What's wrong with going to public school? I didn't but I work bloody hard to make sure my son does.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with it. I was saying that the image he is portraying is a false one that certain members of the public are lapping up.
To say that Farage is any more in touch with the working class man than Cameron et al. is just wrong.
Not to defend Farage but i went to public school, my father is a lorry driver and my mum has to work from home to make ends meet. I was then offered scholarships to stay at 16 but chose to come home so i could get a part time job out of school hours to ease the burden on my parents so i went to a local comprehensive, i then went to a uni that was once a polytechnic. Not that I claim to be a man of the people but the stereotype that people who go to public school are rich toffs is just plain incorrect. I also met people at that comprehensive that you would call 10x more posh than anyone i went to public school with. In fact, some of the most down right scary, intimidating and "rough" people I've ever met went to that public school.
With respect, the point is Dipenhall, if it's in a manifesto then we must assume that UKIP would bring in legislation to fulfill their manifesto pledge, so at some point "British values" must be defined. You can't say in an act of parliament "We all know what it means" - it simply must be clarified it and it appears that even we, a small group of people, would not be able to come to agreement on what it means.
"Values" means principles or standards of behaviour, British means traditionally associated with Britain. Not sure what the problem is, apart from if you insist on a definition, it will be a mix and match list different for every citizen. UKIP have a policy that means all things to all men and can sort out what means most to most men afterwards. Surely clever politics.
If the character of the policies meet an individual's own perception of traditional British values the manifesto will have met UKIP's objectives. If UKIP have misjudged peoples instincts and not hit the spot on enough mix and match features they will fail.
Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle.
You don't need an Act of Parliament to define the character of a particular piece of legislation, people will assess its character for themselves.
So if a party stated on their manifesto "We are going to do some stuff to make things better", presumably as you do not require a definition you would accept that as a reason for giving them your X come election time, Dippenhall?
It's okay to use the term "British values" when chatting in the pub with your likeminded mates, they know exactly what you mean; when a complete stranger writes it as a goal on his manifesto I think that anyone sensible would want a bit more flesh on the bones before committing to voting for them.
Can I ask where you lived in order to come to the following conclusion please?
"Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle."
Did I suggest a UKIP manifesto would say "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better" or did I say it's more likely to contain policies which people interpreted in their own way as supporting their view of British values. UKIP is cutting itself some slack by promoting principles just like the other parties do in advance of finalising a manifesto. If UKIP says in its manifesto we are promoting British values by doing x, y and z not sure how that is different from any other party, you pays your money and you makes your choice. If UKIP say "we are going to do some stuff to promote British values" - period, I would agree there ceases to be any credibility.
I think we've established British values can't be defined, only described in very many different ways, it's a personal concept. Putting a perverse interpretation on what I said and refuting it doesn't advance the debate very far.
Probably making the point a bit clumsily, shouldn't have been personal, but I'm just taking a swipe at the Roman concept of law that predominant in Europe that codifies what you can and can't do. English law is based on principles that are interpreted and re-interpreted over time. The EU is driving us towards the European codified rule of law which is alien to our traditional English "live and let live" mentality and the principles of equity and upholding the rights of individuals. In fact whatever we think British values mean, I doubt it is unconnected to an attachment to those principles of our legal system.
No I suggested that saying upholding "British Values" is no different to saying "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better". I, in no way, shape or form implied that you did - how on earth have you come to that conclusion when I wrote "If a party stated..."?
I cannot make myself any clearer in what I mean, if you choose to deliberately pretend to misunderstand that so that you don't have to answer my point, there's not a lot more I can add.
That you can lump together cultures as diverse at Sweden, Romania and Portugal as having the "Roman concept of law" I find rather odd too.
