quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Employing a Czech for 20 K LadyEllen said

quote:


On paper, after UK tax of about 25% he was miles better off than in his Czech job, yet he couldnt live here because of the living costs. He went home in November last year to a job which paid about the same, except with income tax closer to 40%, yet he could live like a king on the net pay.

How can you neglect living costs and claim he was better off. That distortion is what I was making clear the "impartial" BBC does all the time ! 

This problem is nothing to do with whether immigrants are nice people or not, or whether you can have a good evening out  with a Chinaman a Pole  a Pakistani an Indian a Kurd  an Ethiopian. a Somalian etc etc.. Its about the social divisions that are being introduced, the welfare costs, the education costs, spiralling crime , pressure on available housing, de facto segregation, rise in militan religious activism, illegal immigration where the immigrants are exploited and do God knows what to survive, the animosity that exists between different immigrant groups eg Kurds and Pakistanis. groan and more groan !!!

Futher, those immigrants that really are skilled are more beneficially employed in their homelands, trying to "even out" the disparities in national wealth that exists.

What is it about you Guardianistas that you simply cant see whats staring you in the face ?

.

quote:

ORIGINAL Meatcleaver What Britain lacks is a honest debate about the EU

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

ORIGINAL Meatcleaver What Britain lacks is a honest debate about the EU

Our parliamentary 2 party system ensures that the publlic do not hear honest open debate about anything !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
These are the main reasons the government have decided that if immigrants want to stay they have to assimilate, learn the language and work. It is also the reason why they want to repatriate something like 25,000 illegals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
What is it about you that doesnt understand that I was supporting what you said about comparative salaries and living costs? I said "on paper" he was better off here, but he wasnt in reality. We sat down in a restaurant in Brno before he ever came over, and worked out what he should need to live in the UK and be OK, but it didnt work out (how, I dont understand, though he did seem overfond of the Ipswich nightlife!)

quote:


As for your middle point, I agree with you as it happens; the entry of so many diverse ways of life to the UK is throwing up quite a few social problems. But this is due to the "failure of multiculturalism" which you keep going on about, not because these people are bad in themselves or bad for the country. Were we to insist on a common British identity, if we could fathom what that might be, then perhaps we would neither have the problem nor the perception that these problems might arise? Such a common identity doesnt mean all immigrants should paint themselves white, enter CofE on their census forms or in any other way abandon their ways of life, but that they sign up to be British first and anything else after.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Neither of these are on the political horizon here in the UK. There is no pressure for groups to integrate (unless a WASP) and repatriation is a joke as the UK has some truly terrible interpretations of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Repatriation of illegals would be impossible in Britain because the authorities have lost control and are clueless as to who is in Britain or not.

quote:


Blair's government is has no idea as to how best to proceed in trying to get a coherent society. From what I can tell here, after ten years they are changing their mind on just about everything. Multiculturism is out and assimilation is in. Isn't that the reason for the new citizenship oath or whatever it is. Though to be fair multi-culturism is seen as a big and I mean BIG failure here. Those immigrants that assimilated are doing just as well as the Dutch, those that haven't are lagging way behind and creating social problems such as crime and pockets of poverty.

quote:

More can be done to strengthen the curriculum so that pupils are taught more explicitly about why British values of tolerance and respect prevail in society ......Education Secratary Alan Johnson, Jan 2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Unifying Europe is a long range strategy and a damned good idea as well as being long overdue.

quote:


While the concept is simple the execution is complex and there will be tensions and problems as the benefits and liabilities are shared and shifted. Whining about present problems is short sighted and selfish. Suck it up and find solutions – there is no going back. Try thinking about your grand children and creating more stable political structures with which to forge their futures.

quote:


The benefits are significant. Avoiding another European war is a good start. With the influence of the USA in decline and the center of global financial control moving to the orient, Europe will need its collective clout and can not rely on the traditional post WW2 arrangements or to count on the USA to protect it's interests (as if it ever really did).

quote:


So stop just peeking over the fence and start scanning the horizon. Your children need you to make wise choices on their behalf.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

1) The Maastricht Treaty lays down the limits of borrowing and spending permitted in every country which ratifed the treaty. Ultimately, this means we have lost democratic control of our economy i.e. our public spending is bound by a centralised EU body. Gordon Brown attempted to increase public spending and was censored by the European Central Bank. This is part of the reason we are being forced to undergo policies of privatisation. The Germans, under Schroder, exceeded the approved limit (in part forced by the high levels of unemployment in Germany) and were promptly threatened with fines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

2) We will all be subject to the same interest rates set by the Central Bank. Conditions vary from country to country and in some countries rates may be too high and others too low, which might prove destabilising.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

