BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Coopster the 1st wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:There is a good case to be made for involving Parliament in determining the negotiating position to adopt, as the referendum result is no help here, so there is an obvious role for MPs to play here, though I can see why TM et al don't want MPs to get involved until there is a formal offer.
I can see no case for involving parliament in determining the negotiating position. All that does is weaken the UK's side of the negotiation. Those negotiating on the UK's behalf will be negotiating the best deal for the UK, I don't see what discussing that in parliament and weakening our position can add to that.
And there can be a vote by MP's on what has been negotiated but it seems a pointless vote. It will be to either accept the negotiated deal or reject it and go for the 'hard brexit' option so we already know the way the vote will go.
Not sure that we have a negotiating position anyway so it doesn't really matter. If you'd been following things the EU 27 are united. No FoM, no concessions. ''Twas ever thus.
There are 27 of them, in order to get a concession we need them all to agree.0 -
Rolf F wrote:Presumably you are equally angry about the £350m NHS funding lies from the Brexit camp? Any intelligent voter, on either side of the argument (I assume that there were some intelligent Brexiters) would have been as contemptuous of the implication that A50 would be implemented the day after the vote as they would have been about the £350m. By making these comments, you are as guilty of dishonesty about the consequences of Brexit as the spin doctors who came up with this crap (on both sides) in the first place.
At least Stevo 666 makes an effort.
I am not angry about the £350m NHS funding as I was not misled by this, although I know we pay a huge amount every week into the EU budget, and never based my vote on extra money being made available to the NHS. The only people who still bring up the £350m figure are remoaners.
Many on the remain side were misled by the treasury forecasts as still proved in recent weeks by the posts made on this thread. They still believe this information as well! :roll:0 -
Joelsim wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:There is a good case to be made for involving Parliament in determining the negotiating position to adopt, as the referendum result is no help here, so there is an obvious role for MPs to play here, though I can see why TM et al don't want MPs to get involved until there is a formal offer.
I can see no case for involving parliament in determining the negotiating position. All that does is weaken the UK's side of the negotiation. Those negotiating on the UK's behalf will be negotiating the best deal for the UK, I don't see what discussing that in parliament and weakening our position can add to that.
And there can be a vote by MP's on what has been negotiated but it seems a pointless vote. It will be to either accept the negotiated deal or reject it and go for the 'hard brexit' option so we already know the way the vote will go.
Not sure that we have a negotiating position anyway so it doesn't really matter. If you'd been following things the EU 27 are united. No FoM, no concessions. ''Twas ever thus.
There are 27 of them, in order to get a concession we need them all to agree.
With your myopic view, you would never see a negotiating position. Thankfully for the rest of us you are only responsible for feeding cats0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:There is a good case to be made for involving Parliament in determining the negotiating position to adopt, as the referendum result is no help here, so there is an obvious role for MPs to play here, though I can see why TM et al don't want MPs to get involved until there is a formal offer.
I can see no case for involving parliament in determining the negotiating position. All that does is weaken the UK's side of the negotiation. Those negotiating on the UK's behalf will be negotiating the best deal for the UK, I don't see what discussing that in parliament and weakening our position can add to that.
And there can be a vote by MP's on what has been negotiated but it seems a pointless vote. It will be to either accept the negotiated deal or reject it and go for the 'hard brexit' option so we already know the way the vote will go.
Not sure that we have a negotiating position anyway so it doesn't really matter. If you'd been following things the EU 27 are united. No FoM, no concessions. ''Twas ever thus.
There are 27 of them, in order to get a concession we need them all to agree.
With your myopic view, you would never see a negotiating position. Thankfully for the rest of us you are only responsible for feeding cats
Merely reporting what I see. Since I gave up my well-paid job as an Adman for work/life balance reasons, I have much more time to follow every development in this sorry saga. It appears The Telegraph are now suggesting a new Brexit campaign is needed as the scrutiny and opinion is strengthening against it in the corridors of power and the media.
And to be honest I'd rather be me than someone who's wilfully trying to screw hundreds of thousands of families up. At least the cats will get fed.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Catch 22. 59% of people don't want to leave the single market, and that's now. That will increase over the next few months as the realisation reaches the distant outposts of the intelligence scale.
