It was a job appointment not an election. The UK doesn’t elect civilian servants either. Yes, it was a sham, but there wasn’t an open vote and wasn’t supposed to be.
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (109 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
It was a job appointment not an election. The UK doesn’t elect civilian servants either. Yes, it was a sham, but there wasn’t an open vote and wasn’t supposed to be.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Are we to infer from that that you don't necessarily agree with Macron on other issues such as austerity measures at home and overtly colonialist policies abroad?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Make your mind up.
So how could there be more than one person applying for the job and no vote? If there was no vote they wouldn't have had to break their rules and regulations to put Selmayr in place. But they couldn't guarantee him the position doing it correctly.
Then you wonder why my distrust of the EU because of the way it is run has made me swing towards wanting us to leave.
As I have said all along it would be bullying tactics to make us stay in. And if we didn't buckle under the pressure they would then look for a deal unless they didn't care about the residents of the EU.
I don't look too far out so far.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Shit. 20 jobs would be lost if we leave the EU without a trade deal. We had better stay in.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I thought you would be more concerned about us becoming a tax haven. I know it boils your piss that Junker turned Luxembourg into one so assumed such a man of principle would feel the same about the U.K. doing the same.
Yes. It includes:
There was an enquiry.
It was found that the appointment was within the law, but not in the spirit of the law.
The parliament accepted that the appointment stands, but with a compromise.
There should be a reassessment. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
No one is happy and Juncker has embarassed the EU significantly. He will not be there after his term ends.
Did you miss the reason why they are going? We are planning to cut corporation tax to keep firms in Britain. May be good if it makes us more competitive, may also reduce tax revenue to be used for e.g. NHS. Perhaps you are right on this occasion, and we should stay in and keep corporation tax at existing levels, or adopt a uniform corporation tax level with other European countries to avoid a race to the bottom ( e.g. Juncker's Luxembourg tax deals ).
Do you class getting a job as winning a vote?
The EU is not run by Juncker. Judging by the protests within the EU, the EU doesn't accept being 'ruled' ( or rather appointments being made ) in this manner. Strange you should use this as a reason for leaving, whilst the uproar in the EU is growing into a desire to cut these practices out. More the time to be joining in with the struggle or using your vote in the forthcoming elections.
The "bullying tactics" being: insisting on the integrity of the SM and CU. Crazy! The UK is leaving. Why should the EU dismantle it's greatest acheivement so that Britain can indulge in cakery?
Astute
Well-Known Member
FFS.
There wasn't a law against them breaking their own rules and regulations. That is the only reason it was lawful. So why do you try and make out it is all OK because it was lawful?
I can guarantee that if the Tories broke rules and regulations you would be on here screaming about it. You certainly wouldn't be trying to think of comments to try and make it sound better.
And it is OK because Juncker only has a few years left of his term? Not at all. The vast majority won't be happy until Selmayr has gone. But he has the job for life.
Astute
Well-Known Member
And another one just making comments towards one side.
So what don't you remember from my previous posts on the matter?
Tax avoidance schemes takes money away from the tax payer. If they were not allowed to happen we would be able to afford to house the homeless. The working man could pay much less tax.
But no. Pro EU means defend Juncker and the system that put him in place. Defend Juncker on being the one presiding on any action taking against himself. But attack those who used his schemes.
Says it all to me.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Oh yes we did this one previously.
Reducing corporation tax meant more corporation tax was paid. Because more money was able to be invested in companies instead of paying the tax. This meant more jobs were made.
Astute
Well-Known Member
You are getting extremely tedious now.
So people who get a job of ruling us shouldn't be voted in? They should be handed a job by someone already in a similar sort of job?
Are you saying that the EU being crooked is a good reason to stay in?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I didn’t defend Junker. You on the other hand don’t seem to be able to talk about the possibility of Britain becoming a tax haven while not being able to shut up about Luxembourg becoming one under Junker. You’re opening comment of “and another one just making comments towards one side” looks ludicrous when compared to the rest of your post which is comments towards one side. You can’t even bring yourself to say that you hope it doesn’t happen in the UK post brexit. Which would be commenting on both sides.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many of British MP’s families are voted into the job said MP employs them “to do”? Or how many of those positions are advertised giving anyone the opportunity to take them jobs?
