Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Large type 1: Uh oh.... So the Lisbon Treaty CAN be renegotiated then?

it has to be renegotiated / re-signed anyway to include all the provisions that were promised to the Irish govt in order to fix the second referendum and that still haven't been delivered.

Large type 2: Exactly what some bolitics posters have been saying for months. If Germany decides it can't carry the PIGS debt for them then the whole rotten thing will unravel very quickly. Interesting few months ahead I think, will they really risk letting the people decide?

According to the grauniad at the weekend, sarkozy threatened to pull france out of the euro if merkel didn't agree to the €750bn bailout

Well Cameron is meeting Merkel today in Berlin and she is going to raise the issue of reopening the Lisbon Treaty, to incorporate what Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble describes as a move towards "economic government" of member states by Brussels. That would include the power of Brussels to audit the economies of member states to ostensibly prevent anyone else 'doing a Greece'. No irony at all in the fact that the EU accounts have not been signed of as fit and accurate for about 13 years!

Me thinks Cameron and Clegg are going to clash on this but with the Euro going down the swanny I don't think the latter's hand is a strong one. If the Eurocrats want to push ahead with renegotiation then we ARE going to get a referendum and it will pose a fundamental question to the British public: do we want every increasing economic, political and social integration with Europe?

As the nation's primary political forum the question has to be asked, what does VT think? Arguments for and against please ladies and gents.

[drat01]

Jon - Europe is our major trading partner - we need a strong Europe. Also I am very concerned that Gideon is now leading the UK stance on this, I feel that he will just pander to what his paymasters want rather than look at the bigger picture.

You keep saying the Euro is going down the swanny as though its a certainty - surely that is just your and UKIP's opinion? As for a referendum - on what exactly? You keep waving that around as though its some sort of magic wand that will solve the woes of the world. All of the worlds markets are struggling, and you have to wonder who is benefiting - I am actually glad that the Germans took the option to bet off the table the other day, its fundamentally flawed as it allows individuals to dictate country and area economic decisions based on what they will bet on

[drat01]

:-) - a slight distraction but was the use of the word frogs intentional and how did our Gallic cousins react I wonder :-)

Schäuble defended Germany's actions yesterday, saying: "If you want to drain a swamp, you don't ask the frogs for an objective assessment of the situation."

Gary Jenkins at Evolution Securities said: "True. But if the frogs are an integral part of your financial and economic system you may want to consider the implications of your actions before you act. And if the pond is partly owned by your neighbours you might want to have a chat with them before you start your unilateral action. Have to be mad as a box of frogs to start draining without doing that first, surely?"

[Clarry]

Thinking about it they should up vat to 20% BUT say to anyone earning the minimum wage that they pay no tax. What would the minimum wage equate to on a full time annual wage? (35 hour week)

whatever that is, should be the threshold. £10k doesn't get you very far nowadays, not without still relying on benefits and credits, which doesn't solve the problem does it.

Just over £10. But everyone I know on minimum wage survive on that alone and without other benefits. But they are all single.

[snowychap]

for ever person who achieves good gcse, A-levels and wants to go onto university who comes from a family who's only income is from the state, then their entire families benefits get halved and the child gets the other half.

So the choice for someone from that kind of background is to go to University and put their family in to penury (or perhaps further into it) or to not go to University?

I'm not sure you've thought that one through, mate. :winkold:

[drat01]

for ever person who achieves good gcse, A-levels and wants to go onto university who comes from a family who's only income is from the state, then their entire families benefits get halved and the child gets the other half.

So the choice for someone from that kind of background is to go to University and put their family in to penury (or perhaps further into it) or to not go to University?

I'm not sure you've thought that one through, mate. :winkold:

He is Gideon - I claim my 10£

[tonyh29]

Europe is our major trading partner

Whilst it's true that we do a lot of trade with Europe , we don't need to be in it to trade ,Switzerland is not in EU but benefits from EU trade

If we left the EU then we could abandon restrictive labour market practices and reduce unemployment and increase competitiveness

The Common Agricultural Policy is a joke and causing higher prices for consumers .. Not to mention costing the UK £14 billion per year and seeing as the UK has a relatively small agricultural sector we benefit least from CAP and don't get any real gain from it

[Awol]

Jon - Europe is our major trading partner - we need a strong Europe.

Absolutely agreed but that isn't the question I posed. My argument would be that in the 1970's we joined a trading organisation, that is what the EEC was and that is what people voted on in the last referendum. Since then it has morphed into the EU and changed out of all recognition from it's original form.

