit we have exemptions from the EU base rate. I fail to see what you are complaining about. It seems we have full control over VAT excepting that we can't reduce the rate for non exempt things below 5%, but UK VAT has never been as low as 5%
-
2) That was 40 odd years ago, you idiot - oh dear another open goal. Since then the EU has had two major changes - Maastricht and Lisbon. At no point were the UK people asked if they approved to such a major change to their lives. If it wasn't such a big deal then why the bust up in the Tory party over Maastricht?
You asserted we had never been offered a referendum. We have.
3) A totally unjustified comment with no substance or teeth.
You seem to be getting worked up about it nonetheless.
4) Like everything else of yours pure assertion and no grounding in reality.
The labour laws that the French government are seeking to change have nothing to do with the EU. It's that simple. You can bluster about it all you like but you are wrong. This is an example of the dishonest tactics lies you have been using all along.
-
So you admit we have exemptions from the EU base rate. I fail to see what you are complaining about. It seems we have full control over VAT excepting that we can't reduce the rate for non exempt things below 5%, but UK VAT has never been as low as 5%
But you can - there are all sorts of examples in the EU of countries that have VAT rates above zero but below 5%. Countries include Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy.
If you look across the EU member states you will find VAT as low as 0%, as high as 27% and virtually every level in between. So much for the EU dictating to its member states on VAT rates.
-
So you admit we have exemptions from the EU base rate. I fail to see what you are complaining about. It seems we have full control over VAT excepting that we can't reduce the rate for non exempt things below 5%, but UK VAT has never been as low as 5%
What are you arguing about you are wrong and have lost the argument. We don't have control over our VAT rates and may lose what we do have in the future.
The Leave campaign have today stated that they would like to remove VAT from our energy bills but they can't because of the EU. If a party in an election campaign wants to abolish VAT and put this in their manifesto they can't because of the EU.
You've lost the argument but if you want to keep digging that hole then do so, it's where you belong - 6 feet under...
Oh yes, and what was all that fuss about the tampon VAT?
-
You asserted we had never been offered a referendum. We have.
You seem to be getting worked up about it nonetheless.
The labour laws that the French government are seeking to change have nothing to do with the EU. It's that simple. You can bluster about it all you like but you are wrong. This is an example of the dishonest tactics lies you have been using all along.
You're now just lying and blustering...
-
What are you arguing about you are wrong and have lost the argument. We don't have control over our VAT rates and may lose what we do have in the future.
Before we carry on with this argument, answer these questions:
Who set the initial VAT rate of 10% in 1973? Was it the EEC or the British government?
Who reduced the standard VAT rate to 8% in 1974? Was it the EEC or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 15% in 1979? Was it the EEC or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 17.5% in 1991? Was it the EU or the British government?
Who reduced the standard VAT rate to 15% in 2008? Was it the EU or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 17.5% in 2009? Was it the EU or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 20% in 2010? Was it the EU or the British government?
-
It is quite astonishing how much the (very much disputed) figure of £350m is going to fund should we exit the EU.
Its going to the farmers, the NHS, scientific research and now its going to help us fund a cut in VAT.
Methinks wishful thinking, (or as I like to think of it , lies) rather than a sound grasp of economics or even basic Maths, is at play here.
-
It is quite astonishing how much the (very much disputed) figure of £350m is going to fund should we exit the EU.
Its going to the farmers, the NHS, scientific research and now its going to help us fund a cut in VAT.
Methinks wishful thinking, (or as I like to think of it , lies) rather than a sound grasp of economics or even basic Maths, is at play here.
Fantasy economics and magic money tree spending plans.
-
Before we carry on with this argument, answer these questions:
Who set the initial VAT rate of 10% in 1973? Was it the EEC or the British government?
Who reduced the standard VAT rate to 8% in 1974? Was it the EEC or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 15% in 1979? Was it the EEC or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 17.5% in 1991? Was it the EU or the British government?
Who reduced the standard VAT rate to 15% in 2008? Was it the EU or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 17.5% in 2009? Was it the EU or the British government?
Who increased the standard VAT rate to 20% in 2010? Was it the EU or the British government?
::) Disingenuous to the very end. I've explained all this.
-
::) Disingenuous to the very end. I've explained all this.
No it isn't - it is fact - the EU has never controlled VAT rates in the UK and doesn't dictate VAT rate in any member state which is why there is complete variability in the rates and what they apply to in different member states.
-
::) Disingenuous to the very end. I've explained all this.
What do you mean disingenuous? That post was a set of questions, not a statement. All you had to do was answer them, but since you are incapable of appraising the subject honestly, you have made fatuous allegations instead.
Answer the questions.
-
Guys, I have answered the question. The EU sets a lower limit on various items, that limit being different depending on the item or service in question. There are exceptions but that is due to how the EU has historically evolved. All new members have to keep to the desired lower limit requirements but members are free to apply higher VAT values than these lower limits if they so wish.
If this is not true what was all that about the tampon VAT?