Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on May 3, 2024 13:26:16 GMT
Increased alcohol taxes were foisted upon us by the EEC, EEC and then EU tariffs were foisted upon us, the CAP, the CFP, the first, second, third and fourth railway packages were foisted upon us, EU military staff were foisted upon us, EU foreign policy including FTAs with dictatorships were foisted upon us. EU energy market policies were foisted upon us including the coal phaseout which has caused havoc for steel producers. The ship building industry suffered severe harm as a result of the EU's predecessor, the EEC ending subsidies in 1990. It may be an important market, but it's not well run, desperately needs reform and David Cameron failed to achieve reform. Have you never heard the phrase 'best is the enemy of good'? In your quest for some unachievable 'best', your chums killed what was broadly good and left us with what Ofsted would call inadequate. History will teach it as a text book example of what 'pyrrhic' means. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 3, 2024 13:34:14 GMT
It wasn't broadly good, it was broadly abysmal. It desperately needed reform, cost an absolute fortune compared to the alternatives and was run by an incompetent bunch of gravy train riders whilst politicians with no mandate to execute any policy in relation to it, handed more and more powers and cash to it. The EU even has a military staff. www.eeas.europa.eu/eums_enIf the EU were reformed either with powers repatriated to national governments, or with direct democratic accountability of its own institutions (i.e. an elected body instead of the Commission), that would be different. I wouldn't have voted leave if it had been reformed. It also needs union wide wage and tax standards if it is to work as the superstate it is meant to become. Again that requires directly accountable politicians in the executive, not just the scrutiny. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on May 3, 2024 19:34:46 GMT
Vinny you want too much perfection and yet you don't question that 'superstate it is meant to become' false story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2024 20:47:20 GMT
Like the poll tax? Lol. The ability of majority governments with minority support to foist things upon us has long been a problem inherent to our own flawed FPTP system. This is not the fault of the EU. Though it did mean that our governments could more easily foist upon us things emanating from there which a majority of our own people might not have supported. The reverse could also be true though in terms of our government blocking things emanating from there that a majority of us might have supported, like Major's blocking of the social chapter, which Labour under Blair introduced later anyway. The 1990 abolition of subsidies for ship building (which put the British ship building industry into sharp decline) was not in the 1987 Conservative Manifesto and Labour won the 1989 European Parliament election, not the Tories. Signing the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties were not in Labour's manifestos. Nor were the establishment of rapid reaction forces. And post 1997 Labour lost every EU election it contested. No it wasn't. All that was in the manifesto was a pledge to replace the rates with something fairer. And that was the problem. Most people viewed the poll tax as grotesquely unfair and thus a broken manifesto promise in their eyes |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 3, 2024 22:37:39 GMT
Your claim that it wasn't fairer is made without evidence. Please provide evidence that it was less fair than the rates system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 22:55:41 GMT
Your claim that it wasn't fairer is made without evidence. Please provide evidence that it was less fair than the rates system. The poll tax was charged at the same rate regardless of ability to pay. A non progressive tax. Students and unemployed got discount but that's all. Most people in civilised society think tax should be based on ability to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 14, 2024 11:17:20 GMT
Local taxation should be based on the ability to pay. It should be a local income tax. And those with the most should pay more.
Now, regarding the EU...
It's undergoing a treaty change process and powers would go from the Commission to MEPs if the proposals I've seen are approved.
Would that process be as radical if we had voted remain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2024 14:24:21 GMT
Local taxation should be based on the ability to pay. It should be a local income tax. And those with the most should pay more. Now, regarding the EU... It's undergoing a treaty change process and powers would go from the Commission to MEPs if the proposals I've seen are approved. Would that process be as radical if we had voted remain? You have just answered your own question as to why the poll tax was not fair. It was less fair than the rates because it took zero account of incomes. The rates - imperfectly and indirectly perhaps - tended to be much higher for those with higher net worth or large incomes because these are the ones who had larger houses with higher rateable values. That is not to say that the rates were fair. Clearly they were not. But the Tories managed to devise a replacement even more unfair, which was clearly not what they promised. I agree that to be fair, local taxation must be on people and not the properties they live in, and should be related in some way to either individual wealth or individual incomes. Taxing high value residential properties or second homes has some value as a concept, but it should not be the primary basis of local taxation for local services. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 14, 2024 16:41:56 GMT
I've never understood the claim that the EU and its predecessor was undemocratic — least of all for the UK. The Tory 1970 manifesto promised to negotiate entry to the European Economic Community on the right terms "...we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.
