FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Jean-Claude Juncker, Brexiters' best friend
Jean-Claude Juncker, Brexiters' best friend
Jump to: Newest in thread
I'm a Remainer but this Guardian story does not suprise me in the slightest, we have known about Juncker's tax deals for ages but these leaked emails show just how captured by big business the EU has become. It is people like him that are going to destroy the EU.
.
.
"The president of the European commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, spent years in his previous role as Luxembourg’s prime minister secretly blocking EU efforts to tackle tax avoidance by multinational corporations, leaked documents reveal.
Years’ worth of confidential German diplomatic cables provide a candid account of Luxembourg’s obstructive manoeuvres inside one of Brussels’ most secretive committees.
The code of conduct group on business taxation was set up almost 19 years ago to prevent member states from being played off against one another by increasingly powerful multinational businesses, eager to shift profits across borders and avoid tax.
Little has been known until now about the workings of the committee, which has been meeting since 1998, after member states agreed a code of conduct on tax policies and pledged not to engage in “harmful competition” with one another.
However, the leaked cables reveal how a small handful of countries have used their seats on the committee to frustrate concerted EU action and protect their own tax regimes.
Efforts by a majority of member states to curb aggressive tax planning and to rein in predatory tax policies were regularly delayed, diluted or derailed by the actions of a few of the EU’s smallest members, frequently led by Luxembourg.
Analysis Luxembourg tax files: how tiny state rubber-stamped tax avoidance on an industrial scale
Leaked documents show that one of the EU’s smallest states helped multinationals save millions in tax, to the detriment of its neighbours and allies
The leaked papers, shared with the Guardian and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists by the German radio group NDR, are highly embarrassing for Juncker, who served as Luxembourg’s prime minister from 1995 until the end of 2013. During that period he also acted as finance and treasury minister, taking a close interest in tax policy.
Despite having a population of just 560,000, Luxembourg was able to resist widely supported EU tax reforms, its dissenting voice often backed only by that of the Netherlands..."
More at:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You should of known,once a thieving wanker always a thieving wanker,his name should be wanker not Junker .I wonder what CLCC will have to say "
More classy arguing here!
I'm sure CLCC's able to comment himself of course. But why do you say that? I'm as avid a remainer as anyone, but do I believe that everything and everyone in the EU is brilliant, beyond reproach or the like? No, of course not!
There is much about the EU that needs to be fixed.
But the way the brexit lobby on here refer to it with the adjective 'failed' at every opportunity is bonkers. It is, in my view and that of many, an utterly incredible disaster that we voted leave. As I've said before, I hope I'm wrong and, of course, time will tell. It will be many years before we know though, in the meantime I think we're in for an interesting ride! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest"
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch!"
The EU is more silly than Monty Python lol.You just do not want to se the facts,not the drivel that so called experts write you must think it through without bias,few do unfortunatly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch!The EU is more silly than Monty Python lol.You just do not want to se the facts,not the drivel that so called experts write you must think it through without bias,few do unfortunatly"
I, and others, do look at the facts, in depth. I look at primary sources and suitable sedondary sources. I am skilled in research and the evaluation of sources. In this forum I have yet to see a brexiter use facts or sources correctly, if you'd like to please do, it would be a refreshing change!
No one on here, or elsewhere, has yet to give a coherent argument as to why we should leave. The counter that the same could be said about remaining is untrue as several remainers on here post reasoned arguments with facts from unbiased sources that are cited.
So, go ahead if you like, as I say, it will be a nice change...! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch!The EU is more silly than Monty Python lol.You just do not want to se the facts,not the drivel that so called experts write you must think it through without bias,few do unfortunatly
I, and others, do look at the facts, in depth. I look at primary sources and suitable sedondary sources. I am skilled in research and the evaluation of sources. In this forum I have yet to see a brexiter use facts or sources correctly, if you'd like to please do, it would be a refreshing change!
No one on here, or elsewhere, has yet to give a coherent argument as to why we should leave. The counter that the same could be said about remaining is untrue as several remainers on here post reasoned arguments with facts from unbiased sources that are cited.
So, go ahead if you like, as I say, it will be a nice change...!"
Fair point when I have the time I will,it is based on history not ecomics which I studied atpoly a long time ago and decided that it was all crap as it is theory never proven |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch!The EU is more silly than Monty Python lol.You just do not want to se the facts,not the drivel that so called experts write you must think it through without bias,few do unfortunatly
I, and others, do look at the facts, in depth. I look at primary sources and suitable sedondary sources. I am skilled in research and the evaluation of sources. In this forum I have yet to see a brexiter use facts or sources correctly, if you'd like to please do, it would be a refreshing change!
No one on here, or elsewhere, has yet to give a coherent argument as to why we should leave. The counter that the same could be said about remaining is untrue as several remainers on here post reasoned arguments with facts from unbiased sources that are cited.
So, go ahead if you like, as I say, it will be a nice change...!"
skilled in research 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?"
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You should of known,once a thieving wanker always a thieving wanker,his name should be wanker not Junker .I wonder what CLCC will have to say "
One of Jean Claude Juncker's nicknames is Jean Claude D*unker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Jean Claude Juncker's links to tax evasion and tax avoidance while he was in the top spot in Luxembourg have been known about for many years now. It was in part why our ex Prime Minister David Cameron opposed the appointment of Juncker as EU President. Nigel Farage and Ukip took it one step further than Cameron with Ukip MEP's calling for a motion of censure in the EU Parliament against Jean Claude Juncker as EU President for his known links in helping and facilitating tax evasion/avoidance while he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
But as is often the case with the EU, the British input from David Cameron and Ukip was ignored and Juncker pulled a few strings with his Europhile cronies in the EU to ensure he kept his strangle hold on the job as EU President. I did post about all this during the time of our EU referendum campaign to highlight the corruption in the EU but mainly fell on deaf ears amongst the Remainers on here.
