• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

milo said:
That's not how it works though, the government doesn't bank your NI contributions to pay for your state pension and health care in old age. The pensions and health care of today's pensioners are paid for by today's tax payers.

If you have an increasing number of pensioners and a smaller proportion of the population that are economically active you have a few choices. You can increase tax or cut services.

I agree about the NHS being used as a political football and needless reforms though.
Click to expand...
But if all those pensioners have paid in for 50 years with little use there should be a surplus when they have reached the age they need it.
If the money being paid in is ring fenced to be only used for NHS and it is run correctly then there shouldn't be a problem regardless of the demographic. But it isn't run correctly at any level and that is the problem.
 
glasgowspur said:
But if all those pensioners have paid in for 50 years with little use there should be a surplus when they have reached the age they need it.

If the money being paid in is ring fenced to be only used for NHS and it is run correctly then there shouldn't be a problem regardless of the demographic. But it isn't run correctly at any level and that is the problem.
Click to expand...

People of pensionable age now had their NI contributions spent on the pensioners when they were of working age, when the state pension and were more generous and the NHS better funded.
 
milo said:
People of pensionable age now had their NI contributions spent on the pensioners when they were of working age, when the state pension and were more generous and the NHS better funded.
Click to expand...
But those pensioners of yesteryear didn't live as a long so again there should be ample funds.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I know that you are correct. I'm trying to make point of how ridiculously badly the system is run.
The truth is no one really cares about the NHS except to prove ideological points.
 
the dza said:
Even better if a President Trump forces Nato countries like Germany to re-arm. What could go wrong?

Trump in the White House, the EU breaking apart led by our exit, and that bufoon Johnson as PM. Putin must be laughing his head off.
Click to expand...

We will be ok the Russians will protect their money.
 
milo said:
An interesting read

EU Referendum Briefing 1: Can the UK control the EU’s future if it stays a member?

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/eu-referendum-briefing-1-can-uk-control.html?m=1
Click to expand...

I think it's worth re-posting the conclusion of that article:

The UK cannot be required to join an EU army without consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

b) Treaty amendments require the consent of the UK government and parliament, and (if there’s any transfer of powers) the public;

c) Accession of new Member States requires the consent of the UK government and parliament; it is a long way off for Turkey in particular and if it ever happens, will be subject to long periods of transition for workers to be admitted;

d) The UK has a veto on tax issues; the UK government, parliament, and public would have to consent to dropping it;

e) The UK has an opt-out from EU law on asylum, non-EU migration and criminal law; the UK government and parliament would have to consent to dropping it, and the public would have to agree to join Schengen or the European Public Prosecutor;

f) The UK has an opt out from the single currency and other related issues, and could only join after the consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

g) The UK has a veto over the basic EU budget revenue and spending rules, including the UK budget rebate; the veto could only be dropped with the consent of the UK government, parliament and public.

Of course, there are many other possible criticisms of the European Union. Some may be valid, and some not. But the argument that the UK government could be forced into any of the measures listed above is quite clearly false and scaremongering. All of the above possible developments are subject to the control of the UK government, and usually our Parliament and the general public besides.
 
the dza said:
I think it's worth re-posting the conclusion of that article:

The UK cannot be required to join an EU army without consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

b) Treaty amendments require the consent of the UK government and parliament, and (if there’s any transfer of powers) the public;

c) Accession of new Member States requires the consent of the UK government and parliament; it is a long way off for Turkey in particular and if it ever happens, will be subject to long periods of transition for workers to be admitted;

d) The UK has a veto on tax issues; the UK government, parliament, and public would have to consent to dropping it;

e) The UK has an opt-out from EU law on asylum, non-EU migration and criminal law; the UK government and parliament would have to consent to dropping it, and the public would have to agree to join Schengen or the European Public Prosecutor;

f) The UK has an opt out from the single currency and other related issues, and could only join after the consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

g) The UK has a veto over the basic EU budget revenue and spending rules, including the UK budget rebate; the veto could only be dropped with the consent of the UK government, parliament and public.

Of course, there are many other possible criticisms of the European Union. Some may be valid, and some not. But the argument that the UK government could be forced into any of the measures listed above is quite clearly false and scaremongering. All of the above possible developments are subject to the control of the UK government, and usually our Parliament and the general public besides.
Click to expand...
That's a very naive article.

We've already seen what happens when the EU doesn't get the treaty votes it wants - it just renames a treaty something that isn't a treaty and pushes it through anyway.

Whilst I'm on the side of remain, and whilst I agree that Cameron massively underplayed what appears now to have been a strong hand, let's not pretend there's any semblance of democracy in the 4th Reich EU.
 
scaramanga said:
That's a very naive article.

We've already seen what happens when the EU doesn't get the treaty votes it wants - it just renames a treaty something that isn't a treaty and pushes it through anyway.

Whilst I'm on the side of remain, and whilst I agree that Cameron massively underplayed what appears now to have been a strong hand, let's not pretend there's any semblance of democracy in the 4th Reich EU.
Click to expand...

