Ormiston, when people see aid given to say India/Pakistan who are two nuclear nations and one has a space programme, they are entitled to think why can't that money be better used in this country.
Its a shame that if you set out a different order of priorities you are labelled "anti" the priorities which are pushed down the order.
Some think social benefits should be increased regardless, others think that reducing benefits dependency is a better objective. Some think the priority is to increase hand-outs to the poor and third countries because it's the kind thing to do, others think investment in infrastructure that help relieve poverty and reducing benefits dependency is a better objective. In reality there is normally a combination and it is frequently just the means that vary, rather than the objectives themselves.
I would rather see politics as deciding priorities and possibilities, rather than being "anti" everything else.
Not sure Farage sees himself as an "ordinary working man", rather the ordinary working man can relate to what he says. Ed Milliband wasn't working class yet he holds himself up as representing the working class but doesn't say things that working class people relate to.
If I'm a plumber do I only want to vote for an MP who is a plumber or an MP that I can relate to and who can relate to me. What is the relevance of whether he is rich or poor or where educated. The main problem with most MPs is that they have never lived or worked in the real world, and Farage, even if he is wealthy, has at least worked in the real world. MPs are not paid enough to attract the best brains, and attract too many who don't need the money and crave for power rather than to do good. Whatever party you support there will always be members you don't like or end up involved in a scandal. Isn't a "broad church" healthier than a flock of MPs without minds of their own subservient to the party leader's ideas.
UKIP is challenging traditional ideas on how politicians relate to the electorate. Few relate to the Oxbridge career politicians of both left right and centre offered as candidates to run our country, and if that is changed as a result of UKIP's arrival, that can't be bad.
@ Dippenhall I'd be interested in concrete examples you've got of how EU regulations affect you. Not just to have an argument. I definitely agree with you that the British legal tenets of precedent and proportionality are superior, and I miss them, when I run up against the law here. On the other hand a lot of EU regulations are based on directives, which actually have no legal precedent over UK law, and that's why for example many goods in the UK are still sold with a one year guarantee when the EU directive says it should be two years, as we discussed here a couple of weeks ago.
The "reasonable man" might think that if you buy a book from Amazon UK, and it is sent to your London address, the transaction happened in the UK, and the idea that Amazon should pay tax on it in Luxembourg is laughable. Unfortunately so far the great British legal system hasn't brought Amazon to court to pay up. But the EC is getting its teeth into them now, as it has successfully done already with several big multinationals. Your roaming charges are lower as a result, for example.
So I'd say that countries should keep the EU together while negotiating to preserve national superiority in key laws. Such negotiations require mature outward looking people who show that they actually want to be in the same club as their 27 counterparts. Farage clearly isn't such a person.
I am in dispute with a Spanish property developer who failed to complete an off plan development on time having had over £250k up front. Had more or less waived goodbye to the money having found we'd been stitched up by our lawyers who also worked for the developers. The whole Spanish legal system is corrupt where the concept of conflict of interest has no meaning. Out of the blue this year we receive a lengthy document wholly in Spanish claiming we now owe the developer £200k for not completing on the property now it has been finished. If their claim is accepted by a SPANISH court and they get judgement, the ENGLISH Courts, without any right of appeal on my part, simply accept it and pursue me for the claim on behalf of the Spanish court as if it were an English court decision. The fact that the developer is making a spurious claim means I have to appoint Spanish lawyers to act on my behalf to prevent an uncontested action in Spain being applied by English Courts on behalf of a Spanish court. We are also told we can sue the Spanish lawyers, all told it will cost about £100k to attempt to recover our losses but having to rely on the integrity of a foreign legal system which has only proven to me to be completely untrustworthy.
