EU to charge Britain more money due to success of economy....

[brighton fella]

Well Westminster ratifies an EU law. Each can be challenged and the UK has the least amount of challenges in the EU. Also up until last year as almost everyone knows, most immigrants to the uk, legal and illegal came from outside the EU and still around 45% do. So Westminster have had years and years to curb the flow if it had wanted to. It hasn't. Immigration only becomes an issue when a new member state enters and suddenly Farage et al start the scaremongering. Yet no one mentions the influx from the Middle East, Asia, Africa or the Indian sub continent, of which we see huge migration to the uk all the time. Before anyone else says 'yes but it's the French that let them get to the UK', would this stop if we left the EU? Of course not. Westminster hasn't ever got its sh*t together on this. Yet all the ukips bang on about are our own laws etc and we seem incapable of doing a better job at Westminster than the Euro Parliment.

if Westminster has the right to challenge such issues as migration then why does Cameron get floored each & every time he raises the question, look the EU has already stated that there will be no compromise's on free movement of persons (asylum or immigration) within the EU. and no matter how you try and dress it up that my friend is FACT.

finally it makes no odds to me whether the problem is coming from outside of the EU or inside... the countries almost at breaking point. failure to get a grip on migrants/immigrants from outside the EU means free movement of people within the EU will only add to the problem not solve it.

 

[cunning fergus]

I don't believe that's so; the implementation of an EU directive is the responsibility of the national authorities (ie governments) of the EU member states. The UK Parliament could vote down a government proposal for implementation if it so wished, even though the directive itself will have already been approved by the UK government (via the Council of Ministers) and the European Parliament.

You are on the money as far as Directives go………………..

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_directive_en.htm

However these are not the only legislative instrument at the Commission’s disposal, as we also have regulations……………

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_regulation_en.htm

As you can see, these do not touch our democratically elected Parliament, and also the Commission has the power conferred on it to enforce these regulations unilaterally without the EU Parliament’s approval.

Here is a practical example of this legislation.

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/regcapital/legislation-in-force/index_en.htm

And here is the impotence of the UK’s democratically elected representatives in light of the was the EU works……

From the pro EU side………

http://www.thenewfederalist.eu/The-...uropean-banking-rules-the-UK-thinks-not,05658

And the anti EU side……….

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/margarida-vasconcelos-the-uk-outvoted-on-bankers-bonuses-2/

Like Boerthelm noted previously, whether its immigration, bankers bonuses, light bulbs or under powered vacuum cleaners, our democratically elected representatives are not in control, and our national interests are secondary to the “greater good” and “QMV”.................that is THE point.

This surrender of national sovereignty has never been explained to the public, which is why there is so much misinformation about it. This thread is a case in point.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Under the EU treaties our parliament has no choice but to do so. It's smoke and mirrors to give the EU a hint of respectability and democracy.

Look I was replying to Brighton fellas statement that Westminster does not make the law. Well they do make the law. They implement it. Whitehall Westminster, the uk government. Just because it doesn't suit the agenda of some, doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way.
The bug seems to be that it's not laws that our own government dreams up. It's the EU commission and Parliament. I don't mind that personally. I know that will upset some but I don't think our political system is fair, representative of the nation or particularly democratic. So maybe before we let Farage scaremongering us out of Europe, maybe we should reform our own political system first. Followed by getting our borders in order where non EU immigrants are concerned, then try to renegotiate a position within the EU. It's like we all want to jump off a train at full speed into thorn bushes, but we are only wearing swim gear.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

You misunderstand me. Taxes on money laundered are already in the Exchequer records - marked as clean money. If you record the same transaction twice for the same event as you would if you include money laundering as part of the black economy and as part of the clean economy then it would be double-counting. I'm not talking about what happens with the money further on down the line or even prior to that.

And to back up my point further I did some checking and the ONS does NOT include money laundering as part of its black economy calculations, only drugs and prostitution:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...-prostitution-in-the-uk-national-accounts.pdf

I've read the background to why they include these items and it's to get a better idea of turnover of UK plc of which money laundering is already in the records. I hope you can now see that even though the turnover of UK/Greece/Italy/Holland will undoubtedly increase by including estimates of drugs and prostitution, the countries don't see any of the income tax on that money. Only sales tax that is, as I've explained cost-neutral because it would have been paid anyway whether by drug user or drug dealer.

I have a few issue with this. Firstly, no-one's received any money fraudulently. Calculating GDP and including the black economy as part of that is not the same as saying that Greece received any money from the EU fraudulently. Everything has been above board so to speak with the payments to Greece - what's changed is the way it is calculated.