If there is now new developments to this story with leaked documents to show Juncker is corrupt maybe the EU should have listened to David Cameron and the Ukip MEP's who opposed Juncker to begin with. Juncker will probably still cling on to his cushy EU job though just as Christine Lagarde did at the IMF a few weeks ago when she was found guilty in a French court of law for being negligent in her job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch!The EU is more silly than Monty Python lol.You just do not want to se the facts,not the drivel that so called experts write you must think it through without bias,few do unfortunatly
I, and others, do look at the facts, in depth. I look at primary sources and suitable sedondary sources. I am skilled in research and the evaluation of sources. In this forum I have yet to see a brexiter use facts or sources correctly, if you'd like to please do, it would be a refreshing change!
No one on here, or elsewhere, has yet to give a coherent argument as to why we should leave. The counter that the same could be said about remaining is untrue as several remainers on here post reasoned arguments with facts from unbiased sources that are cited.
So, go ahead if you like, as I say, it will be a nice change...!"
Take it you've still not looked at the forum rules then?
The only links allowed on here are links to well known newspapers and other news media (which would all be secondary sources). Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed within the forum rules. Posting the primary source or links direct to primary sources on this forum will get you a forum ban! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Take it you've still not looked at the forum rules then?
The only links allowed on here are links to well known newspapers and other news media (which would all be secondary sources). Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed within the forum rules. Posting the primary source or links direct to primary sources on this forum will get you a forum ban! "
Well I've finally found the forum rules. That wasn't easy!
Centaur, you are being creative with the truth here...
The rules say (relevant to this):
"Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia"
So, yes, you can't put links up as you say.
However, this does not stop us citing sources now does it?
What I don't understand is just why you and others are so opposed to us doing so? Surely you are as interested as anyone in getting to the actual facts? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within."
Even though the report shows very clearly that the EU is trying to tackle tax avoidance, and that is the member states (or mainly one member state) that is trying to block that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes the EU is corrupt and dyeing and some people want to stay in it I do not understand them to be honest
Because we don't agree with you pronouncement.
The EU is not corrupt. Are there corrupt people in it? Possibly. But that doesn't mean it is.
Is it dying? Well, not from where I stand!
Does it need work to make it better? Of course!
Are we better off outside it? Why in gods' name would we be? It's utter madness! I mean, come on, we really must be living in a Monty Python sketch!The EU is more silly than Monty Python lol.You just do not want to se the facts,not the drivel that so called experts write you must think it through without bias,few do unfortunatly
I, and others, do look at the facts, in depth. I look at primary sources and suitable sedondary sources. I am skilled in research and the evaluation of sources. In this forum I have yet to see a brexiter use facts or sources correctly, if you'd like to please do, it would be a refreshing change!
No one on here, or elsewhere, has yet to give a coherent argument as to why we should leave. The counter that the same could be said about remaining is untrue as several remainers on here post reasoned arguments with facts from unbiased sources that are cited.
So, go ahead if you like, as I say, it will be a nice change...!
skilled in research
"
Oh yes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Citing sources and posting links are not the same thing.
Exactly, but then I thought we'd covered that in other threads ad nauseam?"
I'm not sure everyone got the memo, so I thought I would clarify. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Take it you've still not looked at the forum rules then?
The only links allowed on here are links to well known newspapers and other news media (which would all be secondary sources). Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed within the forum rules. Posting the primary source or links direct to primary sources on this forum will get you a forum ban!
Well I've finally found the forum rules. That wasn't easy!
Centaur, you are being creative with the truth here...
The rules say (relevant to this):
Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia
So, yes, you can't put links up as you say.
However, this does not stop us citing sources now does it?
What I don't understand is just why you and others are so opposed to us doing so? Surely you are as interested as anyone in getting to the actual facts?"
I'm not opposed to anyone saying what their source is. Sure say what the source is but posting a link direct to it will get you a forum ban as I said.
As the forum rules allow links to newspapers and other news media (secondary sources), then that is what people use on here as evidence to back up what they say in the form of links. In the post truth world though it seems posting links to newspapers is not good enough for some people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Take it you've still not looked at the forum rules then?
The only links allowed on here are links to well known newspapers and other news media (which would all be secondary sources). Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed within the forum rules. Posting the primary source or links direct to primary sources on this forum will get you a forum ban!
Well I've finally found the forum rules. That wasn't easy!
Centaur, you are being creative with the truth here...
The rules say (relevant to this):
Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia
So, yes, you can't put links up as you say.
However, this does not stop us citing sources now does it?
What I don't understand is just why you and others are so opposed to us doing so? Surely you are as interested as anyone in getting to the actual facts?
I'm not opposed to anyone saying what their source is. Sure say what the source is but posting a link direct to it will get you a forum ban as I said.
As the forum rules allow links to newspapers and other news media (secondary sources), then that is what people use on here as evidence to back up what they say in the form of links. In the post truth world though it seems posting links to newspapers is not good enough for some people. "
OK, maybe this just comes around from a misunderstanding of that 'citing sources' means. Citing is source is not merely saying "It was in the Guardian". Or "It was in the newspapers". Citing a source is giving someone else that ability to be able to find the same information you are referencing in your argument. e.g. It was in The Sun on the 16th Dec, in an article called "Why Dogs Sniff Each Other's Arses". Or "It was on the Institute of Dogs Arses website, search for "why dogs sniff", article by Mike Hunt. The fact that nowadays we have URIs and that most information can now be identified by one is very helpful, but by no means the only way to cite information. Hint: Hypertext is only a recent invention of our civilisation.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Take it you've still not looked at the forum rules then?
The only links allowed on here are links to well known newspapers and other news media (which would all be secondary sources). Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed within the forum rules. Posting the primary source or links direct to primary sources on this forum will get you a forum ban!
Well I've finally found the forum rules. That wasn't easy!
