You asked for a specific policy, but any single policy would obviously be affordable as being only one part of the whole budget, so whilst I can tell you're proud of it as a question it doesn't actually work.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Correct, it's disgusting. Public industries failing is due to mismanagement from govt rather than their flavor of politics.
it'll be a real tragedy if the people who don't pay any tax leave the country
Sure, there's always exceptions where it makes sense, all the propping up of banks after the financial crisis was state aid too. I don't agree with the under cover part, and I don't think any country lacks the "guile" to use the laws to their best benefit. I'm not an expert on how much/what exceptions are possible, but even if there isn't enough room to navigate under current arrangements they can always be amended etc. by anybody with the ability to convince the others of it's usefulness. Going onto one of those exceptions:
That's our food. We can't become dependent on 3rd countries for the very basis of life. I don't think there would be support in any country for that.
Tell me anywhere where Socialism has worked.
The NHS is a travesty, we can't have poor people receiving healthcare for free. That's basically communism. We need to move to an American style insurance based system where a serious illness can cripple a family financially for decades.
Look up democratic socialism in europe and forget your ideas of corrupt politicians that have ruined economies around the world, they could be from any idiology.
Thread.
You mean people earning up to £12,500?
State aid rules are there to stop subsidised companies unfairly competing with non subsidised ones: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html
And "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Of course State aid rules are there for a purpose, but they are also circumvented when it suits, similarly the EU has not had true independent audits of its finances in 12 years, they use an EU Register of Auditors.
See that's where I can't follow the British thinking anymore (at all). It's preposterous to expect the EU to give KPMG, PWC or any other assortment of international "accountants" millions for them to give their opinion on EU spending. Obviously there need to be checks & balances, one can argue for more, but to expect them to be external is bizarre.
Forgive a dumb question, but who independently audits the UK's finances?
I have no idea, specifically who, but as far as I am aware auditors appointed on behalf of the crown report to the HoP, as well as via the Audit Office.
Thanks, I was really wondering if they are any more independent than the EU's are. They may well be, I don't know.
Why is it bizarre? Through their individual Governments, tax payers across the 28 countries are paying into the EU pot, surely they are entitled to an independent audit of whether that money is spent correctly (as intended) and efficiently and what measures are being used to confirm these outcomes. Such actions would go a long way to silencing the EU's detractors.
Funny how the UK electorate are so worried about what happens to their £8bn a year that goes to the EU whereas most of them haven't got a clue what happens to the £817bn the UK government spends. Jokers.
The UK government does not waste money - it is in the hands of highly competent ministers like Chris Grayling.
Because literally no government I know of does it. How are auditors appointed on behalf of the crown any more independent from her majesty's government than EU auditors are from the EU?
HS2 Service Pack 6
A company probably would know if a competitor was being unfairly subsidised and can take it to court. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/intro_en.html
things you shouldn't say if you're trying to get a second referendumSoubry said:
She’s talking about 1975 presumably. The 2016 referendum didn’t so much lance the boil as turn it into a bubonic plague bubo.
nope
Ah, Scottish then I suppose...
To be honest the 2014 referendum would have lanced the boil had it not been followed up by the 2016 referendum which destroyed the argument that leaving the UK meant leaving the EU.
That would actually be great for Remain - split the leave vote quite nicely I imagine.
Them not taking no deal Brexit off the table means they secretly want it.
That's the line isn't it?
For the most part I dont try to look beyond the immutable truth that they are all just trying to further their own careers.
Wouldn't it be hard to hold a second referendum in good democratic faith if you just rule out hard next for people in advance?
One of the arguments against any particular option is that the original referendum didn't specify what kind of Brexit was to be implemented if you follow that logic you can't exclude no deal without disrespecting the first vote.
One of the arguments against any particular option is that the original referendum didn't specify what kind of Brexit was to be implemented if you follow that logic you can't exclude no deal without disrespecting the first vote.
That's nonsense though isn't it?
Food security is enhanced by having many diverse suppliers not restricting supply to only EU countries. Its also an argument which isn't given any credence in any of the other "basis of life" essentials like energy supply for example.
See it for what it is pure protectionism, set up to appease powerful self interest groups which the various countries political leaders cow down to.
It also deprives developing economies of markets they need to improve their economies by selling something they can make money at and do cheaper than us.
Meanwhile our own competitive businesses pay the penalty because we must protect our farmers at all costs in any trade deal and its the first thing cited as an excuse by other countries not to open their markets to us.
Neither is the food supply restricted to "only EU countries" nor does keeping the ability to grow your own foods curtail your ability to source food from outside.
Simply not true. The same is done with water and the NHS. Most European countries would very much like to source their own oil or natural gas, if it was there to source to begin with.
That's your opinion and not true for a lot of the 28 member countries.
Or alternatively it keeps developing countries citizens from having to compete with much richer customers for food on an absolutely level playing field. Worth remembering that the island of Ireland was still exporting food during the famine!
You're calling it an "excuse" yourself. Don't think they'd come up with another if we'd get rid of this one?
Well strictly speaking it could be argued that the Remain Option lost the first referendum, so then as an option its taken off the ballot sheet, i.e.if there is to be a second referendum it should only be about how we leave, the two responses to:
Which form of Brexit do you wish to see actioned?
being either;
1) May's Deal or
2) No Deal (WTO)
of course a Revoke A50, option could be legitimately put to the public in a third referendum, if there is no clear majority (say two-thirds) between 1 or 2 above?
They could have it plastered on the side of a train:
"Instead of spending £63bn on HS2 why not have 8 years of EU membership and save the economy!"
I won't derail the thread any further than this post but you are all over the place with your arguments here.
Of course subsidising farming and setting quotas curtails your ability to source from outside, that's the whole point of it, to stop EU citizens from buying cheaper food from outside by taxing them and using the taxes raised to pay for farming that couldn't compete otherwise and when that doesn't work set quotas. If the other sources can't sell into lucrative markets like the EU then they don't produce it and can't develop the agricultural industries as there is no return. Then the EU dumps its surplus on their market and destroys their ability to produce enough food for themselves. There is a reason CAP is loathed by food producers around the world and they have a valid point.
Meanwhile we all pay more for our food which might not be very important to you but its a major cost to the poorest, they are burdened with it in order to protect the income of some of the wealthiest people in Europe. Agriculture is less than 2% of EU GDP and employment in agriculture has halved since the 90's yet the EU spends 40% of it budget subsidising agriculture through CAP. It is utter madness to continue with this policy but the proposed 5% reduction for the next round of spending is already opposed by France and Spain.
This is not about temporary support during the occasional downs this is ongoing massive support of failing businesses in a sector that falls further and further behind the rest of the world. Its wasteful, corrupt, immoral and deeply counter productive but the EU loves it and people who love the EU go to any lengths like citing like the potato famine from 1840's to try and justify continuing with it.
I'm all over the place with my arguments because I am directly addressing yours, something you are failing to do here (once again).
I agree that the dumping of surplus is a problem, the rest of the points you raise are ideological and not in the interests of ordinary citizens. But since you're not interested in derailing this thread, never mind. The EU is in no way perfect and certain things need changing, but it's not responsible for "keeping poorer economies from developing", "too high grocery prices" or any of the other stuff you claim. Go to any US supermarket (or Switzerland, Canada, Norway) and compare.
For what its worth i find supermarkets in UK amazingly cheap and thats why i usually bring back a suitcase full of food stuffs. Next trip 17th may, cant wait.
You won't be able to do that when the Uk have left.
Yeah i will