British government seeks permission to cut 5p off fuel prices

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12648814

UK seeks permission to cut 5p off islanders' petrol


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51527000/jpg/_51527286_petrol_reuters_224.jpg



The government is pushing ahead with plans to cut the cost of fuel for drivers on a number of Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly. It has asked the European Commission if it can reduce fuel duty by 5p a litre, the BBC understands. Ministers are not allowed to cut fuel duty without getting permission from Brussels first. Labour said prices should be cut for all UK motorists in this month's budget - not just those in remote areas.

Ministers have hinted they could introduce a fuel duty stabiliser - which would see duty fall when the oil price goes up. Duty is due to rise again in April. The plan to ease the fuel price burden on remote rural areas was included in the coalition agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, but there has been much speculation about whether it would be approved by the European Commission.

The planned pilot would provide a discount of up to 5p per litre of petrol and diesel on the Northern and Western isles, Argyll and Clyde islands and the Isles of Scilly. But it could be autumn before the bid is processed and voted on by finance ministers, European Commission sources have said. Western Isles councillor Donald Manford said high costs threatened businesses and was a cause of depopulation. Under the Energy Tax Directive of the European Union - which the UK is signed up to - minimum rates for fuel duty are set down and each country must have a standardised rate within their borders. UK ministers require permission to lower costs.

No, not for all of us as was hoped when you first read this (and apologies for using the BBC as a news source). But doesn't this just show yet again the amount of power that has seeped away from the elected British government into the hands of unelected politicians in Brussels of which we cannot remove from their positions. When your own government requires permission from an unelected foreign body else to lower such a simple thing as fuel prices for the electorate which voted the government in in the first place, there's something deeply deeply wrong.

I follow the subject closely and even I wasn't aware it also had powers over fuel duty prices.

Thoughts on fuel duty/requiring EU permission to lower our own fuel prices?

[Fez]

If anything then it shows just how fragile that we've become and how the European Union's bubble will burst and take us all with it. China recently lowered domestic income tax (http://www.financenews.co.uk/investments/china-may-lower-income-tax-rates-to-boost-consumer-demand/).

This means (eventually) more cars being made and (more importantly) more oil being bought in the West. Our reliance on China has turned from a "bite the end that feeds you" into a serious concern as to what China is going to be doing.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26980/page1/?a=f

When the west hits its Oil peak, expect China to make a jump into all of our gardens. Not military force but even more economic force, as they've pretty much bled the West dry so far and with the rise in oil prices (which, if there's two months still of rising, we're about to hit oil peak) this means we're about to see a very different world. It's not a matter of how or what China will do to become a superpower, it's when they'll be number one. I can see the future being the East and West, not West and East. It's thanks to measures that the EU is wanting to take, namely this, that's encouraged us to pour money into delaying the inevitable. We should be concentrating on pouring money into finding alternative sources of power, independent power, wouldn't it be great for Britain to be able to power itself, feed itself and sustain itself again? Now we're relying on debt money, toxic assets and other bits of the country we can flog off in return of surviving China's leaps and bounds up the GDP ladder.

It's going to happen and I for one think measures like this will just delay it. May have gone off a tangent there, linking this to something else entirely, but it's not really a problem with the European Union - it's the whole of the West. You can't fight an oil crisis by lowering prices, and you can't fight oil peak. At all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem is though that most of the price tag that comes along on fuel costs is actually tax and not the fuel itself which is rather cheap, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if government didnt rip us off 24/7. Government is always quick to point to 'rising oil prices' but strangely enough it never comes back down to the original price when the price of oil itself drops. The fact the EU has control over this (which you'd expect any elected government to be in control of) should be a wake up call to everybody.

I agree entirely on the China point, we have no hope of competing while we continue to make business so hard to do in the west with tax/regulation.

[alexxxxx]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12648814

UK seeks permission to cut 5p off islanders' petrol


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51527000/jpg/_51527286_petrol_reuters_224.jpg




No, not for all of us as was hoped when you first read this (and apologies for using the BBC as a news source). But doesn't this just show yet again the amount of power that has seeped away from the elected British government into the hands of unelected politicians in Brussels of which we cannot remove from their positions. When your own government requires permission from an unelected foreign body else to lower such a simple thing as fuel prices for the electorate which voted the government in in the first place, there's something deeply deeply wrong.

I follow the subject closely and even I wasn't aware it also had powers over fuel duty prices.

Thoughts on fuel duty/requiring EU permission to lower our own fuel prices?

it's to do with the fact that it would break the current rules on a non-standard tax throughout the country. this is to stop countries who have land borders with other countries lowering tax in those regions close to other countries in order to suck motorists over the border and increasing tax revenue. this will gain permission from the commission i should imagine as the islands are far from any land border.

i agree with the rules but as the UK only has 1 land border and so this does not affect us really.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it's to do with the fact that it would break the current rules on a non-standard tax throughout the country. this is to stop countries who have land borders with other countries lowering tax in those regions close to other countries in order to suck motorists over the border and increasing tax revenue. this will gain permission from the commission i should imagine as the islands are far from any land border.

i agree with the rules but as the UK only has 1 land border and so this does not affect us really.

So in other words, a sort of thieves cartel to make sure no government doesn't charge its people too little in tax?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg

[Eoin247]

Well i mean it's obvious what one of the main reasons that EU has to have this rule. Since there's free movement around the EU, there's very little stopping people from one country moving to another regularly.

Say in northern east Spain they reduced petrol prices, then people from south west France would be going there with tankers to get all their petrol. The government in France of course wouldn't be happy with this.

I wouldn't worry about not getting permission. For the EU to work in any way there needs to be rules like this. It's pretty obvious that in Brussels they will have no problem with this (unless theres something big i'm missing) and it's going to be approved.

I remember in my school you used to have to apply for leave to go to the town. You always got leave though, pretty much the application was just there so that the staff could keep track of what we were doing and where we were going. Kind of the same thing here in this case.

Only problem i'd have with this is that relaying this takes time, and time makes things happen slower. One of the main reasons i didn't want a coalition government with Labour in Ireland. They are going to be spending way to much time talking as a result of party differences.

I think this though, is just unneccesarily attacking the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well i mean it's obvious what one of the main reasons that EU has to have this rule. Since there's free movement around the EU, there's very little stopping people from one country moving to another regularly.

Say in northern east Spain they reduced petrol prices, then people from south west France would be going there with tankers to get all their petrol. The government in France of course wouldn't be happy with this.

I wouldn't worry about not getting permission. For the EU to work in any way there needs to be rules like this. It's pretty obvious that in Brussels they will have no problem with this (unless theres something big i'm missing) and it's going to be approved.

I remember in my school you used to have to apply for leave to go to the town. You always got leave though, pretty much the application was just there so that the staff could keep track of what we were doing and where we were going. Kind of the same thing here in this case.

Only problem i'd have with this is that relaying this takes time, and time makes things happen slower. One of the main reasons i didn't want a coalition government with Labour in Ireland. They are going to be spending way to much time talking as a result of party differences.

I think this though, is just unneccesarily attacking the EU.

Hang on a second, whats wrong with people crossing a 'free border' in order to save themselves a bit of money? If governments do not like people crossing borders for lower priced fuel because their own fuel is ridiculously over-taxed, then they should lower the tax on the fuel. As the video above states, its a sort of 'thieves cartel' in order to make sure no government steals too little tax from its people.

Yet again, hurting who? the people - the little guys.