Secondly, and this is a huge point - the whole thing about the black economy is that no-one pays tax on it so the Government don't receive the benefit. Greece may have a huge black economy but they don't see a penny of that money, criminals don't tend to declare and pay tax on illegal earnings. It seems very unfair to surcharge based in part on money a country never receives. Lastly, the very nature of the black economy is that at best it's a guestimate. There's absolutely no way that the the Greek equivalent of the ONS or the EU can be sure what the real amount is. A quarter of a billion demand sprung overnight and immediate payment demanded based on guesses does not appear to me at least of being a reasonable way of running a department. And I can't be the only one to question the morality of a surcharge being applied because a country has 'benefited' from drugs, prostitution and human trafficking?

And further to Herr Tubthumper's comments about how clueless everybody is, this BBC article makes for very interesting reading and lays the blame squarely at the door of EU Commission incompetence. Italy, Holland and Britain have all said this has come as a complete surprise and with no consultation nor warning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-29776473

Matteo Renzi the Italian Prime Minister said:

"We only found out about Italy's extra money towards the EU budget last night"....He demanded "more transparency and clarity", saying "we don't come here to receive lectures and admonishments"..."When I say that bureaucracy risks destroying Europe, I say it because I think that this is the biggest risk for EU citizens."


​What silly little Englanders/Dutch/Greeks/Italians they all are, eh?

Buzzer - I don't disagree with anything there - but the tax thing was in response to you stating that no one pays tax on it - as you state now its already in the figures -

So money laundered is in the figures - agreed?
Drugs and prostitution weren't originally but you understand why they are now and why we ended up with a bill backdated?

And you can see that even if its not declared the government still gets a tax benefit even if its via other people or cleaned up money?

Will you pass the bill for payment now?

 

[Buzzer]

No! Once again - money laundering is clean money and has been taxed, it was always in the GDP figures. Drugs and prostitution aren't taxed.

The new calculations are still based on turnover (GDP) and not on tax receipts. Just because the figures reflect increased turnover it doesn't necessarily confer increased benefits on the UK, Greece or whoever.

The EU calculations are based on how big an economy is for each country, it's not based on relative wealth or any concept of profits or tax receipts.

 

[beorhthelm]

Look I was replying to Brighton fellas statement that Westminster does not make the law. Well they do make the law. They implement it. Whitehall Westminster, the uk government. Just because it doesn't suit the agenda of some, doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way.
The bug seems to be that it's not laws that our own government dreams up. It's the EU commission and Parliament. I don't mind that personally. I know that will upset some but I don't think our political system is fair, representative of the nation or particularly democratic. So maybe before we let Farage scaremongering us out of Europe, maybe we should reform our own political system first. Followed by getting our borders in order where non EU immigrants are concerned, then try to renegotiate a position within the EU. It's like we all want to jump off a train at full speed into thorn bushes, but we are only wearing swim gear.

you really dont understand this do you? you dont see the inherent contradiction of your point. if as you say our government could dismiss and overrule any EU regulation, then there would be no need to renegotiate anything. there wouldnt be anything to complain about if our government could pick and choose which EU directives it wanted to apply. there wouldnt be any issue about immigration as they'd just say no to new members citizens.

and if you think our political system is unfair, how on earth do you agree with a system where the "government" is a set of appointees (the commission) and the parliament's only powers are to approve or dismiss the whole government and approve or dismiss the whole budget? no meaningful debates, no amendments, just take it or leave on the whole caboodle. if the european parliament doesnt like a directive they have no power to stop it; if they think the EU is overspending on Tobacco farming they cant stop it unless they dismiss the enture budget; if one of the commissioners is found to be corrupt and feathering her and her home towns nest, they cannot dismiss her without expelling the all the commissioners. (if you hadnt worked out, none of this is hypothetical).

The EU is a sham of democracy, it is inefficient and serves only to further the political aims of a tiny minority of europe's political elite.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

and if you think our political system is unfair, how on earth do you agree with a system where the "government" is a set of appointees (the commission) and the parliament's only powers are to approve or dismiss the whole government and approve or dismiss the whole budget? no meaningful debates, no amendments, just take it or leave on the whole caboodle. if the european parliament doesnt like a directive they have no power to stop it; if they think the EU is overspending on Tobacco farming they cant stop it unless they dismiss the enture budget; if one of the commissioners is found to be corrupt and feathering her and her home towns nest, they cannot dismiss her without expelling the all the commissioners. (if you hadnt worked out, none of this is hypothetical).

The EU is a sham of democracy, it is inefficient and serves only to further the political aims of a tiny minority of europe's political elite.

