EU to set UK tax?

[mig]

Reported in the Times.

Germany's Chancellor says the EU should set the tax-rates
for all member states.

Also,that entry into monetary union means political union.http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-215384,00.html

 

[Lost Cause]

Welcome to the empire! If it gets too out of hand I guess the UK subjects can grab their guns and change it....oh wait, I forgot, they took all the guns away so that the government and the crooks are the only power! Sorry.....
"The devil's in the details" read the fine print of the EU charter.

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Germany's Chancellor says the EU should set the tax-rates
for all member states.

The money is only the start of it buddy..... hang onto your hat......

 

[p_p_man]

I can't see any problem with this.

At least it would give us a chance to get more realistic tax laws.

The EU may fix them, but as we are part of the EU, it's up to us not to have them any crazier than they are now. And I'm not so sure the French would like the idea at all.

It's not us against them. That's part of the Tory propaganda machinery clicking in.

All member states have their own representatives in Europe.

We've just got to make sure our's are good enough to protect our interests.

And there's always the right to veto...

 

[mig]

Re: I can't see any problem with this.

At least it would give us a chance to get more realistic tax laws.


It's not us against them. That's part of the Tory propaganda machinery clicking in.


And there's always the right to veto...

Educate me.What do the Tories have to do with anything?.

Veto,for how long?.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: I can't see any problem with this.

Educate me.What do the Tories have to do with anything?.

Veto,for how long?.

Their constant screaming about loss of sovereignty, keeping the pound, their "little England" mentality. There's enough of it around to make them think that they have the backing of the voters. Once again I think they'll be proved wrong.

What do you mean "Veto, for how long?"

 

[mig]

There are a lot more than Tories who can be considered as 'anti',
me for one.Party Politics don't seem important here.

Once we have achieved political and monetary Nirvana how long will it be before the right of veto is removed and majority voting
installed?.Not too long I think.

Will we be able to resist that?.No chance.

 

[p_p_man]

Just a bit of background...

Source:

EUROPE 2000

The Council of Ministers

Britain's veto is also every other member state's veto. Britain's policy objectives can be frustrated by another state exercising its own veto. For example, majority voting was essential to the internal market and to promote international free trade. Majority voting meant that France was not able to veto the Commission's mandate for the GATT negotiations.

Veto in tax and defence/foreign policy

The unanimity procedure should still apply to the harmonisation of tax legislation and the EU's own tax resources. This will ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is rigorously applied.

ppman

 

[mig]

Belatedly.


I'm not partcularly impressed by what was said then.

I think you'll find however,that, in the not too distant future, EU
members will comply with the majority and surrender the right of
veto on the grounds that this will prevent the interuption of
proper EU harmony by a single member.

I'm told that the UK has the strongest economy of all EU members.If this is true,in spite of all the dire predictions,what is
the benefit in total integration?.

 

[Guest]

civil war of the EU

2003-200?

 

[Guest]

hitler must be sitting in hell laughing his ass off.

 

[p_p_man]

I think you'll find however,that, in the not too distant future, EU
members will comply with the majority and surrender the right of
veto on the grounds that this will prevent the interuption of
proper EU harmony by a single member.

I'm told that the UK has the strongest economy of all EU members.If this is true,in spite of all the dire predictions,what is
the benefit in total integration?.

I'm not sure who you are thinking of when you say "the majority". As far as I've read and studied so far, no member state's population is happy about giving up the veto, unless all decisions are made under a unanimous vote.

Yes I've also read that we have the strongest economy at the moment but as the investment men like to say "The value of your shares can go down as well as up".

To be part of a two tier Europe, the largest of which is dealing in euros just makes it harder for us (and more expensive) to deal with mainland Europe in our business and personal lives.

Mind you the currency commission men must be loving it.

It's got to be boom time for them...

And it's not so much what the benefit is for us. That's the Tory way. But rather what the benefit for us will be in the future.