We now have an economic union (although kudos to Brown for keeping us out of the single currency, if he hadn't devaluation wouldn't have been an option and we'd be truly screwed now) with the addition of a judiciary, a parliament a foreign policy and all of the primary attributes of a nation state.

If that is what the majority of people want then that's fair enough but the point is that we've never been asked. As you know I feel that retaining powers that should remain the sovereign responsibility of politicans we can sack is fundamental to our democracy. Giving those powers to people who are beyond accountablity to us and who do not have the interests of the British people as the driver of their decisions is wrong.

I'm not anti-europe, I'm not even anti-integration but it has to be done with the consent of the people if it is to succeed and it has to be transparent. Neither of these criteria are currently being met.

You keep saying the Euro is going down the swanny as though its a certainty - surely that is just your and UKIP's opinion?

Yes it is my opinion (no need for the UKIP reference really Ian) and I apologise if I haven't written "imo" after every post but I thought that was probably obvious. However it is based on the fact that one currency and one interest rate for 16 countries with vastly different economies is not viable in the long term. During an economic boom the cracks can be papered over, in times of economic difficulty these cracks become chasms and the people of the richer nations will not be prepared to subsidise more profilagate countires indefinitely. We are seeing it now with Germany.

As for a referendum - on what exactly? You keep waving that around as though its some sort of magic wand that will solve the woes of the world.

The referendum would surely be on whether or not to extend the remit of the EU to include economic governance of member states as that is what would be being negotiated? The specific details aren't actually that relevant, it is an opportunity to ask the British people if they are happy with the direction of travel that successive governments have taken regarding the EU.

I'm certainly not pretending it's a magic wand but I say again that inorder to build something like the EU it has to be done with the explicit consent of the people, at the moment it doesn't have it. The Dutch said no to the constitution, as did the French and the Irish - until they were effectively bullied into acceptance. Our government betrayed it's promise to ask the country so all in all it currently has no demcoratic legitimacy.

I am actually glad that the Germans took the option to bet off the table the other day, its fundamentally flawed as it allows individuals to dictate country and area economic decisions based on what they will bet on

I thought it was a very good impression of King Kanute actually.

[kidlewis]

£5.93 (min wage) X 35 X 52 = £10,793.

anyone earning that or less should pay no tax.

Would you make that £10,793 tax free for everybody ?

for people earning under 20k, yes

[kidlewis]

for ever person who achieves good gcse, A-levels and wants to go onto university who comes from a family who's only income is from the state, then their entire families benefits get halved and the child gets the other half.

So the choice for someone from that kind of background is to go to University and put their family in to penury (or perhaps further into it) or to not go to University?

I'm not sure you've thought that one through, mate. :winkold:

the point is that you need to point the finger and laugh at these people who are apathetic and can't be arsed to achieve anything because 'they don't have to'.

I argue that some people would rather be in relative poverty on benefits, than work 35 hours a week and not be in poverty. Because they are lazy and are content with 4 cans of skoll and a portion of chips as their social life.

for people who are in those families who actually go on to achieve, they should be financially supported more than their families.

the question is how do you do that?

[snowychap]

the question is how do you do that?

I'd suggest you don't do it by effectively having them sell the shirts off their families' backs in order to get a step on the ladder.

As for 'pointing the finger and laughing at people' as the basis for well, anything, apart from an even bigger attack on any form of improving social cohesion - wow, just wow. :shock:

[kidlewis]

the question is how do you do that?

As for 'pointing the finger and laughing at people' as the basis for well, anything, apart from an even bigger attack on any form of improving social cohesion - wow, just wow. :shock:

people who have the opportunity to get out of their benefit trap and who blatantly don't take it through laziness deserve to be laughed at.

the people who want to achieve deserve the monetary benefits much more. Therefore it should be free tuition fees for students from benefit families and also free accommodation for them at uni and free books.

[bickster]

£5.93 (min wage) X 35 X 52 = £10,793.

anyone earning that or less should pay no tax.

Would you make that £10,793 tax free for everybody ?

for people earning under 20k, yes

staff in mcdonalds would earn more than junior management on £25k a year

What way to incentivise the workers

Back to the drawing board with that one methinks

Its almost as insane as your education ideas, penalising someones family because they child is poor and has ambition (and is reasonably intelligent), you really want a country of fuckwits? Education in this country (once the economy is sorted out) needs a severe rethink but in the opposite direction to the car crash that you're riding in

[snowychap]

people who have the opportunity to get out of their benefit trap and who blatantly don't take it through laziness deserve to be laughed at.

