Obviously Cameron hasn't learnt from what Ed Matts did down in Dorset South in the 2005 GE!
I'm not too sure the PM and the lizard people personally chose the photograph, although it possible he took the advice of Lord Lucan from the B52 on the moon.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
"Do you have an example?" "Not as such"
That is a straw man. I think Casino will be more than capable of coming up with multiple examples.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
"Do you have an example?" "Not as such"
That is a straw man. I think Casino will be more than capable of coming up with multiple examples.
waiting...
*tap tap tap*
(everyone super-keen to jump in for Casino)
First five off the top of my own head:
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
"Do you have an example?" "Not as such"
That is a straw man. I think Casino will be more than capable of coming up with multiple examples.
waiting...
*tap tap tap*
(everyone super-keen to jump in for Casino)
I promise that waiting for my responses will be a thing of the past if you vote to Leave the EU.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
Obviously Cameron hasn't learnt from what Ed Matts did down in Dorset South in the 2005 GE!
I'm not too sure the PM and the lizard people personally chose the photograph, although it possible he took the advice of Lord Lucan from the B52 on the moon.
A typical reptilian response!
The reptile shop on the Finchley Road thanks you ...
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
"Do you have an example?" "Not as such"
That is a straw man. I think Casino will be more than capable of coming up with multiple examples.
waiting...
*tap tap tap*
(everyone super-keen to jump in for Casino)
First five off the top of my own head:
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
I was sitting, or rather dozing in my armchair, when it struck me that the London Mayoral Elections are only three weeks away.
I've looked down the list candidates and quite honestly I fancy none of them. So this election, and the first for a very long time, I will be sitting on the fence. I also fancy that this year the vote will be down on 2012.
Her point is that he gave himself a tax cut with the 2012 Budget where he cut the top rate from 50p to 45p. Apparently he lied about it at the time, he said he wouldn't benefit from it:
Osborne & Little were not paying dividends at that time.
That's not relevant. The dispute is whether Osborne was referring to 2010/11 financial year or not when saying he wouldn't benefit from 50p tax rate reduction.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
"Do you have an example?" "Not as such"
That is a straw man. I think Casino will be more than capable of coming up with multiple examples.
waiting...
*tap tap tap*
(everyone super-keen to jump in for Casino)
First five off the top of my own head:
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
"Do you have an example?" "Not as such"
That is a straw man. I think Casino will be more than capable of coming up with multiple examples.
waiting...
*tap tap tap*
(everyone super-keen to jump in for Casino)
First five off the top of my own head:
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
No it really isn't. Topping likes setting up straw men arguments and then trying to knock them down. The trouble is he really isn't very good at it which is why it is so easy to spike his guns.
You on the other hand contribute nothing of value to the argument at all beyond the occasional sarcastic comment. You really are the epitome of pointlessness. Many will vote Leave precisely because of the sort of ignorant arrogance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK has complete freedom to determine laws relating to employment policy and is no way hindered by membership of the EU?
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Philip's examples were by no means bollocks. Unlike most of your contributions.
To pick up immediately on one specific example he made.
We currently charge 5% VAT on home energy costs. We are forced to do this because of EU laws. A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential and when they were replaced the incoming Government was not allowed by EU laws to completely remove that tax. Now I realise that to someone of your sort of wealth a mere 5% is probably an insignificant trifle but to many of the poorest in the country it is yet another cost they can ill afford and one that any reasonable independent government would remove. Of course being in the EU they are not allowed to.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
gance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK has complete freedom to determine laws relating to employment policy and is no way hindered by membership of the EU?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
I don't need to use google for this. The arguments have been rehearsed on here many times before with people who are obviously far better at understanding them than closed minded infants like yourself.
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
You're leading your Cry Freedom campaign on tampons (which issue, as you admit, we "won", eventually).
Good luck with that - I expect a million (wo)man march down Whitehall any moment.
You are also saying that "in future..." the EU will do this or that. I have said countless times that if you believe that the EU is not to be trusted and that "in future" they will totally screw us, and are conspiring to do us down, then you are safer a) buying a tinfoil trilby; and b) voting out.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
@Casino_Royale : Excuse me sir, can I ask if you would please vote Leave. Passer-by: Why? CR: Freedom to choose your own fish. According to a letter I received recently. PB: With you on the fish, comrade. Anything else? CR: Yep. Sovereignty. No more rule from Brussels. PB: Do you have an example? CR. Not as such, but....Freedom!!!
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
gance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK has complete freedom to determine laws relating to employment policy and is no way hindered by membership of the EU?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Philip's examples were by no means bollocks. Unlike most of your contributions.
To pick up immediately on one specific example he made.
We currently charge 5% VAT on home energy costs. We are forced to do this because of EU laws. A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential and when they were replaced the incoming Government was not allowed by EU laws to completely remove that tax. Now I realise that to someone of your sort of wealth a mere 5% is probably an insignificant trifle but to many of the poorest in the country it is yet another cost they can ill afford and one that any reasonable independent government would remove. Of course being in the EU they are not allowed to.
I have distilled your point down to its one basic essential:
"A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential."
ie we retained sovereignty such that we imposed the tax.
Did subsequent governments try to remove it? Please supply links to this if this was the case because I am always keen to slightly lessen my idiocy.
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
gance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK has complete freedom to determine laws relating to employment policy and is no way hindered by membership of the EU?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
LOL. You have heard of the ILO and what it does?
LOL..ILO...what are you talking about? Remember my IQ - please elaborate.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Her point is that he gave himself a tax cut with the 2012 Budget where he cut the top rate from 50p to 45p. Apparently he lied about it at the time, he said he wouldn't benefit from it:
I thought that the traditional criticism of Osborne was that his forecasts are crap and that he once indicated that by now the deficit would be lower than it turned out. It appears that he is now being criticised for failing to forecast in 2012 that a company he has a minority shareholding in would turn itself around and be paying dividends at a rate that he would be benefitting from 3 years later.
