But as mentioned earlier, the housing problem would exist even if it weren't for immigration. As a country we've skimped on infrastructure spending for years, and it's coming back to bite us on the arse.
Yep I completely agree with that. We live in a time that it is possible for one person to own multiple homes, even if that is for personal use or to make money, it doesn't sit right. We have a government who on the surface of it seemed a good idea in trying to get people onto the property ladder but when you looked a bit deeper it was just helping those who already have homes buy more. So soaring house prices, we couldn't possibly take some of blame ourselves for this mess through buy to lets and lack of house building. It has to be the all fault of immigrants and foreign investors.
So the UK could not stop Amazon (eg) from trading in the UK?
I don't think we want them to stop trading in the UK. We just want them to pay corporation tax in line with the trading they do, and in the way competitors like John Lewis, or Sainsbury do (that is exactly what the CEO of Sainsbury demanded a few months ago). But it seems we just don't have the balls. Did you know that Osbourne actually cut the budget of the Revenue in the last year, so they are even less able to pay for sufficient people with the brains and knowledge to take these bastards on?
Anyway the Germans want to take them on but they recognise that even they may need a hand, so that's why they are happy enough to do it through the EC
Our objection might be that Amazon is perceived as paying too little tax but they are doing nothing illegal and are paying what they are liable to pay. The arrangement described about Amazon orders and invoices might seem crazy and contrived to us but would look quite normal to an accountant.
The EU are not claiming tax from Amazon, they are claiming that a member state is giving special treatment to a corporation which allows the corporation, in the case of Amazon, to reduce the receipts on which it is liable to declare for tax and this is regarded as a STATE SUBSIDY. It is the member state's alleged wrong doing, not Amazon's. The idea that the EU has the power to make Amazon pay more tax is a delusion.
One outcome could simply be that Amazon pay more tax in Luxembourg, how does that help the rest of the EU. Another outcome could be Amazon re-arranges affairs outside an EU country, how will that help the EU. So the solution is not the EU bullying Ireland and Luxembourg on the pretext of them subsidising Amazon, (when it is really just following its instinct of wanting to eliminate competition) but all countries altering the tax laws. Problem is how do you make tax rules work that are based on physical presence, and where money ends up, for a virtual online business. Only a radical change in how tax and accounting laws work across the whole world is going to change anything. Because neither the EU nor our own politicians have a solution, all we are seeing is political gesturing and seeking a scapegoat, the sort of thing UKIP might be accused of.
So the local bookshop and coffee shop have to pay tax on their profits but Amazon and Starbucks don't?! As far as I'm concerned when someone in my family purchases something from Amazon or ITunes the transaction (for contractual purposes) takes place in our house. Therefore UK vat @20% should be levied and not Luxembourg vat at 3%(?). If a corporation moves out of the EU altogether then they would have to levy some fairly hefty tariffs to export into the EU. Today's technology should be able to identify the location of any such purchase so not a hard one to implement... This is most certainly not anti competitive, just trying to put in a level playing field and levy sales taxes to pay for services. I don't know the precise numbers but most European nations have budget deficits and raising cash this way is far preferable (to me) to freezing benefits for the low paid.
HMRC has transfer pricing legislation in place which ought to mean that the profit margin in the UK cannot be reduced artificially by inflated charges for intellectual property, coffee beans or whatever from some tax haven or another. There is a problem however where the tax haven concerned is an EU member state as freedom of establishment limits what can be done about it.
The EU would like to move towards corporation tax harmonisation across the Union but this is problematic for a host of reasons and only really possible when the EU reaches a future stage in the project - federalisation. I'm not sure the UK or several other major forces in Europe will ever embrace that sort of union but it is the logical end game.
The EU may be part of the solution but it is also part of the problem when it comes to non payment of tax by these mostly American companies.