Europe's happened. Only an internal war will dismantle it. And what are the Brits doing, with the Sun newspaper as our flag bearer?

Why we...

Dilly we dally, dally and we dilly
Lost our way and can't find our way home....

 

[p_p_man]

hitler must be sitting in hell laughing his ass off.

What does that mean?

You're a crazy cunt sometimes...

pp

 

[KillerMuffin]

"Ever'body wanna be like Mike." This random movie quote brought to you today by sheer appropriateness.

Welcome to federalism, guys. A lil' US history, post Declaration of Independence. You'll love it, the sheer unadulterated roadmap of the European Union.

Originally the colonies broke off into 13 states, independent "countries" if you will all banding together for a common cause. It's not easy to take on the dominant world power and it would never happen if they did it separately. Once Cornwallis lost at Yorktown in 1781 it was all over but the cleanup.

At that time the 13 states were independent countries. For the next 6 years they operated under what's known as a de facto confederation. Every year or so representatives would gather and try to figure out how to fix the debt problem the Continental Congress had gotten into when they warred with Britian. See, there was no power in the CC and they had to rely on whatever the states would give them. Jack, basically. Anyway, they borrowed heavily from France and other interested places who wanted to thumb their noses at Britian and were no faced with the problem of paying that money back. They asked the states, the states said no.

Anyway, the all got together and drafted the Articles of Confederation which essentially said that each member state had equal say in whatever the confederation decided. Anything to be passed had to be done by unanimous consent of all member states. Each representative from each state would serve a single one year term as a representative. Of course, Congress only met for a few days a year and some states didn't even show up.

Eventually they got around to the Constitutional Convention in Philidelhpia because the Articles were not working. There was no power in the government. They couldn't tax to pay off their debts. They couldn't regulate commerce between the states which was leading to border skirmishes. They tried printing money, but with nothing to back it the money was worth jack after about six months. They couldn't call up an army in case someone invaded. Then there was the whole new frontier business that came with winning the war. It didn't belong to a state, but people were looking to get rich off of the new territory. There was no way they could really enter into any treaties with foreign powers or with indian nations. Worse, some of the states were making noises about doing it on their own. NATO hell, right?

So we drafted the Constitution, had a real brouhaha over it, and eventually 11 states ratified it and the federal government was born.

Sound familiar?

It's not going to the United Kingdom with sovereignty over itself. It's going to be the State of Britian in a constant struggle with the federal government over who has sovereignty.

Just like us, you guys will enjoy speed limits mandated by the federal government, money from rich states going to poor states through taxation, all that stuff.

Too bad ya'll don't have a bill of rights.

I'd call you guys fucked up the wazoo. Unless of course you like this brand of federalism.

 

[bored1]

What does that mean?

You're a crazy cunt sometimes...

pp

I think it means that Germany will DOMINATE your new united EUROPE through peace,Something they couldnt do through war. Maybe the new Socialist European government will just confiscate all earnings through 100% taxation,then put everyone on an allowance.

 

[Mensa]

You can't be partly pregnant

Bad news, guys, you are either in or you're out. If you're in , you're in all the way. The EU will become as one nation, not a collective of semi-independents, but one because they're already discovering that this is the only way it can be made to work effectively.

Monetary union will require closer political ties leading to political union. Political union will mean one police force, one army, one government making policies for all. No veto because that would undermine everything.

Your part of the New Europe and your powers will eventuallly be reduced to that of a state or province of this new power.

Get used to it or get out.

 

[p_p_man]

"Ever'body wanna be like Mike." This random movie quote brought to you today by sheer appropriateness.

Welcome to federalism, guys. A lil' US history, post Declaration of Independence. You'll love it, the sheer unadulterated roadmap of the European Union.

Originally the colonies broke off into 13 states, independent "countries" if you will all banding together for a common cause. It's not easy to take on the dominant world power and it would never happen if they did it separately. Once Cornwallis lost at Yorktown in 1781 it was all over but the cleanup.