Does Yvette think he is truly a seer of the ages or merely a minor God ?
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
gance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casino had no arguments beyond fishing. Both he and many other Leave advocates on here have put forward many specific examples of how things would be better under our own control.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK has complete freedom to determine laws relating to employment policy and is no way hindered by membership of the EU?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
LOL. You have heard of the ILO and what it does?
LOL..ILO...what are you talking about? Remember my IQ - please elaborate.
You are clearly out of your depth when you still believe the EU is the top table.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
One vote in a world of 200 countries, versus a leading position in the largest trading bloc It's really not worth it
Vote Leave appear to have finally got their arse in gear: I've received a correctly targetted email for campaigning on Saturday in my locality from 9am - 12pm by my local consistency coordinator.
Just because you aren't bright enough to think of any examples doesn't mean Casino or any other Leave campaigner shares your ignorance.
Your attitude and others like you is one of the reasons why many will vote to remain.
gance you and your kind display.
Is anyone worthy of debating with you, Richard?
Freedom to choose your fish is on the letter I received from vote Leave or Leave EU or whichever one it was.
what straw men arguments have I set up?
Edit: I am sure of course that @Casino_Royale is eternally grateful to you for helping him/her out in this tricky exchange.
The basic claim you made that Casinore who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
So give me a specific example.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK has complete freedom to determine laws relating to employment policy and is no way hindered by membership of the EU?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
LOL. You have heard of the ILO and what it does?
LOL..ILO...what are you talking about? Remember my IQ - please elaborate.
You are clearly out of your depth when you still believe the EU is the top table.
Yes I think I must be - can you spell it out for me please.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Philip's examples were by no means bollocks. Unlike most of your contributions.
To pick up immediately on one specific example he made.
We currently charge 5% VAT on home energy costs. We are forced to do this because of EU laws. A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential and when they were replaced the incoming Government was not allowed by EU laws to completely remove that tax. Now I realise that to someone of your sort of wealth a mere 5% is probably an insignificant trifle but to many of the poorest in the country it is yet another cost they can ill afford and one that any reasonable independent government would remove. Of course being in the EU they are not allowed to.
I have distilled your point down to its one basic essential:
"A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential."
ie we retained sovereignty such that we imposed the tax.
Did subsequent governments try to remove it? Please supply links to this if this was the case because I am always keen to slightly lessen my idiocy.
It sets out in terms even you should be able to understand how the Tories imposed VAT on household heating and how, after the Labour victory in 1997, the Government were prevented from removing it entirely as it could not be reduced below 5% under EU law.
I hope your idiocy is at least partially ameliorated.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
One vote in a world of 200 countries, versus a leading position in the largest trading bloc It's really not worth it
One vote versus no vote. Not sure maths is your strong point.
Her point is that he gave himself a tax cut with the 2012 Budget where he cut the top rate from 50p to 45p. Apparently he lied about it at the time, he said he wouldn't benefit from it:
I thought that the traditional criticism of Osborne was that his forecasts are crap and that he once indicated that by now the deficit would be lower than it turned out. It appears that he is now being criticised for failing to forecast in 2012 that a company he has a minority shareholding in would turn itself around and be paying dividends at a rate that he would be benefitting from 3 years later.
Does Yvette think he is truly a seer of the ages or merely a minor God ?
If we're playing this game - then it's truly public spirited and the lefties will surely applaud that George and Dave have exposed themselves to the tax implications & likely shambles of the new tapered pension annual allowance - that will hit both of them materially in the pocket I would assume (unless MPs have exempted themselves from the annual allowance tax rules too?)
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
One vote in a world of 200 countries, versus a leading position in the largest trading bloc It's really not worth it
But also, outside the EU, we would be able to take a full seat on the world bodies that determine global regulation. The UK is currently represented by just 1/28th of a seat by the EU at the WTO, the OIE, the world organisation for animal disease, and Codex Alimentarius, the body which regulates guidelines relating to foods, food production and food safety. The same applies to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which produces the marketing standards for agricultural produce, adopted by the EU. Applying these standards directly would ensure the regulatory convergence with EU standards and guarantee continued access to European and global markets.
I was particularly struck on a visit to New Zealand how my counterparts saw how vital it was to build alliances and work with allies to promote legislation or amend other countries' proposals. At that time they were particularly exercised about a New Zealand amendment at an OIE meeting the following week in Geneva, affecting the sheep industry and crucial to New Zealand farmers. They were pleased that having got the Australians on side they would gain the support of key south American states which would bring Canada and the US on board.
When I asked why they had not discussed this with the UK, they said that our position was entirely represented by the EU: even though we have one of the largest sheep flocks in the world. I left feeling stung by these comments and totally disheartened by our lack of influence but also galvanised by the belief that we could serve our own industries so much better if we, as a sovereign nation, retook our rightful place on these global regulatory bodies.
Having a full seat would give us a chance to work with allies from the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth to ensure that regulations are not prejudicial to UK needs. Similarly, taking a full seat on the International Plant Protection Convention would give us a much stronger voice in combating diseases which are becoming more prevalent as globalisation encourages the international trade in plant products. By taking control of our borders we can learn the clear lessons from Australia and New Zealand and establish the UK as a safe haven for healthy plants, which can then be re-exported.
'Being inside the EU also makes it more attractive for companies to invest in the UK' - hang on a minute, these same people were arguing that foreign investment into the UK would be devastated if we didn't join the Euro around 1999/2000, so their track record on anything economic is a disgrace.
Page 5 - the derisory 3 million jobs quote! So 60% youth unemployment in Greece and mass unemployment in the EU periphery is nothing to do with the EU and the hated troika? Pull the other one!