So the local bookshop and coffee shop have to pay tax on their profits but Amazon and Starbucks don't?! As far as I'm concerned when someone in my family purchases something from Amazon or ITunes the transaction (for contractual purposes) takes place in our house. Therefore UK vat @20% should be levied and not Luxembourg vat at 3%(?). If a corporation moves out of the EU altogether then they would have to levy some fairly hefty tariffs to export into the EU. Today's technology should be able to identify the location of any such purchase so not a hard one to implement... This is most certainly not anti competitive, just trying to put in a level playing field and levy sales taxes to pay for services. I don't know the precise numbers but most European nations have budget deficits and raising cash this way is far preferable (to me) to freezing benefits for the low paid.
VAT is not the issue. Anyone who buys from Amazon in the UK pays VAT where its chargeable. It's corporation tax that's the issue, i.e. tax on the profits Amazon makes. These are routed through Luxemburg. It doen't seem to be an easily solveable problem unfortunately. Not sure why the EU can't require standardised corporation tax rates which seems to me to be relevant to a single market.
HMRC has transfer pricing legislation in place which ought to mean that the profit margin in the UK cannot be reduced artificially by inflated charges for intellectual property, coffee beans or whatever from some tax haven or another. There is a problem however where the tax haven concerned is an EU member state as freedom of establishment limits what can be done about it.
The EU would like to move towards corporation tax harmonisation across the Union but this is problematic for a host of reasons and only really possible when the EU reaches a future stage in the project - federalisation. I'm not sure the UK or several other major forces in Europe will ever embrace that sort of union but it is the logical end game.
The EU may be part of the solution but it is also part of the problem when it comes to non payment of tax by these mostly American companies.
Booking the correct TP recharges as per treaties agreed worldwide might ensure that the profits left in Europe are less than 5%! That's right - a fully compliant entity can use IP (developed in Europe but sold into a low tax haven to take 95% of profits off shore.
On a separate note, for the €uro to survive long term there have to be moves towards fiscal and political union. That doesn't have to mean identical tax codes but they will need to be set within agreed parameters. This is the real reason that Farage and others bang on about immigration, sausages and banana directives for they are fundamentally opposed to the whole concept of the EU being effective as an entity. They believe in the status quo because it suits them very well. Once the Germans, Spanish, French and Italians agree on a way forward my instinct is that it's not in the UK interest to be left behind. Perhaps the UK government should be trying to influence the future and cut a deal rather than playing the blame and regret cards.
Could VAT go one step further and have an extra rate of VAT (25% rather than 20%) on transactions from companies who are not tax-domiciled within the UK? I can't see Amazon or Starbucks withdrawing from the UK and the higher prices would perhaps make people consider buying from UK-domiciled outlets, who would benefit from being able to pay a lower rate of VAT? The EU laws regarding VAT and taxation are rather complicated and restrictive so I imagine the EU would shoot this down, but there is an argument for making companies pay if they don't share their profits yet benefit from the country's infrastructure.
HMRC has transfer pricing legislation in place which ought to mean that the profit margin in the UK cannot be reduced artificially by inflated charges for intellectual property, coffee beans or whatever from some tax haven or another. There is a problem however where the tax haven concerned is an EU member state as freedom of establishment limits what can be done about it.
The EU would like to move towards corporation tax harmonisation across the Union but this is problematic for a host of reasons and only really possible when the EU reaches a future stage in the project - federalisation. I'm not sure the UK or several other major forces in Europe will ever embrace that sort of union but it is the logical end game.
The EU may be part of the solution but it is also part of the problem when it comes to non payment of tax by these mostly American companies.
Booking the correct TP recharges as per treaties agreed worldwide might ensure that the profits left in Europe are less than 5%! That's right - a fully compliant entity can use IP (developed in Europe but sold into a low tax haven to take 95% of profits off shore.
