Camicus
New member
He/she is voted in by the member states head of government once more people you voted in.Really it's not that hard
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Could UKIP win the General Election ?
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,348
not quite, firstly its the President of the European Commission who the EU parliament approves or vetos the candidate put forward by the EU council. so they rubber stamp the person the member countries leaders decided on amongst themselves (as a result of backroom horse trading), with no input from any EU citizens. then theres the President of the European Council itself which is seperate and appointed (again) by the leaders of the member countries, only without any veto from the parliament.
still, none of this should let you avoid the point that the EU and its machinery is one of the principle methods for wholesale tax avoidance, and the current appointed leader was directly responsible for creating the Luxembourg tax policies that enable those methods.
Creaky
Well-known member
More to the point the European Parliament does not introduce legislation nor can it block it. It is the Council of the European Union that creates a 'Bill' which is then put to the European Parliament for consideration and the addition of amendments - BUT, just as with the Lords and the Commons in the UK, the Council do not have to abide by any vote nor accept any amendment. The European Parliament is pretty much just a talking shop.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,748
That's right, a mere 28 people "appoint" the President of the Commission, in a process which is similar to how China elects its most powerful leaders.......a position you seem entirely comfortable about.
So, even someone who has been involved in serial tax avoidance schemes like Juncker gets the top job in the EU Commission, despite the UK's democratically elected leader being opposed to the appointment.
Little wonder many people feel entirely disenfranchised by the EU, it's not that hard to understand is it?
Thanks for your reply. A very very expensive talking shop, which unfortunately the weak seem to listen to.
The President, Juncker The basic monthly salary of the President is fixed at 112.5% of the top civil service grade which, in 2013, amounted to €25,351 per month or €304,212 per year plus an allowance for a residence equal to 15% of salary as well as other allowances including for children's schooling and household expenses.
Camicus
New member
I'm not saying it's hard to understand when you have willful ignorance spread by propagandists about it all. What I will say is that when I was working 72 hours a weekj Noone in Westminster said it's all right boy your breaking your back for to many hours take a break. But the Eu did and still Westminster opted out. I feel that the eu is looking out for me far more than Cameron does or Farage for that matter
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,348
fair enough. and the Eu says its ok to shift your tax to holding companies in Luxembourg, so the EU is looking out for the cohort that benefits from that.
Camicus
New member
Eu says no such thing Luxembourg says you can shelter here. However now eu laws state your head office should be where you conduct most of your business
Creaky
Well-known member
And the UK has cut its Corporation Tax Rate to attract more businesses - unfortunately there can be a sting in the tale as Eire discovered - companies attracted purely by taxation level can just as easily up sticks and move to a more favourable location.
UKIP want to cut this tax even further, (to just 10%), to attract businesses to these shores.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,748
There is no propaganda about the EU's lack of democracy, it's a fact.
As for the EU looking out for the working class, that is priceless. The economic reality for the working class in the UK is rising employment and falling wages, and in the wider EU it is nothing short of catastrophic.
Longstanding hard fought workers rights abandoned to try and keep economies ticking over. Spain for example has rising employment but it's new employees are on wages 40% lower than 5 years ago and little in the way of employment rights. It's car factories are on full shifts and are now at rates competitive with Turkey.
Wages are so low there is no dividend for the economy and Spain in on the edge of a deflationary spiral, as is the wider Eurozone.
The only ones the EU looks out for are Tories and capitalists.............which is why old Labour campaigned for out, and the likes of Dennis Skinner have more in common with UKIP than they would let on.
Anyway, do carry on.
Camicus
New member
Wotevs
Do you think this would have happened if UKIP were not around.
David Cameron.
"We have always been an open nation, welcoming those who want to make a contribution and build a decent life for themselves and their families.
But people have understandably become frustrated.
They want Government to have control over the numbers of people coming here and the circumstances in which they come. And yet in recent years, it has become clear that successive Governments have lacked that control.