[alexxxxx]

So in other words, a sort of thieves cartel to make sure no government doesn't charge its people too little in tax?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg

well not exactly, most places in europe have less fuel tax than us. imagine this, country A decides to lower fuel tax in a region close to country B in order to increase tax revenues at the expense of country B's. They make it necessary to drop the tax all over the country. Country A could decide not to put a tax at all, like Luxembourg (member of the EU). A friend at Uni who lives there says that there is no tax on alcohol or cigarettes there. Hardly the EU telling people to fleece their citizens of every euro cent they have ;) Though i am aware that there is min limits on VAT.

[Eoin247]

So in other words, a sort of thieves cartel to make sure no government doesn't charge its people too little in tax?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg

As we are in the EU we have free movement between members, as i said this is a understandable rule especially for more mainland countries.

---------- Post added 04-03-2011 at 07:59 PM ----------


Hang on a second, whats wrong with people crossing a 'free border' in order to save themselves a bit of money?

For you, me and the average citizen we find nothing wrong with it. However you got to think about why they have this rule, which is for governments.

[-:Undertaker:-]

well not exactly, most places in europe have less fuel tax than us. imagine this, country A decides to lower fuel tax in a region close to country B in order to increase tax revenues at the expense of country B's. They make it necessary to drop the tax all over the country. Country A could decide not to put a tax at all, like Luxembourg (member of the EU). A friend at Uni who lives there says that there is no tax on alcohol or cigarettes there. Hardly the EU telling people to fleece their citizens of every euro cent they have ;) Though i am aware that there is min limits on VAT.

I thought that was the supposed benefit of the 'free market' that we could apparently look for lower prices around the European Union. As I said before, if country A's government wants to rip its people off and the people refuse to pay it, then shame on country A for attempting to rip its people off and good on country B for taking advantage (you know, the free market?) and giving the over-taxed citizens of country A a chance to pay less for their fuel. But of course that can't happen thanks to the EU and its supposed 'free' market, which is anything but free.

And as for ciggies and drink - i'll give it 5 years.


As we are in the EU we have free movement between members, as i said this is a neccesary rule especially for more mainland countries.

Why is it neccessary to rip everyone off equally? if a country wishes to charge its citizens less for fuel, then what exactly is wrong with that?

[alexxxxx]

I thought that was the supposed benefit of the 'free market' that we could apparently look for lower prices around the European Union. As I said before, if country A's government wants to rip its people off and the people refuse to pay it, then shame on country A for attempting to rip its people off and good on country B for taking advantage (you know, the free market?) and giving the over-taxed citizens of country A a chance to pay less for their fuel.

But of course that can't happen thanks to the EU and its supposed 'free' market, which is anything but free.

That's what does happen. People used to go abroad to buy cars in Belgium and France cause it was cheaper. UK car sales dropped, they dropped prices and now that rarely happens anymore. When I'm abroad i take the opportunity to buy things that are cheaper. The thing you have to realise is that they are governments and not businesses, they have to be fair. It's not quite fair if they rip off the people who live far from the border is it? Brussels doesn't stop countries from dropping taxes on fuel/items (apart from VAT), it just has to be FAIR. This of course benefits Luxembourg quite a lot as they can choose to charge very little tax on anything and therefore people drive over the border to buy fuel/****/alcohol.

How unfair would it be if the government decided to raise fuel duty in more populous areas because they know people don't have the time to drive 50km to the cheaper zone?



Why is it neccessary to rip everyone off equally? if a country wishes to charge its citizens less for fuel, then what exactly is wrong with that?
Because you aren't ripping off people, you're ripping off the other country's finances.

& undertaker in response to your edit why "give it 5 years," when luxembourg has historically always had low indirect taxation and have been in the EC/EU for a long time? :S Paranoia...

[Eoin247]

Hang on a second, whats wrong with people crossing a 'free border' in order to save themselves a bit of money? If governments do not like people crossing borders for lower priced fuel because their own fuel is ridiculously over-taxed, then they should lower the tax on the fuel. As the video above states, its a sort of 'thieves cartel' in order to make sure no government steals too little tax from its people.

Yet again, hurting who? the people - the little guys.

To the added part,

Where did ridiculously over taxed come from? What if a country has average fuel prices and then the next country decides to reduce prices or even compensate for fuel (as they do in African and Asian countries as people are too poor to pay). A country might not be able to reduce their taxes, governments don't put tax on things for the heck of it. They all have to get their money from somewhere.


I thought that was the supposed benefit of the 'free market' that we could apparently look for lower prices around the European Union. As I said before, if country A's government wants to rip its people off and the people refuse to pay it, then shame on country A for attempting to rip its people off and good on country B for taking advantage (you know, the free market?) and giving the over-taxed citizens of country A a chance to pay less for their fuel. But of course that can't happen thanks to the EU and its supposed 'free' market, which is anything but free.

And as for ciggies and drink - i'll give it 5 years.



Why is it neccessary to rip everyone off equally? if a country wishes to charge its citizens less for fuel, then what exactly is wrong with that?

I meant to say understandable as to why they do it rather than neccesary. But it can also be said (see earlier in my post) that it's neccesary. There isn't anything wrong with a country charging less for fuel unless it's going to affect another area badly, and i think that that is understandable.

Going a tad bit off topic when i say this. But it think that the main problem with the EU these days is a lack of vision and leadership. The people who started off the idea of European unity, they had vision and true leadership.

[Mathew]

By the time this crap goes through parliament and the EU, fuel will have risen another 20p so it won't make much difference anyway.. :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's what does happen. People used to go abroad to buy cars in Belgium and France cause it was cheaper. UK car sales dropped, they dropped prices and now that rarely happens anymore. When I'm abroad i take the opportunity to buy things that are cheaper. The thing you have to realise is that they are governments and not businesses, they have to be fair. It's not quite fair if they rip off the people who live far from the border is it? Brussels doesn't stop countries from dropping taxes on fuel/items (apart from VAT), it just has to be FAIR. This of course benefits Luxembourg quite a lot as they can choose to charge very little tax on anything and therefore people drive over the border to buy fuel/****/alcohol.

Fair? what is fair about governments all keeping the tax on fuel at ridiculous levels in order to meet an EU directive in the name of 'harmonisation'? absolute nonsense, there is nothing fair about ripping people off under the banner of, ironically, fairness!


How unfair would it be if the government decided to raise fuel duty in more populous areas because they know people don't have the time to drive 50km to the cheaper zone?

Unfair but down to that country. A country decides itself, not a foreign organisation which it trying to make every government harmonise its tax rates and thus rid themselves of economic advantage which benefits their people.

The difference is, with that - that could happen to a few countries granted. With this however, everybody suffers.


& undertaker in response to your edit why "give it 5 years," when luxembourg has historically always had low indirect taxation and have been in the EC/EU for a long time? :S Paranoia...

Tax harmonisation has been a recent move by the European Union, with moves to attempt to harmonise taxes in relation to financial districts which sent the City of London into panic not that long ago. The French are very eager for this, as they've long envied our financial sector and the money it brings into the United Kingdom - once thats gone, the French can grab a slice of the pie. Good for the French, bad for us.

Paranoia maybe, but this is from an organisation which regulates everything right down to tractor seats.


To the added part,

Where did ridiculously over taxed come from? What if a country has average fuel prices and then the next country decides to reduce prices or even compensate for fuel (as they do in African and Asian countries as people are too poor to pay). A country might not be able to reduce their taxes, governments don't put tax on things for the heck of it. They all have to get their money from somewhere.

Then government will have to sort that out, its not the problem of other governments i'm afraid. We all know governments tax fuel to ridiculous prices and its about time they started coming down and how could that be done? by countries having competition between one another. Its like suggesting that, because ASDA are cash strapped - Tesco shouldn't lower its prices on apples to lower than ASDA's price because it'll hurt ASDA. Well i'm sorry, but that only hurts the cash strapped guy at the bottom.