Transfer Pricing is usually considered by one fiscal authority on a unilateral basis although there are facilities to reach advance pricing agreements with multiple regimes. Pricing is required to be "arm's length" which means what someone unconnected would charge for the same product or service. To take coffee beans as an example it is not too hard to work out what the commodity price is at any given time. Problem is it's not the coffee farmers that are marking up the price. with IP you can only charge yourself what a third party would charge you. We are not talking about a secret formula here. It's a cup of coffee.
I think it is reasonable to assume that if there was pricing abuse going on which EU law did not permit, then HMRC would be on to it and these companies would be paying rather more in corporation tax. In saying that I do not mean to suggest that HMRC are infallible but they do have resource and the expertise for this sort of thing.
So the UK could not stop Amazon (eg) from trading in the UK?
I don't think we want them to stop trading in the UK. We just want them to pay corporation tax in line with the trading they do, and in the way competitors like John Lewis, or Sainsbury do (that is exactly what the CEO of Sainsbury demanded a few months ago). But it seems we just don't have the balls. Did you know that Osbourne actually cut the budget of the Revenue in the last year, so they are even less able to pay for sufficient people with the brains and knowledge to take these bastards on?
Anyway the Germans want to take them on but they recognise that even they may need a hand, so that's why they are happy enough to do it through the EC
Our objection might be that Amazon is perceived as paying too little tax but they are doing nothing illegal and are paying what they are liable to pay. The arrangement described about Amazon orders and invoices might seem crazy and contrived to us but would look quite normal to an accountant.
The EU are not claiming tax from Amazon, they are claiming that a member state is giving special treatment to a corporation which allows the corporation, in the case of Amazon, to reduce the receipts on which it is liable to declare for tax and this is regarded as a STATE SUBSIDY. It is the member state's alleged wrong doing, not Amazon's. The idea that the EU has the power to make Amazon pay more tax is a delusion.
One outcome could simply be that Amazon pay more tax in Luxembourg, how does that help the rest of the EU. Another outcome could be Amazon re-arranges affairs outside an EU country, how will that help the EU. So the solution is not the EU bullying Ireland and Luxembourg on the pretext of them subsidising Amazon, (when it is really just following its instinct of wanting to eliminate competition) but all countries altering the tax laws. Problem is how do you make tax rules work that are based on physical presence, and where money ends up, for a virtual online business. Only a radical change in how tax and accounting laws work across the whole world is going to change anything. Because neither the EU nor our own politicians have a solution, all we are seeing is political gesturing and seeking a scapegoat, the sort of thing UKIP might be accused of.
So the local bookshop and coffee shop have to pay tax on their profits but Amazon and Starbucks don't?! As far as I'm concerned when someone in my family purchases something from Amazon or ITunes the transaction (for contractual purposes) takes place in our house. Therefore UK vat @20% should be levied and not Luxembourg vat at 3%(?). If a corporation moves out of the EU altogether then they would have to levy some fairly hefty tariffs to export into the EU. Today's technology should be able to identify the location of any such purchase so not a hard one to implement... This is most certainly not anti competitive, just trying to put in a level playing field and levy sales taxes to pay for services. I don't know the precise numbers but most European nations have budget deficits and raising cash this way is far preferable (to me) to freezing benefits for the low paid.
As has already been pointed out VAT IS payable and its actually paid by YOU. VAT is a tax that is collected from YOU by the supplier on behalf of HMRC and it makes not a jot of difference to the company's profits.
We are in danger of entering a period of deflation, Eurozone is almost there already, and your suggestion is to increase the cost of goods to make it a certainty. I await your further pronouncements on how to improve things with interest.
If our corporation tax rules can't legally claim tax from Amazon is it Amazon's fault? If Amazon can legally take advantage of countries that are looking to get higher gross receipts by having more companies paying less tax is it Amazon's fault? If Amazon don't have a business that conforms to our law's definition of a taxable person is it Amazon's fault. I'm only spelling out how it works, to refute the idea that the EU can solve aggressive tax sheltering, I'm not saying how it should work or that its good. If you want to pay more tax on your earnings than HMRC require to help the poor (or see pissed up the wall by your favourite government) you are free to do so as is every corporation.