Centaur, you are being creative with the truth here...
The rules say (relevant to this):
Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia
So, yes, you can't put links up as you say.
However, this does not stop us citing sources now does it?
What I don't understand is just why you and others are so opposed to us doing so? Surely you are as interested as anyone in getting to the actual facts?
I'm not opposed to anyone saying what their source is. Sure say what the source is but posting a link direct to it will get you a forum ban as I said.
As the forum rules allow links to newspapers and other news media (secondary sources), then that is what people use on here as evidence to back up what they say in the form of links. In the post truth world though it seems posting links to newspapers is not good enough for some people. "
Matt's addresses citing sources.
The issue with newspapers is that they are apt to publish stuff that suits their editorial style etc. There is also, it would appear, some issue with how well they research their articles (see Private Eye, every issue, for the last several decades).
This has got nothing to do with post truth. It's the established way of arguing or discussing things where you try to get to the facts.
For example, many people on here have pointed out how successful they are in their work lives. Can you imagine going to your boss or bank mamanger and putting a business proposal forward, then when asked 'OK, what's your evidence for your proposal' saying 'The xxxxx' (insert name of any newspaper)? Then when said boss or manager asked for primary data would you tell them to do their own research? Of course not! In the first case you'd not quote a newspaper for your proposal and in the second, well, we can guess.
But, even if you're happy with newspapers as a source, why do those of us who aren't get attacked on here so belligerently when we look to dig down into the facts? Surely you also want to get to the truth behind this? That is all we're doing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Thank you Bubbletrouble for that one. Yep, just the latest exposure of the hypocrisy and corruption at the top of the overpaid, unelected EU excrement pile...the very same one the remoaners and luvvies are so attached to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You should of known,once a thieving wanker always a thieving wanker,his name should be wanker not Junker .I wonder what CLCC will have to say
More classy arguing here!
"
Yes, quite shocking language.
Personally and apologies to the ladies because I can't think of a more abusive word, I would call him a cunt...a right cunt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"You should of known,once a thieving wanker always a thieving wanker,his name should be wanker not Junker .I wonder what CLCC will have to say
More classy arguing here!
Yes, quite shocking language.
Personally and apologies to the ladies because I can't think of a more abusive word, I would call him a cunt...a right cunt."
You should hear what he says about you! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within."
.
Unfortunately most of them still think we live in a democracy!...I would say that for the last 30 years with the power of the media that's actually been an oligarchy and sadly since the banking bailouts...a plutocracy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within..
Unfortunately most of them still think we live in a democracy!...I would say that for the last 30 years with the power of the media that's actually been an oligarchy and sadly since the banking bailouts...a plutocracy"
Don't be silly, Pluto's not even a planet anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within..
Unfortunately most of them still think we live in a democracy!...I would say that for the last 30 years with the power of the media that's actually been an oligarchy and sadly since the banking bailouts...a plutocracy
Don't be silly, Pluto's not even a planet anymore. "
.
Well technically not but the PC crew came up with the name dwarf planet so it didn't feel bad... Then dwarf became out and it's a size challenged planet now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
Actually I can't see anyone on this thread saying stopping tax avoidance is bad, apart from Juncker and his fellow Benelux politicians.
I started this thread because I really believe much of the existential threat to the EU is from the corporatism that is growing like a cancer within..
Unfortunately most of them still think we live in a democracy!...I would say that for the last 30 years with the power of the media that's actually been an oligarchy and sadly since the banking bailouts...a plutocracy
Don't be silly, Pluto's not even a planet anymore. .
Well technically not but the PC crew came up with the name dwarf planet so it didn't feel bad... Then dwarf became out and it's a size challenged planet now"
Spherically challenged actually |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?"
The point being made is that the EU wish to pretend to try to stop tax avoidance....but once again the governments of the EU have no powers to do do so....nor does the EU parliament.
Like most of the EU all the actual business and policies are carried out by unelected "club" of self serving professional politicians who have stitched the whole thing up for their own gains.
This is how they want it to stay! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
So as a country on its own eager to be "open for business" how do we best go about tax regulation with large international corporations?
Will the UK be in a stronger position to collect tax and enforce employment, environmental and health regulation or will we be lowering taxation and deregulating as quickly as sweaty freemarketeer hands can manage to attract business?
Just a thought  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Take it you've still not looked at the forum rules then?
The only links allowed on here are links to well known newspapers and other news media (which would all be secondary sources). Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed within the forum rules. Posting the primary source or links direct to primary sources on this forum will get you a forum ban!
Well I've finally found the forum rules. That wasn't easy!
Centaur, you are being creative with the truth here...
The rules say (relevant to this):
Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia
So, yes, you can't put links up as you say.
However, this does not stop us citing sources now does it?
What I don't understand is just why you and others are so opposed to us doing so? Surely you are as interested as anyone in getting to the actual facts?
I'm not opposed to anyone saying what their source is. Sure say what the source is but posting a link direct to it will get you a forum ban as I said.
As the forum rules allow links to newspapers and other news media (secondary sources), then that is what people use on here as evidence to back up what they say in the form of links. In the post truth world though it seems posting links to newspapers is not good enough for some people.
Matt's addresses citing sources.
The issue with newspapers is that they are apt to publish stuff that suits their editorial style etc. There is also, it would appear, some issue with how well they research their articles (see Private Eye, every issue, for the last several decades).
This has got nothing to do with post truth. It's the established way of arguing or discussing things where you try to get to the facts.
For example, many people on here have pointed out how successful they are in their work lives. Can you imagine going to your boss or bank mamanger and putting a business proposal forward, then when asked 'OK, what's your evidence for your proposal' saying 'The xxxxx' (insert name of any newspaper)? Then when said boss or manager asked for primary data would you tell them to do their own research? Of course not! In the first case you'd not quote a newspaper for your proposal and in the second, well, we can guess.
