The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (40 Viewers)

[Astute]

Are you complaining about being outvoted? Not long ago you were a democrat asking the people who were outvoted to get over it. Make your mind up. Are you a democrat who accepts being outvoted or are you just a moaner?

We have a central bank. We need greater financial cohesion and a fairer vat system. In order to get that we need an EU finance minister and ministry. There will also have to be a transfer system to help countries like Greece who cannot get out of trouble under their own steam.

The countries in the EU will have to agree to whatever system is needed in order to progress. The EU is not a foreign power to members of the EU. It will be to us though.

What is your solution to inequality in Europe? Quit?

So you are happy for countries to lose all rights to their own finances?

What a bloody joke.

 

---

[Astute]

There’s a big difference between outlandish claims of what could have happened after brexit and outright lies. Even the opening gambit of the article is incorrect as was the bus. The Gross figure is actually £360M not £350M, the nett figure is closer to £270M IIRC, of which a lot also comes back to the UK as subsidies and funding for various projects (don’t recall the exact amount of the top of my head) so not was the figure on the bus incorrect it was also a lie because there never was £350M sent out never to be seen again that could have been spent on the NHS. When you consider the people who come up with the campaign they either knew it to be untrue or worryingly they’re so incompetent they didn’t realise that they were driving around with something completely untrue on the side of the bus. I say worryingly because some of these people are in government and in senior positions. I’m thinking specifically of Gove, Boris and Davies here. Gulp.

Is this more excuses for the remain lies?

Come on. You can do it. Admit that both sides were telling lies.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Remain made false predictions..... but, not necessarily in all cases. Time will tell. We haven’t left yet, but things are not looking rosy. Leaving is proving more complicated than people believed or said. Nothing positive has happened yet. We have no deals, we are still paying into the EU and although EU citizens are leaving, we still havé a housing and infrastructure crisis. People are having to watch their pebbles a bit more as inflation kicks in.

Any problems the UK have are nothing to the nightmares facing your beloved and doomed EU project.

Enjoy it while you can.

 

[martcov]

So you are happy for countries to lose all rights to their own finances?

What a bloody joke.

I am happy to have a cohesive tax and VAT policy. It prevents uncutting each other and big companies getting tax dodging loopholes. A few posts ago you were calling for Luxemburg to be punished ( or one man from Luxemburg) for undercutting other EU countries. The only way to stop that is to have a control on tax levied within certain limits. Now you are on Luxemburg‘s side opposing control on tax dodges. Make your mind up.

 

[martcov]

Is this more excuses for the remain lies?

Come on. You can do it. Admit that both sides were telling lies.

You don’t see the difference between predictions that haven’t come true- yet - and downright lies.

 

[martcov]

Any problems the UK have are nothing to the nightmares facing your beloved and doomed EU project.

Enjoy it while you can.

I am enjoying it. Love it. Have fun sailing into the sunset..... oh and watch out for those rocks...

 

[skybluetony176]

Is this more excuses for the remain lies?

Come on. You can do it. Admit that both sides were telling lies.

Predicting the future and getting it wrong isn’t lying. Driving around with a factually misleading and inaccurate figure on the side of a bus is. Unless they’re so incompetent that they didn’t know the figure was £10M out as a gross figure and almost £100M out as a nett figure. Before you even start to consider the money that comes back in subsidies and funding there never was £350M to spend on the NHS instead was there. They were happy to tell people there was and people believed it and people voted on it.

 

[Grendel]

I am happy to have a cohesive tax and VAT policy. It prevents uncutting each other and big companies getting tax dodging loopholes. A few posts ago you were calling for Luxemburg to be punished ( or one man from Luxemburg) for undercutting other EU countries. The only way to stop that is to have a control on tax levied within certain limits. Now you are on Luxemburg‘s side opposing control on tax dodges. Make your mind up.

So you want the European Union to have control over the uks taxation strategy. There we have it.

 

[skybluetony176]

So you want the European Union to have control over the uks taxation strategy. There we have it.

You don’t think it would be a good idea to set a minimum level on Taxes across the EU to stop countries like Ireland, Luxembourg and The Netherlands allowing companies to take tax money out of other EU countries and avoid paying taxes in the country where they earn that money? Are you saying you actively promote tax loopholes for some of the wealthiest companies in the world?

 

[martcov]

So you want the European Union to have control over the uks taxation strategy. There we have it.

Max and min limits on corporation tax and VAT. Astute and I agree that countries like Luxemburg shouldn’t allow big companies to pay less tax there than elsewhere in the EU. Close those tax loopholes. I thought the U.K. would be for that. Maybe not as the new investigation by the EU of U.K. tax dodging schemes for certain companies seems to suggest.

