End of Austerity

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2018-10-30 4:59 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 4:18 PM

 

John52 - 2018-10-30 9:17 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-29 9:48 PM

Duty on beer, cider and spirits frozen for the next year but cigarettes up a staggering 49p a pack yet it's long been a well established fact alcohol causes a far bigger drain on the NHS than smoking. So even more drunks and pissheads will now clutter up A&E every weekend abusing and assaulting hospital staff...and smokers get billed for it by punitive taxation.

 

I'm teetotal because I have seen what alcohol does to people..

When I see people drinking I just think they are sad - because if they were happy they wouldn't need alcohol to take them somewhere else :-(

But I'm not sure raising the price would help.

Across the channel alcohol is far cheaper but they have far less problems with drunks - why is that?

And because its cheaper across the channel, raising the price here only increases the problems caused by bootlegging :-(

But I agree its a typical Tory budget. Funding consumption and tax cuts for the better off through borrowing. With nothing for the poor below the income tax thresholds because they aren't likely to vote Tory anyway..

Try telling the foodbanks and homeless shelters Austerity is coming to an end.

But I suppose there is one bright spot.

They must be worried about Corbyn because they have gone into tax cutting/extra money for Ireland/Scotland?Wales election mode early.

However dangerous that may be with all the uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

Yet again the interests of the Tory Party are being put ahead of the interests of the country. >:-)

Though my Dad was a life long teetotaler i can't lay claim to that and never would. However i long stopped bothering with a pint or three down the local and never drink at home, though there's a cupboard full of spirits and liqueurs in my kitchen which have been there 20 odd years now....some still unopened!

 

Here in UK i virtually never drink. This year i had a drink with a neighbour at Christmas and the next alcoholic drink i had was in Belgium at the start of my tour in June. That's how much of 'a drinker' i am!

 

We have a serious alcohol problem in UK John, particularly with cheap beer and cider from supermarkets. It's so cheap now the "booze cruise" runs across the Channel which were once a daily occurrence, have pretty much come to an end. It just seems a totally obtuse and illogical line of thought to whack 49p on a pack of 20 cigs whilst freezing tax duty on the main culprit of abuse and attacks hospital staff receive, not to mention the levels of alcohol related illnesses and accidents caused through drink.

 

It's sent out entirely the wrong message.

 

I know folk that still do the booze run ... I was invited to go myself not long ago ...

For me a 580 mile round trip = 20 gal @ £1.32 a litre = £120 fuel....unearthly hour crossing for cheapest fare = £158 so £278 total.

 

Unless going across with minimum of 5 or 6 in an MPV plus trailer it's a total no brainer.

 

Tobacco Alley at Adinkerke where all brits used to go for fags and booze, is like a ghost town now. The only people buying there now are locals and Frenchies who live close to the border. Prices aren't that much cheaper than UK because a few years ago UK gov stomped their feet and told Belgium to increase their prices.

 

[Bulletguy]

PJay - 2018-10-30 6:49 PM

 

I thought one could have some-one else with them, when visiting a Doctor?

I would understand not in an operation etc. But surely as an out patient?

It's worth bearing in mind the 'author' of that post! ;-) A simple google search shows it's not entirely correct and missing bits of information showing that. ;-)

 

edit** worth adding my own personal experience. Some years ago i was taken into hospital and they needed to put a catheter in.....but the female nurse and sister were not allowed to do it. I had to wait until a male doctor they'd sent for came to the ward.

[Bulletguy]

Tracker - 2018-10-30 7:19 PM

 

This is not the end of austerity, but it maybe perhaps the beginning of the end of austerity?

Hhmmm.......such optimism! :-|

 

It reminds me of a fairytale book ending of "everyone living happily ever after"!! (lol)

[Tracker]

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 8:52 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-30 7:19 PM

 

This is not the end of austerity, but it maybe perhaps the beginning of the end of austerity?

Hhmmm.......such optimism! :-|

 

It reminds me of a fairytale book ending of "everyone living happily ever after"!! (lol)

 

You don't mean - perish the thought - everyone left the EU and reformed as a Common Market without an EU parliament and countless layers of well paid beaurocrats - happily ever after indeed!