But, even if you're happy with newspapers as a source, why do those of us who aren't get attacked on here so belligerently when we look to dig down into the facts? Surely you also want to get to the truth behind this? That is all we're doing. "
We're not putting a business proposal forward though, where you can present any information you want. We are interacting on a forum with certain rules which have to be adhered to. If the business proposal you put forward in your little fantasy scenario was via email, and was within a company such as Fabswingers, who set out rules that you could not put direct links to your sources as a rule of your business application, then you would not be able to do it, and if you did it knowing you were breaking the rules your bussiness application would be rejected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
The point being made is that the EU wish to pretend to try to stop tax avoidance....but once again the governments of the EU have no powers to do do so....nor does the EU parliament.
Like most of the EU all the actual business and policies are carried out by unelected "club" of self serving professional politicians who have stitched the whole thing up for their own gains.
This is how they want it to stay!"
But Leavers are always pretending that the EU is some existential other, and that it can impose it's will on others. This story highlights that that isn't the case at all, and that the individual members states, even tiny ones, hold a great deal of power.
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Citing sources and posting links are not the same thing.
Exactly, but then I thought we'd covered that in other threads ad nauseam?
I'm not sure everyone got the memo, so I thought I would clarify."
Some people still haven't got it yet  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years."
And yet even after nearly 20 years of trying they hhave been impotent on the issue... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We're not putting a business proposal forward though, where you can present any information you want. We are interacting on a forum with certain rules which have to be adhered to. If the business proposal you put forward in your little fantasy scenario was via email, and was within a company such as Fabswingers, who set out rules that you could not put direct links to your sources as a rule of your business application, then you would not be able to do it, and if you did it knowing you were breaking the rules your bussiness application would be rejected. "
Centaur, citing sources is not the same as posting a link.
Posting a link is not allowed.
Citing your source is.
How hard can this be?
And why are you belligerent ('your little fantasy scenario') about it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Citing sources and posting links are not the same thing.
Exactly, but then I thought we'd covered that in other threads ad nauseam?
I'm not sure everyone got the memo, so I thought I would clarify.
Some people still haven't got it yet "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years.
And yet even after nearly 20 years of trying they hhave been impotent on the issue..."
And our own government? How are they doing on the large corp tax avoidance front?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ost SockMan
over a year ago
West Wales and Cardiff |
"You should of known,once a thieving wanker always a thieving wanker,his name should be wanker not Junker .I wonder what CLCC will have to say
More classy arguing here!
I'm sure CLCC's able to comment himself of course. But why do you say that? I'm as avid a remainer as anyone, but do I believe that everything and everyone in the EU is brilliant, beyond reproach or the like? No, of course not!
There is much about the EU that needs to be fixed.
But the way the brexit lobby on here refer to it with the adjective 'failed' at every opportunity is bonkers. It is, in my view and that of many, an utterly incredible disaster that we voted leave. As I've said before, I hope I'm wrong and, of course, time will tell. It will be many years before we know though, in the meantime I think we're in for an interesting ride!"
Exactamundo - there is much wrong with the EU, but how can there not be in an entity of its size.
I don't know any remainers who feel it's perfect. That doesn't mean leaving is the right thing for our country in our eyes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We're not putting a business proposal forward though, where you can present any information you want. We are interacting on a forum with certain rules which have to be adhered to. If the business proposal you put forward in your little fantasy scenario was via email, and was within a company such as Fabswingers, who set out rules that you could not put direct links to your sources as a rule of your business application, then you would not be able to do it, and if you did it knowing you were breaking the rules your bussiness application would be rejected.
Centaur, citing sources is not the same as posting a link.
Posting a link is not allowed.
Citing your source is.
How hard can this be?
And why are you belligerent ('your little fantasy scenario') about it?"
I already said earlier in the thread that no one objects to you citing your source. Go back and read what I said earlier in the thread. Just pointing out that you are not allowed within the forum rules to post direct links to original sources.
How hard can this be for you to understand? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
The point being made is that the EU wish to pretend to try to stop tax avoidance....but once again the governments of the EU have no powers to do do so....nor does the EU parliament.
Like most of the EU all the actual business and policies are carried out by unelected "club" of self serving professional politicians who have stitched the whole thing up for their own gains.
This is how they want it to stay!
But Leavers are always pretending that the EU is some existential other, and that it can impose it's will on others. This story highlights that that isn't the case at all, and that the individual members states, even tiny ones, hold a great deal of power.
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years."
Why appoint someone like Juncker as EU president then, when he has a well documented and known history of helping and facilitating tax avoidance/evasion for multinational companies in his home country of Luxembourg? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
The point being made is that the EU wish to pretend to try to stop tax avoidance....but once again the governments of the EU have no powers to do do so....nor does the EU parliament.
Like most of the EU all the actual business and policies are carried out by unelected "club" of self serving professional politicians who have stitched the whole thing up for their own gains.
This is how they want it to stay!
But Leavers are always pretending that the EU is some existential other, and that it can impose it's will on others. This story highlights that that isn't the case at all, and that the individual members states, even tiny ones, hold a great deal of power.
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years.
Why appoint someone like Juncker as EU president then, when he has a well documented and known history of helping and facilitating tax avoidance/evasion for multinational companies in his home country of Luxembourg? "
You'll have to ask the people who voted for him.
I just find it so interesting that its the Brexiters that seem to be suggesting that the EU should have more power to override the wishes of member states. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We're not putting a business proposal forward though, where you can present any information you want. We are interacting on a forum with certain rules which have to be adhered to. If the business proposal you put forward in your little fantasy scenario was via email, and was within a company such as Fabswingers, who set out rules that you could not put direct links to your sources as a rule of your business application, then you would not be able to do it, and if you did it knowing you were breaking the rules your bussiness application would be rejected.
Centaur, citing sources is not the same as posting a link.
Posting a link is not allowed.
Citing your source is.
How hard can this be?