So, to invoke A50 when the only feasible option is a hard Brexit as the EU simply aren't going to move on FoM, goes against the will of the people.
Well this brings me back to why I think MPs were collectively muppets when passing the referendum bill with seemingly no concerns. They've allowed the all too predictable situation to arise whereby we have opinions polls telling us what the people want in general and a referendum vote with a specific view on a single issue.
Opinion polls have failed to accurately predict the outcome of the last general election and the referendum itself, so as a measure of the will of the people, they can easily be dismissed. The only hard data is that more voted to leave than to stay. It's difficult to know how to deal with those who - and there must be some, if 59% want to stay in the single market - voted to leave whilst wanting something (staying in the single market) that was not likely to be possible and very clearly highlighted as being at risk.
Our MPs failed us very badly during the "debate" on the referendum bill by allowing this situation to arise unopposed. If they'd fought Cameron tooth and nail to change the format of the referendum I'd have some sympathy, but they were "asleep at the wheel" and aren't getting the flack the deserve, in my view.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Catch 22. 59% of people don't want to leave the single market, and that's now. That will increase over the next few months as the realisation reaches the distant outposts of the intelligence scale.
So, to invoke A50 when the only feasible option is a hard Brexit as the EU simply aren't going to move on FoM, goes against the will of the people.
Well this brings me back to why I think MPs were collectively muppets when passing the referendum bill with seemingly no concerns. They've allowed the all too predictable situation to arise whereby we have opinions polls telling us what the people want in general and a referendum vote with a specific view on a single issue.
Opinion polls have failed to accurately predict the outcome of the last general election and the referendum itself, so as a measure of the will of the people, they can easily be dismissed. The only hard data is that more voted to leave than to stay. It's difficult to know how to deal with those who - and there must be some, if 59% want to stay in the single market - voted to leave whilst wanting something (staying in the single market) that was not likely to be possible and very clearly highlighted as being at risk.
Our MPs failed us very badly during the "debate" on the referendum bill by allowing this situation to arise unopposed. If they'd fought Cameron tooth and nail to change the format of the referendum I'd have some sympathy, but they were "asleep at the wheel" and aren't getting the flack the deserve, in my view.
I agree, they did fail in that.
Putting the lunatics in charge since may we'll be the best thing that could've happened. They have worried a large swath of the population.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:With your myopic view, you would never see a negotiating position. Thankfully for the rest of us you are only responsible for feeding cats
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'll take that as a compliment RolfRolf F wrote:At least Stevo 666 makes an effort.
And just to clarify, I voted to remain - a decision made on balance. So in the interests of balance, I thought it was worth mentioning some of the upsides of BREXIT (as I see them anyway)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Come on JS, don't be shy. I like a good debate on tax.Stevo 666 wrote:
So you can quantify it and I am guessing you might even struggle to properly define it, unless you care to prove me wrong.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.Joelsim wrote:Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.
Because this is absolutely what's needed to stop the Googles of this world from taking the p!ss. To try to label that as a negative is disingenuous.
Maybe you could start by explaining how a EU common tax base will stop a US headquartered multinational that operates globally and in many non EU jurisdictions. I'd be interested to know because maybe I'm missing something.
The common consolidated tax base provisions are just another step in the EU efforts of 'ever closer integration' I.e. part of the political project rather than a true anti avoidance measure."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Come on JS, don't be shy. I like a good debate on tax.Stevo 666 wrote:
So you can quantify it and I am guessing you might even struggle to properly define it, unless you care to prove me wrong.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.Joelsim wrote:Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.
Because this is absolutely what's needed to stop the Googles of this world from taking the p!ss. To try to label that as a negative is disingenuous.
Maybe you could start by explaining how a EU common tax base will stop a US headquartered multinational that operates globally and in many non EU jurisdictions. I'd be interested to know because maybe I'm missing something.
The common consolidated tax base provisions are just another step in the EU efforts of 'ever closer integration' I.e. part of the political project rather than a true anti avoidance measure.
That's the reason for this tax proposal Steve, and it should stop the likes of Ireland taking a tiny tax income (albeit not tiny for them) and everyone else losing out. Clearly it is extremely difficult to do this in isolation, but as a union...0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
OK, here are a few off the top of my head:mamba80 wrote:
so anyway, fire away with a few meaningful advantages to brexit and i m not talking solar panels or staycations lol!