I can't for the life of me believe you two are defending high fuel prices.


I meant to say understandable as to why they do it rather than neccesary. But it can also be said (see earlier in my post) that it's neccesary. There isn't anything wrong with a country charging less for fuel unless it's going to affect another area badly, and i think that that is understandable.

It is not necessary at all.

Why should British drivers/businesses suffer for example because the French government is greedy? and vice versa.


Going a tad bit off topic when i say this. But it think that the main problem with the EU these days is a lack of vision and leadership. The people who started off the idea of European unity, they had vision and true leadership.

You mean Jean Monnet who decided to implement the project using lies and deception?

Ask yourself this, have we ever really been asked if we even want this purposely vague concept of European unity (whatever that means)? I know you Irish were, and you gave the wrong answer - so they made you vote again. I guess thats another 'shared value' of the EU yeah, democracy? :rolleyes:

How about this idea, keep our nation states and be friendly and trade with one another??

[alexxxxx]

Fair? what is fair about governments all keeping the tax on fuel at ridiculous levels in order to meet an EU directive in the name of 'harmonisation'? absolute nonsense, there is nothing fair about ripping people off under the banner of, ironically, fairness!

there is nothing to say countries can't drop their indirect taxes!


Unfair but down to that country. A country decides itself, not a foreign organisation which it trying to make every government harmonise its tax rates and thus rid themselves of economic advantage which benefits their people.

The difference is, with that - that could happen to a few countries granted. With this however, everybody suffers.

A country decides which international organisations and treaties it signs. this legislation does not really affect us that much. as we live on an island it costs us to go places to pick up any advantage in taxes, so only in certain circumstances will this be effective. the only thing that is questionable is the length in time it takes for these measures to go through, though we can't be sure it'd be much faster if all power was just in the UK either.


Tax harmonisation has been a recent move by the European Union, with moves to attempt to harmonise taxes in relation to financial districts which sent the City of London into panic not that long ago. The French are very eager for this, as they've long envied our financial sector and the money it brings into the United Kingdom - once thats gone, the French can grab a slice of the pie. Good for the French, bad for us.

Paranoia maybe, but this is from an organisation which regulates everything right down to tractor seats.

Then you fight it back for our interests! That's the problem with our governments - they aren't prepared to lay down ultimatums or challenge or barter significantly, or at least not in public.

[Eoin247]

Fair? what is fair about governments all keeping the tax on fuel at ridiculous levels in order to meet an EU directive in the name of 'harmonisation'? absolute nonsense, there is nothing fair about ripping people off under the banner of, ironically, fairness!



Unfair but down to that country. A country decides itself, not a foreign organisation which it trying to make every government harmonise its tax rates and thus rid themselves of economic advantage which benefits their people.

The difference is, with that - that could happen to a few countries granted. With this however, everybody suffers.



Tax harmonisation has been a recent move by the European Union, with moves to attempt to harmonise taxes in relation to financial districts which sent the City of London into panic not that long ago. The French are very eager for this, as they've long envied our financial sector and the money it brings into the United Kingdom - once thats gone, the French can grab a slice of the pie. Good for the French, bad for us.

Paranoia maybe, but this is from an organisation which regulates everything right down to tractor seats.



Then government will have to sort that out, its not the problem of other governments i'm afraid. We all know governments tax fuel to ridiculous prices and its about time they started coming down and how could that be done? by countries having competition between one another. Its like suggesting that, because ASDA are cash strapped - Tesco shouldn't lower its prices on apples to lower than ASDA's price because it'll hurt ASDA. Well i'm sorry, but that only hurts the cash strapped guy at the bottom.

I can't for the life of me believe you two are defending high fuel prices.



It is not necessary at all.

Why should British drivers/businesses suffer for example because the French government is greedy? and vice versa.



You mean Jean Monnet who decided to implement the project using lies and deception?

Ask yourself this, have we ever really been asked if we even want this purposely vague concept of European unity (whatever that means)? I know you Irish were, and you gave the wrong answer - so they made you vote again. I guess thats another 'shared value' of the EU yeah, democracy? :rolleyes:

How about this idea, keep our nation states and be friendly and trade with one another??

As i said they don't just make taxes for the heck of it. If they don't tax fuel they'll have to increase taxes somewhere else.

With regards to the Lisbon treaty, there was a no vote originally was due to two main reasons.

There was a hell of a lot of Sinn Fein fear propaganda. I don't know if you are familiar with their policies, but they pretty much go against everything the government does and says no matter what it is. They had posters around saying things like "Your children will be sent to fight to Iraq!" ,which is absolute nonsense. They mysteriously got a lot of funding during this time, and even though all other parties supported it, there seemed to be just as many and in some places more ''vote no'' posters from Sinn Fein.

The second reason was that our government did a fairly poor job of explaining it properly to the people. The average person wouldn't sit down, read and understand the treaty in it's raw form. They however laid it out much clearer the next time around, with independant bodies coming in to help explain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

there is nothing to say countries can't drop their indirect taxes!

So why does the British government have to ask the unelected Commission for permission?


A country decides which international organisations and treaties it signs. this legislation does not really affect us that much. as we live on an island it costs us to go places to pick up any advantage in taxes, so only in certain circumstances will this be effective. the only thing that is questionable is the length in time it takes for these measures to go through, though we can't be sure it'd be much faster if all power was just in the UK either.

Of course it would be much faster, as the British government would not be relying then upon the European commission until autumn for the permission to lower fuel duty. And if the EU Commission then came back and said "no you are not taking 5p off fuel duty" what then? that is fundementally undemocratic and not acceptable.


Then you fight it back for our interests! That's the problem with our governments - they aren't prepared to lay down ultimatums or challenge or barter significantly, or at least not in public.

The whole point of being in the European Union is to ignore national interests and help progress the union itself, members are expected to vote not in national interest but in the vague concept of 'European interests' all of which greatly stand against British interests in a number of fields such as fisheries, agriculture, finance and so forth.

Why should an elected government have to fight for something it wishes to do?


As i said they don't just make taxes for the heck of it. If they don't tax fuel they'll have to increase taxes somewhere else.

Who said taxes have to increase? if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries.


With regards to the Lisobon treaty, the main reason there was a no vote originally was due to two main reasons.

There was a hell of a lot of Sinn Fein fear propaganda. I don't know if you are familiar with their policies, but they pretty much go against everything the government does and says no matter what it is. They had posters around saying things like "Your children will be sent to fight to Iraq!" ,which is absolute nonsense. They mysteriously got a lot of funding during this time, and even though all other parties supported it, there seemed to be just as many and in some places more ''vote no'' posters from Sinn Fein.

Just like companies such as RyanAir (who were originally against the treaty) suddenly changed tune and got behind the campaign and funded the yes campaign coincidently when they had a buyout case pending with the European commission? I remember reading about one of the corporations which helped fund the yes campaign and the yes campaign campained on "we need to stay in for jobs" - ironically the day after the treaty was passed that same company (lost the name) laid off a few hundred to a thousand employees.


The second reason was that our government did a fairly poor job of explaining it properly to the people. The average person wouldn't sit down, read and understand the treaty in it's raw form. They however laid it out much clearer the next time around, with independant bodies coming in to help explain.

Ahh yes, so thats why the broadcasting commission in Ireland dropped all impartiality rules before the treaty in order to 'make it fair' (which tilted it onto the side of the yes campaign) - sorry but you were stitched up like a kipper and now you are paying the price for it thanks in part to the disasterous currency you joined upto. I have to ask, if a political party lost an election and refused to resign by saying "oh but you were wrong, here have a read of our manifesto again and vote the correct way next time" is that democracy to you? its far from it.