[antony1969]

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 8:41 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-10-30 4:59 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 4:18 PM

 

John52 - 2018-10-30 9:17 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-29 9:48 PM

Duty on beer, cider and spirits frozen for the next year but cigarettes up a staggering 49p a pack yet it's long been a well established fact alcohol causes a far bigger drain on the NHS than smoking. So even more drunks and pissheads will now clutter up A&E every weekend abusing and assaulting hospital staff...and smokers get billed for it by punitive taxation.

 

I'm teetotal because I have seen what alcohol does to people..

When I see people drinking I just think they are sad - because if they were happy they wouldn't need alcohol to take them somewhere else :-(

But I'm not sure raising the price would help.

Across the channel alcohol is far cheaper but they have far less problems with drunks - why is that?

And because its cheaper across the channel, raising the price here only increases the problems caused by bootlegging :-(

But I agree its a typical Tory budget. Funding consumption and tax cuts for the better off through borrowing. With nothing for the poor below the income tax thresholds because they aren't likely to vote Tory anyway..

Try telling the foodbanks and homeless shelters Austerity is coming to an end.

But I suppose there is one bright spot.

They must be worried about Corbyn because they have gone into tax cutting/extra money for Ireland/Scotland?Wales election mode early.

However dangerous that may be with all the uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

Yet again the interests of the Tory Party are being put ahead of the interests of the country. >:-)

Though my Dad was a life long teetotaler i can't lay claim to that and never would. However i long stopped bothering with a pint or three down the local and never drink at home, though there's a cupboard full of spirits and liqueurs in my kitchen which have been there 20 odd years now....some still unopened!

 

Here in UK i virtually never drink. This year i had a drink with a neighbour at Christmas and the next alcoholic drink i had was in Belgium at the start of my tour in June. That's how much of 'a drinker' i am!

 

We have a serious alcohol problem in UK John, particularly with cheap beer and cider from supermarkets. It's so cheap now the "booze cruise" runs across the Channel which were once a daily occurrence, have pretty much come to an end. It just seems a totally obtuse and illogical line of thought to whack 49p on a pack of 20 cigs whilst freezing tax duty on the main culprit of abuse and attacks hospital staff receive, not to mention the levels of alcohol related illnesses and accidents caused through drink.

 

It's sent out entirely the wrong message.

 

I know folk that still do the booze run ... I was invited to go myself not long ago ...

For me a 580 mile round trip = 20 gal @ £1.32 a litre = £120 fuel....unearthly hour crossing for cheapest fare = £158 so £278 total.

 

Unless going across with minimum of 5 or 6 in an MPV plus trailer it's a total no brainer.

 

Tobacco Alley at Adinkerke where all brits used to go for fags and booze, is like a ghost town now. The only people buying there now are locals and Frenchies who live close to the border. Prices aren't that much cheaper than UK because a few years ago UK gov stomped their feet and told Belgium to increase their prices.

 

Thats for you ... You claimed the booze run had come to an end and it certainly hasn't ... My friends go over in a large van ... Been twice this year , one of which was a wine tasting/buying trip ... The big Calais booze stores refund your ticket cost if you buy enough , some if you spend more put you up for the night ... Certainly well worth doing if thats what you fancy ... I'd imagine you driving all that way for a bottle of Baileys wouldn't be cost effective

[John52]

Well Iwhen it comes to the difference in prices between alcohol here and the other side of the channel I might be out of date as usual :$

But I think its safe to say alcohol isn't dearer across the channel, so their not having the level of drunkeness problems Britain has is not just a price issue.

Its more complicated than that, and sadly isn't going to be solved by just putting the price up. Thats only going to revive the booze cruises.

My mate had a good job as foreman in the steelworks, till he got involved in booze cruises and went to jail for it. Riuined his life :-(

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 8:52 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-30 7:19 PM

 

This is not the end of austerity, but it maybe perhaps the beginning of the end of austerity?

Hhmmm.......such optimism! :-|

 

It reminds me of a fairytale book ending of "everyone living happily ever after"!! (lol)

 

It's unrealistic to expect everyone to live happily ever after :-S ..........