 

[Astute]

I am happy to have a cohesive tax and VAT policy. It prevents uncutting each other and big companies getting tax dodging loopholes. A few posts ago you were calling for Luxemburg to be punished ( or one man from Luxemburg) for undercutting other EU countries. The only way to stop that is to have a control on tax levied within certain limits. Now you are on Luxemburg‘s side opposing control on tax dodges. Make your mind up.

Are you playing thick about the link? I think you need to read.it again if you have done at all.

 

[Astute]

You don’t see the difference between predictions that haven’t come true- yet - and downright lies.

Cameron predicted he would have talks with Juncker as they had already been arranged. Juncker said they hadn't and wouldn't be happening.

That was one of them that came true before the vote.

 

[Astute]

Predicting the future and getting it wrong isn’t lying. Driving around with a factually misleading and inaccurate figure on the side of a bus is. Unless they’re so incompetent that they didn’t know the figure was £10M out as a gross figure and almost £100M out as a nett figure. Before you even start to consider the money that comes back in subsidies and funding there never was £350M to spend on the NHS instead was there. They were happy to tell people there was and people believed it and people voted on it.

See my Cameron v Juncker comment that is on this page and the page before it that none of you have mentioned.

 

[Astute]

You don’t think it would be a good idea to set a minimum level on Taxes across the EU to stop countries like Ireland, Luxembourg and The Netherlands allowing companies to take tax money out of other EU countries and avoid paying taxes in the country where they earn that money? Are you saying you actively promote tax loopholes for some of the wealthiest companies in the world?

The EU wants to take over all finances. Nothing to do with stopping tax loopholes.

Don't you think it would be very ironic if that was what Juncker had announced?

 

[Grendel]

Max and min limits on corporation tax and VAT. Astute and I agree that countries like Luxemburg shouldn’t allow big companies to pay less tax there than elsewhere in the EU. Close those tax loopholes. I thought the U.K. would be for that. Maybe not as the new investigation by the EU of U.K. tax dodging schemes for certain companies seems to suggest.

I don’t want one piece of legislation to be decided by Europe in particular taxation. The public never had an opportunity to vote on Lisbon and Maastricht. They now have and it’s no thanks.

This is nothing to go with tax dodging schemes - it’s to do with an elected government in its own country deciding fiscal policy.

 

[skybluetony176]

The EU wants to take over all finances. Nothing to do with stopping tax loopholes.

Don't you think it would be very ironic if that was what Juncker had announced?

You’ve spent the last few pages moaning about Luxembourg being a tax haven in the EU as a criticism of its former leader. A solution like harmonising minimum tax rates is suggested and you don’t like that either. How do you suggest the EU stop places like Luxembourg becoming tax havens within the EU if it’s not by harmonising minimum tax rates?

 

[Astute]

You’ve spent the last few pages moaning about Luxembourg being a tax haven in the EU as a criticism of its former leader. A solution like harmonising minimum tax rates is suggested and you don’t like that either. How do you suggest the EU stop places like Luxembourg becoming tax havens within the EU if it’s not by harmonising minimum tax rates?

Why are you chatting bollox again?

Just so you don't try twisting what the EU are planning to do again......they are planning to take over the complete finances of countries. It is not to stop them from doing what Juncker did with Luxembourg.

 

[skybluetony176]

Why are you chatting bollox again?

Just so you don't try twisting what the EU are planning to do again......they are planning to take over the complete finances of countries. It is not to stop them from doing what Juncker did with Luxembourg.

I’ll try again. You’ve spent the last few pages moaning about Luxembourg being a tax haven in the EU as a criticism of its former leader. A solution like harmonising minimum tax rates is suggested and you don’t like that either. How do you suggest the EU stop places like Luxembourg becoming tax havens within the EU if it’s not by harmonising minimum tax rates?

 

[martcov]

Cameron predicted he would have talks with Juncker as they had already been arranged. Juncker said they hadn't and wouldn't be happening.

That was one of them that came true before the vote.

Cameron was wrong if that is true. What has that got to with an EU policy agenda?

 

[martcov]

I don’t want one piece of legislation to be decided by Europe in particular taxation. The public never had an opportunity to vote on Lisbon and Maastricht. They now have and it’s no thanks.

This is nothing to go with tax dodging schemes - it’s to do with an elected government in its own country deciding fiscal policy.

