Print

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

[Dishevelled Den]

really  ..   

When the nature of how these posts are presented conspires to make their reading unwelcome for those who are not of the 'usual suspects' variety, I certainly do take the point E - and in doing so offer my apologies.

[kevinminton]

Is ...   

mea culpa. I do like to go on. And on. Apologies.

K

[Dishevelled Den]

 
Regarding different takes, Z, I am always cautious as to whether the author is looking at the reality & facts from original sources, or merely bending the information to their own pre-determined ends. As someone said to me at work recently: "Don't confuse me with the facts ...!"

Don't confuse me with the facts

(A)  I do like that - such sentiments have been known to help out enormously in 'certain' Departments.

You are quite right to exercise the caution you mention K as there seem to be many avenues through which such interpretation might pass.


fraught with double-meaning Yes .. at least double ... it is often difficult to find any meaning in some things.


(B) Perhaps the reason for such convoluted language used in the formation of these proposals?


substantial policy 'creep' I've met some of those in Whitehall and in Brussels!

(C) Aah for the quiet power that commands, in those rooms, leading off those very corridors.


eurofaq I was unable to work out who this site belongs to. Tried to find some authority behind the assertions, but found none. I have to admit that anything that refers to a "notorious federalist" can make me react, rather than respond. Surely the EU is pursuing a policy of liberal intergovernmentalism? 


(D) I certainly accept that K as some of the terms used in my quote suggest to me that the thoughts spring from sources other than those friendly towards Brussels.  This should not preclude any merit in substance they may have all the same.

I'm not sure about Brussels and liberal intergovernmental-ism however with this (and other things) in mind - forgive the source, I tried but failed to establish a different reference point;


EUROPE’S chief bureaucrat last night provoked fury after threatening to use the “full force” of the Lisbon Treaty to impose economic control over every EU nation.

Read more at:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161609/EU-chief-vows-to-run-our-economy-from-Brussels

forced through If I read these provison correctly, they still require a minimum of nine member states to agree. Does this not take the power away from the institutions and put it back to the Members? (Discuss)

(E) On the face of it may do K, however with the gradual homogenisation of nations and most facets of their legislative elements within the Union, how long will it be before the 'Institutions' become the de-facto voice, via the Presidency, of 'EU' thereby relegating the individual member countries to be merely local legislative facilitators for the body as a whole?
 


Sorry, I've messed up the quotes above.

K

[Nickbat]

In discussing the post of European Public Prosecutor and Corpus Juris, I omitted to mention that I had read about this on the blog of Marta Andreasen:

http://www.martaandreasen.com/News_1.html

[Nickbat]

Commission to table proposal for EU-wide €10 per tonne carbon tax

European Voice reports that the new European Commissioner for Taxation, Algirdas Šemeta, is planning to propose a minimum rate of tax on carbon across the whole of the EU. The move, which was considered too controversial by the first Barroso commission, would mean that carbon tax is calculated according to the energy content of certain energy sources such as petrol, coal and natural gas, and the quantity of CO2 they emit. It would be introduced through an amendment to the EU's Energy Taxation Directive, originally adopted in 1992. An earlier draft of the proposal set the minimum excise rate at €10 per tonne of CO2 emitted.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/%C5%A1emeta-seeks-minimum-tax-on-carbon-emissions/67292.aspx

+++

Spanish EU Presidency to propose European Public Prosecutor;

UK veto would not stop Britons being extradited for prosecution elsewhere in EU

Europolitics reports that the Spanish EU Presidency is due to submit a proposal for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor (EPP) in April to “investigate fraud and speculation against the euro”. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the office can be established by a unanimous vote, after approval by the European Parliament, or if that fails, a group of at least nine member states may proceed under so-called ‘enhanced cooperation’.

http://www.eu2010.es/en/documentosynoticias/noticias/mar03_pumpido.html

+++

EUROPE’S chief bureaucrat last night provoked fury after threatening to use the “full force” of the Lisbon Treaty to impose economic control over every EU nation.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso claimed that financial stability was so critical that sweeping new powers were needed for Eurocrats in Brussels to meddle in the economies of all EU members.