3) The Maastricht Treaty makes it an offence for any government to even try and influence the Central Bank. Thus, if German, French, Italians or British trade unionists were to appeal to their own governments to reduce interest rates in order to save jobs, the finance ministers of the government they have elected would be unable to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
4) This in turn would undermine all public confidence in the democratic process (what's left of it) because if the parliaments we elect are powerless, then why should anyone bother to vote? If they don't vote, that is the end of democracy itself and the way is open for some demagogue to take over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
5) There are people in the EU who have real power and are appointed rather than elected e.g. The President of the Commission.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The idea of being governed by bankers who we did not elect does not appeal to me. Of course Europe must co-operate for the benefit of all its peoples, and the wider world, but it must be based on a democratic process which entrenches the rights of all citizens to govern themselves. I'm pro-Europe in principle but I'm strongly opposed to what is currently on the table as it detracts from the rights of citizens to have a say in how we are governed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

1) The Maastricht Treaty lays down the limits of borrowing and spending permitted in every country which ratifed the treaty. Ultimately, this means we have lost democratic control of our economy i.e. our public spending is bound by a centralised EU body. Gordon Brown attempted to increase public spending and was censored by the European Central Bank. This is part of the reason we are being forced to undergo policies of privatisation. The Germans, under Schroder, exceeded the approved limit (in part forced by the high levels of unemployment in Germany) and were promptly threatened with fines.

Brown has given the Bank of England independent control over the pound to impose monetary discipline so what is the difference?  This policy has served Britain well and only a fool would change it. There is no difference with the Euro. The Germans had the same monetary discipline for decades and it served them extremely well.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

2) We will all be subject to the same interest rates set by the Central Bank. Conditions vary from country to country and in some countries rates may be too high and others too low, which might prove destabilising.

It hasn't destablised any euro economies yet, the politicians have to use the tools available to them to control their local economy. It again has imposed a discipline on politicians and stops them doing tricks like trying to buy an election.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

3) The Maastricht Treaty makes it an offence for any government to even try and influence the Central Bank. Thus, if German, French, Italians or British trade unionists were to appeal to their own governments to reduce interest rates in order to save jobs, the finance ministers of the government they have elected would be unable to do so.

Who do you think agreed to sign the Maastrict treaty, the Gestapo? No. Member governments did. Britain has been through all that trying to save jobs malarky and in the long run it cost more jobs.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
4) This in turn would undermine all public confidence in the democratic process (what's left of it) because if the parliaments we elect are powerless, then why should anyone bother to vote? If they don't vote, that is the end of democracy itself and the way is open for some demagogue to take over.

The British Parliament is the lapdog of the executive, that is not the fault of the EU but a fault of the British political system. As for power in the EU, member governments have ALL the power. A government can veto anything it deems against its national interest. The member governments don't want to give the European Parliament any power because that is the one EU institution that has democratic legitimacy and the one institution that could could call them to account. So when people start complaining about the EU being undemocratic they shouldn't blame the EU but THEIR government.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
5) There are people in the EU who have real power and are appointed rather than elected e.g. The President of the Commission.

No one in the EU has real power but the governments. The governments always blame the Commission with 'apparent power' because it serves their political purpose but the Comission can't do anything without member government agreement.  The member governments want to keep Commissioners as appointees because it keeps the governments in control. If you don't like the Commission, complain to your government, the Commisssioners are their puppets.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The idea of being governed by bankers who we did not elect does not appeal to me. Of course Europe must co-operate for the benefit of all its peoples, and the wider world, but it must be based on a democratic process which entrenches the rights of all citizens to govern themselves. I'm pro-Europe in principle but I'm strongly opposed to what is currently on the table as it detracts from the rights of citizens to have a say in how we are governed.

You are already governed now by a banker you did not elect! If you want a democratic EU then you should get onto the British government, they are the worst government when it comes to keeping the EU 'anti-democratic'. It's laughable to hear British politicians and Britains talking about an undemocratic EU. The Brits are the worst offenders for stopping any democratisation in the EU. They don't want to give the EU any legitimacy whatsoever. I end up being breathless when I here Tony Blair talk about the EU needing reform, he is one of the biggest culprits in stopping reform!

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

1) The Maastricht Treaty lays down the limits of borrowing and spending permitted in every country which ratifed the treaty. Ultimately, this means we have lost democratic control of our economy i.e. our public spending is bound by a centralised EU body. Gordon Brown attempted to increase public spending and was censored by the European Central Bank. This is part of the reason we are being forced to undergo policies of privatisation. The Germans, under Schroder, exceeded the approved limit (in part forced by the high levels of unemployment in Germany) and were promptly threatened with fines.

Brown has given the Bank of England independent control over the pound to impose monetary discipline so what is the difference?  This policy has served Britain well and only a fool would change it. There is no difference with the Euro. The Germans had the same monetary discipline for decades and it served them extremely well.