At that time the 13 states were independent countries. For the next 6 years they operated under what's known as a de facto confederation. Every year or so representatives would gather and try to figure out how to fix the debt problem the Continental Congress had gotten into when they warred with Britian. See, there was no power in the CC and they had to rely on whatever the states would give them. Jack, basically. Anyway, they borrowed heavily from France and other interested places who wanted to thumb their noses at Britian and were no faced with the problem of paying that money back. They asked the states, the states said no.

Anyway, the all got together and drafted the Articles of Confederation which essentially said that each member state had equal say in whatever the confederation decided. Anything to be passed had to be done by unanimous consent of all member states. Each representative from each state would serve a single one year term as a representative. Of course, Congress only met for a few days a year and some states didn't even show up.

Eventually they got around to the Constitutional Convention in Philidelhpia because the Articles were not working. There was no power in the government. They couldn't tax to pay off their debts. They couldn't regulate commerce between the states which was leading to border skirmishes. They tried printing money, but with nothing to back it the money was worth jack after about six months. They couldn't call up an army in case someone invaded. Then there was the whole new frontier business that came with winning the war. It didn't belong to a state, but people were looking to get rich off of the new territory. There was no way they could really enter into any treaties with foreign powers or with indian nations. Worse, some of the states were making noises about doing it on their own. NATO hell, right?

So we drafted the Constitution, had a real brouhaha over it, and eventually 11 states ratified it and the federal government was born.

Sound familiar?

It's not going to the United Kingdom with sovereignty over itself. It's going to be the State of Britian in a constant struggle with the federal government over who has sovereignty.

Just like us, you guys will enjoy speed limits mandated by the federal government, money from rich states going to poor states through taxation, all that stuff.

Too bad ya'll don't have a bill of rights.

I'd call you guys fucked up the wazoo. Unless of course you like this brand of federalism.

That's right. That's how I've always seen it.

We may not necessarily follow the route of State and Federal Laws but if we do I can't see any problem there either. After all Scotland has had differing laws to the rest of the UK for some time now, and these will increase as the Scottish Parliament passes more of their own legislation.

But here we have the lucky situation of being able to study America and her way of running things.

Funnily enough, or not so funny, depending on how you look at it, the USA has always been my role model when it comes to a United Europe. I quote your beginnings as a success story more often than I complain about Bush!

 

[mig]

Re: You can't be partly pregnant

Bad news, guys, you are either in or you're out. If you're in , you're in all the way. The EU will become as one nation, not a collective of semi-independents, but one because they're already discovering that this is the only way it can be made to work effectively.

Monetary union will require closer political ties leading to political union. Political union will mean one police force, one army, one government making policies for all. No veto because that would undermine everything.

Your part of the New Europe and your powers will eventuallly be reduced to that of a state or province of this new power.

Get used to it or get out.

I'll happily drink to all that.

So,let's get out.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: You can't be partly pregnant

I'll happily drink to all that.

So,let's get out.

And how do you propose to do that?

It's not a members only club that you can just walk away from. It's a series of Treaties. signed over a period of 30 years, that are already part of our every day life. From free trade to the European Court of Appeal. From the RDF to the eurozone. From financial aid for needy areas to crossing borders without a passport.

And so on and so on and so on...

You're talking the true Tory way...

And it was them who signed us up in the first place...

 

[android1966]

I don't think we will have much choice about giving up the pound,
looking at past referendums in Denmark and the Irish Republic if
the people make a decision contrary to what the EU want then
massive amounts of cash will be pumped into 'educating' the
voters and then they are given another referendum until they
get the decision they want.

 

[Texan]

"Ever'body wanna be like Mike." This random movie quote brought to you today by sheer appropriateness.

Welcome to federalism, guys. A lil' US history, post Declaration of Independence.

Edited for brevity only.


Too bad ya'll don't have a bill of rights.

I'd call you guys fucked up the wazoo. Unless of course you like this brand of federalism.