Currently the European Commission will draft legislation (be it a directive or council/parliament regulation) under co-decision and initially forward it to the EU Parliament for consideration/amendment/approval/rejection (1st Reading), it then goes to the Council before returning again to the Parliament for their 2nd Reading. If the Parliament rejects at 2nd Reading then that's the end of it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Currently the European Commission will draft legislation (be it a directive or council/parliament regulation) under co-decision and initially forward it to the EU Parliament for consideration/amendment/approval/rejection (1st Reading), it then goes to the Council before returning again to the Parliament for their 2nd Reading. If the Parliament rejects at 2nd Reading then that's the end of it.

as i understand it, amendment or rejection from the parliament isnt definitive, its the beginning of a discussion with a committee. which sounds very nice but means in practice anything the commission wants it will get. more imporatantly, unlike our parliament, the EU can not initiate law. it cant decide a law is unjust and set about to repeal it, only the commission can instigate legislation. thats a pretty poor immitation of democracy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Look I was replying to Brighton fellas statement that Westminster does not make the law. Well they do make the law. They implement it. Whitehall Westminster, the uk government. Just because it doesn't suit the agenda of some, doesn't mean it doesn't happen that way.
The bug seems to be that it's not laws that our own government dreams up. It's the EU commission and Parliament. I don't mind that personally. I know that will upset some but I don't think our political system is fair, representative of the nation or particularly democratic. So maybe before we let Farage scaremongering us out of Europe, maybe we should reform our own political system first. Followed by getting our borders in order where non EU immigrants are concerned, then try to renegotiate a position within the EU. It's like we all want to jump off a train at full speed into thorn bushes, but we are only wearing swim gear.

Well aren't we a tetchy little so in so ! I was only pointing out that our parliament is forced to pass laws thanks to the EU. The key word being FORCED - I for one think OUR parliament should rule not the EU.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

No! Once again - money laundering is clean money and has been taxed, it was always in the GDP figures. Drugs and prostitution aren't taxed.

The new calculations are still based on turnover (GDP) and not on tax receipts. Just because the figures reflect increased turnover it doesn't necessarily confer increased benefits on the UK, Greece or whoever.

The EU calculations are based on how big an economy is for each country, it's not based on relative wealth or any concept of profits or tax receipts.

Which is another reason to legalise drugs and prostitution. The Dutch don't have to worry about which column to put these in their accounts!

It's a circular argument matey. I'm definitely hiring you to sort out my drug accounts. I'm always too stoned to find the receipts!

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

as i understand it, amendment or rejection from the parliament isnt definitive, its the beginning of a discussion with a committee. which sounds very nice but means in practice anything the commission wants it will get. more imporatantly, unlike our parliament, the EU can not initiate law. it cant decide a law is unjust and set about to repeal it, only the commission can instigate legislation. thats a pretty poor immitation of democracy.

Should the EU Parliament pass/amend the legislation at its 2nd reading then the draft legislation returns to the Council of Ministers (ie the member states) for their approval. If the Council doesn't approve the amendments that the Parliament has made then there is a resolution procedure (Consultation Committee). The CC is made up of equal numbers of MEPs and Council representatives; if they can't reach agreement on a text then the draft legislation falls but if they do it returns to the Council and Parliament for a 3rd reading. Neither Council nor Parliament can change the text at 3rd reading, if either rejects or fails to act then the legislation falls.
The Commission is in general terms the equivalent of the Civil Service in the UK Depts of State. It drafts legislation at the behest of the Council of Ministers, Member States, possibly the Parliament or in order to ensure that existing law is being applied correctly.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Well aren't we a tetchy little so in so ! I was only pointing out that our parliament is forced to pass laws thanks to the EU. The key word being FORCED - I for one think OUR parliament should rule not the EU.

I cannot see how the Westminster Parliament or devolved assemblies can be forced to pass anything by the EU. There is nothing stopping a majority of MPs voting any proposed legislation down.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Commission is in general terms the equivalent of the Civil Service in the UK Depts of State. It drafts legislation at the behest of the Council of Ministers, Member States, possibly the Parliament or in order to ensure that existing law is being applied correctly.

i could go with your point until this, which is plain incorrect. the Commission is the executive of the EU and instigates legislative change. it employes the european civil serive to do its bidding, but the commissioners are most like are ministers and creates its own mandate for changing law.

I cannot see how the Westminster Parliament or devolved assemblies can be forced to pass anything by the EU. There is nothing stopping a majority of MPs voting any proposed legislation down.

and yet we see time and again directives and regulations that dont suit us or our political system, are massively unpopular or simply unjust being imposed upon us from Brussels. where power has been ceded to Brussels, in areas of labour law, trade, commerce, taxation, health and safety (not the gone made type) to name a few, our elected members have no power to overrule the EU.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I cannot see how the Westminster Parliament or devolved assemblies can be forced to pass anything by the EU. There is nothing stopping a majority of MPs voting any proposed legislation down.

