Greek elections - beginning of the end for the EU?

[JohnD]

Just seems an overly-complicated (i.e. expensive) way of doing what already happens anyway.

Just seems an attention-seeking page on the publicity website of some Kipper.

She uses the word "plan" which suggests somebody has prepared and approved a plan of how to go about implementing this change. However she provides no evidence of a plan, or of a vote approving the change, nor even a consultation. She is perhaps under the foolish misapprehension that European law is made by unelected bureaucrats, and not by the governments of the member countries and our elected representatives.

For some reason anti-Europeans often have, or pretend to have, this foolish belief.

I don't know why JBR imagines that an idea about road tax has anything to do with the Greek Election. More likely, as he is an anti-European, he just like scattering silly ideas around. He'll be talking about straight bananas next.

 

[AronSearle]

I thought we were discussing the EU, which is a group of nations, not villages (or areas of countries, or families, or collectives of people who own the same type of car.......)[/u]

I am asking you what the difference is?

If you have a currency union, which the rest of Europe has, then the rich parts subsidise the poor parts, this is how a currency union works and every party agreed to this. Whether it is countries or villages within a country, it is the same mechanism.

This is in response to people saying Greeks should be kicked out for the Euro for being subsidised, it was ever going to be thus in a currency union and is the same for many poorer EU countries.

 

[JohnD]

I have not said they should be kicked out for being subsidised. I am saying they should be kicked out of the Euro by falsifying their application to join and for failing to follow the rules. If they corruptly loot the subsidy money, and don't pay taxes, how can anyone reasonably be expected to maintain the relationship?

BTW you can subsidise a country without Currency Union. Britain is not in the Eurozone but is eligible for EU subsidies. The EU has had payments in and payments out for many years before the Euro was introduced.

 

[AronSearle]

I have not said they should be kicked out for being subsidised. I am saying they should be kicked out of the Euro by falsifying their application to join and for failing to follow the rules. If they corruptly loot the subsidy money, and don't pay taxes, how can anyone reasonably be expected to maintain the relationship?

But what difference does it really make?

Poorer countries would be subsidised, France (one of the richer members) fiddles to get extra cap payments, so some fiddling is going to happen, or even just 'sh1t happens' and countries need extra money. There will always be issues such as this.

These are reasons not to have a currency union, not reasons to throw out any individual country.

Britain is not in the Euro zone but is eligible for EU subsidies. The EU has had payments in and payments out for many years before the Euro was introduced.

Completely different mechanisms with different aims, inaccurately but quickly speaking it is the difference between taxing and spending a pre-defined agreed amount (EU subsidies), to acheive desired goals.

Or printing/borrowing money as and when required/demanded by parties within the union (currency union) for reasons of their choosing or creation.

 

[JohnD]

These are reasons not to have a currency union, not reasons to throw out any individual country.

There can be great advantages to a properly-run shared currency, but it can't work if there are members who fiddle the figures and won't fulfil their commitments. Therefore Greece has forfeited its right to remain in the Euro.

It remains true that

you can subsidise a country without Currency Union. Britain is not in the Eurozone but is eligible for EU subsidies. The EU has had payments in and payments out for many years before the Euro was introduced.

Subsidy and monetary union are not the same thing.

The Scots were very anxious to have currency union with a foreign country, if they became independent. However the foreign country did not want to have currency union with an Independent Scotland, so it was a non-starter.

 

[AronSearle]

but it can't work if there are members who fiddle the figures and won't fulfil their commitments. Therefore Greece has forfeited its right to remain in the Euro.

But what about Germany, Austria, France, Italy and several others that failed to meet fiscal compliance requirements.

Why just pick on greece?

You can't nowingly join a rigged card game, and then complain an opposing player should get thrown out because they 'cheated' more than the other players.

 

[JohnD]

sure you can.

 

[JBR]

She is perhaps under the foolish misapprehension that European law is made by unelected bureaucrats, and not by the governments of the member countries and our elected representatives.
For some reason anti-Europeans often have, or pretend to have, this foolish belief.

I don't believe that and I'm certain that a politician wouldn't either. EU laws are passed by MEPs, the majority of whom may not have the interests of OUR country at heart.

I don't know why JBR imagines that an idea about road tax has anything to do with the Greek Election. More likely, as he is an anti-European, he just like scattering silly ideas around. He'll be talking about straight bananas next.

You refer to me in the third person. Please, do not be afraid to address me directly.

An additional road tax proposed by the European Parliament (mostly foreigners who have their own countries' interests at heart) is, of course, related to a discussion about the EU, as is the profoundly important matter of the shape of bananas.

As a pro-European, you just like to scatter silly ideas around and decry any criticisms of the EU!

 

[JohnD]

EU laws are passed by MEPs

Who are elected by their constituents.

And you have perhaps not heard of the Council of Ministers, who represent the governments of the nations of the European Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#Legislative_procedure

You asked us how we felt about your silly link, which says, among other rubbish:

"“An unelected Slovenian bureaucrat in Brussels announces in a German newspaper interview that she wants to force all British drivers to fit black tracking boxes in their cars which will count every mile they drive.”

and "Jill Seymour today attacked plans by Violeta Bulc, European Commissioner for Transport, to force all EU member states to introduce road pricing."

So I told you.

She claims (wrongly) that "an unelected Bureaucrat" forces laws on the people of the member countries of the European Union. Do you think she is a misinformed idiot, or a dishonest liar trying to gain publicity? My money's on the second.