 

Come the 29/03/2019 I suspect just 52% will live happily ever after :D .........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-10-31 7:58 AM

 

Well Iwhen it comes to the difference in prices between alcohol here and the other side of the channel I might be out of date as usual :$

But I think its safe to say alcohol isn't dearer across the channel, so their not having the level of drunkeness problems Britain has is not just a price issue.

Its more complicated than that, and sadly isn't going to be solved by just putting the price up. Thats only going to revive the booze cruises.

My mate had a good job as foreman in the steelworks, till he got involved in booze cruises and went to jail for it. Riuined his life :-(

 

So he broke the law :-| ...........and if he went to jail it's pretty obvious he was a hardcore smuggler *-) .....

 

 

[Tracker]

pelmetman - 2018-10-31 8:26 AM

 

John52 - 2018-10-31 7:58 AM

 

Well Iwhen it comes to the difference in prices between alcohol here and the other side of the channel I might be out of date as usual :$

But I think its safe to say alcohol isn't dearer across the channel, so their not having the level of drunkeness problems Britain has is not just a price issue.

Its more complicated than that, and sadly isn't going to be solved by just putting the price up. Thats only going to revive the booze cruises.

My mate had a good job as foreman in the steelworks, till he got involved in booze cruises and went to jail for it. Riuined his life :-(

 

So he broke the law :-| ...........and if he went to jail it's pretty obvious he was a hardcore smuggler *-) .....

 

 

You miss the point Dave which is that booze is the problem it is in the UK not because of price but because of a long history of social attitudes and inadequate policing.

 

When booze gets the same anti social publicity and legislation that smoking has rightly had it too, just like drink driving and speeding before it will be become socially unacceptable and unfashionable and that will do more to control it than the price ever will.

 

Meanwhile just as the motorist gets taxed well beyond the cost of the road network so drink consumers should be taxed well beyond the social and NHS cost their abuse creates.

 

That is the difference between the UK and the likes of France

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-10-30 10:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 8:52 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-30 7:19 PM

 

This is not the end of austerity, but it maybe perhaps the beginning of the end of austerity?

Hhmmm.......such optimism! :-|

 

It reminds me of a fairytale book ending of "everyone living happily ever after"!! (lol)

 

You don't mean - perish the thought - everyone left the EU and reformed as a Common Market without an EU parliament and countless layers of well paid beaurocrats - happily ever after indeed!

I've snipped this from Wikipedia, as it is factual. The headline fact is that the EEC (and before) had a parliament that has evolved over time into today's EU parliament. That EEC parliament was not freely elected, while today's version is. Draw your own conclusions as to where the greatest democratic deficit lay.

 

I'm afraid some (usual suspects! :-)) will complain it's too long, but it is historic fact, so those with short attention spans don't have to read it if they prefer to continue living with gaps in their knowledge. :-D

 

In case anyone has forgotten the UK joined the EEC in 1973, under a Conservative government led by Ted Heath. What follows seems to me also to lay some of the grand conspiracy theories about hidden plans for a "European Superstate". It just evolves as time passes, with its members arguing out what they can agree upon as it goes. Hey, ho.

 

I naturally accept from the outset that this won't make a blind bit of difference to those who prefer the gaps in their knowledge to unwelcome facts, but it seems worth a try.

 

"EU Parliament.

 

The Parliament, like the other institutions, was not designed in its current form when it first met on 10 September 1952. One of the oldest common institutions, it began as the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It was a consultative assembly of 78 appointed parliamentarians drawn from the national parliaments of member states, having no legislative powers. The change since its foundation was highlighted by Professor David Farrell of the University of Manchester: "For much of its life, the European Parliament could have been justly labelled a 'multi-lingual talking shop'."

 

Its development since its foundation shows how the European Union's structures have evolved without a clear "master plan". Some, such as Tom Reid of the Washington Post, said of the union: "nobody would have deliberately designed a government as complex and as redundant as the EU". Even the Parliament's two seats, which have switched several times, are a result of various agreements or lack of agreements. Although most MEPs would prefer to be based just in Brussels, at John Major's 1992 Edinburgh summit, France engineered a treaty amendment to maintain Parliament's plenary seat permanently at Strasbourg.