Brown has given the bank control of one aspect of the pound, and the freedom to adjust that to suit the conditions in the UK, no compromise becuase country x has an economy that is acting differently

Well he would wouldn't he, the pound is the national currency but the interests rates are decided by the Bank of England in the same way interest rates are set by the European Central Bank for Euroland. The only time politicians complain is when THEIR policies aren't working but that is THEIR fault.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

2) We will all be subject to the same interest rates set by the Central Bank. Conditions vary from country to country and in some countries rates may be too high and others too low, which might prove destabilising.

It hasn't destablised any euro economies yet, the politicians have to use the tools available to them to control their local economy. It again has imposed a discipline on politicians and stops them doing tricks like trying to buy an election.

Yet is an awfully big word when it comes to the economic welfare of nations. Eire did very well when it came to its turn to join fully, lets see how the land fares at the other end of the spectrum.

We'll see.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

3) The Maastricht Treaty makes it an offence for any government to even try and influence the Central Bank. Thus, if German, French, Italians or British trade unionists were to appeal to their own governments to reduce interest rates in order to save jobs, the finance ministers of the government they have elected would be unable to do so.

Who do you think agreed to sign the Maastrict treaty, the Gestapo? No. Member governments did. Britain has been through all that trying to save jobs malarky and in the long run it cost more jobs.

Unemployment within the UK is as much about other social concerns as the EU

So? You could say the same for every other country. Like every club there are swings and round abouts. You have to decide if over all you think you benefit from the club or whether it is better to get out.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
4) This in turn would undermine all public confidence in the democratic process (what's left of it) because if the parliaments we elect are powerless, then why should anyone bother to vote? If they don't vote, that is the end of democracy itself and the way is open for some demagogue to take over.

The British Parliament is the lapdog of the executive, that is not the fault of the EU but a fault of the British political system. As for power in the EU, member governments have ALL the power. A government can veto anything it deems against its national interest. The member governments don't want to give the European Parliament any power because that is the one EU institution that has democratic legitimacy and the one institution that could could call them to account. So when people start complaining about the EU being undemocratic they shouldn't blame the EU but THEIR government.

Dumbass question time........

If any member state can veto anything it chooses, then what the hell is the point of the EU?

What makes the EU parliament more legitmate than any individual states government?

I never said the European Parliament had more legitimacy than national Parliaments, I said national governments don't want to give the European Parliament any power because it is has democratic legitimacy by the fact its members are voted in. National politicians want the European Parliament powerless so I'm saying, don't blame the EU for being undemocratic, that's the way national governments want it.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
5) There are people in the EU who have real power and are appointed rather than elected e.g. The President of the Commission.

No one in the EU has real power but the governments. The governments always blame the Commission with 'apparent power' because it serves their political purpose but the Comission can't do anything without member government agreement.  The member governments want to keep Commissioners as appointees because it keeps the governments in control. If you don't like the Commission, complain to your government, the Commisssioners are their puppets.

Again I ask if the EU has no real power, what is the point behind it?

quote:



Cooperation and strength to deal with other economic superpowers the prevention of new European wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The idea of being governed by bankers who we did not elect does not appeal to me. Of course Europe must co-operate for the benefit of all its peoples, and the wider world, but it must be based on a democratic process which entrenches the rights of all citizens to govern themselves. I'm pro-Europe in principle but I'm strongly opposed to what is currently on the table as it detracts from the rights of citizens to have a say in how we are governed.

You are already governed now by a banker you did not elect! If you want a democratic EU then you should get onto the British government, they are the worst government when it comes to keeping the EU 'anti-democratic'. It's laughable to hear British politicians and Britains talking about an undemocratic EU. The Brits are the worst offenders for stopping any democratisation in the EU. They don't want to give the EU any legitimacy whatsoever. I end up being breathless when I here Tony Blair talk about the EU needing reform, he is one of the biggest culprits in stopping reform!

Hold on...... One minute you claim the EU parliament is the only one with any democratic legitimacy, now you claim it is not democratic because of us brits, please clarify.

I said the European Parliamnet is the only EUROPEAN INSTITUTION with democratic legitimacy because its members are voted in but Britain is one of the most active countries in fighting against giving the European Parliament more power so it takes some gall for a Brit to complain about the EU not being democratic enough fore their liking.

We are not governed by a banker we did not elect, we a governed by a government elected by mass suffrage, this government than has the ability to appoint or dismiss certain people, including the governor of the Bank of England.

I think it was NG that said Britain would be governed by a banker in the euro. I said it would be no different than now.

Try it from the perspective of a brit, we try and play fair, after all there is not a nation there that has taken ECHR on board as much as we have! Yet still we hear of the French, the Spanish, and other nations too totally ignoring the EU in their own national interests, immigration, meat and fishing spring to mind immediately.

Britain doesn't play fair, it tells itself it plays fair but it plays all the same games as other countries play. You should really look at Britain from a continental perspective without all that British propaganda.