I remember before the referendums you faced threats and arrogance from EU officals and European politicians (the same of which President Klaus in the Czech Republic faced when he attempted to hold out from signing the treaty), its such a shame that you caved in as a country because had you held out, the British people would have had their referendum. This might interest you which mentions the funding for the yes campaign of which came from the European commission itself;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEOFTz_Nnas

[Eoin247]

Who said taxes have to increase? if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries.



Well if you take away revenue then you're going to have to get it from somewhere else or else cut expenditure. So either way it's going to affect people in a negative way. I'm not too sure what you mean here "if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries." ?






Just like companies such as RyanAir (who were originally against the treaty) suddenly changed tune and got behind the campaign and funded the yes campaign coincidently when they had a buyout case pending with the European commission? I remember reading about one of the corporations which helped fund the yes campaign and the yes campaign campained on "we need to stay in for jobs" - ironically the day after the treaty was passed that same company (lost the name) laid off a few hundred to a thousand employees.



I'm not familiar with that unnamed corporation you're talking about. Funding wasn't the main point i was trying to make out in that quote. Most unbiased Irish people would tell you what Sinn Fein are really like. Their propaganda was everywhere and for the most part had very little truth in it. I don't think many people actualy believed that Sinn Fein went for no because they really actualy believed there should be no Lisbon treaty. As i said no matter what the subject, they always go against the government to try and pick up people who dislike government decisions.




Ahh yes, so thats why the broadcasting commission in Ireland dropped all impartiality rules before the treaty in order to 'make it fair' (which tilted it onto the side of the yes campaign) - sorry but you were stitched up like a kipper and now you are paying the price for it thanks in part to the disasterous currency you joined upto. I have to ask, if a political party lost an election and refused to resign by saying "oh but you were wrong, here have a read of our manifesto again and vote the correct way next time" is that democracy to you? its far from it.

I remember before the referendums you faced threats and arrogance from EU officals and European politicians (the same of which President Klaus in the Czech Republic faced when he attempted to hold out from signing the treaty), its such a shame that you caved in as a country because had you held out, the British people would have had their referendum. This might interest you which mentions the funding for the yes campaign of which came from the European commission itself;




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEOFTz_Nnas

I'm merely telling you what i experienced during that campaign. You're saying it was tilted on the side of the yes campaign? I can tell you that was most certainly not the case in the first campaign. This fear propaganda from Sinn Fein was everywhere and you'd swear that the EU was going to eat our children and murder our families by the way the treaty was portrayed.

Admittedly there seemed to be a lot less no adverts during the next campaign (surprise,surprise. once they have proved they are against the treaty they need do no more).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well if you take away revenue then you're going to have to get it from somewhere else or else cut expenditure. So either way it's going to affect people in a negative way. I'm not too sure what you mean here "if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries." ?

By the fact that, say in France they want to cut government back and want lower taxes and thus lower fuel duty. Now due to the tax harmonisation of the EU (and what you are arguing for, higher taxes across the board) that would mean that France wouldn't be able to do that even if its people wanted it because say, neighbouring Germany had to have high tax rates in order to fund big government.

That i'm afraid is not fair, not democratic and is not right. If the people of Germany regardless wanted to cross the border into France for cheaper fuel, why the hell should they not? its a free market is it not supposed to be?


I'm not familiar with that unnamed corporation you're talking about. Funding wasn't the main point i was trying to make out in that quote. Most unbiased Irish people would tell you what Sinn Fein are really like. Their propaganda was everywhere and for the most part had very little truth in it. I don't think many people actualy believed that Sinn Fein went for no because they really actualy believed there should be no Lisbon treaty. As i said no matter what the subject, they always go against the government to try and pick up people who dislike government decisions.

Just because the ghastly Sinn Fein may make things up doesn't mean its a good idea, and anyway - why would you believe your political class especially now after the mess all the main parties got Ireland into including its humilating bailout from the IMF. If in doubt you simply vote against it. If you are told to jump into a hole in the floor of which you cannot see the bottom, you do not jump do you? the same for the Lisbon Treaty.

You Irish should value independence after fighting for it, next time you have the chance - do not sign it away again.

[alexxxxx]

{QUOTE]So why does the British government have to ask the unelected Commission for permission?[/QUOTE]
Because this current move contravenes a rule whereby you have to have a single rate of tax across your country, not differing from region to region! If you read the BBC Article you posted you'd know this!

By the fact that, say in France they want to cut government back and want lower taxes and thus lower fuel duty. Now due to the tax harmonisation of the EU (and what you are arguing for, higher taxes across the board) that would mean that France wouldn't be able to do that even if its people wanted it because say, neighbouring Germany had to have high tax rates in order to fund big government.

That i'm afraid is not fair, not democratic and is not right. If the people of Germany regardless wanted to cross the border into France for cheaper fuel, why the hell should they not? its a free market is it not supposed to be?

FRANCE CAN LOWER ITS FUEL DUTY. IT JUST HAS TO LOWER ITS FUEL DUTY EVERYWHERE. French people go to Germany to shop. Italians go to Switzerland to shop. The Irish come to the UK to shop, the British go to France/Belgium to shop! :frust:



Of course it would be much faster, as the British government would not be relying then upon the European commission until autumn for the permission to lower fuel duty. And if the EU Commission then came back and said "no you are not taking 5p off fuel duty" what then? that is fundementally undemocratic and not acceptable.
Yeah but they won't say no because they've said yes before to a similar thing in Corsica. So unlikely.



The whole point of being in the European Union is to ignore national interests and help progress the union itself, members are expected to vote not in national interest but in the vague concept of 'European interests' all of which greatly stand against British interests in a number of fields such as fisheries, agriculture, finance and so forth.

Why should an elected government have to fight for something it wishes to do?

No, it is not. You obviously have a very basic idea of how the EU works.

The Council of Ministers (and European Council) are where the fighting for your own country takes place and the bartering etc. In the Commission and the parliament everyone works in a more 'european' way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because this current move contravenes a rule whereby you have to have a single rate of tax across your country, not differing from region to region! If you read the BBC Article you posted you'd know this!

And what is wrong with that? if a government decides for example to have a low tax zone in the poorest areas to get business going again, petrol should be included which is down to the democratically elected government of the day as much as I hate the voting system/media blackout against smaller parties.

It is not the business of the European Union, it is nothing but an excuse to rip people off.


FRANCE CAN LOWER ITS FUEL DUTY. IT JUST HAS TO LOWER ITS FUEL DUTY EVERYWHERE. French people go to Germany to shop. Italians go to Switzerland to shop. The Irish come to the UK to shop, the British go to France/Belgium to shop! :frust:

The British government has to apply for permission to lower tax rates, which will take a few months and make possibly no impact on prices as Matthew points out? it is ridiculous, tax harmonisation across the board is being brought in piece by piece and i've no doubt their plan for 'economic government' will make them the same across the board permanently.

But thats what you want isnt it?


Yeah but they won't say no because they've said yes before to a similar thing in Corsica. So unlikely.

It doesn't matter whether they'll say no or yes, its the principle of self-rule that is at stake.


No, it is not. You obviously have a very basic idea of how the EU works.

I know rather well how it works thanks and i've seen enough of this disasterous thing to want to get this country out of it, although you are not one to give lectures because I remember during Lisbon you were saying how Lisbon is nothing like the consitution while at the same time EU officals were contradicting both yourself and the Labour Party. It doesn't believe in democracy and is a stealth project, again read the EU Deception by Christopher Booker which is not a list of bad points about the EU, more a history and you'll see just how distasteful the egoism of Monnet and co is.