I wonder who voted in Trumps family who now all seem to make up the US government? Or how many of those positions were made available to anyone outside of Trumps family?
Like I’ve already pointed out. It’s a norm not the exception in politics. Not sure why you’re so fixated on it.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Priceless demonstration of lacking understanding how it works
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
We went through this before where you tried to say that London was the place to dodge tax. Then I showed you how bad Luxembourg under Juncker was.
So what evidence do you have that we are going to become like Luxembourg under Juncker?
You don't have any. And neither do I. So what kind of comments am I supposed to make? I'm not going to join in with your fantasies.
Astute
Well-Known Member
We are talking about someone getting the top job in the EU which is a job for life. The EU rules countries with their rules and regulations. You are comparing much lower jobs.
Yes a great argument.
Astute
Well-Known Member
He understands. He is just like Mart. He comes out with anything to try and make the EU look better.
It is not for life. He has to retire. Much lower jobs than „action man“ Jared Kushner?
No. Just pointing out facts. I have agreed that the Selmayr appointment doesn’t make the EU look good. You don’t need to leave the script and make things up to say that it doesn’t look good.
There was an enquiry. It was accepted. There will be a reassessment. Maybe they will change his status at the reassessment. If the vast majority of MEPs want to change things, then you should be happy. I hope they do change things for the better.
Bad though it is, there are other things to take into account in an organisation representing 500 million people.
Yes. Juncker’s term ends in around 3 years. Good. Won’t effect you though. Don’t know why you are so stressed by it.
London is worse than Luxemburg now and tax cuts have been threatened by the UK in the case of a bad or no deal.
How does it work then?
That is exactly how Britain has always worked. We have never had votes on who is chancellor or who is the top civil servant. Are you saying that countries who don’t elect civil servants are crooked? Where would you like to live then if that is the case?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I’ve stated exactly what happened. Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
How can stating exactly how Theresa May won the Tory leadership be defending anything? She was handed it when there was no challengers. It’s as simple as that, you really can’t contrive that to be anything else.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What proof to Panasonic have would be a more apt question. They clearly feel that they have enough. Who gave them a heads up and why?
Also don’t ever recall saying that London was worse than Luxembourg for tax dodging. May have said it about British overseas territory though.
Last edited:
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
No - the process whittles challengers out of the running because they know they cannot get enough votes. There wasn't any ballot whatsoever for Selmayr the other challengers were simply bullied to pull out
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
That’s new. How come you know that and no one else?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Nobody else who can't handle the truth you mean? Carry on arguing that black is white. The whole Selmayr episode was a scam. And you know it. Just like the vast majority in the EU who spoke up against it.
But how about some good news for the EU. Unemployment is down to the lowest level since the financial crisis.
Jobless rate in eurozone still twice as high as in UK | This is Money
dutchman
Well-Known Member
That must be the first time in history a company has left a country on the grounds that they would be paying LESS tax if they remained!
I have said that it was a sham and that it annoyed me. You say it is a scam and it seems to have annoyed you. Yet you claim that I cannot handle the truth. I don’t see a great deal of difference between us. Just that I don’t have to go on a rant about it every day.
The Mail is a joke and the ex chamber of commerce guy is UKIP mad. „Who would want to be a member of that club?“ Well for a start we are. We have the lowest unemployment since 1975, despite having 3,5 million EU citizens in employment. It actually shows the benefits of EU membership and that EU immigration is absolutely necessary. Take the 3,5 million out and some sectors will collapse because of lack of man power.
That previous Eastern Bloc countries and a traditionally poor country like Portugal, are getting their unemployment down, is indeed a success story. Shows how the Mail‘s headlines don’t reflect the truth.
Apart from that’s not what they said. They said they may get penalised by Japan for having their office in a tax haven. Japan has just completed a trade deal with the EU. Maybe that has something to do with it.