There are some demands that the EU can pass under current treaties thus forcing our parliament to pass a law to implement said demand.

 

[Captain Sensible]

you really dont understand this do you? you dont see the inherent contradiction of your point. if as you say our government could dismiss and overrule any EU regulation, then there would be no need to renegotiate anything. there wouldnt be anything to complain about if our government could pick and choose which EU directives it wanted to apply. there wouldnt be any issue about immigration as they'd just say no to new members citizens.

and if you think our political system is unfair, how on earth do you agree with a system where the "government" is a set of appointees (the commission) and the parliament's only powers are to approve or dismiss the whole government and approve or dismiss the whole budget? no meaningful debates, no amendments, just take it or leave on the whole caboodle. if the european parliament doesnt like a directive they have no power to stop it; if they think the EU is overspending on Tobacco farming they cant stop it unless they dismiss the enture budget; if one of the commissioners is found to be corrupt and feathering her and her home towns nest, they cannot dismiss her without expelling the all the commissioners. (if you hadnt worked out, none of this is hypothetical).

The EU is a sham of democracy, it is inefficient and serves only to further the political aims of a tiny minority of europe's political elite.

I don't think you understand. I don't even think you read my post properly. I simply said how EU law is written in British law. I didn't say overrule. I said in an earlier post they may challenge. Much as Cameron just has with the extra contribution. My point was that I personally don't care who dreams up the laws, many of you seem to think you have some sort of power if Westminster were to once again make our laws. Because they were so good at that weren't they. Yes much better when the MP's of Westminster passed laws you could do nothing about and had no say it power in. And before you say anything about voting my mp out if I don't like what they do, most if the time A, you hadn't voted them in and B, they have to tow the party or whips line. So you have almost no say. Much like the EU commission. The thing is I fail to see these terrible awful EU laws that are holding me back day after day. Where are they? In fact for me working for a company my working conditions have improved considerably because of EU law. I don't think id have certain things in my working life if it was left to Westminster. Millions more are the same. I still fail to see what magical transformation would happen once we leave the EU, have financial instability through the exit, then come out the other side, poorer, and yet into some sort of Sovereignty Utopia! Total nonsense.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Well aren't we a tetchy little so in so ! I was only pointing out that our parliament is forced to pass laws thanks to the EU. The key word being FORCED - I for one think OUR parliament should rule not the EU.

Lol, sorry I didn't mean my post to be so. Its just the explaining and re explaining, I get a bit tired of it sometimes. I like exchanging views with you Westy. Much more than many others on here because you follow the thread. Rather than some that jump into a thread, and say something that came up 10 pages ago.
I think the crux of it for me is that I don't mind the EU making some of our laws and I don't mind the open boarders . If the uk would get its own sh*te in order and make it a little less attractive to come here, then most of the open border problem goes away. I also think the open borders are a small price for financial access to the EU trade, as we've discussed before.
What annoys me is that ukip, have no answers, no strategy, no plans on how an exit would be delt with or how we would recover after the inevitable financial hardship of an exit. I think it's irresponsible and I just hope there are enough sensible people in the uk to reject an EU exit.
Then I hope there are enough sensible countries in the EU that realise there needs to be reform that allows nations more Room to negotiate certain terms.
That's all I'll say on this thread now. Over to someone else to do battle with you ukips. Have a good evening.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Lol, sorry I didn't mean my post to be so. It just the explaining and re explaining, I get a bit tired of it sometimes. I like exchanging post with you Westy. Much more than many others on here because you follow the thread. Rather than some that jump into a thread, and say something that came up 10 pages ago.
I think the crux of it for me is that I don't mind the EU making some of our laws and I don't mind the open boarders . If the uk would get its own sh*te init der and make it a little less attractive to come here, then most of the open border problem goes away. I also think the open borders are a small price for financial access to the EU trade, as we've discussed before.

And as you say that is the crux, you're happy for the EU to rule while I'm not. Pro's and Con's to each view. Thankfully you don't resort to the 'Little Englander' insult because we disagree. I'm all for healthy political debate but I object to being called a racist, xenophobe or little englander because I support a withdrawal from a club I see as corrupt ( not aimed at you by the way ).

Have a good evening - I'm off to eat my sausage casserole with mash ( how British ! ).

 

[looney]

If the uk would get its own sh*te in order and make it a little less attractive to come here, then most of the open border problem goes away.

So what do you suggest? Beat up foreigners? Collapse the economy?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Just look to the people who instigated an open door policy!

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Just look to the people who instigated an open door policy!

Konrad Adenauer, King of Belgium, Ted Heath, anyone who voted yes in the 1975 referendum........................?