Do you have any specific examples that contradict the conclusions reached in that article? (I'm not asking to try and trip you up, I don't actually know). A bit of back and forth here will probably give us a better debate than the politicians are serving up.
 
the dza said:
I think it's worth re-posting the conclusion of that article:

The UK cannot be required to join an EU army without consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

b) Treaty amendments require the consent of the UK government and parliament, and (if there’s any transfer of powers) the public;

c) Accession of new Member States requires the consent of the UK government and parliament; it is a long way off for Turkey in particular and if it ever happens, will be subject to long periods of transition for workers to be admitted;

d) The UK has a veto on tax issues; the UK government, parliament, and public would have to consent to dropping it;

e) The UK has an opt-out from EU law on asylum, non-EU migration and criminal law; the UK government and parliament would have to consent to dropping it, and the public would have to agree to join Schengen or the European Public Prosecutor;

f) The UK has an opt out from the single currency and other related issues, and could only join after the consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

g) The UK has a veto over the basic EU budget revenue and spending rules, including the UK budget rebate; the veto could only be dropped with the consent of the UK government, parliament and public.

Of course, there are many other possible criticisms of the European Union. Some may be valid, and some not. But the argument that the UK government could be forced into any of the measures listed above is quite clearly false and scaremongering. All of the above possible developments are subject to the control of the UK government, and usually our Parliament and the general public besides.
Click to expand...

Surely, if this was all actually true it wouldn't make a difference then if the UK left the EU?
 
the dza said:
I think it's worth re-posting the conclusion of that article:

The UK cannot be required to join an EU army without consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

b) Treaty amendments require the consent of the UK government and parliament, and (if there’s any transfer of powers) the public;

c) Accession of new Member States requires the consent of the UK government and parliament; it is a long way off for Turkey in particular and if it ever happens, will be subject to long periods of transition for workers to be admitted;

d) The UK has a veto on tax issues; the UK government, parliament, and public would have to consent to dropping it;

e) The UK has an opt-out from EU law on asylum, non-EU migration and criminal law; the UK government and parliament would have to consent to dropping it, and the public would have to agree to join Schengen or the European Public Prosecutor;

f) The UK has an opt out from the single currency and other related issues, and could only join after the consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

g) The UK has a veto over the basic EU budget revenue and spending rules, including the UK budget rebate; the veto could only be dropped with the consent of the UK government, parliament and public.

Of course, there are many other possible criticisms of the European Union. Some may be valid, and some not. But the argument that the UK government could be forced into any of the measures listed above is quite clearly false and scaremongering. All of the above possible developments are subject to the control of the UK government, and usually our Parliament and the general public besides.
Click to expand...

They will not need us, Germany is taking over control over some of the Dutch special forces as pointed out in the article I posted above, The Polish due to money worries want to do similar. Those money worries the Polish have, have been exacerbated by an overly strong and dominant Germany. Germany will start controlling parts of other countries armies.

They are not stupid the Germans, starting to think the Greeks were right all along.
 
the dza said:
What makes you say that?
Click to expand...

Basically,if the UK has opt-outs for x sections of y treaties, then who else has opt-outs?
Then the next question is what is the point in many of the EU treaties if there all these opt-outs?
Surely, a treaty means you are all in or not; if there is any point in half-measures (i.e. opt-outs) there seems little point in the EU treaties as they stand.
Hence, why it would then seem that there is not much difference in having them..and no difference if the UK left the EU....
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
They will not need us, Germany is taking over control over some of the Dutch special forces as pointed out in the article I posted above, The Polish due to money worries want to do similar. Those money worries the Polish have, have been exacerbated by an overly strong and dominant Germany. Germany will start controlling parts of other countries armies.

They are not stupid the Germans, starting to think the Greeks were right all along.
Click to expand...

The German military is totally dependant on America. Germany can't do anything major without America's say-so. For some perspective, there are 60 thousand troops in the German army. There are 22 thousand US Army troops based in Germany alone. There are US Air-Bases in Germany and 13 thousand US Airforce personnel, with a further 1 thousand US Marines. The USA also has nuclear weapons based in Germany.

So unless that idiot Trump takes office and messes up NATO, Germany aren't going to try their take over the world thing anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
glorygloryeze said:
Basically,if the UK has opt-outs for x sections of y treaties, then who else has opt-outs?
Then the next question is what is the point in many of the EU treaties if there all these opt-outs?
Surely, a treaty means you are all in or not; if there is any point in half-measures (i.e. opt-outs) there seems little point in the EU treaties as they stand.
Hence, why it would then seem that there is not much difference in having them..and no difference if the UK left the EU....
Click to expand...

I don't know who else has opt-outs, but I don't see what difference that makes. Most countries in the EU are in the Euro and are part of Schengen, we are not. If we leave the EU, then we are no longer part of the single market, which seems to me to be the big advantage of being part of the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back