KM... that was a great post. The comparisons you drew were (IMNSHO) right on target. I enjoyed reading that.

I don't have much of an opinion on this subject, but let me ask a question to you or anyone else.

When the American colonies were coming together, they had very little history as independent nations. The countries of Europe, each have long histories, in fact, they even fought wars against each other. The last war was less than sixty years ago.

Also, there are several languages that separate the countries. At least, when the colonies came together to form a "union", they shared a common language.

When the colonies came together, among the primary reasons were a common enemy ... England; and a common creditor... France. The EU has neither a common enemy nor a common creditor. What they have is a common competitor.... the USA, and to a lesser extent... Japan.

Now the question. With all the nationalistic histories of the European countries, and with the differences of language, is that sense of economic competition a strong enough motivation for "union" of the otherwise nationalistic countries?


An after-thought. If the EU sets the tax structure and rates for all the member countries, how long will it be before they decide to require that those taxes be paid directly to the EU rather than to the individual member countries? I can see it now, the establishment of a new agency called the ERS... the (European Revenue Service). Looks like a growth market for Turbox Tax Europe.

I'm bored and this post is not to be taken too seriously. I really don't have strong opinions on this subject.

 

[mig]

Re: Re: Re: You can't be partly pregnant

You're talking the true Tory way...

And it was them who signed us up in the first place...

You do seem somewhat obsessed with the Tories.

Let us not forget that it was Tosser Ted who did the damage.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't be partly pregnant

You do seem somewhat obsessed with the Tories.

Let us not forget that it was Tosser Ted who did the damage.

A Tory...

 

[KillerMuffin]

Texan brings up a good point, guys.

Aside from being territorial governors and assemblies created by the British Government, the 13 colonies were never actually independent countries. Here's some facts:

The colonists were overwhelmingly British.
The colonists were all a part of the British crown prior to independence. That means they were all managed by the same people and the same government.
The colonists were all subject to the same system of taxation, trade, and governance, there again all done by Britian.
The colonists overwhelmingly spoke British English and were all overwhelmingly British in culture.
The colonists were all Christian of some sort.
The colonists all had the same goals.
The colonists all began with one type of currency, specie.
The colonists didn't have their own sovereignty long enough to get used to it.

The EU:

It's got more languages than it has nations.
It's got different currencies.
The variation of GNP per member state is wide.
There are different types of governments involved.
There are more cultures available than there are nations.
Each member state has a lengthy history of its own sovereignty as well as conflicts between each other.

These are problems that are going to arise.

Take this particular conflict:

France - guilty until proven innocent
Germany - innocent until proven guilty

What now? Someone must rearrange their entire judicial system. One that's been in place since the storming of the Bastille.

A big one in England is that children are tried as adults when they are 10 1/2 years old. Or is it 10 years... Anyway, they are the only country that does that. People like Mary Bell and the two who killed the two year old boy have been tried, convicted, sentenced, and later paroled based on an old English method of jurisprudence. The European Court saw the case of the two year old boy and found that England was wrong and the two boys should not have been tried as they were. Welcome to federalism.

England follows its laws and then the EU overrules them. We've been dealing with that since the Declaration of Independence, since this country was born. England has been dealing with that... never.

How do you solve those problems? Which one is right? Which is better?

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Take this particular conflict:

France - guilty until proven innocent
Germany - innocent until proven guilty

Is this right, KM? The French assume defendents are guilty? That can't be right, can it?

In any case, for the reasons KM and Texan astutely list above, I expect that a unified Europe ought to have even more member state vs. Federal govt. tensions than the US (and we've had a lot of tension including the civil rights conflict in the South where Feds and state authorities locked horns over the status of blacks. Dwarfing that conflict, though, was the Civil War, which really was a states' rights vs. Federal authority dispute over slaveholding that ultimately came to blows.

I don't think Europe has any major issues as explosive as slavery was, but they have a fair-sized list of issues that could be as problematic for a federally arranged government as civil rights. I expect there will be a lot of growing pains.