And why are you belligerent ('your little fantasy scenario') about it?
I already said earlier in the thread that no one objects to you citing your source. Go back and read what I said earlier in the thread. Just pointing out that you are not allowed within the forum rules to post direct links to original sources.
How hard can this be for you to understand? "
Very hard! Your reply to me, quoted above, is unanmbiguous showing that you thought I expect you to post links rather than citing. Since you were replying to me when I explained the rules that allow citing but not linking I feel it is not unreasonable for me to assume you don't know the difference. If you do, what on earth was the point of your reply? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
The point being made is that the EU wish to pretend to try to stop tax avoidance....but once again the governments of the EU have no powers to do do so....nor does the EU parliament.
Like most of the EU all the actual business and policies are carried out by unelected "club" of self serving professional politicians who have stitched the whole thing up for their own gains.
This is how they want it to stay!
But Leavers are always pretending that the EU is some existential other, and that it can impose it's will on others. This story highlights that that isn't the case at all, and that the individual members states, even tiny ones, hold a great deal of power.
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years."
And failing epically....because the commissioners that pull all the strings are preventing it happening for their own means....#corruptasfuck |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So the EU wants to stop tax avoidance, and some of you think thats a bad thing? Is that what you are upset about?
Or is it that the EU is not the all-powerful brute that you make it out to be, you want us to believe that it can simply enforce its will upon member states, but this story shows that is a myth? Is that the part that you are upset about?
The point being made is that the EU wish to pretend to try to stop tax avoidance....but once again the governments of the EU have no powers to do do so....nor does the EU parliament.
Like most of the EU all the actual business and policies are carried out by unelected "club" of self serving professional politicians who have stitched the whole thing up for their own gains.
This is how they want it to stay!
But Leavers are always pretending that the EU is some existential other, and that it can impose it's will on others. This story highlights that that isn't the case at all, and that the individual members states, even tiny ones, hold a great deal of power.
The story also highlights that clamping down on tax avoidance is very important to the EU and something that they have been working hard to achieve for years.
And failing epically....because the commissioners that pull all the strings are preventing it happening for their own means....#corruptasfuck"
Ok, so the OP is wrong then? It wasn't the member state that was blocking it, it was the commission? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
He said it was "a small number(of countries) using seats on committees " in other words...the unelected commissioners....specifically the corrupt Junkers and his snouts in the troughs cronies.....quite clear...not the governments! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
with regards to citing sources/providing links... if the link comes from a source of credible enough in my eyes... i'll take the 24/48hr ban if it proves someone else is being a hypocrite, or in the case of some people here have done on numerous occasions, have flat out lied or intended to mislead.....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"He said it was "a small number(of countries) using seats on committees " in other words...the unelected commissioners....specifically the corrupt Junkers and his snouts in the troughs cronies.....quite clear...not the governments!"
So not , "Jean-Claude Juncker, spent years in his previous role as Luxembourg’s prime minister secretly blocking EU efforts to tackle tax avoidance" then?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"He said it was "a small number(of countries) using seats on committees " in other words...the unelected commissioners....specifically the corrupt Junkers and his snouts in the troughs cronies.....quite clear...not the governments!"
Its not "in other words the unelected commissioners" because this sub-committee is nothing to do with the Commission. Instead its part of the Council of the EU, and attended by ministers from member states.
If you are going to slag off an institution, you could at least try to understand it first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He said it was "a small number(of countries) using seats on committees " in other words...the unelected commissioners....specifically the corrupt Junkers and his snouts in the troughs cronies.....quite clear...not the governments!"
One assumes you have clear evidence of this person's corruption as, if not, you're opening yourself to a lovely libel suit.
I expect he's got better things to worry about than you defaming him here, but still. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"with regards to citing sources/providing links... if the link comes from a source of credible enough in my eyes... i'll take the 24/48hr ban if it proves someone else is being a hypocrite, or in the case of some people here have done on numerous occasions, have flat out lied or intended to mislead.....
"
Don't worry about it. It's a non-issue. This stemmed from the IoD stats discussion. The person having an issue with this *can't* provide a link to the source as it doesn't exist as far as anyone can tell. They are just hiding behind the 'no links' policy as a defence for not being able to cite the source. No link available means no link can be posted, so no ban could be potentially given.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He said it was "a small number(of countries) using seats on committees " in other words...the unelected commissioners....specifically the corrupt Junkers and his snouts in the troughs cronies.....quite clear...not the governments!
So not , "Jean-Claude Juncker, spent years in his previous role as Luxembourg’s prime minister secretly blocking EU efforts to tackle tax avoidance" then?
"
Yes....and thanks for the added info.
Junker was PM of Luxembourg....now head of commission..... just repeating the same blocking tactics. You backed my point up succinctly.
I was quoting the OP....you were quoting? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"He said it was "a small number(of countries) using seats on committees " in other words...the unelected commissioners....specifically the corrupt Junkers and his snouts in the troughs cronies.....quite clear...not the governments!
So not , "Jean-Claude Juncker, spent years in his previous role as Luxembourg’s prime minister secretly blocking EU efforts to tackle tax avoidance" then?
Yes....and thanks for the added info.
Junker was PM of Luxembourg....now head of commission..... just repeating the same blocking tactics. You backed my point up succinctly.
I was quoting the OP....you were quoting?"
I was quoting the OP, you were showing you don't know the difference between a committee and the commission |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"with regards to citing sources/providing links... if the link comes from a source of credible enough in my eyes... i'll take the 24/48hr ban if it proves someone else is being a hypocrite, or in the case of some people here have done on numerous occasions, have flat out lied or intended to mislead.....
Don't worry about it. It's a non-issue. This stemmed from the IoD stats discussion. The person having an issue with this *can't* provide a link to the source as it doesn't exist as far as anyone can tell. They are just hiding behind the 'no links' policy as a defence for not being able to cite the source. No link available means no link can be posted, so no ban could be potentially given.