 

Consultative assembly.

 

The body was not mentioned in the original Schuman Declaration. It was assumed or hoped that difficulties with the British would be resolved to allow the Council of Europe's Assembly to perform the task. A separate Assembly was introduced during negotiations on the Treaty as an institution which would counterbalance and monitor the executive while providing democratic legitimacy. The wording of the ECSC Treaty demonstrated the leaders' desire for more than a normal consultative assembly by using the term "representatives of the people" and allowed for direct election. Its early importance was highlighted when the Assembly was given the task of drawing up the draft treaty to establish a European Political Community. By this document, the Ad Hoc Assembly was established on 13 September 1952 with extra members, but after the failure of the proposed European Defence Community the project was dropped.

 

Despite this, the European Economic Community and Euratom were established in 1958 by the Treaties of Rome. The Common Assembly was shared by all three communities (which had separate executives) and it renamed itself the European Parliamentary Assembly. The first meeting was held on 19 March 1958 having been set up in Luxembourg, it elected Schuman as its president and on 13 May it rearranged itself to sit according to political ideology rather than nationality. This is seen as the birth of the modern European Parliament, with Parliament's 50 years celebrations being held in March 2008 rather than 2002.

 

The three communities merged their remaining organs as the European Communities in 1967, and the body's name was changed to the current "European Parliament" in 1962. In 1970 the Parliament was granted power over areas of the Communities' budget, which were expanded to the whole budget in 1975. Under the Rome Treaties, the Parliament should have become elected. However, the Council was required to agree a uniform voting system beforehand, which it failed to do. The Parliament threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice; this led to a compromise whereby the Council would agree to elections, but the issue of voting systems would be put off until a later date.

 

Elected Parliament.

 

In 1979, its members were directly elected for the first time. This sets it apart from similar institutions such as those of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe or Pan-African Parliament which are appointed. After that first election, the parliament held its first session on 11 July 1979, electing Simone Veil MEP as its president. Veil was also the first female president of the Parliament since it was formed as the Common Assembly.

 

As an elected body, the Parliament began to draft proposals addressing the functioning of the EU. For example, in 1984, inspired by its previous work on the Political Community, it drafted the "draft Treaty establishing the European Union" (also known as the 'Spinelli Plan' after its rapporteur Altiero Spinelli MEP). Although it was not adopted, many ideas were later implemented by other treaties. Furthermore, the Parliament began holding votes on proposed Commission Presidents from the 1980s, before it was given any formal right to veto.

 

Since it became an elected body, the membership of the European Parliament has simply expanded whenever new nations have joined (the membership was also adjusted upwards in 1994 after German reunification). Following this, the Treaty of Nice imposed a cap on the number of members to be elected, 732."

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2018-10-31 8:26 AM

 

John52 - 2018-10-31 7:58 AM

 

Well Iwhen it comes to the difference in prices between alcohol here and the other side of the channel I might be out of date as usual :$

But I think its safe to say alcohol isn't dearer across the channel, so their not having the level of drunkeness problems Britain has is not just a price issue.

Its more complicated than that, and sadly isn't going to be solved by just putting the price up. Thats only going to revive the booze cruises.

My mate had a good job as foreman in the steelworks, till he got involved in booze cruises and went to jail for it. Riuined his life :-(

 

So he broke the law :-| ...........and if he went to jail it's pretty obvious he was a hardcore smuggler *-) .....

 

 

But if booze had been the same price here as the rest of the EU he would not have broken the law.

Another mate ran a few small shops and he got drawn in and went to jail as well.

These are decent ordinary guys like us.

Prevention is better than cure (not that prison is a cure)

[Tracker]

John52 - 2018-10-31 11:36 AM

 

But if booze had been the same price here as the rest of the EU he would not have broken the law.

Another mate ran a few small shops and he got drawn in and went to jail as well.

These are decent ordinary guys like us.

Prevention is better than cure (not that prison is a cure)

 

Not quite - decent ordinary guys don't deliberately set out to break the law for their own personal gain.