The public never has the opportunity to vote on most things once they have elected their representatives to do the job for them. It’s called parliamentary democracy. Nothing unusual there. Get over it.

 

[martcov]

The EU wants to take over all finances. Nothing to do with stopping tax loopholes.

Don't you think it would be very ironic if that was what Juncker had announced?

How do you work that out?

 

[martcov]

The EU wants to take over all finances. Nothing to do with stopping tax loopholes.

Don't you think it would be very ironic if that was what Juncker had announced?

I think it is ironic that you complain when Luxemburg offers cheaper tax rates, as does Ireland, and then when the Commission led by Juncker comes up with a policy agenda to stop this, you moan again that the EU is interfering in countries’ tax affairs. Either it is right that Luxemburg can do what it likes, so stop criticising Juncker for his time as Luxemburg PM, or it is wrong that countries can undercut each other, in which case stop criticising Juncker for his policy agenda. He cannot be wrong on both counts.

 

[martcov]

Are you playing thick about the link? I think you need to read.it again if you have done at all.

I did read it and I did ask you what the Mail meant in the title when they referred to Juncker wanting „chancellor“.

 

[Astute]

I’ll try again. You’ve spent the last few pages moaning about Luxembourg being a tax haven in the EU as a criticism of its former leader. A solution like harmonising minimum tax rates is suggested and you don’t like that either. How do you suggest the EU stop places like Luxembourg becoming tax havens within the EU if it’s not by harmonising minimum tax rates?

It is fuck all to do with harmonised tax rates. It is nothing to do with Juncker and Luxembourg. Like I said earlier could you imagine the irony if what you are trying to say was true?

 

[Astute]

I did read it and I did ask you what the Mail meant in the title when they referred to Juncker wanting „chancellor“.

There to be one more like.

It carries on from what Juncker said a few weeks ago that you tried to rubbish.

EU chief Juncker plots for Chancellor for whole of Europe | Daily Mail Online

An EU army?

And how about the last paragraph from a remainer? So we won't be able to talk sense into the situation?

Serbia and Montenegro to join next?

Montenegro vote finally seals death of Yugoslavia

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Country profiles | Profile: Serbia and Montenegro

But of course nothing is wrong with what is being pushed through. To you there never is.

Do they need an EU army? Do they need to control all countries finances? A banking union across all states?

The EU started as something where we could have easier and cheaper trading between countries. A lot of people still think that is all the EU is about. But they have been making laws, rules and regulations for state members for years.

I have said a few times that the EU is becoming a monster. You never agree in the slightest. To me it is very worrying which direction it is going in.

Serbia and Montenegro joining has been a long term plan. The EU sanctioned the vote that split the countries that were Yugoslavia up. They said 55% was needed. The vote was 56%. Over 90% voted. So 44% didn't want the split. But it happened because the EU said so.

So now we have two more poor countries joining. They will have to take on the Euro. Their finances will be run by the EU.

But don't worry if war comes to that part of the world again. The EU plans to have its own army by 2025. There is a good chance that with Germany being the biggest country and the richest country they will be in charge. What can go wrong?

 

[Astute]

I think it is ironic that you complain when Luxemburg offers cheaper tax rates, as does Ireland, and then when the Commission led by Juncker comes up with a policy agenda to stop this, you moan again that the EU is interfering in countries’ tax affairs. Either it is right that Luxemburg can do what it likes, so stop criticising Juncker for his time as Luxemburg PM, or it is wrong that countries can undercut each other, in which case stop criticising Juncker for his policy agenda. He cannot be wrong on both counts.

So how did you take what is going on to be about tax when it isn't even mentioned?

Are you not even the slightest worried about the direction that the EU is going in?

I look forward to seeing how you defend the EU this time.

 

[skybluetony176]

It is fuck all to do with harmonised tax rates. It is nothing to do with Juncker and Luxembourg. Like I said earlier could you imagine the irony if what you are trying to say was true?

You still didn’t answer the question. Third time lucky maybe. How else do you suggest that they stop countries like Luxembourg becoming tax havens within the EU? You were the one concerned about it let’s hear your suggestions as to how that can be addressed if not this way.

 

[Astute]

You still didn’t answer the question. Third time lucky maybe. How else do you suggest that they stop countries like Luxembourg becoming tax havens within the EU? You were the one concerned about it let’s hear your suggestions as to how that can be addressed if not this way.

And yet again you ignore what is going on and change the subject. Well done.

I would suspend Juncker and have a full investigation into how the massive tax dodge was set up. The EU say that they are looking into it. But strangely enough Juncker is still in place.

 

[martcov]

And yet again you ignore what is going on and change the subject. Well done.