- Weaker sterling makes exports more competitive, esp services where the cost base is largely UK/Sterling
- No financial transaction tax levied on the City
- No being drawn into a common European taxation system. Contrary to what you thought above, this is going ahead:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/common-consolidated-corporate-tax-base-ccctb_en
- Less likelihood that the UK population will rise to unacceptable levels in the long term (See my posts from quite a few pages back).
-Ability to take in people with skills we need and not just anyone regardless of whether they have a criminal record.
- Opportunities to cut our own trade deals with other large and emerging economies outside of the EU.
- More freedom to become the low tax, flexible labour market economy that attracts business.
I can probably think of a few others.
weaker sterling benefits some at the expense of others, depends where raw materials are sourced and fuel costs, of which oil is in the $ - we ve had low rates before and it has nt led to an export boom.. see below as to why. See my comments on the particular applicability of this point to services exports which is a large part of our economy and exports - particularly if it is sustained
eu wide taxation needs agreement from ALL members, according to the FT. It does but the EU does these things slowly, bit by bit to reduce the amount of kicking and screaming. A clever tactic. In case you weren't aware, VAT is a European tax so we already have it on the indirect tax side
Population? hammond says he wants a flexible policy for hi skilled workers, no barriers, when asked about no skilled workers, such as agri he had no answer.... how many eu criminals are in the UK ? and if we are no longer in europol, how would we know who has a crim record? we can t even tell the difference between a 14yo and a 24yo lol! our borders are very porous, because we ve no longer the staff or the will to police them. What's the issue with flexibility for skilled workers? Same as Aus, NZ and Canada. you yourself moaned about immigration levels a while ago IIRC.
the tories removed the immigration fund to help effected areas with extra school and health services, money well saved!
People forget that all the issues about schools, housing and nhs services were alive and kicking long before the expansion of the EU. So having no control over numbers from the EU will help that how, exactly?
if we sell and manufacture quality goods (which we dont) then non eu countries will trade with us, so Apple sells plenty of Iphones in the Eu and BMW sell cars all over the world, no trade deals required.
we already have an ever decreasing business tax regime, soon to be 17% how much lower? the issue is lack of investment in services, skills and innovation, though i do agree that hiring people, esp for the self employed, is difficult and has led to the rise of the self employed, who shouldnt be and cash work. As I've explained before the corporate tax regime is not quite a 'loss leader' but it does attract corporate investment and activity which yields more tax in terms of NIC, VAT etc - as the numbers quoted earlier show. I've quoted my own real life example on this before as well. On employment, it is ironic that countries with some of the strongest employee protection are also those with the highest unemployment - e.g. Italy and France. When it is very hard to reorganise or shed labour in hard times, business is reluctant to create jobs in those countries in the first place. E.g. france where foreign inward investment has declined by over 75%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/10609141/Foreign-investment-in-France-slips-to-27-year-low.html
anyhow, we got opt outs and veto's one of which is ever closer union........"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If they stop Ireland from doing that (which the Irish government is opposing obviously), it will simply go elsewhere outside of the EU. There is a certain degree of US style mentality here, imagining that everything that matters is in the EU. I have worked in a few Global multinationals so am well aware of what happens in these cases - and how.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Come on JS, don't be shy. I like a good debate on tax.Stevo 666 wrote:
So you can quantify it and I am guessing you might even struggle to properly define it, unless you care to prove me wrong.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.Joelsim wrote:Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.
Because this is absolutely what's needed to stop the Googles of this world from taking the p!ss. To try to label that as a negative is disingenuous.
Maybe you could start by explaining how a EU common tax base will stop a US headquartered multinational that operates globally and in many non EU jurisdictions. I'd be interested to know because maybe I'm missing something.
The common consolidated tax base provisions are just another step in the EU efforts of 'ever closer integration' I.e. part of the political project rather than a true anti avoidance measure.
That's the reason for this tax proposal Steve, and it should stop the likes of Ireland taking a tiny tax income (albeit not tiny for them) and everyone else losing out. Clearly it is extremely difficult to do this in isolation, but as a union...
