Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

The weed debate is an interesting one... there seems to be a growing political movement to legalise the stuff with a view to control supply, distribution and, critically, tax revenue. Ottowa have just voted along these lines... iirc Oregon was the first state to take this approach

[Viral_Jim]

Off topic, but I 100% agree with de-criminalising the possession of drugs - all drugs. Users are more likely to seek help to get clean or in the event of an overdose, diseases from dirty needles are reduced and countries save money, which they can plough into going after the dealers and smugglers. It also frees up prison space to give meaningful sentences for other crimes.

Places that have tried it have also found it does not increase usage in the popluation - which would be the natural assumption.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

'Happy to reamain' certainly seems to have broad support.

'Tory Toff Prime Minister' holding hands with a former union boss.

Cameron and Barber sitting in a tree.......K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

[Varche]

Bookies are strong on Remain too. Vested interests, inertia etc etc.

[korum]

The weed debate is an interesting one... there seems to be a growing political movement to legalise the stuff with a view to control supply, distribution and, critically, tax revenue. Ottowa have just voted along these lines... iirc Oregon was the first state to take this approach

I think it all started out with the medical weed arguments who have managed to win some ground and the powers that be have basically said F it we may as well get some tax money from it.

Oh and Jimmy there isn't much difference it's just as you have 28 member state representatives all arguing their own corner for their country  to get the best deal for them that it basically ends up being a compromise and no one being happy.

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

[05omegav6]

The weed debate is an interesting one... there seems to be a growing political movement to legalise the stuff with a view to control supply, distribution and, critically, tax revenue. Ottowa have just voted along these lines... iirc Oregon was the first state to take this approach

I think it all started out with the medical weed arguments who have managed to win some ground and the powers that be have basically said F it we may as well get some tax money from it.

Oh and Jimmy there isn't much difference it's just as you have 28 member state representatives all arguing their own corner for their country  to get the best deal for them that it basically ends up being a compromise and no one being happy.

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

Democracy IS civilised compromise.

Suspect fees are means tested ie if you're doing well you can afford to put more in, but if you're not, then you might need supporting... there's presumably a predetermined per capita base line applied across the board.

[Sir Tigger KC]

EDIT: Sir Tig, I'm not sure what you mean about the EU parliament not legislating? The House of Commons doesn't either? Laws are drafted by somebody's civil servant and then voted on???

Of course the House of Commons legislates! 

It is the elected government that decides what laws will be proposed, drawn up, debated and voted on in The House of Commons, not the civil service.

There are also Private Member's Bills where individual MP's can draw up legislation and have it debated and voted on in the House of Commons. 

Very different to the structure of the EU where the real power lies with the appointed Commission and the Commissioners are often politicians who have been rejected by their own electorate.  As is the case with the current President of the EU Commission Jean Claude Junker. 

The European Parliament often referred to as the ' Rubber Stamp Parliament ' by comparison to The House of Commons, reviews and votes on laws drawn up by the EU Commission. To be honest,  I doubt they send legislation back to the Commission for amendment very often. 

It seems to me that most of the European Parliament's energy is used up moving between Brussels and Strasbourg every month! 

[Lagondanet]

Those happy to remain or abstain presumably will be happy for the EU to expand East and where next?

[05omegav6]

Those happy to remain or abstain presumably will be happy for the EU to expand East and where next?

Not sure that it could practicably spread any further east Certainly, if it did, then it would cease to be Europe...  not that you could blame the near neighbours such as Turkey or Ukraine from wanting a slice of the pie...

[Viral_Jim]

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

The answer to this is on two levels. On the most straightforward level, its because the formula that determines a state's contributions is a function of a the state's income; our income is one of the higher ones in the EU so we pay more in, but less than Germany, Italy or France (bearing in mind this is gross, not net contribution). As a percentage of our national income, we pay in the least iirc, due to Maggie's rebate. To set membership at a flat fee would either limit the EU's scope to meet its aims (if set too low) or be prohibitively expensive for some EU economies (if set too high). Put simply, you couldn't set one € value that would work for both Germany and Cyprus.

On a more fundamental level, it goes back to the founding principles of the EU, one of which is "sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and social justice." - I did google it by the way, I'm not that sad! Flowery language admittedly but basically it means we all advance through membership of the EU, but those at the back of the queue (Poland being a good example) will be helped and will benefit more so that they are brought more into line with the rest of the economies of Europe.

[korum]

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

The answer to this is on two levels. On the most straightforward level, its because the formula that determines a state's contributions is a function of a the state's income; our income is one of the higher ones in the EU so we pay more in, but less than Germany, Italy or France (bearing in mind this is gross, not net contribution). As a percentage of our national income, we pay in the least iirc, due to Maggie's rebate. To set membership at a flat fee would either limit the EU's scope to meet its aims (if set too low) or be prohibitively expensive for some EU economies (if set too high). Put simply, you couldn't set one € value that would work for both Germany and Cyprus.