Almost everything I say about it and which you defend it by, it proves me right all the time. "The EU is democratic" you say and then next it comes out that they make the Irish vote again because they gave the wrong answer. It is such an easy argument which is only helped by the EU itself, why do you think they are so afraid of a debate surrounding a referendum on the EU? because they don't have a leg to stand on.


The Council of Ministers (and European Council) are where the fighting for your own country takes place and the bartering etc. In the Commission and the parliament everyone works in a more 'european' way.

Why should we have to fight for British interests (of which the EU is already heavily weighed against)? its time to leave, the British people want to leave and want their referendum that they were promised by all three parties.

Agriculture, energy, fishing, finance.. the list goes on and on - a complete disaster for this country.

[alexxxxx]

And what is wrong with that? if a government decides for example to have a low tax zone in the poorest areas to get business going again, petrol should be included which is down to the democratically elected government of the day as much as I hate the voting system/media blackout against smaller parties.

It is not the business of the European Union, it is nothing but an excuse to rip people off.

There is such a thing as low tax zone and the government has decided there to be some.


The British government has to apply for permission to lower tax rates, which will take a few months and make possibly no impact on prices as Matthew points out? it is ridiculous, tax harmonisation across the board is being brought in piece by piece and i've no doubt their plan for 'economic government' will make them the same across the board permanently.

But thats what you want isnt it?

The government should anticipate that the fuel price is likely to increase in that time. Have you got any actual evidence that this is the case.



It doesn't matter whether they'll say no or yes, its the principle of self-rule that is at stake.

The democratically elected government doesn't have plans to!



I know rather well how it works thanks and i've seen enough of this disasterous thing to want to get this country out of it, although you are not one to give lectures because I remember during Lisbon you were saying how Lisbon is nothing like the consitution while at the same time EU officals were contradicting both yourself and the Labour Party. It doesn't believe in democracy and is a stealth project, again read the EU Deception by Christopher Booker which is not a list of bad points about the EU, more a history and you'll see just how distasteful the egoism of Monnet and co is.

The way you speak about the EU, it seems like you haven't got a clue! No i never said 'its nothing like it' i said 'it isn't the same thing' - there are actually differences. They are not a carbon copy.


Almost everything I say about it and which you defend it by, it proves me right all the time. "The EU is democratic" you say and then next it comes out that they make the Irish vote again because they gave the wrong answer. It is such an easy argument which is only helped by the EU itself, why do you think they are so afraid of a debate surrounding a referendum on the EU? because they don't have a leg to stand on.

The EU made some legal guarantees on certain things important to ireland - and then they voted again. The EU is democratic. It is a fact.



Why should we have to fight for British interests (of which the EU is already heavily weighed against)? its time to leave, the British people want to leave and want their referendum that they were promised by all three parties.

Agriculture, energy, fishing, finance.. the list goes on and on - a complete disaster for this country.
I'd argue it'd be a lot lot worse if we pulled out - especially to the level that would tick all of UKIP's boxes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There is such a thing as low tax zone and the government has decided there to be some.

Not with fuel if it wished to, oh wait - it'd need 'permission'.

Permission from who I ask? the unelected commission who are a political force with a political will, they are not like a monarchy where it does not exercise political will or have a political agenda. Therefore it should be subject to the electorate, if the electorate even wants it at all which polls suggest is not the case.


The government should anticipate that the fuel price is likely to increase in that time. Have you got any actual evidence that this is the case.

Look at fuel prices over past decade or so, thank you.

Now when you've done that, you'll understand why its almost certain fuel prices are not going to come down by any signifigant margin (if any).


The democratically elected government doesn't have plans to!

But if it wanted to it couldn't because it could be overruled by an unelected government.


The way you speak about the EU, it seems like you haven't got a clue! No i never said 'its nothing like it' i said 'it isn't the same thing' - there are actually differences. They are not a carbon copy.

Carbon copy i'm afraid, Merkel was it not who said it was 90-something% the same as the consitution, and as Farage points out - they went about implementing parts of the treaty even before it was ratified. You tried defending them (as you always do) and they themselves only proved my case right, kudos to them for being honest though.


The EU made some legal guarantees on certain things important to ireland - and then they voted again. The EU is democratic. It is a fact.

Those gurantees weren't worth anything as the treaty would have been changed, and yeah I guess it is - I mean its not elected or anything and makes people vote twice until it gets the right answer, but yeah its democratic in a warped way I guess. Its not elected, wasn't asked for, avoid's votes when it can (because it usually loses them) and when it cant it makes people vote again - really democratic that.


I'd argue it'd be a lot lot worse if we pulled out - especially to the level that would tick all of UKIP's boxes.

What would be worse? it doesn't matter whether you are right wing or left wing, its about preserving the nation state and making sure that decisions are made close to home as one size does not fit all, as proven with the disasterous project that is the euro. This project is about building a state and always has been hence why there are constant power grabs. The people are not being told the truth or given a say and that is wrong. If the people want an EU state then thats fine by me, aslong as they are given the choice and told the full truth.

As Tony Benn says, the power and sovereignty belongs to the people and is returned at the following election - it is not supposed to be handed away because it is not their sovereignty to hand away, it belongs to the people of which the people lend it to the politicians for a short period.

[Eoin247]

By the fact that, say in France they want to cut government back and want lower taxes and thus lower fuel duty. Now due to the tax harmonisation of the EU (and what you are arguing for, higher taxes across the board) that would mean that France wouldn't be able to do that even if its people wanted it because say, neighbouring Germany had to have high tax rates in order to fund big government.

That i'm afraid is not fair, not democratic and is not right. If the people of Germany regardless wanted to cross the border into France for cheaper fuel, why the hell should they not? its a free market is it not supposed to be?.

Ok we're going a bit off what i was saying. I'm most certainly not arguing for higher taxes across the board. For example, as you probably know we have a policy here in Ireland of low corporation tax. Now this is very important to our economy and it is this that will probably play the biggest part in finally getting us out of our problems. I believe that this tax shouldn't be raised no matter what other EU countries say.




Just because the ghastly Sinn Fein may make things up doesn't mean its a good idea, and anyway - why would you believe your political class especially now after the mess all the main parties got Ireland into including its humilating bailout from the IMF. If in doubt you simply vote against it. If you are told to jump into a hole in the floor of which you cannot see the bottom, you do not jump do you? the same for the Lisbon Treaty.

You Irish should value independence after fighting for it, next time you have the chance - do not sign it away again.

Well the fact that they had to make things up to convince people just goes to show that they didn't have that much material to argue for on the no side. I agree with you on the IMF deal, personally i think we should have just opted for default as this deal is going to leave us no other option anyway in the years to come. That said some EU officials have hinted that a renegotiation might be on the table, and our new government are vowing to renegotiate.

With regards to the last point, i really dislike when people compare the EU and accepting the Lisbon treaty to how Ireland was prior to independance. The fact is that they are very uncomparable. Now i know some people think that the EU is ramping up to eventualy become a european USA, or even something further than that. Whatever the future might hold, i obviously don't know. However right now, it really isn't comparable.

If the EU really had such a level of control over us, then they would have by now gotten us to increase our corporation tax. For years the EU has been trying to get Ireland to increase it's corporation tax, yet today there is still no change in the tax.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok we're going a bit off what i was saying. I'm most certainly not arguing for higher taxes across the board. For example, as you probably know we have a policy here in Ireland of low corporation tax. Now this is very important to our economy and it is this that will probably play the biggest part in finally getting us out of our problems. I believe that this tax shouldn't be raised no matter what other EU countries say.