 

I have run my own shop and I never felt the need to be greedy enough to buy illicit stock, even though we were not far from the Harwich ferry terminal, and were offered the 'opportunity'.

 

I have no sympathy for those who were caught due to their own greed.

[antony1969]

John52 - 2018-10-31 11:36 AM

 

pelmetman - 2018-10-31 8:26 AM

 

John52 - 2018-10-31 7:58 AM

 

Well Iwhen it comes to the difference in prices between alcohol here and the other side of the channel I might be out of date as usual :$

But I think its safe to say alcohol isn't dearer across the channel, so their not having the level of drunkeness problems Britain has is not just a price issue.

Its more complicated than that, and sadly isn't going to be solved by just putting the price up. Thats only going to revive the booze cruises.

My mate had a good job as foreman in the steelworks, till he got involved in booze cruises and went to jail for it. Riuined his life :-(

 

So he broke the law :-| ...........and if he went to jail it's pretty obvious he was a hardcore smuggler *-) .....

 

 

But if booze had been the same price here as the rest of the EU he would not have broken the law.

Another mate ran a few small shops and he got drawn in and went to jail as well.

These are decent ordinary guys like us.

Prevention is better than cure (not that prison is a cure)

 

Greed is good ... Until you get caught ... Then you can blame it on the EU for selling cheap booze

[Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 11:34 AM

 

I'm afraid some (usual suspects! :-)) will complain it's too long, but it is historic fact, so those with short attention spans don't have to read it if they prefer to continue living with gaps in their knowledge. :-D

 

 

Do you mean me?

 

Interesting Brian and not being a historian or theorist but much more of a pragmatist and seeker of cost effective practical solutions to life's problems I did learn somethings from the read - not that they mean much in the real world.

 

Sorry, it's not personal, but we are where we are and we need solutions that work not history lessons.

 

Other trading blocs around the world seem to work without all the integration, immigration, rights of abode and travel, and one size fits all mumbo jumbo?

 

To name a few that I have heard of - EFTA, APEC, OPEC, TPP, NAFTA, ASEAN - none of which appear to have the same delusions of grandeur that the EU places upon itself but all seem to benefit their participants with regard to international trade?

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 11:34 AM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-30 10:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 8:52 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-30 7:19 PM

 

This is not the end of austerity, but it maybe perhaps the beginning of the end of austerity?

Hhmmm.......such optimism! :-|

 

It reminds me of a fairytale book ending of "everyone living happily ever after"!! (lol)

 

You don't mean - perish the thought - everyone left the EU and reformed as a Common Market without an EU parliament and countless layers of well paid beaurocrats - happily ever after indeed!

I've snipped this from Wikipedia, as it is factual. The headline fact is that the EEC (and before) had a parliament that has evolved over time into today's EU parliament. That EEC parliament was not freely elected, while today's version is. Draw your own conclusions as to where the greatest democratic deficit lay.

 

I'm afraid some (usual suspects! :-)) will complain it's too long, but it is historic fact, so those with short attention spans don't have to read it if they prefer to continue living with gaps in their knowledge. :-D

 

In case anyone has forgotten the UK joined the EEC in 1973, under a Conservative government led by Ted Heath. What follows seems to me also to lay some of the grand conspiracy theories about hidden plans for a "European Superstate". It just evolves as time passes, with its members arguing out what they can agree upon as it goes. Hey, ho.

 

I naturally accept from the outset that this won't make a blind bit of difference to those who prefer the gaps in their knowledge to unwelcome facts, but it seems worth a try.

 

"EU Parliament.

 

The Parliament, like the other institutions, was not designed in its current form when it first met on 10 September 1952. One of the oldest common institutions, it began as the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It was a consultative assembly of 78 appointed parliamentarians drawn from the national parliaments of member states, having no legislative powers. The change since its foundation was highlighted by Professor David Farrell of the University of Manchester: "For much of its life, the European Parliament could have been justly labelled a 'multi-lingual talking shop'."

 

Its development since its foundation shows how the European Union's structures have evolved without a clear "master plan". Some, such as Tom Reid of the Washington Post, said of the union: "nobody would have deliberately designed a government as complex and as redundant as the EU". Even the Parliament's two seats, which have switched several times, are a result of various agreements or lack of agreements. Although most MEPs would prefer to be based just in Brussels, at John Major's 1992 Edinburgh summit, France engineered a treaty amendment to maintain Parliament's plenary seat permanently at Strasbourg.