-Matt"
As has already been explained numerous times now the IoD poll was reported and printed in numerous newspapers (you said you found it in the Guardian, I have found the exact same figures in several other newspapers). All the newspapers cite the source of the poll figures as coming from the IoD. Posting a link direct to the IoD would get anyone doing so a forum ban on here, so I'm not going to do it. If you and others want to post links direct to your sources on threads then go ahead, see how long you last before you get a forum ban for breaking the forum rules.
I'll be sticking to the links allowed within the forum rules which is newspapers and other news media outlets, YouTube and Wikipedia. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"with regards to citing sources/providing links... if the link comes from a source of credible enough in my eyes... i'll take the 24/48hr ban if it proves someone else is being a hypocrite, or in the case of some people here have done on numerous occasions, have flat out lied or intended to mislead.....
Don't worry about it. It's a non-issue. This stemmed from the IoD stats discussion. The person having an issue with this *can't* provide a link to the source as it doesn't exist as far as anyone can tell. They are just hiding behind the 'no links' policy as a defence for not being able to cite the source. No link available means no link can be posted, so no ban could be potentially given.
-Matt
As has already been explained numerous times now the IoD poll was reported and printed in numerous newspapers (you said you found it in the Guardian, I have found the exact same figures in several other newspapers). All the newspapers cite the source of the poll figures as coming from the IoD. Posting a link direct to the IoD would get anyone doing so a forum ban on here, so I'm not going to do it. If you and others want to post links direct to your sources on threads then go ahead, see how long you last before you get a forum ban for breaking the forum rules.
I'll be sticking to the links allowed within the forum rules which is newspapers and other news media outlets, YouTube and Wikipedia. "
Please either learn to read or drop it.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"with regards to citing sources/providing links... if the link comes from a source of credible enough in my eyes... i'll take the 24/48hr ban if it proves someone else is being a hypocrite, or in the case of some people here have done on numerous occasions, have flat out lied or intended to mislead.....
Don't worry about it. It's a non-issue. This stemmed from the IoD stats discussion. The person having an issue with this *can't* provide a link to the source as it doesn't exist as far as anyone can tell. They are just hiding behind the 'no links' policy as a defence for not being able to cite the source. No link available means no link can be posted, so no ban could be potentially given.
-Matt
As has already been explained numerous times now the IoD poll was reported and printed in numerous newspapers (you said you found it in the Guardian, I have found the exact same figures in several other newspapers). All the newspapers cite the source of the poll figures as coming from the IoD. Posting a link direct to the IoD would get anyone doing so a forum ban on here, so I'm not going to do it. If you and others want to post links direct to your sources on threads then go ahead, see how long you last before you get a forum ban for breaking the forum rules.
I'll be sticking to the links allowed within the forum rules which is newspapers and other news media outlets, YouTube and Wikipedia. "
Sorry Centaur, but you still seem to be struggling with this very simple concept, or even life skill.
You can cite a source like this:
IoD website News & Campaigns Latest News & Campaigns IoD99 Annual Survey 16 December 2016.
Then we can find exactly where it is, without a link. If you look at that source, you will clearly see that only 8% of business think the referendum has had a positive impact on their business, and that 92% don’t.
So you can either cite your source like I have, or you can admit that those figures you quoted were made up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"with regards to citing sources/providing links... if the link comes from a source of credible enough in my eyes... i'll take the 24/48hr ban if it proves someone else is being a hypocrite, or in the case of some people here have done on numerous occasions, have flat out lied or intended to mislead.....
Don't worry about it. It's a non-issue. This stemmed from the IoD stats discussion. The person having an issue with this *can't* provide a link to the source as it doesn't exist as far as anyone can tell. They are just hiding behind the 'no links' policy as a defence for not being able to cite the source. No link available means no link can be posted, so no ban could be potentially given.
-Matt
As has already been explained numerous times now the IoD poll was reported and printed in numerous newspapers (you said you found it in the Guardian, I have found the exact same figures in several other newspapers). All the newspapers cite the source of the poll figures as coming from the IoD. Posting a link direct to the IoD would get anyone doing so a forum ban on here, so I'm not going to do it. If you and others want to post links direct to your sources on threads then go ahead, see how long you last before you get a forum ban for breaking the forum rules.
I'll be sticking to the links allowed within the forum rules which is newspapers and other news media outlets, YouTube and Wikipedia.
Sorry Centaur, but you still seem to be struggling with this very simple concept, or even life skill.
You can cite a source like this:
IoD website News & Campaigns Latest News & Campaigns IoD99 Annual Survey 16 December 2016.
Then we can find exactly where it is, without a link. If you look at that source, you will clearly see that only 8% of business think the referendum has had a positive impact on their business, and that 92% don’t.
So you can either cite your source like I have, or you can admit that those figures you quoted were made up."
To be fair to Centaur, I don't think those figures were made up. They have been reported widely by enough newspapers to make me think that they are genuine. I just want to find the source of where they got those numbers from and the full context of them as they appear to contradict the information that the IoD have published on their website.
My issue is to do with Centaur's inability to read. As I state above, there *is no link* to post. I'm not asking for a link. It doesn't exist. If something does not exist then it cannot be linked to.
It's as if he were debating that it would be illegal to try and bring a unicorn into the UK without quarantine. I'm saying that unicorns don't exist. He keeps bleating on about that I'm asking him to bring one into the country. It just doesn't make any sense.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And this has exactly what to do with the EU/committees/commissioners/Junkers or whoever else (who actually cares?) pretending to act on tax avoidance while actually condoning it and doing just about everything that the OP was talking about.
He didn't post about references....or about what Brutush business thought of Brexit......once again thread hijacked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"And this has exactly what to do with the EU/committees/commissioners/Junkers or whoever else (who actually cares?) pretending to act on tax avoidance while actually condoning it and doing just about everything that the OP was talking about.