If you buy a kettle online from abroad you presumably check what rate of corporation tax the supplier pays so you can get angry that it's not being paid in the UK. Simple solution, only buy from UK registered companies with their principle place of business in the UK and stop buying from Amazon and using Google.
Could VAT go one step further and have an extra rate of VAT (25% rather than 20%) on transactions from companies who are not tax-domiciled within the UK? I can't see Amazon or Starbucks withdrawing from the UK and the higher prices would perhaps make people consider buying from UK-domiciled outlets, who would benefit from being able to pay a lower rate of VAT? The EU laws regarding VAT and taxation are rather complicated and restrictive so I imagine the EU would shoot this down, but there is an argument for making companies pay if they don't share their profits yet benefit from the country's infrastructure.
VAT became the most popular tax for governments across the world because it could be raised from low levels and is relatively easy to collect. Revenue from vat goes up sharply when you're in a boom so it becomes in the governments interest to go for growth. The issue within the EU is that I think Luxembourg can't move Vat lower but there is no obligation to raise it to a minmum like 10%. The other issue that requires HMRC to investigate is that in the digital age, where do our transactions occur? You're right in that freedom of movement within the EU blocks punitive taxes for non UK entities but this is fundamentally an EU wide and (US) challenge. One which the OECD are looking at - Google OECD transfer pricing and you get a 21 page pdf written earlier this year.
So the UK could not stop Amazon (eg) from trading in the UK?
I don't think we want them to stop trading in the UK. We just want them to pay corporation tax in line with the trading they do, and in the way competitors like John Lewis, or Sainsbury do (that is exactly what the CEO of Sainsbury demanded a few months ago). But it seems we just don't have the balls. Did you know that Osbourne actually cut the budget of the Revenue in the last year, so they are even less able to pay for sufficient people with the brains and knowledge to take these bastards on?
Anyway the Germans want to take them on but they recognise that even they may need a hand, so that's why they are happy enough to do it through the EC
Our objection might be that Amazon is perceived as paying too little tax but they are doing nothing illegal and are paying what they are liable to pay. The arrangement described about Amazon orders and invoices might seem crazy and contrived to us but would look quite normal to an accountant.
The EU are not claiming tax from Amazon, they are claiming that a member state is giving special treatment to a corporation which allows the corporation, in the case of Amazon, to reduce the receipts on which it is liable to declare for tax and this is regarded as a STATE SUBSIDY. It is the member state's alleged wrong doing, not Amazon's. The idea that the EU has the power to make Amazon pay more tax is a delusion.
One outcome could simply be that Amazon pay more tax in Luxembourg, how does that help the rest of the EU. Another outcome could be Amazon re-arranges affairs outside an EU country, how will that help the EU. So the solution is not the EU bullying Ireland and Luxembourg on the pretext of them subsidising Amazon, (when it is really just following its instinct of wanting to eliminate competition) but all countries altering the tax laws. Problem is how do you make tax rules work that are based on physical presence, and where money ends up, for a virtual online business. Only a radical change in how tax and accounting laws work across the whole world is going to change anything. Because neither the EU nor our own politicians have a solution, all we are seeing is political gesturing and seeking a scapegoat, the sort of thing UKIP might be accused of.
So the local bookshop and coffee shop have to pay tax on their profits but Amazon and Starbucks don't?! As far as I'm concerned when someone in my family purchases something from Amazon or ITunes the transaction (for contractual purposes) takes place in our house. Therefore UK vat @20% should be levied and not Luxembourg vat at 3%(?). If a corporation moves out of the EU altogether then they would have to levy some fairly hefty tariffs to export into the EU. Today's technology should be able to identify the location of any such purchase so not a hard one to implement... This is most certainly not anti competitive, just trying to put in a level playing field and levy sales taxes to pay for services. I don't know the precise numbers but most European nations have budget deficits and raising cash this way is far preferable (to me) to freezing benefits for the low paid.