I am also involved in pension trustee work and give just one example, the effect of European Court judgements on the UK pension system in terms of the cost of compliance with sex equality. The UK enacted rules to comply as best we could to equalise pensions for men and women, but interaction with the permitted unequal state system unique to the UK, meant some features could not be addressed. The European Court deemed the UK had not complied, so our government made some more laws that tried to address the defect. Problem is that it is now impossible to comply because lawyers cannot interpret the law so as to allow a correct benefit adjustment to be made. It has been fudged and DWP cannot confirm if any scheme complies or not, even though it is their responsibility to ensure compliance. It is like working in an asylum run by the
Thanks for your reply. I can't get my head around your 2nd example, but that is entirely my problem. I certainly understand and sympathise with the 1st one.
But for the purpose of the debate, may I ask if you would have even considered such a deal if Spain was not in the EU? Or, if we had withdrawn, why would this have made your issue easier to resolve according to UK law?
In this case, is your complaint essentially that the EU was supposed to make cross border business as easy as business in Torbay or wherever, but it has not delivered on this promise?
There are two maths concepts (one learnt in primary school!) which centre politicians are simply failing to communicate. All of the UKIP and anti wealth soundbites are very convincing but finding a populist scapegoat like immigrants, the super rich and bankers, the EU is exactly what Salmond did and he lost - because he had no economic credibility and no currency FFS! The first primary school concept is the pie chart - overseas aid and EU contributions are less than 1% but housing benefit, health and pensions are around 10-15% each. Front page of today's Times reveals that the NHS loses £5bn a year on inefficiencies and that the tories reform was a joke. The next concept is value chain or linking up different activities : There are a number of financial services reforms going through including basel and solvency II which seek to ensure institutions carry enough risk based capital to weather a storm. Politicians looking to blame the banks and not regulators are missing the point - banks in London should be contributing billions in corporation and payroll taxes so they should not be classed as the enemy! I really don't see how Russian billionaires buying property in Mayfair affects the housing situation for your ordinary Joe? Where the EU is starting to work is on tax avoidance by the IT and comms sector - they are looking into Apple / Ireland plus Amazon / Luxembourg where complex tax arrangements cost hm government billions in lost vat anD corporation tax - it appears these amount to state aid. Any pro EU party should point out that global corporations need a pan European regulatory framework on safety, financial risk and tax compliance. Twenty seven separate nations will lead to undercutting on tax - guess what? Despite the deficit the tories are implementing reductions in corporation tax to benefit big companies and rich peoples pensions while they simultaneously announce a freeze in working poor benefits.
Someone should calculate the big numbers and that might stop all the bloody noise about the odd 1%!
The two main parties have been poor communicators and I actually think there is a big space in the middle for a new operator to grab 10%+ of the vote by promoting decent economic policies to benefit the whole nation and not justice richest 1%
For an example of how we fail to make the most of the EU, look no further than Osbornes decision to flog our 40% stake in Eurostar. To reduce debt he says. Yet the amount he expects to raise is peanuts. Or to put it another way , should cover the amount the State has thrown at the Olympic Stadium to make it fit for West Ham. It's profitable too. He doesn't understand that this is a strategic business, more important than just a short term cash windfall. The only likely buyer is SNCF, so our major European rail link will be entirely owned by the State, just as it owns large chunks of our "private" electricity utility. Just not our State. The French State.
A bit off topic but an example of how our politicians fail to make the most of Europe in our behalf.
I really don't see how Russian billionaires buying property in Mayfair affects the housing situation for your ordinary Joe?
It affects everyone else by displacement. The super-rich who would have lived in Mayfair shift to Kensington & Chelsea. The exceedingly rich shift to Fulham. The people who would have bought a house or rented in Fulham go to Hammersmith. And so on, until you find that people priced out of Thamesmead are raising demand (and prices) in Gravesend and commuting 2 hours each way becomes acceptable.