On that last point I think Dippenhall is right in that only UK law, among EU countries, is based on precedent, and the concept of the reasonable man, and has the fluidity to be adapted gradually over time. I don't know about Portugal of course, but I'm afraid that over here, laws are literally knocked out by Czech politicians in a pub, and they proudly pronounce that this is the law, in black and white ,no messing about, unlike in the UK where it is open to interpretation. And then, because it was knocked up in the pub, people find it is full of holes, or totally incomprehensible or some local judge is incentivised to understand a sentence in a certain way, and in a year's time a new group of politicians sit in the pub and rewrite the whole thing. OK I'm exaggerating but basically that's it and the UK system is massively superior. (Incidentally there has in the past been modest funding for UK judges and legal experts to come out here and advise on how our system works, and it was greatly appreciated. As with many things there is a great appetite for the British way, but we cannot be arsed to get out and promote it. )
However @dippenhall hasn't convinced me that our membership of the EU is undermining the UK legal system, and especially not the EU directives, which as I have demonstrated are blithely ignored by swathes of the commercial sector as it suits them. I have heard politicians complaining about it, I have heard the Daily Mail of course, and some civil servants who come rushing out with half baked UK versions, but crucially I am not aware that the mass of our more learned judges believe that this is a threat. If they came out and said that I'd listen, precisely because I share Dippenhall's respect for that system. There were few more admirable British people I met out here than the judge who came out on the funded programme, and one of whose sessions I was able to sit in on.
What's wrong with going to public school? I didn't but I work bloody hard to make sure my son does.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with it. I was saying that the image he is portraying is a false one that certain members of the public are lapping up.
To say that Farage is any more in touch with the working class man than Cameron et al. is just wrong.
Not to defend Farage but i went to public school, my father is a lorry driver and my mum has to work from home to make ends meet. I was then offered scholarships to stay at 16 but chose to come home so i could get a part time job out of school hours to ease the burden on my parents so i went to a local comprehensive, i then went to a uni that was once a polytechnic. Not that I claim to be a man of the people but the stereotype that people who go to public school are rich toffs is just plain incorrect. I also met people at that comprehensive that you would call 10x more posh than anyone i went to public school with.
tl;dr stereotyping is for idiots.
Again I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with people who go to public school. As I said, Farage the son of a stockbroker, who went to public school and worked as a commodities trader who then went on to work for the Conservative party. Is he any more in touch with the common man than any of our current MPs?
What's wrong with going to public school? I didn't but I work bloody hard to make sure my son does.
More important to me is an MP actually having a real working job prior to going into politics.
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with it. I was saying that the image he is portraying is a false one that certain members of the public are lapping up.
To say that Farage is any more in touch with the working class man than Cameron et al. is just wrong.
Not to defend Farage but i went to public school, my father is a lorry driver and my mum has to work from home to make ends meet. I was then offered scholarships to stay at 16 but chose to come home so i could get a part time job out of school hours to ease the burden on my parents so i went to a local comprehensive, i then went to a uni that was once a polytechnic. Not that I claim to be a man of the people but the stereotype that people who go to public school are rich toffs is just plain incorrect. I also met people at that comprehensive that you would call 10x more posh than anyone i went to public school with.
tl;dr stereotyping is for idiots.
Is he any more in touch with the common man than any of our current MPs?
In my view, being in touch with the common man, even if only with a barge pole, is vastly overrated, and often quite unpleasant.
Not sure it is a case of Farage being in touch with the common people. More that the common people seem to like what he is saying - rightly or wrongly.
If we have an EU directive it has to be made into English law for it to be enforceable, so to that extent it is not undermining our legal system, it still works. What grates with me is having to pass laws that we would not have chosen to, worse still, we find it makes life more difficult and more expensive without obtaining any perceived added value. To repeat what I've said before, the directives are to serve the interests of the EU, not the UK or me or my business.