But thats on the way, they have stated they now want economic government and its even worse for you lot in eurozone because now you have little choice but to go along with it. You state below that the EU is on its way to becoming a state, and yes it is - and it means that in time, more and more powers will be made via the EU rather than your national government.


Well the fact that they had to make things up to convince people just goes to show that they didn't have that much material to argue for on the no side. I agree with you on the IMF deal, personally i think we should have just opted for default as this deal is going to leave us no other option anyway in the years to come. That said some EU officials have hinted that a renegotiation might be on the table, and our new government are vowing to renegotiate.

As did the government and the EU itself, the usual "no to Lisbon would mean job losses" was perhaps the biggest focus of the yes campaign in an attempt to scare a recession hit public into voting for Lisbon, and you all fell for it.


With regards to the last point, i really dislike when people compare the EU and accepting the Lisbon treaty to how Ireland was prior to independance. The fact is that they are very uncomparable. Now i know some people think that the EU is ramping up to eventualy become a european USA, or even something further than that. Whatever the future might hold, i obviously don't know. However right now, it really isn't comparable.

Whats the difference, you are losing your independence. After the struggle to win back independence from the British, why would you now want to hand that hard won sovereignty away? the aim of the EU is exactly what you describe, except not even a federal model. It is based on the soviet model of centralism and infact if you look at the EU and the former SU you will see stark differences.

No the EU does not have gulags, but in the way it is setup it is very similar. A number of soviets themselves have said it themselves, from Gorbachev (last USSR President) himself to a former Soviet dissident who is a UKIP patron. And afterall does it really suprise us, Baroness Ashton herself is a former CND-Soviet treasurer and the head of the unelected commission, Jose Barroso is a 'former Maoist'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU&feature=related

"I have lived in your future and it didn't work."


If the EU really had such a level of control over us, then they would have by now gotten us to increase our corporation tax. For years the EU has been trying to get Ireland to increase it's corporation tax, yet today there is still no change in the tax.

They often mention something, allow it to die down and then shove it in via the backdoor. Look how far this has gone from a simple 'common market' - it is designed to be confusing, to be done be stealth.

[alexxxxx]

As Tony Benn says, the power and sovereignty belongs to the people and is returned at the following election - it is not supposed to be handed away because it is not their sovereignty to hand away, it belongs to the people of which the people lend it to the politicians for a short period.

The video you posted is frankly, funny. Most of what he's said there could be attributed to the USA as well. Anyway, what I was going to say was, in the same way that all of the sovereignty and power is returned to the people at an election - so is the choice of the people to be in the european union. Vote UKIP if you want to leave the EU. But they didn't even win a seat, did they?

[Eoin247]

But thats on the way, they have stated they now want economic government and its even worse for you lot in eurozone because now you have little choice but to go along with it. You state below that the EU is on its way to becoming a state, and yes it is - and it means that in time, more and more powers will be made via the EU rather than your national government..

If you mean the low corporation tax, then I can tell you that Ireland would sooner leave the EU than raise its corporation tax. If there's one thing that everybody in this country agrees on, it's this policy. Delegates to the EU have made it clear on numerous occasions that raising this tax is completely out of the question. Other leaders can moan all they want about it but it wont happen. There are people in the EU that realise this.

If it ever came to that level of control, then of course i'd be against it. However if it was to come to that it would be in the distant future. As it is now, it's fine. That said there are many things i don't agree with in the EU. I think it has gone off track a bit from what it was supposed to be, however that doesn't mean it can't get back on track.


As did the government and the EU itself, the usual "no to Lisbon would mean job losses" was perhaps the biggest focus of the yes campaign in an attempt to scare a recession hit public into voting for Lisbon, and you all fell for it.
.

To be fair the biggest focus of that campaign was that we would be left behind as pretty much all the other countries would accept it. An argument that made me look less fondly at the EU, however quite a legitimate argument. The reason job losses might have come into play would be because one of the main reasons there are so many multi national companies in Ireland, is because of our EU membership.


Whats the difference, you are losing your independence. After the struggle to win back independence from the British, why would you now want to hand that hard won sovereignty away? the aim of the EU is exactly what you describe, except not even a federal model. It is based on the soviet model of centralism and infact if you look at the EU and the former SU you will see stark differences.
.

As i said, if it ever came to that then i would be against it. However as it is, or in the near future, it has no where near that level of power. For the EU to work it has to have some powers. Otherwise it would be just as pointless as the league of nations ended up being. Just to add to that, you must remember that the main reason for such passionate struggles for independance was due to history. Had Cromwell not massacred so many innocents, had help been giving to victims of the famine or even if catholics weren't treated to badly then we'd probably still be a part of the UK today.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The video you posted is frankly, funny. Most of what he's said there could be attributed to the USA as well. Anyway, what I was going to say was, in the same way that all of the sovereignty and power is returned to the people at an election - so is the choice of the people to be in the european union. Vote UKIP if you want to leave the EU. But they didn't even win a seat, did they?

The difference is that the USA government is elected by the people, the European commission is not elected by the people yet openly describes itself as the government of Europe hence being more on a par with the Soviet Union than the United States.

Concerning the European Union and elections, that is a fair point - but remember that these parties promise referendums/power put back to Westminister everytime they stand for election and they all stand on a seemingly eurosceptic platform. Now this is partly the problem of tribal voting which its the job of parties such as UKIP to break (and it is breaking, 3% behind the Liberal Democrats now with Tory/Labour membership numbers in freefall) but the tribal voting system is held in place by FPTP and a media which is biased towards the main parties.

But yes people do need to wake up and read for themselves on the subject, Europe is the biggest issue facing this country and whether its UKIP or some future party that will get us out - we will leave as the aims of the European project will not be accepted by the British people or for that matter, the continental countries either.


If you mean the low corporation tax, then I can tell you that Ireland would sooner leave the EU than raise its corporation tax. If there's one thing that everybody in this country agrees on, it's this policy. Delegates to the EU have made it clear on numerous occasions that raising this tax is completely out of the question. Other leaders can moan all they want about it but it wont happen. There are people in the EU that realise this.

I wish you well on that, but be watchful and do not trust your political class because Europe is very clever in the way in which it works (see The Great Deception, an excellent book to see how the project works). Only today was it announced that another tax is on its way to the financial services district which has sent alarm bells ringing in the City of London - now posing yet another threat to the status of the City as a world financial center.


If it ever came to that level of control, then of course i'd be against it. However if it was to come to that it would be in the distant future. As it is now, it's fine. That said there are many things i don't agree with in the EU. I think it has gone off track a bit from what it was supposed to be, however that doesn't mean it can't get back on track.

It was always intended to be a project by stealth to create a European superstate, it remains just that. There is no longer a middle ground "In Europe but not run by Europe" - look how far it has already gone, you have dismantled your own monetary system and placed it in the hands of a power on the continent and now they are openly talking about economic government in order to keep the monetary system together.

Where is this monolith supposed to stop? we need to face the facts, its a runaway train - it is not going to stop.


To be fair the biggest focus of that campaign was that we would be left behind as pretty much all the other countries would accept it. An argument that made me look less fondly at the EU, however quite a legitimate argument. The reason job losses might have come into play would be because one of the main reasons there are so many multi national companies in Ireland, is because of our EU membership.

EU membership has nothing to do with multi-national companies being placed in your country, the United States is not in the European Union yet the U.S. companies operate across the world and intensely in Europe itself. The EU itself is a barrier to free trade, as shown by its ridiculous and costly trade wars with the United States.