The two main parties have been poor communicators and I actually think there is a big space in the middle for a new operator to grab 10%+ of the vote by promoting decent economic policies to benefit the whole nation and not justice richest 1%
I'm not so sure. Trust in politicians is only going one way, mainly because none of them are honest enough to paint things the way they are. For most people they are going to continue to get worse or jog along at current standards. There will always be individuals who weather any storm better than others, but the invisible earnings that the UK has relied on as the long tail of the legacy of Empire is ending as China and India become richer. I don't think any of our political class has a Plan B. (I'm not sure many have a Plan A). But they won't be honest and tell us either there are massive changes or our standards of living will continue to fall. They've already fallen relative to most of Europe. It's less than 25 years ago I first went abroad to Spain and found it was a lot poorer and cheaper than what I was used (I was living in New Cross at the time). I was there again in the summer and it is marginally cheaper and marginally poorer.
At some point, our relative wages declining will hit China's rising. It may be some time, but it will eventually happen, barring some sort of global catastrophe.
Pension funds, infrastructure funds and sovereign wealth funds are understood to be the most likely bidders. SNCF has pre emotion rights but is understood NOT to be interested in making a bid! Nothing wrong with selling assets to pay off debts as long as it is at the right price. I don't know what the right price is but a profit making venture should be worth in excess of 10x profits. NB anyone who want the government to run commercial enterprises for profit such as trains planes and (building) automobiles should take a look at 1970s UK economy - a fuck up of the highest order!
Here we have it, double standards in abundance! By the reasoning and logic of some on here this is a blatantly racist, xenophobic policy from Labour(Well it`s, not a policy is it, it`s a lie from a two-faced hypocritical political party who have been caught with their pants down and don`t know how to react). The word foreign is used here so it must be racist! Who would have thought it?
May I please just give one very small example of an inefficiency in the NHS. It was decided to reduce the number of medical secretaries and replace them with computer speak programmes and basic grade ordinary non-medical secretaries. All the 'savings' were gobbled up by computer system companies which had provided the NHS with programmes that didn't work! Consultants would see their patients for follow up apps only to discover that there was a massive hole in the patients notes. If notes did actually exist, typists in the pool were unfamiliar with medical words and this situation actually became very dangerous. An interpretation of 'acute angina' has entered into the realm of folklore and is probably a myth but I did see misinterpretations that were almost hilarious. Hydatidiform mole became hide a tiddly form of mole. So sisters and consultants wasted their time trying to chase up and/or correct patients reported note errors. Nothing to do with the EU, immigrants or anything of that ilk. These were management decisions made by politically appointed people who didn't have a bloody clue! Apponted by politicians who didn't have a bloody clue and that includes UKIP who will make a bad situation even worse. Rant over but I don't feel any better :-(
Very good level of discussion - well done everyone. No patronising or bullying and listening to the other point of view. Just made me wonder , if we were all in the pub discussing this, would there have been a mass punch-up by now? Also, i wonder if the Millwall board is discussing this too?, and , if so, how many mugs, c ***s,wa***rs (i'm guilty, but i was talking about politicians!), there would have been by now?
Here we have it, double standards in abundance! By the reasoning and logic of some on here this is a blatantly racist, xenophobic policy from Labour(Well it`s, not a policy is it, it`s a lie from a two-faced hypocritical political party who have been caught with their pants down and don`t know how to react). The word foreign is used here so it must be racist! Who would have thought it?
I have to agree, with your double standard comments. If the mention of the word foreigner is racist (which it isn't), then Harriet Harman must be racist (she isn't).
Very good level of discussion - well done everyone. No patronising or bullying and listening to the other point of view. Just made me wonder , if we were all in the pub discussing this, would there have been a mass punch-up by now? Also, i wonder if the Millwall board is discussing this too?, and , if so, how many mugs, c ***s,wa***rs (i'm guilty, but i was talking about politicians!), there would have been by now?
They'd have been arguing over what a bunch of left wing pansies UKIP are.
Pension funds, infrastructure funds and sovereign wealth funds are understood to be the most likely bidders. SNCF has pre emotion rights but is understood NOT to be interested in making a bid! Nothing wrong with selling assets to pay off debts as long as it is at the right price. I don't know what the right price is but a profit making venture should be worth in excess of 10x profits. NB anyone who want the government to run commercial enterprises for profit such as trains planes and (building) automobiles should take a look at 1970s UK economy - a fuck up of the highest order!