As has already been pointed out VAT IS payable and its actually paid by YOU. VAT is a tax that is collected from YOU by the supplier on behalf of HMRC and it makes not a jot of difference to the company's profits.
We are in danger of entering a period of deflation, Eurozone is almost there already, and your suggestion is to increase the cost of goods to make it a certainty. I await your further pronouncements on how to improve things with interest.
If our corporation tax rules can't legally claim tax from Amazon is it Amazon's fault? If Amazon can legally take advantage of countries that are looking to get higher gross receipts by having more companies paying less tax is it Amazon's fault? If Amazon don't have a business that conforms to our law's definition of a taxable person is it Amazon's fault. I'm only spelling out how it works, to refute the idea that the EU can solve aggressive tax sheltering, I'm not saying how it should work or that its good. If you want to pay more tax on your earnings than HMRC require to help the poor (or see pissed up the wall by your favourite government) you are free to do so as is every corporation.
If you buy a kettle online from abroad you presumably check what rate of corporation tax the supplier pays so you can get angry that it's not being paid in the UK. Simple solution, only buy from UK registered companies with their principle place of business in the UK and stop buying from Amazon and using Google.
Sure but the rate of VAT charged affects the price the customer sees and then pays once s/he makes a purchase. The high street is being undermined not just because online is effective and widely used but because many not all online businesses are not charging UK vat and many profits are avoiding UK tax. It's not Amazon's (or apple etc) fault as it is clearly down to the design and execution of a tax system made in the last century. Re. Your very valid point about deflation, my simplistic understanding of Keynes suggests that governments should use low growth and cheap finance to boost aggregate demand by accelerating capital projects - more building projecto would mean more than enough work to go round for Romanian and UK builders - another policy the government are reluctant to adopt. They blame the deficit but that doesn't stop them announcing another tax giveaway - this time an intention to raise inheritance tax threshold to £1m. So I'm not anti business at all - just looking for a more level playing field. I don't know the numbers on how much revenue is being "lost" to HM government but I suggest it might be material, but not enough to drive us into recession - a very informative newsnight last night suggested that some causes of low inflation like falling oil prices are benign but others like price wars indicate less disposable income around...again simple Keynes suggests increase aggregate demand but the tories want to freeze benefits to those who need cash most... Bonkers and dangerous too - both to the economy and social stability.
Can't we go back to talking about Neil Sodding Hamilton and whether UKIPers are happy to have a bloke like him involved at a senior level? I had at least a chance of understanding that... :-)
You should know by now the EU directive on 5 minute arguments states that any 5 minute argument must be preceded with 5 hours of planning and health and safety meetings followed by a post argument debriefing session of no less than 2 hours.
A question for someone on here who might know the answer. What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
And what affect on immigration would this have ?
The only reason these nations will not be allowed in any time soon is because of the effect of mass migration to the prosperous States. Are the EU rules any less anti-immigration than UKIP policy?
I can't see much difference, its self preservation for a community as opposed to self preservation for a nation. The fact that the EU is based on social principles of wealth distribution and protecting workers and the poor simply highlights the hypocrisy. Are there any more needy Europeans than Albanians with average monthly wages of £300, let them in I say, that's what the EU is for.
A question for someone on here who might know the answer. What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
No idea about Albania but Turkey has been a candidate for a while. One complication coming out of the Scottish vote is that new members are obliged to join the euro. The expansion of the EU to 27/28 members brought the introduction of qualified majority voting to stop new or old members blocking things... I wonder if there is appetite in the EU for new members, particularly for any with Russian borders since its all quite tense these days. Ukraine was talking about seeking EU candidate status and that went down well in Moscow! I digress from the thread but the point is that UKIP wish to isolate ourselves from all of this and play no part in shaping the future. British lawyers wrote the European Court of human rights framework and yet tories and UKIP are trying to characterise this as foreign influence on our sovereignty!