He didn't post about references....or about what Brutush business thought of Brexit......once again thread hijacked."
Indeed. As I said, it is a non-issue from another thread.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"And this has exactly what to do with the EU/committees/commissioners/Junkers or whoever else (who actually cares?) pretending to act on tax avoidance while actually condoning it and doing just about everything that the OP was talking about.
He didn't post about references....or about what Brutush business thought of Brexit......once again thread hijacked."
You have lumped a whole load of different things together there. I will break it down for you:
The EU wanted to change the way EU member states do things. One or possibly more members states didn’t want to change the way they did things. The EU was then unable to make the change, because they can’t simply impose their will on the member states.
Thats it, in a nut shell. Surprisingly it is the Brexiters, that for some unknown reason are complaining about this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!"
Yes they can, they can veto treaty changes, veto new members and a whole host of other things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!"
Talking of democracy, and back to the OP, Juncker also said last November that no more EU member countries should be allowed to have referendums on EU membership. I'm not sure which version of democracy Jean Claude Juncker subscribes to but I think it's clear he hold those with democratic values in contempt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!"
This is where it gets confusing because I thought that the main problem with the EU was that it was forcing member states to do things, but it seems that the problem now is that it wasn't allowed to force countries to do things
However, in summary, the leader of an EU member acted in his countries narrow interests against a wider good. Is this not exactly what is supposed to be good about Brexit? Do whatever is good for us and devil take the hindemost? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!
This is where it gets confusing because I thought that the main problem with the EU was that it was forcing member states to do things, but it seems that the problem now is that it wasn't allowed to force countries to do things
However, in summary, the leader of an EU member acted in his countries narrow interests against a wider good. Is this not exactly what is supposed to be good about Brexit? Do whatever is good for us and devil take the hindemost?"
Exactly, imagine if we remained in the EU, and they did what all the Leavers are so scared of and created an EU military and told the UK that our forces were going to be absorbed into this new EU force. Would people be saying "well if that's what the rest of the EU wants, we should really go along with it" or would they be saying "no fucking way"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!
This is where it gets confusing because I thought that the main problem with the EU was that it was forcing member states to do things, but it seems that the problem now is that it wasn't allowed to force countries to do things
However, in summary, the leader of an EU member acted in his countries narrow interests against a wider good. Is this not exactly what is supposed to be good about Brexit? Do whatever is good for us and devil take the hindemost?"
So, in essence, this guy is a Brexit hero? He does exactly what they think we should do! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!
Talking of democracy, and back to the OP, Juncker also said last November that no more EU member countries should be allowed to have referendums on EU membership. I'm not sure which version of democracy Jean Claude Juncker subscribes to but I think it's clear he hold those with democratic values in contempt. "
Alternatively, you could put what Juncker *actually* said:
“We can't deny or take away the people of Europe's right to express their views.
“Regarding referenda on EU membership, I think it is not wise to organise this kind of debate, not only because I might be concerned about the final result but because this will pile more controversy onto the huge number already present at the heart of the EU.
https://youtu.be/O5Pyy60hMCU?t=4m
Slightly different to what you said above, no?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!
Talking of democracy, and back to the OP, Juncker also said last November that no more EU member countries should be allowed to have referendums on EU membership. I'm not sure which version of democracy Jean Claude Juncker subscribes to but I think it's clear he hold those with democratic values in contempt.
Alternatively, you could put what Juncker *actually* said:
“We can't deny or take away the people of Europe's right to express their views.
“Regarding referenda on EU membership, I think it is not wise to organise this kind of debate, not only because I might be concerned about the final result but because this will pile more controversy onto the huge number already present at the heart of the EU.
https://youtu.be/O5Pyy60hMCU?t=4m
Slightly different to what you said above, no?
-Matt"
Matt, for gods' sake, will you stop letting facts get in the way please!
We're post-truth here so we don't need facts! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!
Talking of democracy, and back to the OP, Juncker also said last November that no more EU member countries should be allowed to have referendums on EU membership. I'm not sure which version of democracy Jean Claude Juncker subscribes to but I think it's clear he hold those with democratic values in contempt.
Alternatively, you could put what Juncker *actually* said:
“We can't deny or take away the people of Europe's right to express their views.
“Regarding referenda on EU membership, I think it is not wise to organise this kind of debate, not only because I might be concerned about the final result but because this will pile more controversy onto the huge number already present at the heart of the EU.
https://youtu.be/O5Pyy60hMCU?t=4m
Slightly different to what you said above, no?
-Matt"
So Juncker doesn't want any more EU member countries to have referendums on EU membership then. Isn't that what he means when he says "Its not wise to organise this kind of debate"?
Later in that interview around 8 minutes 45 seconds Juncker is asked about the prospect of Marine Le Pen winning the election in France, the interviewer says "Can the EU survive if she (Marine Le Pen) becomes President?" Juncker replies, "Its a question we should not even be asking".
Jean Claude Juncker has a history of showing his disdain for democracy, after the Referendum in Greece, he said the Greek nation was asked a question that was not Legitimate, because he didn't like the answer they gave.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKnGlA3Kylc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"
So Juncker doesn't want any more EU member countries to have referendums on EU membership then. Isn't that what he means when he says "Its not wise to organise this kind of debate"?
Later in that interview around 8 minutes 45 seconds Juncker is asked about the prospect of Marine Le Pen winning the election in France, the interviewer says "Can the EU survive if she (Marine Le Pen) becomes President?" Juncker replies, "Its a question we should not even be asking".
Jean Claude Juncker has a history of showing his disdain for democracy, after the Referendum in Greece, he said the Greek nation was asked a question that was not Legitimate, because he didn't like the answer they gave.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKnGlA3Kylc"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So one state can stop the whole of the EU from moving forward ....that really is classic democracy!