Page 6 (Improving our lives) - what about the air fares for longer flights, look at the air passenger duty tax taking up more and more % of an air fare. Healthcare costs - net cost of non-UK nationals to the NHS was around £650m last I looked, UK benefits from healthcare overseas were much less, making non-UK nationals pay their full share would benefit us net out of the EU. Mobile phone costs would have come down due to technological advancement, nothing to do with our EU masters.
Page 8 (What Happens if we leave) - 16% of EU goods exports go to the UK - https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/ Where is the source for the 8% figure!!....and this is deeply misleading alongside the 44% figure - EU GDP was $18.51 trn in 2014, UK GDP was $2.99trn in 2014 so EU ex UK is (18.51-2.99) / 2.99 is around 5.2 times the size of our economy - comparing a % from a 5.2 times bigger economy against our economy is meaningless. And Switzerland and Norway with highest GDP per Capital in Europe give a complete lie that you have to be in the EU.
Page 9 - where did your permission for using this picture come from?!
Her point is that he gave himself a tax cut with the 2012 Budget where he cut the top rate from 50p to 45p. Apparently he lied about it at the time, he said he wouldn't benefit from it:
I thought that the traditional criticism of Osborne was that his forecasts are crap and that he once indicated that by now the deficit would be lower than it turned out. It appears that he is now being criticised for failing to forecast in 2012 that a company he has a minority shareholding in would turn itself around and be paying dividends at a rate that he would be benefitting from 3 years later.
Does Yvette think he is truly a seer of the ages or merely a minor God ?
1. I wouldn't believe anything in The Mirror. 2. Osborne doesn't make forecasts, the OBR does..
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
The question that really interests me is why the rest (or a majority) of the EU countries consider tampons to be a luxury product. Gives one a quite different impression of continental women from that usually purveyed. Are they stuck with towels (yuck) or what?
But also, outside the EU, we would be able to take a full seat on the world bodies that determine global regulation. The UK is currently represented by just 1/28th of a seat by the EU at the WTO, the OIE, the world organisation for animal disease, and Codex Alimentarius, the body which regulates guidelines relating to foods, food production and food safety. The same applies to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which produces the marketing standards for agricultural produce, adopted by the EU. Applying these standards directly would ensure the regulatory convergence with EU standards and guarantee continued access to European and global markets.
I was particularly struck on a visit to New Zealand how my counterparts saw how vital it was to build alliances and work with allies to promote legislation or amend other countries' proposals. At that time they were particularly exercised about a New Zealand amendment at an OIE meeting the following week in Geneva, affecting the sheep industry and crucial to New Zealand farmers. They were pleased that having got the Australians on side they would gain the support of key south American states which would bring Canada and the US on board.
When I asked why they had not discussed this with the UK, they said that our position was entirely represented by the EU: even though we have one of the largest sheep flocks in the world. I left feeling stung by these comments and totally disheartened by our lack of influence but also galvanised by the belief that we could serve our own industries so much better if we, as a sovereign nation, retook our rightful place on these global regulatory bodies.
Having a full seat would give us a chance to work with allies from the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth to ensure that regulations are not prejudicial to UK needs. Similarly, taking a full seat on the International Plant Protection Convention would give us a much stronger voice in combating diseases which are becoming more prevalent as globalisation encourages the international trade in plant products. By taking control of our borders we can learn the clear lessons from Australia and New Zealand and establish the UK as a safe haven for healthy plants, which can then be re-exported.
Non sequitur. You don't need one vote to build an alliance, you need a majority of votes, which the UK will never have on its own even if it leaves the EU. New Zealand itself has advised the UK to REMAIN. There is no "Anglosphere" waiting with open arms to set up a new trading bloc, especially not with a country which already left one. Paterson should have got his finger out and negotiated a position for British sheep farmers with the EU - if he couldn't even do that, how could he have negotiated with the whole world?
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
Philip's examples were by no means bollocks. Unlike most of your contributions.
To pick up immediately on one specific example he made.
We currently charge 5% VAT on home energy costs. We are forced to do this because of EU laws. A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential and when they were replaced the incoming Government was not allowed by EU laws to completely remove that tax. Now I realise that to someone of your sort of wealth a mere 5% is probably an insignificant trifle but to many of the poorest in the country it is yet another cost they can ill afford and one that any reasonable independent government would remove. Of course being in the EU they are not allowed to.
I have distilled your point down to its one basic essential:
"A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential."
ie we retained sovereignty such that we imposed the tax.
Did subsequent governments try to remove it? Please supply links to this if this was the case because I am always keen to slightly lessen my idiocy.
It sets out in terms even you should be able to understand how the Tories imposed VAT on household heating and how, after the Labour victory in 1997, the Government were prevented from removing it entirely as it could not be reduced below 5% under EU law.
I hope your idiocy is at least partially ameliorated.
Well, we don't know whether that great strategist Gordon Brown wanted to lower it to below 5% do we? The Lab manifesto said 5%.
All we know is a) he said he wanted to lower it to 5%; and b) the EU mandated minimum is 5%
While the Cons wanted to increase it, because a global organisation, the likes of which many Leavers would rather be in thrall to (in this case the UN) said it should be higher to lower emissions.
Truly a mad world we live in but no smoking gun about EU strangling our autonomy.
Dismantling the EU government propoganda (part 2):
Page 10 (Immigration) - EU arrest warrant protecting us after Brussels and Paris attacks, Lee Rigby and 7/7,wow you've got some cheek to argue that! As a libertarian I'm fairly relaxed on immigration, but immigration from the EU when discriminating against non-EU individuals simply is immoral. We're missing out on a lot of talented labour thanks to the ongoing discrimination in favour of EU nationals.
Page 12 (Benefits of EU) - a pack of lies given that the agreement is not legally binding as confirmed by the EU vice president the other day. The line 'for £1 paid in tax, a little over 1p goes to the EU' is again totally misleading - EU wishes to set up a central Treasury in Brussels (what it needed to do back in 1999 to consolidate the Euro area debt and budget, but didn't do!), and surprise surprise nothing about the net £11bn cost a year of UK EU membership, or the most authoritative German study that around 65% of our laws are derived from EU law including secondary legislation / EU statutory instruments.