 

Consultative assembly.

 

The body was not mentioned in the original Schuman Declaration. It was assumed or hoped that difficulties with the British would be resolved to allow the Council of Europe's Assembly to perform the task. A separate Assembly was introduced during negotiations on the Treaty as an institution which would counterbalance and monitor the executive while providing democratic legitimacy. The wording of the ECSC Treaty demonstrated the leaders' desire for more than a normal consultative assembly by using the term "representatives of the people" and allowed for direct election. Its early importance was highlighted when the Assembly was given the task of drawing up the draft treaty to establish a European Political Community. By this document, the Ad Hoc Assembly was established on 13 September 1952 with extra members, but after the failure of the proposed European Defence Community the project was dropped.

 

Despite this, the European Economic Community and Euratom were established in 1958 by the Treaties of Rome. The Common Assembly was shared by all three communities (which had separate executives) and it renamed itself the European Parliamentary Assembly. The first meeting was held on 19 March 1958 having been set up in Luxembourg, it elected Schuman as its president and on 13 May it rearranged itself to sit according to political ideology rather than nationality. This is seen as the birth of the modern European Parliament, with Parliament's 50 years celebrations being held in March 2008 rather than 2002.

 

The three communities merged their remaining organs as the European Communities in 1967, and the body's name was changed to the current "European Parliament" in 1962. In 1970 the Parliament was granted power over areas of the Communities' budget, which were expanded to the whole budget in 1975. Under the Rome Treaties, the Parliament should have become elected. However, the Council was required to agree a uniform voting system beforehand, which it failed to do. The Parliament threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice; this led to a compromise whereby the Council would agree to elections, but the issue of voting systems would be put off until a later date.

 

Elected Parliament.

 

In 1979, its members were directly elected for the first time. This sets it apart from similar institutions such as those of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe or Pan-African Parliament which are appointed. After that first election, the parliament held its first session on 11 July 1979, electing Simone Veil MEP as its president. Veil was also the first female president of the Parliament since it was formed as the Common Assembly.

 

As an elected body, the Parliament began to draft proposals addressing the functioning of the EU. For example, in 1984, inspired by its previous work on the Political Community, it drafted the "draft Treaty establishing the European Union" (also known as the 'Spinelli Plan' after its rapporteur Altiero Spinelli MEP). Although it was not adopted, many ideas were later implemented by other treaties. Furthermore, the Parliament began holding votes on proposed Commission Presidents from the 1980s, before it was given any formal right to veto.

 

Since it became an elected body, the membership of the European Parliament has simply expanded whenever new nations have joined (the membership was also adjusted upwards in 1994 after German reunification). Following this, the Treaty of Nice imposed a cap on the number of members to be elected, 732."

 

The ability to elect folk who can only rubber stamp the policies of the unelected.......... does not mean the EU is democratic *-) ..............

 

Nice try Brian......but NO straight Banana >:-) ..........

 

 

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 11:34 AM

 

What follows seems to me also to lay some of the grand conspiracy theories about hidden plans for a "European Superstate". It just evolves as time passes, with its members arguing out what they can agree upon as it goes. Hey, ho.

 

 

 

 

Let me first state my views on the EU, I'm not against it, I think there are areas which need reform, but in general I think it's a good idea. and I'm not at all sure leaving it is a good idea, but we had a referendum so that's what we should do.

 

Now lets look at your statement about hidden plans for a European Super state. You are quite correct there was not any hidden plan, it was openly stated in the founding documents, if you research the subject you will find that this is why the UK never joined at the beginning.

 

 

[Tracker]

colin - 2018-10-31 2:05 PM

 

Let me first state my views on the EU, I'm not against it, I think there are areas which need reform, but in general I think it's a good idea. and I'm not at all sure leaving it is a good idea, but we had a referendum so that's what we should do.