A question for someone on here who might know the answer. What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
And what affect on immigration would this have ?
The only reason these nations will not be allowed in any time soon is because of the effect of mass migration to the prosperous States. Are the EU rules any less anti-immigration than UKIP policy?
I can't see much difference, its self preservation for a community as opposed to self preservation for a nation. The fact that the EU is based on social principles of wealth distribution and protecting workers and the poor simply highlights the hypocrisy. Are there any more needy Europeans than Albanians with average monthly wages of £300, let them in I say, that's what the EU is for.
Oh come on, you know that's bollocks. Turkey has been in discussion for years but it is behind even Serbia ( well,until last night) EU members are divided about the merits of it. The Austrians are particularly against. EU members have to go through a big accession process, and there is a general feeling that in the case of Romania and Bulgaria the process wasn't tight enough.
The argument for Turkey would be a powerful market of 60m people. The argument against, what's on its Eastern borders, are obvious. I think if Istanbul declared independence it would get in pretty quickly and be an asset.
Actually I think it's a valid point. Free movement and supply of cheaper labour puts a brake on inflation during boom times. But since the crash all major European economies have seen an increasingly vocal anti Europe voice emerge. Are the politicians really going to risk inflaming the debate by adding to the potential labour force? Look at the field day Farage tried to have with the five year limit ending with Romania... I recall he suggested 27 million Romanians might suddenly arrive last January...in the end one newly arrived Romanian guy stepped off the plane at Luton on 1 Jan whereas all the rest were returning after a Christmas break. Basically there's a lot of issues with the Euro and European economies to manage without throwing petrol on the flames.
Office for National Statistics says migrants from Bulgaria and Romania topped 150,000 in the second quarter of this year, up by 13,000, as overall EU migration jumps by 187,000 in just three months.
Office for National Statistics says migrants from Bulgaria and Romania topped 150,000 in the second quarter of this year, up by 13,000, as overall EU migration jumps by 187,000 in just three months.
And two million ex pat British people live in the EU!
Comments
As far as I'm concerned when someone in my family purchases something from Amazon or ITunes the transaction (for contractual purposes) takes place in our house. Therefore UK vat @20% should be levied and not Luxembourg vat at 3%(?). If a corporation moves out of the EU altogether then they would have to levy some fairly hefty tariffs to export into the EU.
Today's technology should be able to identify the location of any such purchase so not a hard one to implement...
This is most certainly not anti competitive, just trying to put in a level playing field and levy sales taxes to pay for services. I don't know the precise numbers but most European nations have budget deficits and raising cash this way is far preferable (to me) to freezing benefits for the low paid.
The EU would like to move towards corporation tax harmonisation across the Union but this is problematic for a host of reasons and only really possible when the EU reaches a future stage in the project - federalisation. I'm not sure the UK or several other major forces in Europe will ever embrace that sort of union but it is the logical end game.
The EU may be part of the solution but it is also part of the problem when it comes to non payment of tax by these mostly American companies.
On a separate note, for the €uro to survive long term there have to be moves towards fiscal and political union. That doesn't have to mean identical tax codes but they will need to be set within agreed parameters. This is the real reason that Farage and others bang on about immigration, sausages and banana directives for they are fundamentally opposed to the whole concept of the EU being effective as an entity. They believe in the status quo because it suits them very well.
Once the Germans, Spanish, French and Italians agree on a way forward my instinct is that it's not in the UK interest to be left behind. Perhaps the UK government should be trying to influence the future and cut a deal rather than playing the blame and regret cards.
Here's the original:
And the photo of our Nige's face that was probably used for the mashup.