Talking of democracy, and back to the OP, Juncker also said last November that no more EU member countries should be allowed to have referendums on EU membership. I'm not sure which version of democracy Jean Claude Juncker subscribes to but I think it's clear he hold those with democratic values in contempt.
Alternatively, you could put what Juncker *actually* said:
“We can't deny or take away the people of Europe's right to express their views.
“Regarding referenda on EU membership, I think it is not wise to organise this kind of debate, not only because I might be concerned about the final result but because this will pile more controversy onto the huge number already present at the heart of the EU.
https://youtu.be/O5Pyy60hMCU?t=4m
Slightly different to what you said above, no?
-Matt
So Juncker doesn't want any more EU member countries to have referendums on EU membership then. Isn't that what he means when he says "Its not wise to organise this kind of debate"?
Later in that interview around 8 minutes 45 seconds Juncker is asked about the prospect of Marine Le Pen winning the election in France, the interviewer says "Can the EU survive if she (Marine Le Pen) becomes President?" Juncker replies, "Its a question we should not even be asking".
Jean Claude Juncker has a history of showing his disdain for democracy, after the Referendum in Greece, he said the Greek nation was asked a question that was not Legitimate, because he didn't like the answer they gave.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKnGlA3Kylc"
.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?"
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
"
It is the job of MEPs to act on behalf of their constituents, yet UKIP have refuse to do that, but are happy to take their pay, take their expenses and even to embezzle funds.
The UK would be in a better position if we didn't have UKIP MEPs.
It's ironic isn't it, people on here say about how anti-democratic the EU is, however its the supposedly more democratic electoral system that the EU has for MEPs that allowed UKIP to gain MEPs. If it was the FPTP system, UKIP wouldnt get any MEPs.
Also, a criticism of the closed regional list system used, is that there are multiple representstives for the same constituency, thus a weaker link between the constituent and their representative. Therefore it's harder to hold them to account. So UKIP are allowed to get away without doing their job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
It is the job of MEPs to act on behalf of their constituents, yet UKIP have refuse to do that, but are happy to take their pay, take their expenses and even to embezzle funds.
The UK would be in a better position if we didn't have UKIP MEPs.
It's ironic isn't it, people on here say about how anti-democratic the EU is, however its the supposedly more democratic electoral system that the EU has for MEPs that allowed UKIP to gain MEPs. If it was the FPTP system, UKIP wouldnt get any MEPs.
Also, a criticism of the closed regional list system used, is that there are multiple representstives for the same constituency, thus a weaker link between the constituent and their representative. Therefore it's harder to hold them to account. So UKIP are allowed to get away without doing their job. "
And on here they're praised for it! It's a very strange world! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
It is the job of MEPs to act on behalf of their constituents, yet UKIP have refuse to do that, but are happy to take their pay, take their expenses and even to embezzle funds.
The UK would be in a better position if we didn't have UKIP MEPs.
It's ironic isn't it, people on here say about how anti-democratic the EU is, however its the supposedly more democratic electoral system that the EU has for MEPs that allowed UKIP to gain MEPs. If it was the FPTP system, UKIP wouldnt get any MEPs.
Also, a criticism of the closed regional list system used, is that there are multiple representstives for the same constituency, thus a weaker link between the constituent and their representative. Therefore it's harder to hold them to account. So UKIP are allowed to get away without doing their job. "
You said a lot,not one word in reply to my question though.
As someone once said,
"that's when you know you've got them";-) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
It is the job of MEPs to act on behalf of their constituents, yet UKIP have refuse to do that, but are happy to take their pay, take their expenses and even to embezzle funds.
The UK would be in a better position if we didn't have UKIP MEPs.
It's ironic isn't it, people on here say about how anti-democratic the EU is, however its the supposedly more democratic electoral system that the EU has for MEPs that allowed UKIP to gain MEPs. If it was the FPTP system, UKIP wouldnt get any MEPs.
Also, a criticism of the closed regional list system used, is that there are multiple representstives for the same constituency, thus a weaker link between the constituent and their representative. Therefore it's harder to hold them to account. So UKIP are allowed to get away without doing their job.
You said a lot,not one word in reply to my question though.
As someone once said,
"that's when you know you've got them";-)"
Your post was about politicians defending their countries interests. My response was that UKIP haven't done that.
You didn't actually ask a question though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
"
That's why when he was asked on live TV if he felt his/commission/whatever's refusal to give such regard to UKs interests and requirements could actually lead to a "leave" vote (which it did)....his answer was to put his fingers in his ears and walk away singing Lah, lah, lah......? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
He was right to defend his country's interests in their main industry and jobs by maintaining low tax and avoidance schemes though wasn't he?
he was absolutely right to defend his country's interests.
It was also absolutely right that the EU,
respect,understand,and accept his country's individual interests,and requirements.
In fact,wouldn't it true to say.
Had the EU given the same consideration to the UKs,individual interests and requirements.
Not only would there have been no need for a referendum,
It would never ever have been a consideration.
It is the job of MEPs to act on behalf of their constituents, yet UKIP have refuse to do that, but are happy to take their pay, take their expenses and even to embezzle funds.
The UK would be in a better position if we didn't have UKIP MEPs.
It's ironic isn't it, people on here say about how anti-democratic the EU is, however its the supposedly more democratic electoral system that the EU has for MEPs that allowed UKIP to gain MEPs. If it was the FPTP system, UKIP wouldnt get any MEPs.
Also, a criticism of the closed regional list system used, is that there are multiple representstives for the same constituency, thus a weaker link between the constituent and their representative. Therefore it's harder to hold them to account. So UKIP are allowed to get away without doing their job.
You said a lot,not one word in reply to my question though.
As someone once said,
"that's when you know you've got them";-)
Your post was about politicians defending their countries interests. My response was that UKIP haven't done that.
You didn't actually ask a question though."
My post was about the EUs double standards,leading to Brexit.
.
Wouldn't it be true to say,
starts my question.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