What prompted you to disseminate this rubbish?

As a anti-European, you just like to scatter silly ideas around, even (or especially) when, like this one, they are untrue.

 

[JBR]

EU laws are passed by MEPs

Who are elected by their constituents.

The EU's electorate, as a whole, vastly outnumbers the British electorate, a point I tried to make earlier.

She claims (wrongly) that "an unelected Bureaucrat" forces laws on the people of the member countries of the European Union.

I suspect that she is referring to the fact that the bureaucrat was unelected by us, the British people.

Do you think she is a misinformed idiot, or a dishonest liar trying to gain publicity? My money's on the second.

What prompted you to disseminate this rubbish?

As a anti-European, you just like to scatter silly ideas around, even (or especially) when, like this one, they are untrue.

These last three paragraphs are simply inane name-calling and do not require an answer from me. Please note that I am resisting the urge to respond in the same way!

 

[JohnD]

She claims (wrongly) that "an unelected Bureaucrat" forces laws on the people of the member countries of the European Union.

I suspect that she is referring to the fact that the bureaucrat was unelected by us, the British people.

You skate over the fact that laws are not "forced" on citizens by an unelected Bureaucrat, but are debated and agreed by the elected MEPs and by the representatives of the elected governments of the nations which are members of the EU. So what she says is untrue.

As for many of the MEPs not being British, it is equally true that hardly any of the MPs in Westminster were elected by voters in your bit of Cheshire. Do you object to the UK having laws which citizens in Cheshire are bound by? If so you should be campaigning for an independent Cheshire.

I'm glad you agree that your words

you just like to scatter silly ideas around

were petty name-calling

So what's your explanation for the fact that she publishes stuff on her website that is untrue? And why do you choose to disseminate these untruths?

 

[JBR]

She claims (wrongly) that "an unelected Bureaucrat" forces laws on the people of the member countries of the European Union.

I suspect that she is referring to the fact that the bureaucrat was unelected by us, the British people.

You skate over the fact that laws are not "forced" on citizens by an unelected Bureaucrat, but are debated and agreed by the elected MEPs and by the representatives of the elected governments of the nations which are members of the EU. So what she says is untrue.

I'm afraid that I can't have made myself clear. To keep it simple, EU laws are being forced on me by MEPs the majority of whom I, nor my fellow countrymen, voted for.

As for many of the MEPs not being British, it is equally true that hardly any of the MPs in Westminster were elected by voters in your bit of Cheshire. Do you object to the UK having laws which citizens in Cheshire are bound by? If so you should be campaigning for an independent Cheshire.

No. Quite simply, I am not a citizen of Cheshire just because I live in that county; I am a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Neither am I a citizen of the European Union, or at least not until they should eventually take over our sovereignty.

I'm glad you agree that your words

you just like to scatter silly ideas around

were petty name-calling

Surely you remember that you used those very words first and that I had the courtesy to add an exclamation mark after my repetition of your words, indicating an element of humour, or even sarcasm.

So what's your explanation for the fact that she publishes stuff on her website that is untrue? And why do you choose to disseminate these untruths?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and if you believe what she has said is untrue that's fine. It doesn't make it untrue in everybody's opinion, though, because that's all it is: your opinion.

Now, it's very late and I suggest we agree to disagree.

You think you're right and I know I'm right. That's fair, isn't it?

 

[RNReindeer]

Btw, how do you pro-EU people feel about this?

http://jillseymourukip.org/eu-pay-per-mile-road-plans-are-outrageous/[/QUOTE]
I have a vague recollection that the UK govenment has already dismissed the idea. In which case it may be not a policy that can be insisted upon for national governments.
We've already seen what the French think of payments for HGV, per mile. They destroyed the equipment, not that I'm supporting anarchy.
Apart from that, national governments would not agree to pool the revenue into a european scheme, unless it could be demonstrated that it was for national benefit.
E.g. there is no French equivalent for RFL, the tax on fuel is lower, etc. Therefore it stands to reason that UK has far more to lose than, say, its French countepart.

Having said that, the recent UK change to RFL procedures would ease the transfer to a pay-per-mile system.

The AA has considered the proposal also. Apart fom a reasonable discussion, their conclusion was:

The AA needs answers to these questions before we can say whether road pricing is a good idea or a bad one. So do you.
Until we get the answers we have to be suspicious. But we are not yet in a position to oppose the proposal out of hand.
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/road_pricing.pdf[/QUOTE]
A point not discussed in the AA report, is how the scheme would be intoduced for older cars, i.e. those that needed the equipment installing.

A couple of other points:
1. The British people have not rejected the idea as Jill Seymour suggests:

“The British people have repeatedly rejected government attempts to introduce pay-by-the-mile road schemes, yet look how the EU overrides the democratic decision of the British people,” she said.
http://jillseymourukip.org/eu-pay-per-mile-road-plans-are-outrageous/[/QUOTE]
It's never really been a serious debate.
2. If only the UK MEPs turned up and participated in the EU debates, the British people would be better represented.
So many UKIP MEPs either do not turn up, disrupt the proceedings or are gratuitously offensive in the EU parliament. Yet they still claim their allowances and expenses.

 

[mark vincent]

I read that the whole Greek debt problem started when the Government borrowed £10 from Wonga. COM.