EU leading the way on tackling climate change - yes, three bags full Sir!
Page 14 (Once in generation decision) - well after the Scottish referendum last year I think enough of the UK electorate has enough of a memory to realise this is a load of bollo*ks
Page 16 - 'The government believes....' - well nearly half the governing party MP's don't so stop pretending as though this is a single united view
Overall - a dreadful mendacious document entirely befitting the discredited Project Fear remain campaign.
Almost 6,000 refugee children and minors were reported missing in Germany last year, according to its interior ministry, amid growing concerns that traffickers and criminals are preying on thousands of vulnerable young people travelling amid the flow of refugees into Europe.
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
The question that really interests me is why the rest (or a majority) of the EU countries consider tampons to be a luxury product. Gives one a quite different impression of continental women from that usually purveyed. Are they stuck with towels (yuck) or what?
The rest of the EU considers VAT to be a tax which is imposed on almost all goods, not just "luxury" ones, to avoid prejudice toward certain sectors (e.g. giving electricity suppliers an advantage over car manufacturers). The idea of VAT as a luxury tax is a uniquely British misconception.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
And just to be clear, which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, is campaigning for us to leave the EU and join EEA/EFTA?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
While we may sometimes participate in all kinds of laws and regulations, we also sometimes oppose laws and regulations but get them imposed on us anyway because of QMV.
Not only that but a principle of democracy and Parliamentary Sovereignty is the principle "no Parliament can bind its successors". This means that if one Parliament does something we dislike that we can vote it out and its successor can reverse the policy we dislike. Democracy in action.
Due to the ratchet effect in Europe that is impossible. Once a policy is passed we can't get it undone even if we vote out the government in the next election unless we either get unanimous or QMV as the case may be agreement with the rest of Europe to reverse the unpopular policy.
So if today's government passes a law you dislike in the EU to reverse it you don't just have to eject today's government, but eject governments all across Europe.
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
The question that really interests me is why the rest (or a majority) of the EU countries consider tampons to be a luxury product. Gives one a quite different impression of continental women from that usually purveyed. Are they stuck with towels (yuck) or what?
The rest of the EU considers VAT to be a tax which is imposed on almost all goods, not just "luxury" ones, to avoid prejudice toward certain sectors (e.g. giving electricity suppliers an advantage over car manufacturers). The idea of VAT as a luxury tax is a uniquely British misconception.
And complete bollocks...go to cash n carry or CostCo where you they label prices pre-VAT and post-VAT and you see what a nonsense the whole VAT system now is. There is absolutely bugger all "logic" in what actually get VATed and what doesn't.
I would be totally in favour of just flat sales tax on everything, with reduction in other taxes to offset the hit to the poor.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
And just to be clear, which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, is campaigning for us to leave the EU and join EEA/EFTA?
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
And just to be clear, which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, is campaigning for us to leave the EU and join EEA/EFTA?
Which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, will be the government if we vote Leave?
Obviously Cameron hasn't learnt from what Ed Matts did down in Dorset South in the 2005 GE!
I'm not too sure the PM and the lizard people personally chose the photograph, although it possible he took the advice of Lord Lucan from the B52 on the moon.
A typical reptilian response!
The reptile shop on the Finchley Road thanks you ...
Well you and the rest of the establishment on here can deny the multi-billion pound theft, money laundering, boiler room that has its nexus there. Just a shame that companies house documentation and the trail of money proves this has been going on for the past 40 years.
If you're so sure that it hasn't been going on then take on Gordon Bowden in a UK court over it? If you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is and do that then you simply have no comeback on the fact that this is going on. Nobody in the establishment has dared do that since Mr Bowden took his documentation to the BBC at the start of March last year. And the BBC have sat on the documents for 13 months and counting now because surprise surprise it implicates senior BBC executives.
Overall - a dreadful mendacious document entirely befitting the discredited Project Fear remain campaign.
Most of your objections are interpretation rather than factual I don't think they were trying to win you over, any more than Jeremy Corbyn cries when PB comments say nasty things about him They just have to beat Farage, Johnson and Galloway, which they seem to be doing, which is why they remain favoured
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Indeed the only foreign political leader that seems to desire Brexit is Mr Putin. I wonder why...
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Of course the UK being in the EU is in Australia's interests, just as it is in the USA's interests. Because our interests are aligned with the USA and Australia and Britain in the EU can align the EU more to Australia and the USA's interests.
However what that does not mean is that it is in our interests. The sovereignty we gain from leaving the EU, Australia like the USA already has. You don't see Australia begging to join the EU now do you? Them staying out of the EU and having us in is a win/win from their perspective but not from ours.
EDIT: TL;DR it is a "have cake and eat it" position from the Australian minister.
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
The question that really interests me is why the rest (or a majority) of the EU countries consider tampons to be a luxury product. Gives one a quite different impression of continental women from that usually purveyed. Are they stuck with towels (yuck) or what?
The rest of the EU considers VAT to be a tax which is imposed on almost all goods, not just "luxury" ones, to avoid prejudice toward certain sectors (e.g. giving electricity suppliers an advantage over car manufacturers). The idea of VAT as a luxury tax is a uniquely British misconception.
Oh, thank you, I didn't know that. Do they have a different conception of Income and other taxes, also? I did read that very few people in Greece paid much income tax, but I thought that meant they were fiddling returns.
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
What business is it of Julie Bishop's to comment on the UK EU referendum?
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
The right-of-centre NZ government said the same thing a week ago. So did the centrist US administration of Barack Obama (centrist in our terms). There is only one world leader who is looking forward to Brexit and he is notable for his photos with guns, bears and workout machines.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
While we may sometimes participate in all kinds of laws and regulations, we also sometimes oppose laws and regulations but get them imposed on us anyway because of QMV.