Many Directives are highly technical so that few will understand the full implications or anticipate unintended consequences, least of all EU politicians. Classic is something called the AIFM Directive which was devised, in part, as a response to the perceived part played by hedge funds in collapsing markets in adverse conditions. In practice the Directive was not preceded by any thoughtful analysis of the risks but was simply the culmination of the desire of the EU (France and Germany) to impose stricter pan European regulation. It has not addressed the systemic risks, which hedge fund understand better than anyone else, and have an interests in managing anyway, and instead focusses on the investor protection aspects ignoring that hedge fund investors are mainly institutions and wealthy clients who don't need tax funded regulators to protect their interests. Nothing is in place that will have any impact on mitigating a future market crash and all that has been achieved is added unnecessary costs, time and effort and more jobs for regulators. I could go on and on....zzzzzzzzzzz.
Nor am I familiar with the idea that businesses routinely ignore regulations that could result in penalties in the £millions.
The problem is that the general public are unaware of these issues and why should they, it should be our politicians who should be aware and be allowed to act in the interests of the UK at large, but they can't. Bring on the referendum.
The idea that only the EU have the brains to come up with brilliant ideas we all want made into law doesn't wash with me. What's the EU ever done for us that we couldn't have done for ourselves - if the electorate had wanted it- and what can't we do that other non-EU counties have done on trade negotiations? Bring on the referendum.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Whether he paid or not, he still went to a public school, and Miliband didn't. The OP left out extremely relevant information on one count and was wrong on the other.
Hard to take someone seriously when their evidence is that far wide of the mark, even if his overall point is a valid one...
Your last sentence appears to be false by the way Len, unless there has been a change of government in the last 48 hours since this web page was updated?
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Whether he paid or not, he still went to a public school, and Miliband didn't. The OP left out extremely relevant information on one count and was wrong on the other.
Hard to take someone seriously when their evidence is that far wide of the mark, even if his overall point is a valid one...
Your last sentence appears to be false by the way Len, unless there has been a change of government in the last 48 hours since this web page was updated?
Back in the day the there was local government funding support for free scholarships to independent schools. It is that which Labour put a stop to.
Your link refers to scholarships offered by the schools themselves.
Oh - fair enough Len, I wasn't aware of that. Pretty poor show.
Children with Special Educational Needs Statements can still be given local government funding for independent schools. Also for those not going to University, there is a new commitment to continue care until they are 25 - a fantastic new initiative as previously they were cut adrift at 16 or 18.
With respect, the point is Dipenhall, if it's in a manifesto then we must assume that UKIP would bring in legislation to fulfill their manifesto pledge, so at some point "British values" must be defined. You can't say in an act of parliament "We all know what it means" - it simply must be clarified it and it appears that even we, a small group of people, would not be able to come to agreement on what it means.
"Values" means principles or standards of behaviour, British means traditionally associated with Britain. Not sure what the problem is, apart from if you insist on a definition, it will be a mix and match list different for every citizen. UKIP have a policy that means all things to all men and can sort out what means most to most men afterwards. Surely clever politics.
If the character of the policies meet an individual's own perception of traditional British values the manifesto will have met UKIP's objectives. If UKIP have misjudged peoples instincts and not hit the spot on enough mix and match features they will fail.
Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle.
You don't need an Act of Parliament to define the character of a particular piece of legislation, people will assess its character for themselves.
So if a party stated on their manifesto "We are going to do some stuff to make things better", presumably as you do not require a definition you would accept that as a reason for giving them your X come election time, Dippenhall?
It's okay to use the term "British values" when chatting in the pub with your likeminded mates, they know exactly what you mean; when a complete stranger writes it as a goal on his manifesto I think that anyone sensible would want a bit more flesh on the bones before committing to voting for them.
Can I ask where you lived in order to come to the following conclusion please?
"Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle."
Did I suggest a UKIP manifesto would say "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better" or did I say it's more likely to contain policies which people interpreted in their own way as supporting their view of British values. UKIP is cutting itself some slack by promoting principles just like the other parties do in advance of finalising a manifesto. If UKIP says in its manifesto we are promoting British values by doing x, y and z not sure how that is different from any other party, you pays your money and you makes your choice. If UKIP say "we are going to do some stuff to promote British values" - period, I would agree there ceases to be any credibility.