I would suspend Juncker and have a full investigation into how the massive tax dodge was set up. The EU say that they are looking into it. But strangely enough Juncker is still in place.

Yes right. Suspend him on suspicion. You could do that with Trump whilst you’re at it.

 

[Astute]

Yes right. Suspend him on suspicion. You could do that with Trump whilst you’re at it.

Suspicion?

The EU are looking into the tax dodge that Luxembourg have done. It has lost many billions to EU countries through lost tax revenues. There is no doubt on any of it. Juncker was in charge of Luxembourg when it all started. There is no doubt on the matter.

So what makes you think that Juncker is innocent?

You said many times that we should chase tax owed here. But now it concerns Juncker you don't seem to want it to be followed up.

Why should he continue to be one of the most powerful people in the EU when there is a fraud case being investigated by the EU and he is involved in it?

 

[skybluetony176]

And yet again you ignore what is going on and change the subject. Well done.

I would suspend Juncker and have a full investigation into how the massive tax dodge was set up. The EU say that they are looking into it. But strangely enough Juncker is still in place.

So once your investigation is up what action are you going to take to remedy this tax haven within the EU? I was taking an investigation as a done deal by the way, an investigation is just that, an investigation. It’s what you do to establish what you need to do. It’s what you do next with what you found out is what addresses the issue. What would you do next?

 

[skybluetony176]

Suspicion?

The EU are looking into the tax dodge that Luxembourg have done. It has lost many billions to EU countries through lost tax revenues. There is no doubt on any of it. Juncker was in charge of Luxembourg when it all started. There is no doubt on the matter.

So what makes you think that Juncker is innocent?

You said many times that we should chase tax owed here. But now it concerns Juncker you don't seem to want it to be followed up.

Why should he continue to be one of the most powerful people in the EU when there is a fraud case being investigated by the EU and he is involved in it?

You seem to be assuming that EU regulations have been broken here. If they haven’t then Junker hasn’t done anything wrong. The issue is then that EU countries are allowed to set themselves up as tax havens within the EU. How are you going to address that?

 

[Astute]

You seem to be assuming that EU regulations have been broken here. If they haven’t then Junker hasn’t done anything wrong. The issue is then that EU countries are allowed to set themselves up as tax havens within the EU. How are you going to address that?

The EU themselves have called it tax fraud. Fraud is a crime.

But you want him to be seen as innocent of all charges.

He should be suspended until the investigation is complete. Then he can't influence anything. If he stays in his position and it is agreed that it is fraud but nothing happens about the person running the country when it was set up it will always be seen as a cover up.


So what about the link you are ignoring again?

 

[skybluetony176]

The EU themselves have called it tax fraud. Fraud is a crime.

But you want him to be seen as innocent of all charges.

He should be suspended until the investigation is complete. Then he can't influence anything. If he stays in his position and it is agreed that it is fraud but nothing happens about the person running the country when it was set up it will always be seen as a cover up.


So what about the link you are ignoring again?

I haven’t said he’s innocent of all charges at all. I don’t know either way same as you don’t. No one will know until a conclusion is reached from the investigation. If he’s found to have been guilty in assisting this I hope they throw the book at him and take measures to stop this happening. If he’s found innocent then the system is the issue and measures will need taking to address this. Remember it’s not just Luxembourg who are being looked at, it’s Ireland and the Netherlands also. This is a bigger issue than Luxembourg and Junker.

The question that you keep ignoring is what measures post investigation are you going to take to stop it happening again. Punishing Junker is a deterrent maybe but doesn’t address the issue. So other than harmonising the lower tax rates how are you going to address it?

 

[Astute]

I haven’t said he’s innocent of all charges at all. I don’t know either way same as you don’t. No one will know until a conclusion is reached from the investigation. If he’s found to have been guilty in assisting this I hope they throw the book at him and take measures to stop this happening. If he’s found innocent then the system is the issue and measures will need taking to address this. Remember it’s not just Luxembourg who are being looked at, it’s Ireland and the Netherlands also. This is a bigger issue than Luxembourg and Junker.

The question that you keep ignoring is what measures post investigation are you going to take to stop it happening again. Punishing Junker is a deterrent maybe but doesn’t address the issue. So other than harmonising the lower tax rates how are you going to address it?

So why do you say he shouldn't be suspended while the investigation happens?

There are rules. They have been broken. Why has it taken the EU so long to do something about it?

You will find a reason without Juncker being involved.

So yet again how about the link I have now put up twice? You expect full explanations from me but dodge questions yourself.