But his threat sparked an angry backlash from critics of an ever- growing Brussels bureaucracy.

It raised fears that the EU – under unelected new President Herman van Rompuy – is planning a power grab.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161609/EU-chief-vows-to-run-our-economy-from-Brussels


++++


The Common Fisheries Policy has emptied the ocean

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1S8_H2YmN4[/media]

Today, alone, another four reasons to vote UKIP are added to my list.

 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Is it mandatory for the posts in these threads to get bigger and [size=16]bigger[/size] and [size=20]bigger[/size] ??

I fail to see why every thing every other person has ever said must be quoted by every one else .. or is it pure laziness  ??  Ie .. just hit quote then add one line

Doesn't make the subject any more attractive to the neutral reader ....  mind you .. as there are usually only 4/5 posters having their own private argument I guess it doesn't matter really  ..   

How right you are Entwood!

To win hearts and minds arguments have to be simply outlined, but these posts do the exact opposite with assorted cuts and pastes to justify points; ie using other peoples words to justify the argument!

In fact unless you are an individual versed in technical political and legal jargon, these posts will simply not be read and understood. The "terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired" factor steps in!!!

On the Europe factor a simple equation can in fact be laid out:

We either go back to the separate nation states and empires of 1870, with the consequences that bought, or continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible and jointly we create a better future for our children / grandchildren to live in a peaceful wealthy Europe
 8-) 8-) 8-)

Oh, and just to say that the days of the British Empire are well and truly gone, finally dying around 1960, and our British future lies in Europe trading with the world. 

The more you complicate the argument, without clear solutions to the problem being expresses by the authors, and with insults being traded, the more any counter arguments are discredited.

To you all, why not use your own words and thoughts to outline your argument and provide a solution rather than endlessly belching out other peoples soundbites, blogs, and references in an effort to "outgun" your debating opponent?  You may then reach a larger audience 8-) 8-)

[Nickbat]

We either go back to the separate nation states and empires of 1870, with the consequences that bought, or continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible and jointly we create a better future for our children / grandchildren to live in a peaceful wealthy Europe

Odd that you should present the only option to full EU superstate integration as being a return to "the separate nation states and empires of 1870". What about going back to the 1973 European Economic Community, which is what the majority of anti-federalists want?

Secondly, you talk of a "new collaborative Europe". Collaboration implies having a say. The UK say in EU matters is dwindling by the day.

Thirdly, you assert that "war is impossible" in a collaborative Europe. Depends what sort of war you have in mind. Civil wars will be far more likely as a result, IMHO.

 
   

[Dishevelled Den]

How right you are Entwood!

To win hearts and minds arguments have to be simply outlined, but these posts do the exact opposite with assorted cuts and pastes to justify points; ie using other peoples words to justify the argument!

In fact unless you are an individual versed in technical political and legal jargon, these posts will simply not be read and understood. The "terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired" factor steps in!!!

On the Europe factor a simple equation can in fact be laid out:

We either go back to the separate nation states and empires of 1870, with the consequences that bought, or continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible and jointly we create a better future for our children / grandchildren to live in a peaceful wealthy Europe
 8-) 8-) 8-)

Oh, and just to say that the days of the British Empire are well and truly gone, finally dying around 1960, and our British future lies in Europe trading with the world. 

The more you complicate the argument, without clear solutions to the problem being expresses by the authors, and with insults being traded, the more any counter arguments are discredited.

To you all, why not use your own words and thoughts to outline your argument and provide a solution rather than endlessly belching out other peoples soundbites, blogs, and references in an effort to "outgun" your debating opponent?  You may then reach a larger audience 8-) 8-)

continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible

It depends upon where the threat of war emanates E.  In general, peace on the European continent in relation the traditional eastern enemy of the now Russia/satellites - then USSR - has been guaranteed by NATO, American military might and the presence of nuclear weapons.