In the case of Ireland though, I can see their point - the Irish govt is happy, the taxpayer is happy. It's not the EU's business as long as there are sovereign states.
The problem lies with other countries who are not sufficiently competitive on the tax front to attract foreign investment. This is why high tax countries like France and Germany are so keen to stop it by other means - just 'tilting the table' for their own national interest rather than for some higher EU good. It's easier than trying to compete fair and square..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
If they stop Ireland from doing that (which the Irish government is opposing obviously), it will simply go elsewhere outside of the EU. There is a certain degree of US style mentality here, imagining that everything that matters is in the EU. I have worked in a few Global multinationals so am well aware of what happens in these cases - and how.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Come on JS, don't be shy. I like a good debate on tax.Stevo 666 wrote:
So you can quantify it and I am guessing you might even struggle to properly define it, unless you care to prove me wrong.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.Joelsim wrote:Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.
Because this is absolutely what's needed to stop the Googles of this world from taking the p!ss. To try to label that as a negative is disingenuous.
Maybe you could start by explaining how a EU common tax base will stop a US headquartered multinational that operates globally and in many non EU jurisdictions. I'd be interested to know because maybe I'm missing something.
The common consolidated tax base provisions are just another step in the EU efforts of 'ever closer integration' I.e. part of the political project rather than a true anti avoidance measure.
That's the reason for this tax proposal Steve, and it should stop the likes of Ireland taking a tiny tax income (albeit not tiny for them) and everyone else losing out. Clearly it is extremely difficult to do this in isolation, but as a union...
In the case of Ireland though, I can see their point - the Irish govt is happy, the taxpayer is happy. It's not the EU's business as long as there are sovereign states.
The problem lies with other countries who are not sufficiently competitive on the tax front to attract foreign investment. This is why high tax countries like France and Germany are so keen to stop it by other means - just 'tilting the table' for their own national interest rather than for some higher EU good. It's easier than trying to compete fair and square...
Unfortunately the taxpayer is very unhappy. That's why this move has come about and rightly so. If the corps try to take on the EU they will fail, that isn't the case if they try to take on one country alone.
Regarding competing fair and square, I know because I've tried to compete against Amazon and due to their taxation, size, power and methods they often price headphones below what it cost me to buy them in. No doubt at this point you'll say it's all in the consumer's interests, but using what is effectively taxpayer money to annihilate competition isn't my idea of competing fair and square.
Btw interest rates held.0 -
The Irish clearly didn't like the EU intervening in the case of Apple not paying corporation tax and protested even though they should be better off by 13 billion Euros on the deal. So yes, the EU is pushing the unified taxation agenda against the wishes of member states.
I don't know if ultra federalist Jean Claude Junker would protest if his home state of Luxembourg had a similar ruling against it, but the original club of 6 states always seem to get away with not following the rules while smaller and newer member states get a raw deal. Of course if those smaller states start talking about leaving it will be blamed on Brexit rather than the EU behaving like a monolithic federalist supertanker/juggernaut.
As I'm probably the only Leave voter still regularly posting, I will restate that the UK is and always has been generally anti-EU, we only ever stayed because of an ever increasing list of opt-outs to the fundamental rules and goals of the original 6. By staying we would become ever more out of step with eh EU project. Leaving was,in my view, inevitable in the medium to long term, and deciding to leave sooner rather than later was better.0 -
I should say the taxpayer was happy - until the EU decided to interfere and impose retrospective taxation on a long standing arrangement. It will be interesting to see how Apple react.
Nor are the US govt happy with the EU and could lead to tit for tat type retaliation against EU companies in the US."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
mrfpb wrote:The Irish clearly didn't like the EU intervening in the case of Apple not paying corporation tax and protested even though they should be better off by 13 billion Euros on the deal. So yes, the EU is pushing the unified taxation agenda against the wishes of member states.
I don't know if ultra federalist Jean Claude Junker would protest if his home state of Luxembourg had a similar ruling against it, but the original club of 6 states always seem to get away with not following the rules while smaller and newer member states get a raw deal. Of course if those smaller states start talking about leaving it will be blamed on Brexit rather than the EU behaving like a monolithic federalist supertanker/juggernaut.