A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent."Heath was voted in. His government began negotiating for the UK to join the EEC. The UK joined in 1973, chose to remain in 1975, and voted to leave in 2016, and was no longer a member by end January 2020.
All the 43 years the UK was an EU member, UK voters elected MEPs, and elected UK governments proposed Commissioners for five year terms.
Can't say membership was anything other than good, personally, although Brexit has provided my employer additional consultancy work and probably greater job security for me.
But I guess we all have to make up our own minds whether membership was better for us than what we're experiencing now... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2024 20:17:28 GMT
How times change.
The Labour party included in their 1983 manifesto a pledge to withdraw the UK from what was then still known as the EEC. The Tories and the right wing press screamed long and hard about the economic madness of such an idea.
The fact that it is these same forces of the right who have been the driving powers behind Brexit is therefore fraught with irony.
Perhaps some right wing supporters of Brexit need to clarify to the rest of us why leaving was economic madness in 1983, but the epitome of economic common sense in 2016.
Why was the EEC considered so economically essential to us by the right in 1983, but economically damaging to us by 2016? What changed economically in the meantime? And why was leaving the only available corrective for whatever that was?
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 16, 2024 15:03:38 GMT
Both the EEC and the EU were / are run by appointed Commissioners whom execute and propose policy completely without public oversight at the ballot box.
That is the fundamental problem with it.
On top of that there are flawed top down policies like the CAP, eloquently critcised by George Monbiot.
There's a monumental waste of cash compared to other free trade organisations such as EFTA.
And there's a military staff and Battlegroups who are outside the NATO framework and safeguard of Article 1 of the 1949 treaty.
We were promised reform by David Cameron.
Reform didn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 16, 2024 16:04:06 GMT
Both the EEC and the EU were / are run by appointed Commissioners whom execute and propose policy completely without public oversight at the ballot box. That is the fundamental problem with it. On top of that there are flawed top down policies like the CAP, eloquently critcised by George Monbiot. There's a monumental waste of cash compared to other free trade organisations such as EFTA. And there's a military staff and Battlegroups who are outside the NATO framework and safeguard of Article 1 of the 1949 treaty. We were promised reform by David Cameron. Reform didn't happen. Cameron did get a reform deal with the EU prior to the UK's 2016 referendum on EU membership.
The essence of the deal was that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it had under the Treaties, was not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this was to be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union did not apply to the United Kingdom.
Cameron said in the Best of Both Worlds document: Our special status gives us the best of both worlds. We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us – influencing the decisions that affect us, in the driving seat of the world’s biggest market and with the ability to take action to keep our people safe. But we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us. So as well as being out of ever closer union, we will never join the euro and never be part of Eurozone bailouts or the passport-free no borders area.
Cameron got a deal, but not one that satisfied the majority of referendum voters, and therefore none of its provisions were applied — simply because the UK left the EU...