Yes, I take your point that a traditional war amongst the member states is somewhat lessened by virtue of the closer union that now exists, but this by no means precludes a future conflict such as that seen recently in the Balkans and based on the desire to attain power and to correct perceived ethnic imbalances.

As time goes on and the Brussels concept of the EU develops will there not be a tendency for such conflicts to become more likely?  Witness the unrest in Greece, the increasing concern over the stability of the Euro currency, immigration, employment and the threat of a resurgent and fundamentalist Islam.


 

and our British future lies in Europe trading with the world

.

I would suggest that our future lies in having a strong Westminster Government determined to do the best for the people of this country - and answerable to the people of this country -  while maintaining close trading links with 'Europe' and the remainder of the world.

Are we really incapable of providing capable government in this Nation without the all-encompassing presence of these burgeoning regulations pushed out by Brussels?

[albitz]

The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.

[Banjax]

The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.

and why would the industry be driven abroad Albs? this myth perpetrated by city scaremongers everytime theres a slight squeeze. the fact is some fickle bankers will leave (and if they're scared away by a one off supertax they were always wanting to leave), most don't and won't because of our relatively low taxation, the language, the ease of living in the UK and our centrality to the global markets.

if it does risk the financial sector leaving then maybe it would be better to have a more diverse economy, not so reliant on the whims of banks? just a thought, you're the expert 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.

and why would the industry be driven abroad Albs? this myth perpetrated by city scaremongers everytime theres a slight squeeze. the fact is some fickle bankers will leave (and if they're scared away by a one off supertax they were always wanting to leave), most don't and won't because of our relatively low taxation, the language, the ease of living in the UK and our centrality to the global markets.

if it does risk the financial sector leaving then maybe it would be better to have a more diverse economy, not so reliant on the whims of banks? just a thought, you're the expert 

It would be a disaster if........ these great men and women ( bankers) left the country BJ. How would the illiterate..... uneducated.....unwashed.... proletariat........such as you and I...  survive without their guidance.....leadership......and business acumen ......The country would be in a terrible state ......without these intellectual giants to look after our needs...........on the other hand however.....

[Allenm]

The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.

and why would the industry be driven abroad Albs? this myth perpetrated by city scaremongers everytime theres a slight squeeze. the fact is some fickle bankers will leave (and if they're scared away by a one off supertax they were always wanting to leave), most don't and won't because of our relatively low taxation, the language, the ease of living in the UK and our centrality to the global markets.

if it does risk the financial sector leaving then maybe it would be better to have a more diverse economy, not so reliant on the whims of banks? just a thought, you're the expert 

It would be a disaster if........ these great men and women ( bankers) left the country BJ. How would the illiterate..... uneducated.....unwashed.... proletariat........such as you and I...  survive without their guidance.....leadership......and business acumen ......The country would be in a terrible state ......without these intellectual giants to look after our needs...........on the other hand however.....

not sure which looks more foolish, the sarcasm or the post!

[albitz]

Banjax - I did suggest a week or so ago that anyone who had any good ideas on how we could return to the good old days of being a manufacturing reliant economy rather than being reliant on the financial sector should send their answers on a postcard to Downing St. as its obvious that no - one there has any idea how to go about it.I trust that your postcard is on its way to Westminster.

Optimist - It just wouldnt be right for me to engage in a battle of wits with you, as you are so obviously only (at best) half equipped for the battle.

[Banjax]

Banjax - I did suggest a week or so ago that anyone who had any good ideas on how we could return to the good old days of being a manufacturing reliant economy rather than being reliant on the financial sector should send their answers on a postcard to Downing St. as its obvious that no - one there has any idea how to go about it.I trust that your postcard is on its way to Westminster.

Optimist - It just wouldnt be right for me to engage in a battle of wits with you, as you are so obviously only (at best) half equipped for the battle.

it is, but since the Post Office is now run like a corporation, purely to make money, I doubt it'll get there before the hung parliament 

[Debs.]

Optimist - It just wouldnt be right for me to engage in a battle of wits with you, as you are so obviously only (at best) half equipped for the battle.

  Quite a quip quotient!