Not only that but a principle of democracy and Parliamentary Sovereignty is the principle "no Parliament can bind its successors". This means that if one Parliament does something we dislike that we can vote it out and its successor can reverse the policy we dislike. Democracy in action.
Due to the ratchet effect in Europe that is impossible. Once a policy is passed we can't get it undone even if we vote out the government in the next election unless we either get unanimous or QMV as the case may be agreement with the rest of Europe to reverse the unpopular policy.
So if today's government passes a law you dislike in the EU to reverse it you don't just have to eject today's government, but eject governments all across Europe.
Yes that is the decision that will have to be made on June 23rd.
@Richard_Tyndall for example is furious that Gordon Brown wasn't allowed the freedom to shape the economy as he liked it in 1997 and also he wants to go to the barricades for the tampon tax (subsequently revoked).
I, as a counter example, think that although imperfect, it is better to be hands on and a part of a trading bloc which accounts for 44% of our exports (although "falling" as many will be quick to point out). I would prefer to be inside and part of the decision-making process, rather than outside it and subject to whichever laws and regulations are passed in Brussels.
Such a stance will necessarily throw up some issues but that is a far cry from the lack of "sovereignty" that some worry about.
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Of course the UK being in the EU is in Australia's interests, just as it is in the USA's interests. Because our interests are aligned with the USA and Australia and Britain in the EU can align the EU more to Australia and the USA's interests.
However what that does not mean is that it is in our interests. The sovereignty we gain from leaving the EU, Australia like the USA already has. You don't see Australia begging to join the EU now do you? Them staying out of the EU and having us in is a win/win from their perspective but not from ours.
EDIT: TL;DR it is a "have cake and eat it" position from the Australian minister.
Australia is in Eurovision now!
EU membership is restricted to countries in the continent of Europe; though that isn't defined.
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Of course the UK being in the EU is in Australia's interests, just as it is in the USA's interests. Because our interests are aligned with the USA and Australia and Britain in the EU can align the EU more to Australia and the USA's interests.
However what that does not mean is that it is in our interests. The sovereignty we gain from leaving the EU, Australia like the USA already has. You don't see Australia begging to join the EU now do you? Them staying out of the EU and having us in is a win/win from their perspective but not from ours.
EDIT: TL;DR it is a "have cake and eat it" position from the Australian minister.
Australia is in Eurovision now!
EU membership is restricted to countries in the continent of Europe; though that isn't defined.
Not really the same thing though is it? So is Kazakhstan.
Overall - a dreadful mendacious document entirely befitting the discredited Project Fear remain campaign.
Most of your objections are interpretation rather than factual I don't think they were trying to win you over, any more than Jeremy Corbyn cries when PB comments say nasty things about him They just have to beat Farage, Johnson and Galloway, which they seem to be doing, which is why they remain favoured
The balance of forces in the remain and leave camps is far more balance that they were in 1975.......only a fool can't see that!
And I'm sure you've seen the latest polls which show the leave campaign gaining ground overall. Project Fear requires a re-think!
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
And just to be clear, which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, is campaigning for us to leave the EU and join EEA/EFTA?
Nice. Thanks. So freedom of movement, 70% of EU laws, and abiding by all the regulations that apply to EU trade while having precious little influence in their formulation.
At least that's clear. I hope The Leave Alliance gets the official nod on Thursday.
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
And just to be clear, which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, is campaigning for us to leave the EU and join EEA/EFTA?
Which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, will be the government if we vote Leave?
Well I think it is reasonable to expect that the government will follow the official Leave campaign's manifesto. Don't you?
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
The question that really interests me is why the rest (or a majority) of the EU countries consider tampons to be a luxury product. Gives one a quite different impression of continental women from that usually purveyed. Are they stuck with towels (yuck) or what?
The rest of the EU considers VAT to be a tax which is imposed on almost all goods, not just "luxury" ones, to avoid prejudice toward certain sectors (e.g. giving electricity suppliers an advantage over car manufacturers). The idea of VAT as a luxury tax is a uniquely British misconception.
Why would our concept of VAT be a misconception? It ought to be however we want it to be, that is democracy. If we want it be a luxury tax, why should we not have it as such?
Incidentally it is not uniquely British to view it as a luxury. In Australia their version of VAT is called GST and is very similar (perhaps unsurprisingly) to ours. That's just one nation off the top of my head, so unless there's a misconception that only European nations exist in this small world of ours, our system is not unique to the UK.
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
What business is it of Julie Bishop's to comment on the UK EU referendum?
Perhaps because, as the same article points out, David Davis talks of Brexit as an ‘opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.
Unfortunately not one Commonwealth or Anglosphere leader supports the UK leaving the EU thereby somewhat rubbishing the claim.’
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Indeed the only political leader that seems to desire Brexit is Mr Putin. I wonder why...
John Howard (Australian PM from 1996 to 2007) thinks we should Leave:
Overall - a dreadful mendacious document entirely befitting the discredited Project Fear remain campaign.
Most of your objections are interpretation rather than factual I don't think they were trying to win you over, any more than Jeremy Corbyn cries when PB comments say nasty things about him They just have to beat Farage, Johnson and Galloway, which they seem to be doing, which is why they remain favoured
Yes. REMAIN is doing so well they have gone from 10-15 points ahead to Dead Level, in about six months.
JeremyCorbyn4PM @JeremyCorbyn4PM 13m13 minutes ago .@jeremycorbyn over-paid tax in the past year, say his office - declared £270 more than he should have for 2014/15
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Of course the UK being in the EU is in Australia's interests, just as it is in the USA's interests. Because our interests are aligned with the USA and Australia and Britain in the EU can align the EU more to Australia and the USA's interests.