I understand the asking price is in the Region of £300m, The UK goverment gets revenue of approx £7.5m (not sure if that is Gross or Net). The problem with Eurostar the rolling stock needs replacing within the next 5/10 years which the UK would have to pick up 40% of the cost. Just stating facts. I was suprised we still owned any part of it.
@rananegra displacement out of central and suburban London has been going on for generations which explains why Charlton fans live all over Kent. Price differentials lead people, especially older people to cash in and move further out. When I first came back to this country (from Ireland) I lived in Colchester then the East End before being fortunate enough to buy a two bed in Blackheath before property prices took off. Right now my wife and I are looking at coastal property as the eldest will be off to college in a couple of years - except we're looking at Atlantic coast property in Ireland! To me the answer is better commuting options and sound mortgage finance options so people can choose if (like me) their location in terms of journey time and the forecast value of the property in ten or twenty years. One of the biggest wastes is government / councils paying housing benefits to landlords for over priced rents - I don't know the precise numbers but my guess is that this ludicrous subsidy has pushed up property prices by increasing the rental yield and that this would have more impact than billionaires. I'm not discounting your point, just adding in other factors that politicians should address in terms of quality of life and government finances.
Here we have it, double standards in abundance! By the reasoning and logic of some on here this is a blatantly racist, xenophobic policy from Labour(Well it`s, not a policy is it, it`s a lie from a two-faced hypocritical political party who have been caught with their pants down and don`t know how to react). The word foreign is used here so it must be racist! Who would have thought it?
Why do you keep bringing this up? Most of us who are anti UKIP are discussing their policies regarding withdrawal from the EU and immigration.
You're the one who keeps bringing up racism. Can you just leave it be? Or is that the only thing you can talk about in support of UKIP, can you give reasons for why you are backing that party?
Prague, I understand your question, because on the face of it, it is a sensible arrangement. Knowing what I know now, I would be perfectly happy to contract with a resident of a non-EU country knowing exactly the limitation of the risks I face. In the EU there are additional risks that are not easily managed.
Had Spain not been in the EU I would have needed to go through the Spanish legal system if I wanted to pursue the developer. I now have the choice, because of EU membership, to take the case up through the English legal system. Vice versa with the developer. This helps businesses who no longer have to worry about taking up cases in foreign courts to recover debts or having to go through two legal systems. For them, the odd bad case does not outweigh the advantages of the many successful cases. For an individual with one bad case it is a different matter.
Works fine if the two legal systems operate on the same principles of personal rights, fairness and obligations - which in theory underpins the whole EU proposition. What is wrong is that our two legal systems are miles apart and I have absolutely no avenue to challenge or appeal, in an English court, a frivolous case rubber-stamped by another country's Court. I have more rights if I get a parking fine here in the UK and that is my gripe. I have written to my MP asking why I have no rights of appeal and why our government allowed it, I was helpfully advised to obtain legal advice.
As regards the second case, just take my word that the UK has been forced to pass a law that no one understands, that the authorities don't know how to enforce but employers must comply with. It is simply being ignored by some employers while others over-provide, just in case.
An EU directive doesn't have to be capable of implementation, be practical, or of value, it simply has to be complied with because it is deemed to serve the interests of the community.
Few are aware of how close to disaster we came with EU proposals to treat company pension funds as if they were insurance companies and requiring them to hold similar capital reserves. Either benefits would have been reduced or companies would have become insolvent and investments in growth assets severely curtailed. It was dropped at the last minute but the EU Commission has not ruled out returning to the directive.
Here we have it, double standards in abundance! By the reasoning and logic of some on here this is a blatantly racist, xenophobic policy from Labour(Well it`s, not a policy is it, it`s a lie from a two-faced hypocritical political party who have been caught with their pants down and don`t know how to react). The word foreign is used here so it must be racist! Who would have thought it?