 

Now lets look at your statement about hidden plans for a European Super state. You are quite correct there was not any hidden plan, it was openly stated in the founding documents, if you research the subject you will find that this is why the UK never joined at the beginning.

 

 

Succinctly said Colin, that about sums it up for me too and I agree with those views.

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-10-31 12:04 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 11:34 AM

 

I'm afraid some (usual suspects! :-)) will complain it's too long, but it is historic fact, so those with short attention spans don't have to read it if they prefer to continue living with gaps in their knowledge. :-D

 

 

Do you mean me?...……………...

No, Rich, not you, but no names either! :-D

[Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 3:18 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-31 12:04 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 11:34 AM

 

I'm afraid some (usual suspects! :-)) will complain it's too long, but it is historic fact, so those with short attention spans don't have to read it if they prefer to continue living with gaps in their knowledge. :-D

 

 

Do you mean me?...……………...

No, Rich, not you, but no names either! :-D

 

Thanks Brian, I like to think that we are both sensible enough not to resort to name calling when we disagree!

 

Must be the Sussex air - I grew up in Eastbourne!

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-10-31 1:49 PM...………………...The ability to elect folk who can only rubber stamp the policies of the unelected.......... does not mean the EU is democratic *-) ..............

 

Nice try Brian......but NO straight Banana >:-) ..........

So, you accept that the parliament is democratically elected. One small step etc. :-)

 

That leaves three other policy making institutions of the EU: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Commission.

 

The first comprises (as relevant to the topic under discussion) the government ministers of the EU states. All have been democratically elected.

 

The second comprises the heads of state of the member states. These, too, have all been democratically elected.

 

The third are the civil servants, one Commissioner per member state, nominated by the (democratically elected) governments of each state.

 

It is true that only the Commission can propose legislation but, for it to be adopted, both the (elected) parliament and the (elected) Council have to approve it. This is not unlike UK democracy, where legislation is proposed by government, and has to be approved by both houses of parliament to become law.

 

So, who then is it that can "only rubber stamp the policies of the unelected"? It isn't the parliament (who can accept, reject, or amend), it isn't the Council (ditto), and no one else is involved in approving proposed legislation. Tricky!

 

So, I'll accept two straight bananas, if you can find them (try the Daily Mail archives - as they invented them), one for each of the two (democratically elected) institutions that exclusively can (and do) accept, reject, or modify, the "policies of the unelected".

 

All this you could know, if only you'd stop reading old copies of the Daily Mail and read something informative. :-D

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-10-31 3:19 PM..................Must be the Sussex air - I grew up in Eastbourne!

Oh dear, but I suppose someone had to! :-D Is that why you show such nostalgia for falling off a cliff? :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 4:05 PM

 

It is true that only the Commission can propose legislation but, for it to be adopted, both the (elected) parliament and the (elected) Council have to approve it. This is not unlike UK democracy, where legislation is proposed by government, and has to be approved by both houses of parliament to become law.

 

So, who then is it that can "only rubber stamp the policies of the unelected"?

 

You've just said who ;-) ........Although full marks for spinning the reality :D .........

 

Perhaps next...... you can explain why Germans hold all the important jobs in the EU? ;-) .......

 

Just askin :D .........as I find your EU sycophancy quite funny (lol) ........

 

 

[Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 4:08 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-10-31 3:19 PM..................Must be the Sussex air - I grew up in Eastbourne!

Oh dear, but I suppose someone had to! :-D Is that why you show such nostalgia for falling off a cliff? :-D

 

I prefer a fence to a cliff, not so far to fall.

 

I used to know a bloke named Cliff - always had a seagull on his head!

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2018-10-31 6:28 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 8:41 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-10-30 4:59 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-30 4:18 PM

 

John52 - 2018-10-30 9:17 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-10-29 9:48 PM

Duty on beer, cider and spirits frozen for the next year but cigarettes up a staggering 49p a pack yet it's long been a well established fact alcohol causes a far bigger drain on the NHS than smoking. So even more drunks and pissheads will now clutter up A&E every weekend abusing and assaulting hospital staff...and smokers get billed for it by punitive taxation.

 

I'm teetotal because I have seen what alcohol does to people..