As I'm probably the only Leave voter still regularly posting, I will restate that the UK is and always has been generally anti-EU, we only ever stayed because of an ever increasing list of opt-outs to the fundamental rules and goals of the original 6. By staying we would become ever more out of step with eh EU project. Leaving was,in my view, inevitable in the medium to long term, and deciding to leave sooner rather than later was better.
...member state. Singular.0 -
In practice one member state, but it clearly sends a message to the all member states that they want common taxation policy.0
-
Stevo 666 wrote:I should say the taxpayer was happy - until the EU decided to interfere and impose retrospective taxation on a long standing arrangement. It will be interesting to see how Apple react.
Nor are the US govt happy with the EU and could lead to tit for tat type retaliation against EU companies in the US.
Au contraire. The EU was asked to step in by member governments because there's been outcry in all countries about the lack of tax paid by multinationals due to their dodgy transfers. How any multinationals stopping competition and not paying their dues can be beneficial to society in the long term is beyond me, it's already stacked in favour of large brands through purchasing size and power, hence why our high streets are carbon copies of dull.0 -
Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should knowJoelsim wrote:mrfpb wrote:In practice one member state, but it clearly sends a message to the all member states that they want common taxation policy.
It sends a message to the corps that not paying tax and taking advantage of the system will not be tolerated. There is no other choice.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should knowJoelsim wrote:mrfpb wrote:In practice one member state, but it clearly sends a message to the all member states that they want common taxation policy.
It sends a message to the corps that not paying tax and taking advantage of the system will not be tolerated. There is no other choice.
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should know
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
quite funny really, TMay is now calling for a tough European response to Russian acts in Syria...... so you want us out of europe but you ve the nerve to tell them from the side lines what to do....
its just a foretaste of a UK outside of the EU and being impotent to do anything.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Au contraire. The EU was asked to step in by member governments because there's been outcry in all countries about the lack of tax paid by multinationals due to their dodgy transfers.
But the Irish have long had a policy of low corporate taxation to attract overseas investment. If there was a widescale outcry (there will always be at least a small outcry about any aspect of tax policy!) in Ireland a government promising higher corporate taxes would presumably have commanded popular support.
And you need to consider the broader picture. "Tax dodging" multinationals incur payroll taxes to employ people, and the employees then pay income tax etc.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should know
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
quite funny really, TMay is now calling for a tough European response to Russian acts in Syria...... so you want us out of europe but you ve the nerve to tell them from the side lines what to do....
its just a foretaste of a UK outside of the EU and being impotent to do anything.
We get it Mamba, how you hate TM, DC before her and anything Tory, but is that the best you can do?
We are still members of the EU and will be for at least 2 and a half years. What do you want her to say? Nothing? or "The UK doesn't give a flying fcuk what you do about the EU's eastern neighbour, we're gone"
It's not like the EU could miscalculate policy is it and then have to turn to NATO, which does and will concern the UK is it? Oh wait a minute... Ukraine.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should knowJoelsim wrote:mrfpb wrote:In practice one member state, but it clearly sends a message to the all member states that they want common taxation policy.
It sends a message to the corps that not paying tax and taking advantage of the system will not be tolerated. There is no other choice.
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
Are you for real? You don't have to think the EU is evil to know they are committed to ever closer integration. Why on earth would David Cameron need to secure an opt out as part of the pre-referendum negotiations if it was not the case.
And where are these huge numbers of people in the UK keen for ever closer integration. The referendum was a choice between leaving the EU altogether or accepting membership in which we opted out of closer integration. No one voted FOR closer integration.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:mamba80 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should know
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
quite funny really, TMay is now calling for a tough European response to Russian acts in Syria...... so you want us out of europe but you ve the nerve to tell them from the side lines what to do....
its just a foretaste of a UK outside of the EU and being impotent to do anything.
We get it Mamba, how you hate TM, DC before her and anything Tory, but is that the best you can do?
