The EU debate - Part III

[BobbyD]

A case the Govt won on appeal in June

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36526158

Won after we had to appeal to the european courts after the EU tried to block the UK from doing this.

Has meant we have had to spend millions more giving out child benefit to children who don't even live in england.

The current rules are still in place for EU workers to get UK child benefit as long as the child resides in an EU country

 

[Bodinki]

A case the Govt won on appeal in June

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36526158

Again, we are appealing.
Fighting, to enforce our own laws.
The only people our government should be answerable to, is us, the population of the UK.

 

[steveninaster1]

Again, we are appealing.
Fighting, to enforce our own laws.
The only people our government should be answerable to, is us, the population of the UK.

Scrap UK government and let's all have regional governments instead. Let the regional governments be answerable to their electorate and EU government be answerable to the regions.

One layer of bureaucracy removed. Problem solved

 

[Bodinki]

Scrap UK government and let's all have regional governments instead. Let the regional governments be answerable to their electorate and EU government be answerable to the regions.

One layer of bureaucracy removed. Problem solved

And how would that work?
You want the UK to be like the states, where each state has different rules on age of consent, legal drinking age, driving age etc.
One giant clusterfuck, no thanks

 

[Tobes]

Again, we are appealing.
Fighting, to enforce our own laws.
The only people our government should be answerable to, is us, the population of the UK.

It's not that black and white though.

You have no issue with freedom of movement, and to ensure fairness across the EU spectrum then the laws can't be discriminatory against EU migrants, in the same way as we would expect for UK citizens working in the EU.

Therefore if laws are changed that discriminate against workers (note workers) merely because of their state of origin, then in the EU's eyes that's wrong as it compromises freedom of movement

It's like England having different rules for Scottish or Irish workers who ply their trade here. We'd think that was wrong, what's the difference?

 

[Sharpe*]

Personally I want us to have control over our own boarders.

We know and accept who we want based on whether they are of economic use to us - the exception being the odd humanitarian effort.

That's just how I see it.

I wouldn't expect other country's to accept our riff raff either.

 

[BobbyD]

It's not that black and white though.

You have no issue with freedom of movement, and to ensure fairness across the EU spectrum then the laws can't be discriminatory against EU migrants, in the same way as we would expect for UK citizens working in the EU.

Therefore if laws are changed that discriminate against workers (note workers) merely because of their state of origin, then in the EU's eyes that's wrong as it compromises freedom of movement

It's like England having different rules for Scottish or Irish workers who ply their trade here. We'd think that was wrong, what's the difference?

Not sure if the UK government has tried by saying kids who do not reside in the UK do not benefit from child benefit but they already discriminate against the rich.

It would probably be known as a racist policy as i'm guessing that there aren't many British working people who have kids in other countries AND claim child benefit.

 

[pieguts]

Actuaries, despite the joke that it's a profession for people who find accountancy too racy, are supposed to anticipate future trends. They are supposed to measure and mitigate future risk.

Yes, none of them seems to have anticipated this prolonged period of low interest rates. Or given much account to the fact that human lifespan is increasing rapidly in developed countries.

Hence the problems with pension funds being unable to fulfill the majority of final salary based schemes.

Many large companies took "pension holidays" throughout the 80's and contributed nothing to the pension pot.

 

[Bodinki]

It's not that black and white though.

You have no issue with freedom of movement, and to ensure fairness across the EU spectrum then the laws can't be discriminatory against EU migrants, in the same way as we would expect for UK citizens working in the EU.

Therefore if laws are changed that discriminate against workers (note workers) merely because of their state of origin, then in the EU's eyes that's wrong as it compromises freedom of movement

It's like England having different rules for Scottish or Irish workers who ply their trade here. We'd think that was wrong, what's the difference?

.........then we kick out our government and vote one in that will not discriminate against workers....

That's the beauty of democracy.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Just seems wrong that our own government has to go begging to an outside union in order to negotiate what we can and cannot do with our own tax payers money!
The EU want ever closer union, yes, we can opt out of this and that, and kick up a fuss.
But I will use a weird analogy here.

Being in the EU is like having a kidnapped sex slave.

Yes you can get what you want from them, but they don't like you, they don't want you, they infact hate you and they would kill you and take everything you have given half a chance.

The phrase 'taxpayers money' is one of my bugbears. If you joined a local gym, your fees wouldn't be 'members money' it would become the property of the gym company to do whatever it wanted with it. Its the same with a country. You decide to live here, pay the fees (taxes) and then that becomes the country's money to spend as the government decides. It doesn't belong to the taxpayers it belongs to the whole country.
And, as has been demonstrated , we can leave the EU anytime we want, so your analogy is ridiculous. The EU is a genuine effort to get a better result for each country by combining together. That creates a small amount of bureaucracy (EU budget is about 1% of EU GDP) but gives lots of benefits

 

[PowerSpurs]

Just seems wrong that our own government has to go begging to an outside union in order to negotiate what we can and cannot do

Then you can never sign a trade agreement because as soon as you do you will be bound by international law.