However what that does not mean is that it is in our interests. The sovereignty we gain from leaving the EU, Australia like the USA already has. You don't see Australia begging to join the EU now do you? Them staying out of the EU and having us in is a win/win from their perspective but not from ours.
EDIT: TL;DR it is a "have cake and eat it" position from the Australian minister.
Australia is in Eurovision now!
EU membership is restricted to countries in the continent of Europe; though that isn't defined.
Not really the same thing though is it? So is Kazakhstan.
And Israel...
Indeed the epic party that is Eurovision takes place on 14th May, slap bang in the middle of the Brexit campaign.
Unfortunately Belarus is not permitted to have a naked man singing to live wolves on stage. Its health and safety gone mad!
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc We set our own laws on workers rights We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid We set our own tariffs We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
First of all, I doubt anyone on here is as dumb as I am.
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
Tampon Tax: It was proposed that we abolish VAT on Tampons. Quite reasonable, I don't think Tampons are a "luxury" and less "essential" than Jaffa Cakes. The EU prevented us from abolishing VAT on Tampons. Had we been out of the EU it would have been a matter for Parliament, abolish the tax, case-closed.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
You're leading your Cry Freedom campaign on tampons (which issue, as you admit, we "won", eventually).
Good luck with that - I expect a million (wo)man march down Whitehall any moment.
You are also saying that "in future..." the EU will do this or that. I have said countless times that if you believe that the EU is not to be trusted and that "in future" they will totally screw us, and are conspiring to do us down, then you are safer a) buying a tinfoil trilby; and b) voting out.
You asked for one concrete example, I provided one concrete example. I also provided four others.
As for in future - I said that in future they would act the same as they did in the past. That is not tinfoil hat territory. It was only due to the EU Referendum that an exemption was agreed for tampons, had the referendum not been happening at the time then the response would have been the same as it always has been.
Why would our concept of VAT be a misconception? It ought to be however we want it to be, that is democracy. If we want it be a luxury tax, why should we not have it as such?
Incidentally it is not uniquely British to view it as a luxury. In Australia their version of VAT is called GST and is very similar (perhaps unsurprisingly) to ours. That's just one nation off the top of my head, so unless there's a misconception that only European nations exist in this small world of ours, our system is not unique to the UK.
It is a misconception because the top rate of VAT in Britain is not particularly reserved for luxury goods, but for the majority of normal goods; however, public opinion seems to think that most goods are zero-rated. Well, food, but apart from that, limited enough.
PS the fascinating thing about the FT poll of polls is that the larger polls, the ones with the biggest datasets - the most people polled - and therefore arguably the most accurate, tend to favour LEAVE.
Sean, size isn't important, its what you do with it that counts.
In 2010 general election the final YouGov poll had around 6,000 sample size, wasn't as accurate as the ICM poll that contained over 1,000 respondents.
Wonder if any of the Leavers have any views on Julie Bishops comments on the EU published in the Spectator. Interesting for a right of centre politician
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
Indeed the only foreign political leader that seems to desire Brexit is Mr Putin. I wonder why...
I expect they're knocking the door down to join it themselves then are they?
I am saying that together with the other EU members we have participated in the formulation of all kinds of laws and regulations. I am also saying that often, for example as we have seen in the case of tariffs for Chinese steel, it has been the UK that has been the most vocal proponent of some of these regulations and laws.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Ignoring - or perhaps ignorant of - the fact that many of the basic principles of those laws are debated and decided at an international level where the EU speaks and votes on our behalf rather than us being able to take a full part in those debates. Unlike EFTA countries like Norway who are able to have their own vote on those bodies.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
So we leave the EU ("Freedom!") and join...EFTA!!!
Yes that has been my position throughout the whole debate. We get rid of the vast majority of EU laws whilst retaining access to the single market. Of course as always your inability to grasp simple concepts will prevent you from understanding this but I am sure there will be someone somewhere who will be able to run a remedial class for you as long as it is not past your bedtime.
And just to be clear, which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, is campaigning for us to leave the EU and join EEA/EFTA?
Which Leave campaign, official or unofficial, will be the government if we vote Leave?
Well I think it is reasonable to expect that the government will follow the official Leave campaign's manifesto. Don't you?
No. If a campaign wants a manifesto to be implemented they should win a General Election and become the government and implement it themselves.
This is a binary choice question. It is reasonable that the government implements the binary choice and that is the absolute limit to the power of the referendum. Everything else belongs to general elections.
Amid the plethora of arguments for voting leave, the lack of democratic accountability within the EU and the total lack of respect for the will of the people as evidenced yet again by the Dutch Ukraine vote should be heard loud and clear in the leave campaign:
If anyone of the Remain apologists on here would care to give me an example in history when a country has prospered long term whilst not respecting the wishes of its people then I'd love to hear it!
Comments
*tap tap tap*
(everyone super-keen to jump in for Casino)
I may have mis-remembered
surely it doesn't take take that long to google??
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
We have responsibility for what we charge VAT on - eg tampons, energy etc
We set our own laws on workers rights
We set our own laws on bailing out industries and state aid
We set our own tariffs
We negotiate our own trade agreements.
If you're too thick to think of anything then that doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
And yes there are plenty of people on here who I am happy to debate with. Those who make proper arguments rather than sarcastic comments. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to do that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3536163/South-Korean-prosecutors-accuse-politicians-giving-elderly-men-erectile-dysfunction-medication-secure-support-election-time.html
Second, could you please (keep it simple) give me a concrete example of how we are prevented from setting our own laws and also (for extra points), whether your perceived solution is good for the country or not.
Just to pick one at random.
Perhaps you could use Port Talbot as your case study, to keep it relevant, but whichever you prefer.
And not, like @Philip_Thompson, a generalised bunch of bolleaux.
I've looked down the list candidates and quite honestly I fancy none of them. So this election, and the first for a very long time, I will be sitting on the fence. I also fancy that this year the vote will be down on 2012.