Why do you keep bringing this up? Most of us who are anti UKIP are discussing their policies regarding withdrawal from the EU and immigration.
You're the one who keeps bringing up racism. Can you just leave it be? Or is that the only thing you can talk about in support of UKIP, can you give reasons for why you are backing that party?
How about you give your reasons for hating them so intensely? I posted that link to Harman because when I posted the link to the UKIP manifesto it was torn apart as racist and xenophobic. Harman has said the exact same things in her article so now the shoe is on the other foot you don`t like it? Seems as though you have been missing something here on this thread. The racism allegations against UKIP are all a part of the immigration debate. For example, those who support UKIP and want immigration dealt with properly are shouted down as racists, bigots, xenophobes and islamophobes!
I vote for them because I like their manifesto and I would welcome a society built on strong British values and not some pc leftie ideology which is not capable of honest debate and has frankly in my view, caused most of the problems this country now faces and has a decades long battle to try and deal with.
If you don`t like what I post, don`t read it! I have as much right to post on this topic as you or anyone else!
Here we have it, double standards in abundance! By the reasoning and logic of some on here this is a blatantly racist, xenophobic policy from Labour(Well it`s, not a policy is it, it`s a lie from a two-faced hypocritical political party who have been caught with their pants down and don`t know how to react). The word foreign is used here so it must be racist! Who would have thought it?
Why do you keep bringing this up? Most of us who are anti UKIP are discussing their policies regarding withdrawal from the EU and immigration.
You're the one who keeps bringing up racism. Can you just leave it be? Or is that the only thing you can talk about in support of UKIP, can you give reasons for why you are backing that party?
How about you give your reasons for hating them so intensely? I posted that link to Harman because when I posted the link to the UKIP manifesto it was torn apart as racist and xenophobic. Harman has said the exact same things in her article so now the shoe is on the other foot you don`t like it? Seems as though you have been missing something here on this thread. The racism allegations against UKIP are all a part of the immigration debate. For example, those who support UKIP and want immigration dealt with properly are shouted down as racists, bigots, xenophobes and islamophobes!
I vote for them because I like their manifesto and I would welcome a society built on strong British values and not some pc leftie ideology which is not capable of honest debate and has frankly in my view, caused most of the problems this country now faces and has a decades long battle to try and deal with.
If you don`t like what I post, don`t read it! I have as much right to post on this topic as you or anyone else!
You don't have a right to keep accusing people of calling UKIP racists when very few of us in here are doing so.
And I have given my reasons for hating UKIP.
Also always good to hear a wishy washy reason for backing a political party.
Probably the same as your reasons for backing your party then eh? I haven`t accused anybody of anything that wasn`t said. Like I said earlier, if you don`t like it, don`t read it!
Probably the same as your reasons for backing your party then eh? I haven`t accused anybody of anything that wasn`t said. Like I said earlier, if you don`t like it, don`t read it!
You tell me? If it isn`t UKIP then it must be one of the others lol. To be honest with you I am not interested in which party you put your trust. It`s your choice. Just leave it now eh?
Surely that Mirror article is a spoof? Harman would know that the EU would never stand for that "policy".
Panic and desperation do strange things to a person`s mind!
You get the difference between a manifesto and being interviewed on the Andrew Marr show don't you E-cafc? I think it's fair to say that one is a statement of position and the other is responding to questions, more of a discussion. You do seem to be straining really hard to make a point and finding one for yourself.
Comments
We borrow money, to give away to a country that doesn't want it, but we insist they have it.
Some think social benefits should be increased regardless, others think that reducing benefits dependency is a better objective. Some think the priority is to increase hand-outs to the poor and third countries because it's the kind thing to do, others think investment in infrastructure that help relieve poverty and reducing benefits dependency is a better objective. In reality there is normally a combination and it is frequently just the means that vary, rather than the objectives themselves.