We are still members of the EU and will be for at least 2 and a half years. What do you want her to say? Nothing? or "The UK doesn't give a flying fcuk what you do about the EU's eastern neighbour, we're gone"
It's not like the EU could miscalculate policy is it and then have to turn to NATO, which does and will concern the UK is it? Oh wait a minute... Ukraine.
no Bally, you ve no idea how deep that hatred runs lol!!! no i dont hate anyone, hate is a wasted emotion, anyhow, early days for May, have to give her a chance.
i just think that its ironic that a party and leader who is taking us out of EU is also calling on the very same EU to act as one against Russia,
as you know the EU has sanctions against Russia (over Ukraine) and they hurt the soviets, the UK acting alone (which will the case in 2 years time) will be a lonely voice,
NATO ? whats your point? that isnt a body that imposes sanctions and i would nt want to trigger WW3 over Syria, would you? nothing will happen re syria until after the US elections and lets hope HC wins.
though given we can only summon 2 naval vessels to shadow the russian battle fleet sailing down the N. Sea, lets hope we continue to be part of NATO eh?0 -
mrfpb wrote:Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should knowJoelsim wrote:mrfpb wrote:In practice one member state, but it clearly sends a message to the all member states that they want common taxation policy.
It sends a message to the corps that not paying tax and taking advantage of the system will not be tolerated. There is no other choice.
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
Are you for real? You don't have to think the EU is evil to know they are committed to ever closer integration. Why on earth would David Cameron need to secure an opt out as part of the pre-referendum negotiations if it was not the case.
And where are these huge numbers of people in the UK keen for ever closer integration. The referendum was a choice between leaving the EU altogether or accepting membership in which we opted out of closer integration. No one voted FOR closer integration.
As I said in an earlier post, Cameron got an opt out (DC's opt outs are now withdrawn btw, even if we wanted them) on the ever close political union and having to join the Euro. The inference being that these union and the Euro are on the agenda.
The terms of the referendum were about us having more opt outs not fewer.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:mamba80 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Not a very good one as people can see that it is really part of the EU 'ever closer integration' political agenda. And as mentioned, there are ways around this - I should know
Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
quite funny really, TMay is now calling for a tough European response to Russian acts in Syria...... so you want us out of europe but you ve the nerve to tell them from the side lines what to do....
its just a foretaste of a UK outside of the EU and being impotent to do anything.
We get it Mamba, how you hate TM, DC before her and anything Tory, but is that the best you can do?
We are still members of the EU and will be for at least 2 and a half years. What do you want her to say? Nothing? or "The UK doesn't give a flying fcuk what you do about the EU's eastern neighbour, we're gone"
It's not like the EU could miscalculate policy is it and then have to turn to NATO, which does and will concern the UK is it? Oh wait a minute... Ukraine.
no Bally, you ve no idea how deep that hatred runs lol!!! no i dont hate anyone, hate is a wasted emotion, anyhow, early days for May, have to give her a chance.
i just think that its ironic that a party and leader who is taking us out of EU is also calling on the very same EU to act as one against Russia,
as you know the EU has sanctions against Russia (over Ukraine) and they hurt the soviets, the UK acting alone (which will the case in 2 years time) will be a lonely voice,
NATO ? whats your point? that isnt a body that imposes sanctions and i would nt want to trigger WW3 over Syria, would you? nothing will happen re syria until after the US elections and lets hope HC wins.
though given we can only summon 2 naval vessels to shadow the russian battle fleet sailing down the N. Sea, lets hope we continue to be part of NATO eh?
I too hope that NATO continues and that we stay a part of it, because any EU defence alliance would be a paper tiger.
My point about NATO? The EU courted Ukraine with disastrous results, helping to destabilise the country which led to the "with the largest reinforcement of collective defense since the end of the Cold War,"
http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Art ... st-ukraine0 -
Complete tosh.Joelsim wrote:Only people who think the EU is the devil will think that Steve. The fact is the member states have requested it. I'm sure they will try to find ways around it, but if it then becomes a revenue tax so be it.
And a huge number of people have no issue at all with ever closer integration...everyone except nationalists in fact. For a whole host of positive reasons.
http://www.city.ac.uk/news/2016/june/survey-shows-uk-is-not-alone-in-opposing-further-european-integration
And as mentioned above, the Irish people seem to be happy to vote for a low tax economy. But then again you do tend to ignore democratic votes. How very European of you "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Any followers of the four freedoms religion will be pleased with this offering from Martin Schulz4 freedoms go together. What alienates so many people from EU is feeling that capital, goods & services have more value than people0