Meanwhile I can hear the cogs of google turning on the computers of @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall as I type.
The EU has recently and begrudgingly allowed us to abolish tax on tampons but only because it was drawing headlines during the referendum. However we will be restricted in future just as we were in the past. There have been proposals to abolish VAT on other products and a party may want to campaign eg to get elected on abolishing VAT on energy. However no party can promise that whether its a good idea or not because the EU won't allow it.
To pick up immediately on one specific example he made.
We currently charge 5% VAT on home energy costs. We are forced to do this because of EU laws. A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential and when they were replaced the incoming Government was not allowed by EU laws to completely remove that tax. Now I realise that to someone of your sort of wealth a mere 5% is probably an insignificant trifle but to many of the poorest in the country it is yet another cost they can ill afford and one that any reasonable independent government would remove. Of course being in the EU they are not allowed to.
I am also saying that on balance, to be part of this group that formulates regulations and laws on all kinds of matters, thereby creating efficiencies Europe-wide, is better than not being a part of it.
Good luck with that - I expect a million (wo)man march down Whitehall any moment.
You are also saying that "in future..." the EU will do this or that. I have said countless times that if you believe that the EU is not to be trusted and that "in future" they will totally screw us, and are conspiring to do us down, then you are safer a) buying a tinfoil trilby; and b) voting out.
Cooperation with our international partners is a good thing. Gagging ourselves so we cannot take part in formulating that cooperation is not a good thing.
*tap tap tap*
Waiting to hear why it is such a good idea that the EU can decide whether we tax the poor for trying to keep themselves warm.
"A past Tory government was stupid enough to impose VAT on a basic essential."
ie we retained sovereignty such that we imposed the tax.
Did subsequent governments try to remove it? Please supply links to this if this was the case because I am always keen to slightly lessen my idiocy.
Thanks in advance.
Current odds suggest to me it'll be something like be 1/4 vs 4/1 come the end of July.
Does Yvette think he is truly a seer of the ages or merely a minor God ?
It's really not worth it
Blindingly obvious that this is just childish, partisan, knockabout stuff.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP97-87.pdf
It sets out in terms even you should be able to understand how the Tories imposed VAT on household heating and how, after the Labour victory in 1997, the Government were prevented from removing it entirely as it could not be reduced below 5% under EU law.
I hope your idiocy is at least partially ameliorated.
Page 4 (A stronger economy) - the trend is clear that British trade is moving away from reliance on the EU: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11661581/Trade-deficit-shrinkage-set-to-boost-UK-growth.html
EU single market - what EU single market? In particular, not an EU single market in services: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/01/the-eu-had-30-years-to-create-a-single-market-and-failed-we-need-change/
'Being inside the EU also makes it more attractive for companies to invest in the UK' - hang on a minute, these same people were arguing that foreign investment into the UK would be devastated if we didn't join the Euro around 1999/2000, so their track record on anything economic is a disgrace.
Page 5 - the derisory 3 million jobs quote! So 60% youth unemployment in Greece and mass unemployment in the EU periphery is nothing to do with the EU and the hated troika? Pull the other one!
Page 6 (Improving our lives) - what about the air fares for longer flights, look at the air passenger duty tax taking up more and more % of an air fare. Healthcare costs - net cost of non-UK nationals to the NHS was around £650m last I looked, UK benefits from healthcare overseas were much less, making non-UK nationals pay their full share would benefit us net out of the EU. Mobile phone costs would have come down due to technological advancement, nothing to do with our EU masters.
Page 8 (What Happens if we leave) - 16% of EU goods exports go to the UK - https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/ Where is the source for the 8% figure!!....and this is deeply misleading alongside the 44% figure - EU GDP was $18.51 trn in 2014, UK GDP was $2.99trn in 2014 so EU ex UK is (18.51-2.99) / 2.99 is around 5.2 times the size of our economy - comparing a % from a 5.2 times bigger economy against our economy is meaningless. And Switzerland and Norway with highest GDP per Capital in Europe give a complete lie that you have to be in the EU.
Page 9 - where did your permission for using this picture come from?!
1. I wouldn't believe anything in The Mirror.
2. Osborne doesn't make forecasts, the OBR does..
I hope that further Remain literature is as good.
And still waiting to hear from Topping why it is such a good idea that the EU can decide whether we tax the poor for trying to keep themselves warm.
Non sequitur. You don't need one vote to build an alliance, you need a majority of votes, which the UK will never have on its own even if it leaves the EU.
New Zealand itself has advised the UK to REMAIN. There is no "Anglosphere" waiting with open arms to set up a new trading bloc, especially not with a country which already left one.
Paterson should have got his finger out and negotiated a position for British sheep farmers with the EU - if he couldn't even do that, how could he have negotiated with the whole world?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-36030582
Total tw@ts...
All we know is a) he said he wanted to lower it to 5%; and b) the EU mandated minimum is 5%
While the Cons wanted to increase it, because a global organisation, the likes of which many Leavers would rather be in thrall to (in this case the UN) said it should be higher to lower emissions.
Truly a mad world we live in but no smoking gun about EU strangling our autonomy.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/12/panama-papers-global-tax-officials-inquiry-paris-meeting
But the ICIJ journos won't cooperate by giving them access to their neat searchable database of the info...
Page 10 (Immigration) - EU arrest warrant protecting us after Brussels and Paris attacks, Lee Rigby and 7/7,wow you've got some cheek to argue that! As a libertarian I'm fairly relaxed on immigration, but immigration from the EU when discriminating against non-EU individuals simply is immoral. We're missing out on a lot of talented labour thanks to the ongoing discrimination in favour of EU nationals.