|
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on May 16, 2024 16:49:21 GMT
Local taxation should be based on the ability to pay. It should be a local income tax. And those with the most should pay more. Now, regarding the EU... It's undergoing a treaty change process and powers would go from the Commission to MEPs if the proposals I've seen are approved. Would that process be as radical if we had voted remain? How will that work? Won't MEPs align according to national interests? Consider the Commission's attempt to introduce a Europe-wide law of contract. Work began in 1992. It hasn't finished yet. The reason is that the Commission has to consult with the member states and find a compromise. Contract law is so varied throughout Europe, finding common ground has proved to be an extremely burdensome task. The Commission has been diplomatic in the extreme, shown understanding of the importance of the topic to member states. So, even at this late stage, it has not yet presented legislation to Parliament, preferring to continue to fine-tune until everyone is satisfied. How would that have worked if MEPs had the power to force through a common law of contract? Wouldn't the countries with the most representation in the EU parliament simply have pushed through a law of contract that was as close to their own as possible, thus ensuring the least disruption of their own legal system? Won't that be the case generally, with all laws? Moreover, something like a common law of contract can't be brought to completion in the 5 years or so elected members of parliament have available to them. It takes decades. If MEPs can propose legislation based on minimal research which prefers their own country, the EU will very quickly fall apart. The Commission looks at the bigger picture, takes account of the interests of every member state, and consults with those states when drafting legislation. A Parliament with a majority from certain member states will make laws that favour those states over lesser represented states. And that's when the European peace project will fall apart. |
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on May 16, 2024 16:52:52 GMT
Local taxation should be based on the ability to pay. It should be a local income tax. And those with the most should pay more. Now, regarding the EU... It's undergoing a treaty change process and powers would go from the Commission to MEPs if the proposals I've seen are approved. Would that process be as radical if we had voted remain? How will that work? Won't MEPs align according to national interests? Consider the Commission's attempt to introduce a Europe-wide contract law. Work began in 1992. It hasn't finished yet. The reason is that the Commission has to consult with the member states and find a compromise. Contract law is so varied throughout Europe, finding common ground has proved to be an extremely burdensome task. The Commission has been diplomatic in the extreme, shown understanding of the importance of the topic to member states. So, it has not presented legislation to Parliament, but has preferred to keep fine-tuning until everyone is satisfied. How would that have worked if MEPs had the power to force through a common law of contract? Wouldn't the countries with the most representation in the EU parliament simply have pushed through a law of contract that was as close to their own as possible, thus ensuring that their own legal system was least disrupted? Won't that be the case generally, with all laws? Moreover, something like a common law of contract can't be brought to completion in the 5 years or so elected members of parliament have available to them. It takes decades. If MEPs can propose legislation based on minimal research which prefers their own country, the EU will very quickly fall apart. The Commission looks at the bigger picture, takes account of the interests of every member state, and consults with those states when drafting legislation. A Parliament with a majority from certain member states will make laws that favour those states. And that's when the European peace project will fall apart. Duplicate. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 17, 2024 8:50:57 GMT
Both the EEC and the EU were / are run by appointed Commissioners whom execute and propose policy completely without public oversight at the ballot box. That is the fundamental problem with it. On top of that there are flawed top down policies like the CAP, eloquently critcised by George Monbiot. There's a monumental waste of cash compared to other free trade organisations such as EFTA. And there's a military staff and Battlegroups who are outside the NATO framework and safeguard of Article 1 of the 1949 treaty. We were promised reform by David Cameron. Reform didn't happen. Cameron did get a reform deal with the EU prior to the UK's 2016 referendum on EU membership.
The essence of the deal was that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it had under the Treaties, was not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this was to be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union did not apply to the United Kingdom.
Cameron said in the Best of Both Worlds document: Our special status gives us the best of both worlds. We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us – influencing the decisions that affect us, in the driving seat of the world’s biggest market and with the ability to take action to keep our people safe. But we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us. So as well as being out of ever closer union, we will never join the euro and never be part of Eurozone bailouts or the passport-free no borders area.
Cameron got a deal, but not one that satisfied the majority of referendum voters, and therefore none of its provisions were applied — simply because the UK left the EU... There was no reform, no treaty change, no special status, nothing that couldn't be overturned by the next Commission or Parliament. The Commission remained in office instead of their powers being repatriated to national governments or the EU Parliament. To call the CAP flawed would be to understate how utterly shit the policy is. No reform of that occurred. The Battlegroups remained, answerable to then Commissioner Federica Mogherini, not elected politicians. The EU military staff remained, as did the External Action Force. Lt Gen Esa Pulkkinen was the head of the EUMS, an institution we as voters and taxpayers had no influence over. We already had an opt out from the Euro. David Cameron achieved no reform whatsoever. He lied, campaigned on the basis of dishonesty and lost. |
|