Why?

Earlier, you wanted to laugh at kids who might end up working in fast food places.

the people who want to achieve...

What do you mean by 'achieve'?

It's a rather subjective concept, isn't it?

For some holding down any kind of job is an achievement; for some raising a family is an achievement; for some going to university is an achievement; for some just existing and helping others out occasionally might be an achievement.

Hey, we could get on to a debate over the futility of any kind of 'achievement'.

[kidlewis]

people who have the opportunity to get out of their benefit trap and who blatantly don't take it through laziness deserve to be laughed at.

Why?

Earlier, you wanted to laugh at kids who might end up working in fast food places.

the people who want to achieve...

What do you mean by 'achieve'?

It's a rather subjective concept, isn't it?

For some holding down any kind of job is an achievement; for some raising a family is an achievement; for some going to university is an achievement; for some just existing and helping others out occasionally might be an achievement.

Hey, we could get on to a debate over the futility of any kind of 'achievement'.

yes I do want to laugh at kids who could end up working in fast food places because it would be their own negativity towards education and learning that they end up there. Not them being thick or from a poor background.

Yes holding down any kind of job is an achievement as is raising a family, but if you raise a family and use the state to support rather than working if you have the opportunity to is not a great example to set is it?

I think achievement can be measured by reaching your own personal goals, whatever that maybe. So if some people see that as supporting a family through state benefits because they can't be arsed then I guess they have achieved greatly in their eyes.

[kidlewis]

£5.93 (min wage) X 35 X 52 = £10,793.

anyone earning that or less should pay no tax.

Would you make that £10,793 tax free for everybody ?

for people earning under 20k, yes

staff in mcdonalds would earn more than junior management on £25k a year

What way to incentivise the workers

Back to the drawing board with that one methinks

Its almost as insane as your education ideas, penalising someones family because they child is poor and has ambition (and is reasonably intelligent), you really want a country of fuckwits? Education in this country (once the economy is sorted out) needs a severe rethink but in the opposite direction to the car crash that you're riding in

well it was a bit more tongue in cheek the giving of benefits to the intelligent children of apathetic parents who survive their laziness through state benefits.

I was highlighting more the fact that the children who achieve aspirations despite their families attitudes not only being a bad example but also holding them back deserve those benefits in kind way more than their parents do.

fact of the matter is that taxing anyone who earns 10k or less in this country is pretty ridiculous, even under 15k imo. What is the average wage in this country now, £27k?

[ml1dch]

Yep, as I said, the EPC was an EU regulatory requirement and still is - and someone has to pay for it - but that's what you get when you sign up for these gigs. The HIPs however where stuff and nonsense dreamt up by labour, which no one asked for and no one wanted, and which cover the majority of the HIP associated costs, and correctly these are being scrapped.

You say stuff and nonsense but that is not true. If you purchase a house you still need that info typically for a mortgage approval (1) Now the Solicitors fees go back up to get this info - so how exactly is the winner here?

HIPS is yet another burden to the seller, but I would keep it.

Instead I would introduce a law where an agreement to purchase is binding and that both the purchaser and the seller are bound to pay 10% of the agreed price in the event that either wish to pull out (2)

I haven't sold many houses, but all bar one have had problems with buyers pulling out, ultimately costing me money and aggravation. The way things are set up in this country someone can 'commit' to buy, lead you down the garden path for 3 months and then pull out, with absolutely no financial penalty to them.

Enboldened bits.

1) No you don't. Not even a little bit.

2) There's a law there already at contract exchange which commits both purchaser and seller. Any law coming in earlier than exchange would be both unworkable and a demand for far more problems than currently occur.

[bickster]

You'd laugh at them for working in Mcdonalds because they showed no ambition, when they showed ambition and left uni they'd be penalised in taxation because the mcdonalds staff would be on more money thanks to your tax regime and they'd have no parents because they'd have starved to death because they bucked the trend in their family

Thats one **** up society you want there KL

[snowychap]

yes I do want to laugh at kids who could end up working in fast food places because it would be their own negativity towards education and learning that they end up there. Not them being thick or from a poor background.

Do you eat fast food?

[Awol]

Well Cameron has pulled a clever trick and told Merkel that he would veto any reopening of the Lisbon Treaty. To be fair he's probably explained the consequences of not doing so to her and has therefore avoided the European power grab without also bringing down his own Government.

Smart (if irritating) move by CMD.