I think we've established British values can't be defined, only described in very many different ways, it's a personal concept. Putting a perverse interpretation on what I said and refuting it doesn't advance the debate very far.
Probably making the point a bit clumsily, shouldn't have been personal, but I'm just taking a swipe at the Roman concept of law that predominant in Europe that codifies what you can and can't do. English law is based on principles that are interpreted and re-interpreted over time. The EU is driving us towards the European codified rule of law which is alien to our traditional English "live and let live" mentality and the principles of equity and upholding the rights of individuals. In fact whatever we think British values mean, I doubt it is unconnected to an attachment to those principles of our legal system.
No I suggested that saying upholding "British Values" is no different to saying "we are going to do some stuff that makes things better". I, in no way, shape or form implied that you did - how on earth have you come to that conclusion when I wrote "If a party stated..."?
I cannot make myself any clearer in what I mean, if you choose to deliberately pretend to misunderstand that so that you don't have to answer my point, there's not a lot more I can add.
That you can lump together cultures as diverse at Sweden, Romania and Portugal as having the "Roman concept of law" I find rather odd too.
On that last point I think Dippenhall is right in that only UK law, among EU countries, is based on precedent, and the concept of the reasonable man, and has the fluidity to be adapted gradually over time. I don't know about Portugal of course, but I'm afraid that over here, laws are literally knocked out by Czech politicians in a pub, and they proudly pronounce that this is the law, in black and white ,no messing about, unlike in the UK where it is open to interpretation. And then, because it was knocked up in the pub, people find it is full of holes, or totally incomprehensible or some local judge is incentivised to understand a sentence in a certain way, and in a year's time a new group of politicians sit in the pub and rewrite the whole thing. OK I'm exaggerating but basically that's it and the UK system is massively superior. (Incidentally there has in the past been modest funding for UK judges and legal experts to come out here and advise on how our system works, and it was greatly appreciated. As with many things there is a great appetite for the British way, but we cannot be arsed to get out and promote it. )
However @dippenhall hasn't convinced me that our membership of the EU is undermining the UK legal system, and especially not the EU directives, which as I have demonstrated are blithely ignored by swathes of the commercial sector as it suits them. I have heard politicians complaining about it, I have heard the Daily Mail of course, and some civil servants who come rushing out with half baked UK versions, but crucially I am not aware that the mass of our more learned judges believe that this is a threat. If they came out and said that I'd listen, precisely because I share Dippenhall's respect for that system. There were few more admirable British people I met out here than the judge who came out on the funded programme, and one of whose sessions I was able to sit in on.
That is actually exactly how it happens in Portugal, that being the case, I too must concede Dippenhall's point.
Can I just get this straight. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were public school idiots and out of touch until it was pointed out that Farage went to a public school and Miliband actually went to a comprehensive.
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
Can I just get this straight. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were public school idiots and out of touch until it was pointed out that Farage went to a public school and Miliband actually went to a comprehensive.
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
That seems to sum it up rather well from what I read CA...
If we have an EU directive it has to be made into English law for it to be enforceable, so to that extent it is not undermining our legal system, it still works. What grates with me is having to pass laws that we would not have chosen to, worse still, we find it makes life more difficult and more expensive without obtaining any perceived added value. To repeat what I've said before, the directives are to serve the interests of the EU, not the UK or me or my business.
Many Directives are highly technical so that few will understand the full implications or anticipate unintended consequences, least of all EU politicians. Classic is something called the AIFM Directive which was devised, in part, as a response to the perceived part played by hedge funds in collapsing markets in adverse conditions. In practice the Directive was not preceded by any thoughtful analysis of the risks but was simply the culmination of the desire of the EU (France and Germany) to impose stricter pan European regulation. It has not addressed the systemic risks, which hedge fund understand better than anyone else, and have an interests in managing anyway, and instead focusses on the investor protection aspects ignoring that hedge fund investors are mainly institutions and wealthy clients who don't need tax funded regulators to protect their interests. Nothing is in place that will have any impact on mitigating a future market crash and all that has been achieved is added unnecessary costs, time and effort and more jobs for regulators. I could go on and on....zzzzzzzzzzz.