Gutted. That was the first time I'd actually started liking him
I think it is reasonable to assume that if there was pricing abuse going on which EU law did not permit, then HMRC would be on to it and these companies would be paying rather more in corporation tax. In saying that I do not mean to suggest that HMRC are infallible but they do have resource and the expertise for this sort of thing.
We are in danger of entering a period of deflation, Eurozone is almost there already, and your suggestion is to increase the cost of goods to make it a certainty. I await your further pronouncements on how to improve things with interest.
If our corporation tax rules can't legally claim tax from Amazon is it Amazon's fault? If Amazon can legally take advantage of countries that are looking to get higher gross receipts by having more companies paying less tax is it Amazon's fault? If Amazon don't have a business that conforms to our law's definition of a taxable person is it Amazon's fault. I'm only spelling out how it works, to refute the idea that the EU can solve aggressive tax sheltering, I'm not saying how it should work or that its good. If you want to pay more tax on your earnings than HMRC require to help the poor (or see pissed up the wall by your favourite government) you are free to do so as is every corporation.
If you buy a kettle online from abroad you presumably check what rate of corporation tax the supplier pays so you can get angry that it's not being paid in the UK. Simple solution, only buy from UK registered companies with their principle place of business in the UK and stop buying from Amazon and using Google.
The other issue that requires HMRC to investigate is that in the digital age, where do our transactions occur?
You're right in that freedom of movement within the EU blocks punitive taxes for non UK entities but this is fundamentally an EU wide and (US) challenge. One which the OECD are looking at - Google OECD transfer pricing and you get a 21 page pdf written earlier this year.
It's not Amazon's (or apple etc) fault as it is clearly down to the design and execution of a tax system made in the last century.
Re. Your very valid point about deflation, my simplistic understanding of Keynes suggests that governments should use low growth and cheap finance to boost aggregate demand by accelerating capital projects - more building projecto would mean more than enough work to go round for Romanian and UK builders - another policy the government are reluctant to adopt. They blame the deficit but that doesn't stop them announcing another tax giveaway - this time an intention to raise inheritance tax threshold to £1m.
So I'm not anti business at all - just looking for a more level playing field. I don't know the numbers on how much revenue is being "lost" to HM government but I suggest it might be material, but not enough to drive us into recession - a very informative newsnight last night suggested that some causes of low inflation like falling oil prices are benign but others like price wars indicate less disposable income around...again simple Keynes suggests increase aggregate demand but the tories want to freeze benefits to those who need cash most... Bonkers and dangerous too - both to the economy and social stability.
Absolute madness if you ask me.
:-)
What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
I can't see much difference, its self preservation for a community as opposed to self preservation for a nation. The fact that the EU is based on social principles of wealth distribution and protecting workers and the poor simply highlights the hypocrisy. Are there any more needy Europeans than Albanians with average monthly wages of £300, let them in I say, that's what the EU is for.
The expansion of the EU to 27/28 members brought the introduction of qualified majority voting to stop new or old members blocking things... I wonder if there is appetite in the EU for new members, particularly for any with Russian borders since its all quite tense these days. Ukraine was talking about seeking EU candidate status and that went down well in Moscow!
I digress from the thread but the point is that UKIP wish to isolate ourselves from all of this and play no part in shaping the future. British lawyers wrote the European Court of human rights framework and yet tories and UKIP are trying to characterise this as foreign influence on our sovereignty!
The argument for Turkey would be a powerful market of 60m people. The argument against, what's on its Eastern borders, are obvious. I think if Istanbul declared independence it would get in pretty quickly and be an asset.
Look at the field day Farage tried to have with the five year limit ending with Romania... I recall he suggested 27 million Romanians might suddenly arrive last January...in the end one newly arrived Romanian guy stepped off the plane at Luton on 1 Jan whereas all the rest were returning after a Christmas break.
Basically there's a lot of issues with the Euro and European economies to manage without throwing petrol on the flames.