As i said, if it ever came to that then i would be against it. However as it is, or in the near future, it has no where near that level of power. For the EU to work it has to have some powers. Otherwise it would be just as pointless as the league of nations ended up being. Just to add to that, you must remember that the main reason for such passionate struggles for independance was due to history. Had Cromwell not massacred so many innocents, had help been giving to victims of the famine or even if catholics weren't treated to badly then we'd probably still be a part of the UK today.

If the EU is to 'work', what is the point of it we must ask.

Why does an EU need to work? yes lets sit down and talk in a inter-governmental manner, but not supranationally.

[alexxxxx]

The difference is that the USA government is elected by the people, the European commission is not elected by the people yet openly describes itself as the government of Europe hence being more on a par with the Soviet Union than the United States.

Concerning the European Union and elections, that is a fair point - but remember that these parties promise referendums/power put back to Westminister everytime they stand for election and they all stand on a seemingly eurosceptic platform. Now this is partly the problem of tribal voting which its the job of parties such as UKIP to break (and it is breaking, 3% behind the Liberal Democrats now with Tory/Labour membership numbers in freefall) but the tribal voting system is held in place by FPTP and a media which is biased towards the main parties.
to your first post - the European Commission does not just rule by decree, it holds the civil service and is pretty much instructed by the council to draft laws which are then looked at by the council of ministers (MPs of the respective governments of the EU) and the MEPs. The council also are the civil service of the EU too. You don't elect your civil service. And this is on top of the Commission being appointed by the Prime Ministers/Presidents of each country and passing a vote of confidence in the Parliament. I think it is accountable.

The USA doesn't elect its Supreme Court which essentially says whether laws are legal or not (and the judges are appointed, not voted in).

[Eoin247]

The difference is that the USA government is elected by the people, the European commission is not elected by the people yet openly describes itself as the government of Europe hence being more on a par with the Soviet Union than the United States.

Concerning the European Union and elections, that is a fair point - but remember that these parties promise referendums/power put back to Westminister everytime they stand for election and they all stand on a seemingly eurosceptic platform. Now this is partly the problem of tribal voting which its the job of parties such as UKIP to break (and it is breaking, 3% behind the Liberal Democrats now with Tory/Labour membership numbers in freefall) but the tribal voting system is held in place by FPTP and a media which is biased towards the main parties.

But yes people do need to wake up and read for themselves on the subject, Europe is the biggest issue facing this country and whether its UKIP or some future party that will get us out - we will leave as the aims of the European project will not be accepted by the British people or for that matter, the continental countries either.



I wish you well on that, but be watchful and do not trust your political class because Europe is very clever in the way in which it works (see The Great Deception, an excellent book to see how the project works). Only today was it announced that another tax is on its way to the financial services district which has sent alarm bells ringing in the City of London - now posing yet another threat to the status of the City as a world financial center.



It was always intended to be a project by stealth to create a European superstate, it remains just that. There is no longer a middle ground "In Europe but not run by Europe" - look how far it has already gone, you have dismantled your own monetary system and placed it in the hands of a power on the continent and now they are openly talking about economic government in order to keep the monetary system together.

Where is this monolith supposed to stop? we need to face the facts, its a runaway train - it is not going to stop.



EU membership has nothing to do with multi-national companies being placed in your country, the United States is not in the European Union yet the U.S. companies operate across the world and intensely in Europe itself. The EU itself is a barrier to free trade, as shown by its ridiculous and costly trade wars with the United States.



If the EU is to 'work', what is the point of it we must ask.

Why does an EU need to work? yes lets sit down and talk in a inter-governmental manner, but not supranationally.

I don't believe that it was always planned to be a "European superstate". After world war two, the main reason for working together was to prevent wars occuring again in Europe. Even you cannot deny how successful it has been in that regard. Also Europe as a whole is far far wealthier today than it was after world war two, and the EU has played a huge role in this.

EU membership makes it easier to trade with other EU countries (which is the main market for these US companies located here) and so it does contribute to these multi nationals being located here.

[GommeInc]

EU membership makes it easier to trade with other EU countries (which is the main market for these US companies located here) and so it does contribute to these multi nationals being located here.
It's a bit hit and miss though, trade levvies backed by the EU make it incredibly difficult for some member states to export some goods, and some countries outside the EU too. I think it was the Kenya flower trade that was hit hard by a pointless EU tax which was added to ensure the flowers were checked before entering the EU zone, even though the company checked the flowers before they left. In some cases, the EU does add some bizarre safety and security checks that are already carried out, but they feel they need to do their own.

It's used in a few case studies when talking about globalisation, particularly the global market. The EU should only enforce free trade (or duty free imports and exports, however you wish to word it) and ensure items imported are safe to enter, they shouldn't add a tax to cover this when the country exporting the goods already has checks in place. Interestingly, this is a January 2011 source, and the study I did was a few years ago, so it's interesting it is still going on :/

Source: http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate%20News/Kenyan%20flower%20exports%20to%20EU%20face%20new%2 0tax%20threat/-/539550/1093258/-/i8o86nz/-/index.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

to your first post - the European Commission does not just rule by decree, it holds the civil service and is pretty much instructed by the council to draft laws which are then looked at by the council of ministers (MPs of the respective governments of the EU) and the MEPs. The council also are the civil service of the EU too. You don't elect your civil service. And this is on top of the Commission being appointed by the Prime Ministers/Presidents of each country and passing a vote of confidence in the Parliament. I think it is accountable.

The USA doesn't elect its Supreme Court which essentially says whether laws are legal or not (and the judges are appointed, not voted in).

There was a graph in one book I have, showing the difference between regulations and directives (one being drafted by the commission and not going through the EU 'parliament', the other being parliamentary legislation) and it was tipped something like 98% towards the commission legislation which is what makes it so undemocratic. Even when going through the parliament, it still often gets voted through as the UK is often outvoted on issues - the same with the Council itself where they have introduced QVM.. this is undemocratic and thus unacceptable that a British parliament which lends the sovereignty from the people, can be dictated to.

No matter how you dress it up, it is not accountable to the people. Farage went over the 'Community method' only the other day, it is not democratic and cannot work as a democracy because look at Belgium - look at our own sovereign state, which is comprised of differing countries which are fragmenting as all aritifical states do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNDKzqZh768


Why, we’ll ask, did we give our nation away...

If an occupying power did to us what the European Union does – carted off huge piles of national wealth, robbed us of our right to make our own foreign policy or laws, abolished our passports, compelled us to import its goods at preferential rates, cut us off from the English-speaking world while forcing us to allow in ­millions of continental workers (inclu­ding doctors who cannot speak English), dem­anded the right to arrest our people and carry them off to unfair trials on the Continent, ordered our MPs and courts about, closed rural post offices, fined market traders for selling vege­tables in pounds and ounces – we’d be in revolt. But because our own political leaders allow this to happen, anyone who opposes the EU membership that lies behind all this is dismissed as an extremist or meaninglessly sneered at as a ‘Little Englander’. One day, people will wonder why.

And its true, it has done all of these things - now threatening our monetary system, fiscal policy, justice policy to an even greater extent.


I don't believe that it was always planned to be a "European superstate". After world war two, the main reason for working together was to prevent wars occuring again in Europe. Even you cannot deny how successful it has been in that regard. Also Europe as a whole is far far wealthier today than it was after world war two, and the EU has played a huge role in this.

EU membership makes it easier to trade with other EU countries (which is the main market for these US companies located here) and so it does contribute to these multi nationals being located here.

I can tell you, gurantee to you and promise you that that is the case and it was always intended to be the case and the reason so many have been duped by it (including politicians) is because it was done by stealth. Really it is very interesting and clever the way it has been done, read the Great Deception by Christopher Booker which lists sources and so forth. The man behind it all was Jean Monnet, he is involved for decades in the project.