Page 12 (Benefits of EU) - a pack of lies given that the agreement is not legally binding as confirmed by the EU vice president the other day. The line 'for £1 paid in tax, a little over 1p goes to the EU' is again totally misleading - EU wishes to set up a central Treasury in Brussels (what it needed to do back in 1999 to consolidate the Euro area debt and budget, but didn't do!), and surprise surprise nothing about the net £11bn cost a year of UK EU membership, or the most authoritative German study that around 65% of our laws are derived from EU law including secondary legislation / EU statutory instruments.
EU leading the way on tackling climate change - yes, three bags full Sir!
Page 14 (Once in generation decision) - well after the Scottish referendum last year I think enough of the UK electorate has enough of a memory to realise this is a load of bollo*ks
Page 16 - 'The government believes....' - well nearly half the governing party MP's don't so stop pretending as though this is a single united view
Overall - a dreadful mendacious document entirely befitting the discredited Project Fear remain campaign.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/12/almost-6000-refugee-children-missing-last-year-germany
I have another theory...
The EU is not the villain here....
Not only that but a principle of democracy and Parliamentary Sovereignty is the principle "no Parliament can bind its successors". This means that if one Parliament does something we dislike that we can vote it out and its successor can reverse the policy we dislike. Democracy in action.
Due to the ratchet effect in Europe that is impossible. Once a policy is passed we can't get it undone even if we vote out the government in the next election unless we either get unanimous or QMV as the case may be agreement with the rest of Europe to reverse the unpopular policy.
So if today's government passes a law you dislike in the EU to reverse it you don't just have to eject today's government, but eject governments all across Europe.
I would be totally in favour of just flat sales tax on everything, with reduction in other taxes to offset the hit to the poor.
"Julie Bishop, the Australian foreign minister, has said that her country would not indulge the British right’s fantasies. Australia prefers to see the world as it is rather than lose itself in nostalgia. ‘It is in our interest if a strong United Kingdom remained a part of the European Union,’ she said. ‘The EU is a significant trading partner for us; a strong UK as part of the European Union would be in Australia’s interests.’
If you're so sure that it hasn't been going on then take on Gordon Bowden in a UK court over it? If you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is and do that then you simply have no comeback on the fact that this is going on. Nobody in the establishment has dared do that since Mr Bowden took his documentation to the BBC at the start of March last year. And the BBC have sat on the documents for 13 months and counting now because surprise surprise it implicates senior BBC executives.
I don't think they were trying to win you over, any more than Jeremy Corbyn cries when PB comments say nasty things about him
They just have to beat Farage, Johnson and Galloway, which they seem to be doing, which is why they remain favoured
However what that does not mean is that it is in our interests. The sovereignty we gain from leaving the EU, Australia like the USA already has. You don't see Australia begging to join the EU now do you? Them staying out of the EU and having us in is a win/win from their perspective but not from ours.
EDIT: TL;DR it is a "have cake and eat it" position from the Australian minister.
So did the centrist US administration of Barack Obama (centrist in our terms).
There is only one world leader who is looking forward to Brexit and he is notable for his photos with guns, bears and workout machines.
@Richard_Tyndall for example is furious that Gordon Brown wasn't allowed the freedom to shape the economy as he liked it in 1997 and also he wants to go to the barricades for the tampon tax (subsequently revoked).
I, as a counter example, think that although imperfect, it is better to be hands on and a part of a trading bloc which accounts for 44% of our exports (although "falling" as many will be quick to point out). I would prefer to be inside and part of the decision-making process, rather than outside it and subject to whichever laws and regulations are passed in Brussels.
Such a stance will necessarily throw up some issues but that is a far cry from the lack of "sovereignty" that some worry about.
EU membership is restricted to countries in the continent of Europe; though that isn't defined.
So is Kazakhstan.
If the IMF is correct in their assessment of the damage a Brexit would cause, then Cameron is a total f*wit for risking it with the referendum offer.
Or the IMF is talking nonsense.
I wonder which it is?
And I'm sure you've seen the latest polls which show the leave campaign gaining ground overall. Project Fear requires a re-think!
At least that's clear. I hope The Leave Alliance gets the official nod on Thursday.
Incidentally it is not uniquely British to view it as a luxury. In Australia their version of VAT is called GST and is very similar (perhaps unsurprisingly) to ours. That's just one nation off the top of my head, so unless there's a misconception that only European nations exist in this small world of ours, our system is not unique to the UK.
Perhaps because, as the same article points out, David Davis talks of Brexit as an ‘opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.
Unfortunately not one Commonwealth or Anglosphere leader supports the UK leaving the EU thereby somewhat rubbishing the claim.’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/britain-should-exit-european-union-john-howard-says/news-story/41fddcd1e78518fb04b204925498bd41
Anyway, it's irrelevant: our membership of the European Union is our decision to take in our interest, not that of foreign politicians.
.@jeremycorbyn over-paid tax in the past year, say his office - declared £270 more than he should have for 2014/15
The Sun LOL
Indeed the epic party that is Eurovision takes place on 14th May, slap bang in the middle of the Brexit campaign.
Unfortunately Belarus is not permitted to have a naked man singing to live wolves on stage. Its health and safety gone mad!
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/eurovision-2016-belarus-act-ivan-aims-to-perform-naked-with-live-wolves-on-stage-a3223006.html?amp?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb#
As for in future - I said that in future they would act the same as they did in the past. That is not tinfoil hat territory. It was only due to the EU Referendum that an exemption was agreed for tampons, had the referendum not been happening at the time then the response would have been the same as it always has been.
In 2010 general election the final YouGov poll had around 6,000 sample size, wasn't as accurate as the ICM poll that contained over 1,000 respondents.
There are other examples like that.
This is a binary choice question. It is reasonable that the government implements the binary choice and that is the absolute limit to the power of the referendum. Everything else belongs to general elections.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/how-politicians-justify-denying-the-people-the-right-to-vote/
If anyone of the Remain apologists on here would care to give me an example in history when a country has prospered long term whilst not respecting the wishes of its people then I'd love to hear it!