I would rather see politics as deciding priorities and possibilities, rather than being "anti" everything else.
Not sure Farage sees himself as an "ordinary working man", rather the ordinary working man can relate to what he says. Ed Milliband wasn't working class yet he holds himself up as representing the working class but doesn't say things that working class people relate to.
If I'm a plumber do I only want to vote for an MP who is a plumber or an MP that I can relate to and who can relate to me. What is the relevance of whether he is rich or poor or where educated. The main problem with most MPs is that they have never lived or worked in the real world, and Farage, even if he is wealthy, has at least worked in the real world. MPs are not paid enough to attract the best brains, and attract too many who don't need the money and crave for power rather than to do good. Whatever party you support there will always be members you don't like or end up involved in a scandal. Isn't a "broad church" healthier than a flock of MPs without minds of their own subservient to the party leader's ideas.
UKIP is challenging traditional ideas on how politicians relate to the electorate. Few relate to the Oxbridge career politicians of both left right and centre offered as candidates to run our country, and if that is changed as a result of UKIP's arrival, that can't be bad.
I was having lunch in there on Saturday and he was sat at the bar in the corner, drinking a pint of London Pride and reading the Independent.
But for the purpose of the debate, may I ask if you would have even considered such a deal if Spain was not in the EU? Or, if we had withdrawn, why would this have made your issue easier to resolve according to UK law?
In this case, is your complaint essentially that the EU was supposed to make cross border business as easy as business in Torbay or wherever, but it has not delivered on this promise?
All of the UKIP and anti wealth soundbites are very convincing but finding a populist scapegoat like immigrants, the super rich and bankers, the EU is exactly what Salmond did and he lost - because he had no economic credibility and no currency FFS!
The first primary school concept is the pie chart - overseas aid and EU contributions are less than 1% but housing benefit, health and pensions are around 10-15% each.
Front page of today's Times reveals that the NHS loses £5bn a year on inefficiencies and that the tories reform was a joke.
The next concept is value chain or linking up different activities :
There are a number of financial services reforms going through including basel and solvency II which seek to ensure institutions carry enough risk based capital to weather a storm.
Politicians looking to blame the banks and not regulators are missing the point - banks in London should be contributing billions in corporation and payroll taxes so they should not be classed as the enemy!
I really don't see how Russian billionaires buying property in Mayfair affects the housing situation for your ordinary Joe?
Where the EU is starting to work is on tax avoidance by the IT and comms sector - they are looking into Apple / Ireland plus Amazon / Luxembourg where complex tax arrangements cost hm government billions in lost vat anD corporation tax - it appears these amount to state aid.
Any pro EU party should point out that global corporations need a pan European regulatory framework on safety, financial risk and tax compliance. Twenty seven separate nations will lead to undercutting on tax - guess what? Despite the deficit the tories are implementing reductions in corporation tax to benefit big companies and rich peoples pensions while they simultaneously announce a freeze in working poor benefits.
Someone should calculate the big numbers and that might stop all the bloody noise about the odd 1%!
The two main parties have been poor communicators and I actually think there is a big space in the middle for a new operator to grab 10%+ of the vote by promoting decent economic policies to benefit the whole nation and not justice richest 1%
A bit off topic but an example of how our politicians fail to make the most of Europe in our behalf.
I'm not so sure. Trust in politicians is only going one way, mainly because none of them are honest enough to paint things the way they are. For most people they are going to continue to get worse or jog along at current standards. There will always be individuals who weather any storm better than others, but the invisible earnings that the UK has relied on as the long tail of the legacy of Empire is ending as China and India become richer. I don't think any of our political class has a Plan B. (I'm not sure many have a Plan A). But they won't be honest and tell us either there are massive changes or our standards of living will continue to fall. They've already fallen relative to most of Europe. It's less than 25 years ago I first went abroad to Spain and found it was a lot poorer and cheaper than what I was used (I was living in New Cross at the time). I was there again in the summer and it is marginally cheaper and marginally poorer.