So my objective is simple: to make our immigration system fairer, and reduce the current exceptionally high level of migration from within the EU into the UK.
First, we want to create the toughest system in the EU for dealing with abuse of free movement. This includes stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back.
Second, EU migrants should have a job offer before they come here - and UK taxpayers will not support them if they don't. And if an EU jobseeker has not found work within six months, they will be required to leave.
Third, we want to reduce the number of EU workers coming to the UK - so in the future, they won't get benefits or social housing from Britain unless they have been here for at least four years.
This is an issue which matters to the British people, and to our future in the European Union.
If I am elected as Prime Minister in May, I will negotiate to reform the European Union, and Britain's relationship with it. This issue of free movement will be a key part of that negotiation.
If I succeed, I will campaign to keep this country in a reformed EU. If we cannot put our relationship with the EU on a better footing, then of course I rule nothing out.
I want to know what you think about this important issue. Please leave a comment below and have your say."
Creaky
Well-known member
I'm a bit confused about that argument - if the EU are only looking out for Tories and capitalists why have they allowed Eurozone to enter a deflationary spiral as you claim? Deflation is the biggest enemy of capitalism.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,748
Sure, but then don't Governments (well taxpayers) have to bailout the capitalists?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/european-union-to-launch-237bn-infrastructure-plan
When QE was rolled out in the UK who really benefitted from that, the rich or the poor?
Don't get me wrong I don't think its a conspiracy, however what ever way it goes, the capitalists and the politicians in their pocket will look after their interests first?
These days whenever immigration or other aspects of the EU are represented on the media, it is always the interests of business and commerce the are to the fore..........who do they serve? Their own interests or wider society?
If it was society, freedom of movement would be in the dustbin.........the only people who benefit or advocate free markets in anything are Tories and capitalists.
Camicus
New member
It's all smoke and mirrors from Cameron. You seem to think Eu freedom of movement is bad and a one way street it's not
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,748
As far as benefitting the working class and low skilled the EU's principle of freedom of movement is a one way street.........that's before we get to surrendering our ability to prevent Latvian and Lithuanian murderers.
It cannot be anything else, and it's a fundamental reason why old Labour was opposed to the EEC.
Can you think of any other developed western style countries in the world, which allow citizens of other countries to simply arrive without a by-your-leave and compete with their native workers legally for work?
What factors do you think prevent these other countries Governments from allowing "freedom of movement" with their poorer neighbours or say the EU so their economies can also benefit from additional resources of labour?
The poor and powerless in this country were never more powerful than after the plague which reduced the working population by 30%. So powerful were they that they destroyed the centuries old system of feudalism and forced the powerful to introduce putative legislation concerning pay to control their wages.........the maximum wage (see statute of labourers act 1350).
Forcing businesses to pay a minimum wage is acceptance by the state that the workers are powerless at the hands of business, on the other hand if you controlled your labour market they assume more power, and should naturally be able to command better pay from businesses without the need for such legislation.
Not hard to understand is it?
Dandyman
In London village.
The latest crisis of capitalism was not caused by Polish plumbers or German GPs it was caused by a greedy, incompetent and under-regulated financial sector. Cameron's attempt to blame migration for our economic woes is dishonest dog-whistle nonsense.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
I would want far more than sweeping statements such as this, please. I don't think he is blaming our economic woes on immigrants at all - this a gross exaggeration. Ironically, he is talking up the economy. What he is saying is that the British people would like to see more fairness, in that people who come here often from poorer countries should not expect instant benefits, to which they will not have contributed. Immigrants who work undoubtedly DO contribute to the economy, but the stresses are elsewhere, notably on the NHS and in some schools. I would need persuading that a "greedy, incompetent and under regulated financial sector", as you put it, is responsible for the poverty in, say, Romania, which is the spur for their citizens to wish to seek a better life in the UK. No one doubts that there is greed -there always has been and always will be - but surely the financial sector can't be blamed for everything, convenient as it is to think so.