When I see people drinking I just think they are sad - because if they were happy they wouldn't need alcohol to take them somewhere else :-(

But I'm not sure raising the price would help.

Across the channel alcohol is far cheaper but they have far less problems with drunks - why is that?

And because its cheaper across the channel, raising the price here only increases the problems caused by bootlegging :-(

But I agree its a typical Tory budget. Funding consumption and tax cuts for the better off through borrowing. With nothing for the poor below the income tax thresholds because they aren't likely to vote Tory anyway..

Try telling the foodbanks and homeless shelters Austerity is coming to an end.

But I suppose there is one bright spot.

They must be worried about Corbyn because they have gone into tax cutting/extra money for Ireland/Scotland?Wales election mode early.

However dangerous that may be with all the uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

Yet again the interests of the Tory Party are being put ahead of the interests of the country. >:-)

Though my Dad was a life long teetotaler i can't lay claim to that and never would. However i long stopped bothering with a pint or three down the local and never drink at home, though there's a cupboard full of spirits and liqueurs in my kitchen which have been there 20 odd years now....some still unopened!

 

Here in UK i virtually never drink. This year i had a drink with a neighbour at Christmas and the next alcoholic drink i had was in Belgium at the start of my tour in June. That's how much of 'a drinker' i am!

 

We have a serious alcohol problem in UK John, particularly with cheap beer and cider from supermarkets. It's so cheap now the "booze cruise" runs across the Channel which were once a daily occurrence, have pretty much come to an end. It just seems a totally obtuse and illogical line of thought to whack 49p on a pack of 20 cigs whilst freezing tax duty on the main culprit of abuse and attacks hospital staff receive, not to mention the levels of alcohol related illnesses and accidents caused through drink.

 

It's sent out entirely the wrong message.

 

I know folk that still do the booze run ... I was invited to go myself not long ago ...

For me a 580 mile round trip = 20 gal @ £1.32 a litre = £120 fuel....unearthly hour crossing for cheapest fare = £158 so £278 total.

 

Unless going across with minimum of 5 or 6 in an MPV plus trailer it's a total no brainer.

 

Tobacco Alley at Adinkerke where all brits used to go for fags and booze, is like a ghost town now. The only people buying there now are locals and Frenchies who live close to the border. Prices aren't that much cheaper than UK because a few years ago UK gov stomped their feet and told Belgium to increase their prices.

 

Thats for you ... You claimed the booze run had come to an end and it certainly hasn't ...

Except i didn't. This was what i said;

Bulletguy - 2018-10-29 9:48 PM

It's so cheap now the "booze cruise" runs across the Channel which were once a daily occurrence, have pretty much come to an end.

Not quite the same is it?

 

However, you forget i'm over there every year as i refuel at Adinkerke in Belgium because it's cheaper than France and only 3 miles from where i overnight on an Aire in France. In June i tanked up around 3.30pm and drove the length of Tobacco Alley....not one UK registered vehicle in sight apart from mine. Previously the streets would be rammed with UK reg vehicles buying booze and/or baccy. It was the same when i returned three months later.

 

Most brits smoke rolling tobacco now due to cost of pack cigs and it's pointless buying anything less than a 6kg carton per person. Booze you need to buy crates of and due to weight it's very easy to overload a van. The goons manning Dover Port used to relish snatching any booze/fags off those unfamiliar with the wording of Notice 1, but they've calmed down more over the past few years as there isn't enough of them now. I suspect the "guidelines" of Notice 1 to be altered to "maximum legal allowance" as that's easily enforced so your booze cruise mates might well be kissing their 'large van' loads of booze goodbye in future.

 

In a nutshell, you won't get low prices now unless going further east....Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland though Serbia not being an EU country means if found, you are likely to lose your fags/booze.

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-10-31 4:05 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-10-31 1:49 PM...………………...The ability to elect folk who can only rubber stamp the policies of the unelected.......... does not mean the EU is democratic *-) ..............

 

Nice try Brian......but NO straight Banana >:-) ..........

 

All this you could know, if only you'd stop reading old copies of the Daily Mail and read something informative. :-D

But, but....err...there was no pictures in your post or the Wiki article!! Pelmet needs pictures!! (lol)