 

[BobbyD]

The phrase 'taxpayers money' is one of my bugbears. If you joined a local gym, your fees wouldn't be 'members money' it would become the property of the gym company to do whatever it wanted with it. Its the same with a country. You decide to live here, pay the fees (taxes) and then that becomes the country's money to spend as the government decides. It doesn't belong to the taxpayers it belongs to the whole country.
And, as has been demonstrated , we can leave the EU anytime we want, so your analogy is ridiculous. The EU is a genuine effort to get a better result for each country by combining together. That creates a small amount of bureaucracy (EU budget is about 1% of EU GDP) but gives lots of benefits

Strictly not true... you can't just go to another country... they would have to accept you.

As for membership fees... i'm not sure i've seen any gym in the world where membership prices differ depending on how much you earn.... so i'm going to have to disagree with your example here. I don't get treated better for paying more for the countries "membership". In fact i probably get worse out of it

 

[petersaxton]

The phrase 'taxpayers money' is one of my bugbears. If you joined a local gym, your fees wouldn't be 'members money' it would become the property of the gym company to do whatever it wanted with it. Its the same with a country. You decide to live here, pay the fees (taxes) and then that becomes the country's money to spend as the government decides. It doesn't belong to the taxpayers it belongs to the whole country.
And, as has been demonstrated , we can leave the EU anytime we want, so your analogy is ridiculous. The EU is a genuine effort to get a better result for each country by combining together. That creates a small amount of bureaucracy (EU budget is about 1% of EU GDP) but gives lots of benefits

I think you misunderstand. A gym company tries to make a profit for itself.
A country tries to spend it's money on benefiting the people of the country.

 

[Bodinki]

The phrase 'taxpayers money' is one of my bugbears. If you joined a local gym, your fees wouldn't be 'members money' it would become the property of the gym company to do whatever it wanted with it. Its the same with a country. You decide to live here, pay the fees (taxes) and then that becomes the country's money to spend as the government decides. It doesn't belong to the taxpayers it belongs to the whole country.
And, as has been demonstrated , we can leave the EU anytime we want, so your analogy is ridiculous. The EU is a genuine effort to get a better result for each country by combining together. That creates a small amount of bureaucracy (EU budget is about 1% of EU GDP) but gives lots of benefits

Says you, it may have started that way, but now its a cynical, overly bureaucratic third party pseudo government full of bored MEP's who are in it for the pay boost and the expense claims and to see how much they can get away with.
And "it doesn't belong to the taxpayers, it belongs to the whole country"?!?!?! So what are the taxpayers if not the country? Everyone in the country is a tax payer in one form or another. And the government is elected by the taxpayer

 

[PowerSpurs]

Strictly not true... you can't just go to another country... they would have to accept you.

As for membership fees... i'm not sure i've seen any gym in the world where membership prices differ depending on how much you earn.... so i'm going to have to disagree with your example here. I don't get treated better for paying more for the countries "membership". In fact i probably get worse out of it

it would be perfectly possible for a gym controlled by its members to have such a fee structure. But I agree its not an exact analogy. But its illogical to be in favour of democracy (which is generally taken to mean one person one vote) and then claim that the money raised by the laws passed somehow still belongs to a subset of society called taxpayers.

 

[petersaxton]

Then you can never sign a trade agreement because as soon as you do you will be bound by international law.

we have agreed to the terms of the trade agreement
international law will interprete the terms

 

[armchairblue]

The phrase 'taxpayers money' is one of my bugbears. If you joined a local gym, your fees wouldn't be 'members money' it would become the property of the gym company to do whatever it wanted with it. Its the same with a country. You decide to live here, pay the fees (taxes) and then that becomes the country's money to spend as the government decides. It doesn't belong to the taxpayers it belongs to the whole country.
And, as has been demonstrated , we can leave the EU anytime we want, so your analogy is ridiculous. The EU is a genuine effort to get a better result for each country by combining together. That creates a small amount of bureaucracy (EU budget is about 1% of EU GDP) but gives lots of benefits

We can leave the EU whenever we want?...Lots of people never wanted to be in it in
the first place.

 

[PowerSpurs]

I think you misunderstand. A gym company tries to make a profit for itself.
A country tries to spend it's money on benefiting the people of the country.

That isn't my point. But its the 'peoples' money not the 'taxpayers' money. You do see the difference?

 

[Bodinki]

Then you can never sign a trade agreement because as soon as you do you will be bound by international law.

A Trade agreement should contain laws that are relevant to Trade. and THAT particular trade deal in particular, yes.
But what the **** does child benefit have to do with trade?

 

[Bodinki]

That isn't my point. But its the 'peoples' money not the 'taxpayers' money. You do see the difference?

So tax payers aren't people?

All tax payers are people, and all people are tax payers.
So no, I dont see the difference.

 

[steveninaster1]

And how would that work?
You want the UK to be like the states, where each state has different rules on age of consent, legal drinking age, driving age etc.
One giant clusterfuck, no thanks

The states was born out of a confederacy, we are not and can learn from other models like Germany and US.