And I think you are referring to NATO which kept the peace in mainland Europe (to an extent) since World War II, a now mostly useless organisation but in its prime did hold back the wall of Soviet aggression. That said, neither (especially the EU) did anything to stop the murder in the Balkans only a few years back.

[Eoin247]

I can tell you, gurantee to you and promise you that that is the case and it was always intended to be the case and the reason so many have been duped by it (including politicians) is because it was done by stealth. Really it is very interesting and clever the way it has been done, read the Great Deception by Christopher Booker which lists sources and so forth.

And I think you are referring to NATO which kept the peace in mainland Europe (to an extent) since World War II, a now mostly useless organisation but in its prime did hold back the wall of Soviet aggression. That said, neither (especially the EU) did anything to stop the murder in the Balkans only a few years back.

Well for the moment i suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree on wether or not the EU was always intended to be a European superstate. I will however take you up on that offer to read that book.

I wasn't talking about NATO. As a result of our economies now being so tied up with one another, there will near definetaly never be another war between countries again in Europe. Before world war two European countries totaly and constantly worked against each other, now they work together to a far greater extent.

[GommeInc]

I wasn't talking about NATO. As a result of our economies now being so tied up with one another, there will near definetaly never be another war between countries again in Europe. Before world war two European countries totaly and constantly worked against each other, now they work together to a far greater extent.
The only problem now is that all these countries have to share inner-European burdens. Immigration is one problem with open border policies, absorbing industries is another e.g. Germany has some how taken over the car manufacturing business so UK plants tend to close down in favour for ones in Cologne, Germany. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sharing powers means conflicting interests in the populace of seperate countries - the UK having to give some prisoners the vote even though it's never been a problem, the UK having to restrict fishing because there's a blanket rule that disallows us to fish in our waters because fisheries around the Scandinavian countries are so poorly managed that they forget that fish do not just magically appear, they need time to breed and recover :P The French do not particularly like the whole immigration idea as they have to put up with immigrants camping in and around Calais because they want to come here, but we do not want them.

Pre-World War Two wasn't as bad as made out, Europe was quite peaceful other than the few major events that kicked off the wars in the first place. We had good relations with Greece which appear to of disappeared now :/

[Eoin247]

It's a bit hit and miss though, trade levvies backed by the EU make it incredibly difficult for some member states to export some goods, and some countries outside the EU too. I think it was the Kenya flower trade that was hit hard by a pointless EU tax which was added to ensure the flowers were checked before entering the EU zone, even though the company checked the flowers before they left. In some cases, the EU does add some bizarre safety and security checks that are already carried out, but they feel they need to do their own.

It's used in a few case studies when talking about globalisation, particularly the global market. The EU should only enforce free trade (or duty free imports and exports, however you wish to word it) and ensure items imported are safe to enter, they shouldn't add a tax to cover this when the country exporting the goods already has checks in place. Interestingly, this is a January 2011 source, and the study I did was a few years ago, so it's interesting it is still going on :/

Source: http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate%20News/Kenyan%20flower%20exports%20to%20EU%20face%20new%2 0tax%20threat/-/539550/1093258/-/i8o86nz/-/index.html

In the link you provided it says
In the absence of the pact, Kenya’s flower exports could be subjected to a 16 per cent duty /QUOTE]


You said it was done, yet your source doesn't say it was done? It merely suggests that it might happen if a trade agreement isn't signed. Not to mention there's usualy duty on products between countries, this deal made it and perhaps will again make it totally duty free.

I don't know if you've ever been to Africa before, but trust me standards there are far lower than they are in the west. Just because the EU wants to check themselves doesn't mean it's pointless. Also i don't see how Kenya losing out on their flower trade is a disadvantage to EU countries. As your source says if Kenya doesn't supply them Ethiopia will. No offence to any Kenyans, but i don't really care if it's Kenya or Ethiopia that get the flower trade dominance.


[QUOTE=GommeInc;7032942]The only problem now is that all these countries have to share inner-European burdens. Immigration is one problem with open border policies, absorbing industries is another e.g. Germany has some how taken over the car manufacturing business so UK plants tend to close down in favour for ones in Cologne, Germany. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sharing powers means conflicting interests in the populace of seperate countries - the UK having to give some prisoners the vote even though it's never been a problem, the UK having to restrict fishing because there's a blanket rule that disallows us to fish in our waters because fisheries around the Scandinavian countries are so poorly managed that they forget that fish do not just magically appear, they need time to breed and recover :P The French do not particularly like the whole immigration idea as they have to put up with immigrants camping in and around Calais because they want to come here, but we do not want them.

Pre-World War Two wasn't as bad as made out, Europe was quite peaceful other than the few major events that kicked off the wars in the first place. We had good relations with Greece which appear to of disappeared now :/

You hear far more people complaining in Ireland and the UK about jobs going to China rather than to central Europe. To say relationships between the majority of European countries were good wouldn't be a true statement at all before world war two. As i said, before ww2 countries tended to work against each other rather than with each other,

For example with regards to wars, here are some that occured in Europe from 1900 to just before world war two.

1900-1939
1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War
1912–1913 Balkan Wars
1912-1913 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914–1918 World War I
1916 Easter Rising
1917–1921 Russian Civil War
1918 Finnish Civil War
1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia
1918–1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
1918–1919 Greater Poland Uprising
1918–1920 Estonian Liberation War
1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence
1919 Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919
1919-1922 Greco-Turkish War
1919-1923 Turkish War of Independence
1919–1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
1919–1921 Silesian Uprisings
1919–1921 Polish-Soviet War
1919–1921 Anglo-Irish War
1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
1921 Uprising in West Hungary
1922–1923 Irish Civil War
1936–1939 Spanish Civil War
1939 Slovak-Hungarian War
1939 Occupation of Zakarpattia Oblast by Hungary

[-:Undertaker:-]

The only reason for the halt in wars (especially in Europe) but also globally is the coming of the nuclear age, which was post-1945 (which you can see from then on, full scale wars have decreased dramatically). This nuclear age has led to the concept of MAD, and not to add the fact that Europe was controlled by one power, the Soviet Union + NATO. The European Union has nothing to do with the prevention of wars, which have occured anyway in southern Europe/the Balkans and cannot even act against Libya which is just south (not that i'm advocating that anyway). The rest of the world has also not been as active in warfare on such a large scale, again, because of the nuclear age and not because of the EU. The idea that the EU has prevented any wars or could prevent any wars is mere scaremongering.

Our economy back under Queen Elizabeth I was also heavily reliant on Europe (the Spanish Netherlands) and always has been, always will be just that trends change in differing goods and so on. With the global economy, lets trade globally and free ourselves of managed trade blocs which hinder our trade with organisations such as the Commonwealth.

[alexxxxx]

There was a graph in one book I have, showing the difference between regulations and directives (one being drafted by the commission and not going through the EU 'parliament', the other being parliamentary legislation) and it was tipped something like 98% towards the commission legislation which is what makes it so undemocratic. Even when going through the parliament, it still often gets voted through as the UK is often outvoted on issues - the same with the Council itself where they have introduced QVM.. this is undemocratic and thus unacceptable that a British parliament which lends the sovereignty from the people, can be dictated to.

No matter how you dress it up, it is not accountable to the people. Farage went over the 'Community method' only the other day, it is not democratic and cannot work as a democracy because look at Belgium - look at our own sovereign state, which is comprised of differing countries which are fragmenting as all aritifical states do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNDKzqZh768


But what you have to remember dan is that most regulations in the UK are not passed in parliament, faceless public bodies come up with them. That is essentially the same. The laws that pass regulatory control to these bodies is democratic.