Nor am I familiar with the idea that businesses routinely ignore regulations that could result in penalties in the £millions.
The problem is that the general public are unaware of these issues and why should they, it should be our politicians who should be aware and be allowed to act in the interests of the UK at large, but they can't. Bring on the referendum.
The idea that only the EU have the brains to come up with brilliant ideas we all want made into law doesn't wash with me. What's the EU ever done for us that we couldn't have done for ourselves - if the electorate had wanted it- and what can't we do that other non-EU counties have done on trade negotiations? Bring on the referendum.
When does the football start?
You comment exclusively from the point of view of financial products though.
What about if you were the manufacturer or importer of Prague's sodding kettle that everyone's become obsessed with? Are you saying there's zero "perceived value" to that business in having a uniform standard of safety across the whole EU allowing it to be sold freely across borders without any further testing, documentation or hindrance?
To expand on the point earlier if Nokia wants to start knocking out sandwich toasters it either manufactures to at least the same standard as everyone in the EU or access to that market is closed off. But it has zero influence on the development on the Directives development that it has to manufacture to. That is precisely the road UKIP want us to tread which in my view would be bad for both consumers and businesses.
I know people who have sat on technical committees drafting directives btw. They know their stuff inside out and upside down and if there are issues with them it is almost always in the interpretation of them into national law and not the fault of MEP's.
Can I just get this straight. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were public school idiots and out of touch until it was pointed out that Farage went to a public school and Miliband actually went to a comprehensive.
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
That seems to sum it up rather well from what I read CA...
That's good because I was beginning to fear that there might be some inconsistencies creeping into some people's analysis.
Can I just get this straight. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were public school idiots and out of touch until it was pointed out that Farage went to a public school and Miliband actually went to a comprehensive.
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
That seems to sum it up rather well from what I read CA...
That's good because I was beginning to fear that there might be some inconsistencies creeping into some people's analysis.
What, right wingers moving the goalposts - never...
Can I just get this straight. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were public school idiots and out of touch until it was pointed out that Farage went to a public school and Miliband actually went to a comprehensive.
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
That seems to sum it up rather well from what I read CA...
That's good because I was beginning to fear that there might be some inconsistencies creeping into some people's analysis.
What, right wingers moving the goalposts - never...
You are right, I must stop seeing unfairness where there is none.
Can I just get this straight. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were public school idiots and out of touch until it was pointed out that Farage went to a public school and Miliband actually went to a comprehensive.
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
That seems to sum it up rather well from what I read CA...
That's good because I was beginning to fear that there might be some inconsistencies creeping into some people's analysis.
What, right wingers moving the goalposts - never...
I know, it's almost like they have introduced mass immigration to try and breed out the opposition.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Whereas, Nigel Farage was educated at a comprehensive? Oh no, he went to a £36,324 per year public school.
I have no problem with the fact that he - or anyone else - went to a public school. But you can't criticise some for doing so and not all of them!
When Nigel went there local boys could pass an exam and attend for free which I believe is what he did.
Labour put a stop to that element of social mobility like so much more.
Whether he paid or not, he still went to a public school, and Miliband didn't. The OP left out extremely relevant information on one count and was wrong on the other.
Hard to take someone seriously when their evidence is that far wide of the mark, even if his overall point is a valid one...
Your last sentence appears to be false by the way Len, unless there has been a change of government in the last 48 hours since this web page was updated?