On a more fundamental level, it goes back to the founding principles of the EU, one of which is "sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and social justice." - I did google it by the way, I'm not that sad! Flowery language admittedly but basically it means we all advance through membership of the EU, but those at the back of the queue (Poland being a good example) will be helped and will benefit more so that they are brought more into line with the rest of the economies of Europe.

Thanks, but I think this is a point that grinds on people in that we have enough money issues in this country (NHS being the most discussed) that people hate that we have to pay to help out other countries like poland to become better while our services suffer, I know that isn't directly the EU's fault but it's the average joe on the street that will see it this way.

The debate over expansion is related in a way that the eastern countries are not as prosperous as us so when poland has caught up we will also be subsidising the new member states and so it will continue that we will always be paying in more.

[Viral_Jim]

Of course the House of Commons legislates! 

It is the elected government that decides what laws will be proposed, drawn up, debated and voted on in The House of Commons, not the civil service.

Not so, the UK has a system of Draft Bills which are generated by Government departments (civil servants), select committees (MPs) or joint committees (Lords + MP's), once consultation has happened, the commons votes on them. That excludes the few Private Members' bills which you mentioned.

The European Parliament often referred to as the ' Rubber Stamp Parliament ' by comparison to The House of Commons, reviews and votes on laws drawn up by the EU Commission. To be honest,  I doubt they send legislation back to the Commission for amendment very often. 

Amendment I haven't seen any figures on, outright rejection, the only figure I've seen is 7%, but this was in a pro Brexit report, so its safe to say that that figure is either true, or understated. According to the House of Commons website, 46 government bills went before the commons, and 42 were successful in the last session - a rejection rate of  8.7%. Hardly a bastion of watchfulness, our men on the green benches!

Private members bills on the other hand, enjoyed a rejection rate of 97.2%  .

It seems to me that most of the European Parliament's energy is used up moving between Brussels and Strasbourg every month! 

Now THAT is an utterly indefensible practice. For which I will, (as is standard practice when no other argument presents itself,) Blame the French  . But then again, they pay for most of our EU rebate, so probably do it just to spite us!

[Viral_Jim]

Korum, I understand people's frustrations, which will always come Most to the surface during times of financial hardship, but as I mentioned, the finance issue is not so clear cut.

Btw, don't get me started on the NHS. We can talk about hardship when they:

- close the bloody homeopathic hospitals
- stop spending endowment fund money on artwork
- give over with writing prescriptions for pizza, biscuits and cake
- stop writing prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections just because stupid people pester for them
- abandon the practice of spending hundreds of thousands on barristers and private investigators to defendnegligence cases for which they are clearly culpable.

Until then, I don't want to hear about a "funding crisis". As far as I'm concerned, the millions spent on the above items would be better off in the EU. I spent the first 3yrs of my working life auditing "post crash" public sector bodies: health, local gov, education. With the exception of colleges and universities, they didn't "get it" then, and I doubt get it now. 

[Mister Rog]

Korum, I understand people's frustrations, which will always come Most to the surface during times of financial hardship, but as I mentioned, the finance issue is not so clear cut.

Btw, don't get me started on the NHS. We can talk about hardship when they:

- close the bloody homeopathic hospitals
- stop spending endowment fund money on artwork
- give over with writing prescriptions for pizza, biscuits and cake
- stop writing prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections just because stupid people pester for them
- abandon the practice of spending hundreds of thousands on barristers and private investigators to defendnegligence cases for which they are clearly culpable.

Until then, I don't want to hear about a "funding crisis". As far as I'm concerned, the millions spent on the above items would be better off in the EU. I spent the first 3yrs of my working life auditing "post crash" public sector bodies, health, local gov, education. With the exception of colleges and universities, they didn't "get it" then, and I doubt get it now. 

          

[Sir Tigger KC]

Of course the House of Commons legislates! 

It is the elected government that decides what laws will be proposed, drawn up, debated and voted on in The House of Commons, not the civil service.

Not so, the UK has a system of Draft Bills which are generated by Government departments (civil servants), select committees (MPs) or joint committees (Lords + MP's), once consultation has happened, the commons votes on them. That excludes the few Private Members' bills which you mentioned.

Government Departments which are headed by Secretaries and Ministers of State who are duly elected representatives of the people.   Further more Government Departments follow a legislative program as set out by the Government of the day in the Queens Speech at the opening of Parliament.  It is the elected representatives who decide the legislative program not the Civil Service.  Sure the Civil Service draft the bills and advise the politicians but they don't decide Government policy. Well hopefully not anyway! 

The probable exception is where EU laws and regulations are enacted into UK law.  There is no point in debate or voting on these as we have to comply.      Maybe this is what you are thinking of?