At some point, our relative wages declining will hit China's rising. It may be some time, but it will eventually happen, barring some sort of global catastrophe.
SNCF has pre emotion rights but is understood NOT to be interested in making a bid!
Nothing wrong with selling assets to pay off debts as long as it is at the right price. I don't know what the right price is but a profit making venture should be worth in excess of 10x profits.
NB anyone who want the government to run commercial enterprises for profit such as trains planes and (building) automobiles should take a look at 1970s UK economy - a fuck up of the highest order!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/foreign-criminals-banned-entering-britain-4427469
Just made me wonder , if we were all in the pub discussing this, would there have been a mass punch-up by now?
Also, i wonder if the Millwall board is discussing this too?, and , if so, how many mugs, c ***s,wa***rs (i'm guilty, but i was talking about politicians!), there would have been by now?
Price differentials lead people, especially older people to cash in and move further out. When I first came back to this country (from Ireland) I lived in Colchester then the East End before being fortunate enough to buy a two bed in Blackheath before property prices took off.
Right now my wife and I are looking at coastal property as the eldest will be off to college in a couple of years - except we're looking at Atlantic coast property in Ireland!
To me the answer is better commuting options and sound mortgage finance options so people can choose if (like me) their location in terms of journey time and the forecast value of the property in ten or twenty years.
One of the biggest wastes is government / councils paying housing benefits to landlords for over priced rents - I don't know the precise numbers but my guess is that this ludicrous subsidy has pushed up property prices by increasing the rental yield and that this would have more impact than billionaires.
I'm not discounting your point, just adding in other factors that politicians should address in terms of quality of life and government finances.
You're the one who keeps bringing up racism. Can you just leave it be? Or is that the only thing you can talk about in support of UKIP, can you give reasons for why you are backing that party?
Had Spain not been in the EU I would have needed to go through the Spanish legal system if I wanted to pursue the developer. I now have the choice, because of EU membership, to take the case up through the English legal system. Vice versa with the developer. This helps businesses who no longer have to worry about taking up cases in foreign courts to recover debts or having to go through two legal systems. For them, the odd bad case does not outweigh the advantages of the many successful cases. For an individual with one bad case it is a different matter.
Works fine if the two legal systems operate on the same principles of personal rights, fairness and obligations - which in theory underpins the whole EU proposition. What is wrong is that our two legal systems are miles apart and I have absolutely no avenue to challenge or appeal, in an English court, a frivolous case rubber-stamped by another country's Court. I have more rights if I get a parking fine here in the UK and that is my gripe. I have written to my MP asking why I have no rights of appeal and why our government allowed it, I was helpfully advised to obtain legal advice.
As regards the second case, just take my word that the UK has been forced to pass a law that no one understands, that the authorities don't know how to enforce but employers must comply with. It is simply being ignored by some employers while others over-provide, just in case.
An EU directive doesn't have to be capable of implementation, be practical, or of value, it simply has to be complied with because it is deemed to serve the interests of the community.
Few are aware of how close to disaster we came with EU proposals to treat company pension funds as if they were insurance companies and requiring them to hold similar capital reserves. Either benefits would have been reduced or companies would have become insolvent and investments in growth assets severely curtailed. It was dropped at the last minute but the EU Commission has not ruled out returning to the directive.
I vote for them because I like their manifesto and I would welcome a society built on strong British values and not some pc leftie ideology which is not capable of honest debate and has frankly in my view, caused most of the problems this country now faces and has a decades long battle to try and deal with.
If you don`t like what I post, don`t read it! I have as much right to post on this topic as you or anyone else!
It is because of their meddling in laws and making silly rules that is drving people to want to come out of it.
You don't have a right to keep accusing people of calling UKIP racists when very few of us in here are doing so.
And I have given my reasons for hating UKIP.
Also always good to hear a wishy washy reason for backing a political party.