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
How true this is. I was astonished to hear this morning that over 55's are going to be allowed to dip into their pension fund to spend as they wish. What a bonanza for Bookies, Holiday companies, Pubs etc, but what a disaster when 5 to 10 years later they are skint and looking for help. Being at this end of my life is becoming a gift.
I don't see a problem with having access to your own pension fund rather than having it stolen from you by an annuity company. If you begrudge this hypothetical person any help what on earth must you think about all the poor sods who have never saved for a pension in the first place, most of whom will be skint and looking for help 5 to 10 years earlier?
@PragueAddick My kettle is playing up. Can you reccommend anything ?
Yep. If it's less than two years old, take it back to the shop, quoting the EU Directive on Consumer Rights and demand that they fix or replace it. According to @dippenhall they will say "Ok guv, you've got me bang to rights there, it'll cost us millions if you rat on us"
Comments
tl;dr stereotyping is for idiots.
However @dippenhall hasn't convinced me that our membership of the EU is undermining the UK legal system, and especially not the EU directives, which as I have demonstrated are blithely ignored by swathes of the commercial sector as it suits them. I have heard politicians complaining about it, I have heard the Daily Mail of course, and some civil servants who come rushing out with half baked UK versions, but crucially I am not aware that the mass of our more learned judges believe that this is a threat. If they came out and said that I'd listen, precisely because I share Dippenhall's respect for that system. There were few more admirable British people I met out here than the judge who came out on the funded programme, and one of whose sessions I was able to sit in on.
More that the common people seem to like what he is saying - rightly or wrongly.
Many Directives are highly technical so that few will understand the full implications or anticipate unintended consequences, least of all EU politicians. Classic is something called the AIFM Directive which was devised, in part, as a response to the perceived part played by hedge funds in collapsing markets in adverse conditions. In practice the Directive was not preceded by any thoughtful analysis of the risks but was simply the culmination of the desire of the EU (France and Germany) to impose stricter pan European regulation. It has not addressed the systemic risks, which hedge fund understand better than anyone else, and have an interests in managing anyway, and instead focusses on the investor protection aspects ignoring that hedge fund investors are mainly institutions and wealthy clients who don't need tax funded regulators to protect their interests. Nothing is in place that will have any impact on mitigating a future market crash and all that has been achieved is added unnecessary costs, time and effort and more jobs for regulators. I could go on and on....zzzzzzzzzzz.
Nor am I familiar with the idea that businesses routinely ignore regulations that could result in penalties in the £millions.
The problem is that the general public are unaware of these issues and why should they, it should be our politicians who should be aware and be allowed to act in the interests of the UK at large, but they can't. Bring on the referendum.
The idea that only the EU have the brains to come up with brilliant ideas we all want made into law doesn't wash with me. What's the EU ever done for us that we couldn't have done for ourselves - if the electorate had wanted it- and what can't we do that other non-EU counties have done on trade negotiations? Bring on the referendum.
When does the football start?
It was then decided that your background is actually irrelevant to whether or not you are an idiot or indeed in or out of touch with whoever.
What about if you were the manufacturer or importer of Prague's sodding kettle that everyone's become obsessed with? Are you saying there's zero "perceived value" to that business in having a uniform standard of safety across the whole EU allowing it to be sold freely across borders without any further testing, documentation or hindrance?
To expand on the point earlier if Nokia wants to start knocking out sandwich toasters it either manufactures to at least the same standard as everyone in the EU or access to that market is closed off. But it has zero influence on the development on the Directives development that it has to manufacture to. That is precisely the road UKIP want us to tread which in my view would be bad for both consumers and businesses.
I know people who have sat on technical committees drafting directives btw. They know their stuff inside out and upside down and if there are issues with them it is almost always in the interpretation of them into national law and not the fault of MEP's.
I don't see a problem with having access to your own pension fund rather than having it stolen from you by an annuity company. If you begrudge this hypothetical person any help what on earth must you think about all the poor sods who have never saved for a pension in the first place, most of whom will be skint and looking for help 5 to 10 years earlier?