What now? EU

IronWolf

pqrdef wrote: »

But he didn't, did he. The plans for shafting the City aren't part of this fiscal union wheeze that Angela dreamed up last week. .

Well its hard to tell really, the whole thing is so opaque, I haven't read any news source that has actually had some detail about what the deal was on the table.

And this is supposed to be a democratic organisation...

DVardysShadow

CLAPTON wrote: »

the intention was that we would be part of it

and most of the 55 billion would be collected in the uk and was to be part of the EU budget so a transfer payment form UK to Europe

But I would say that we could have negotiated for it only to apply to Euro transactions. That would meet their legitimate expectations. This compromise would have left us on a level playing field with the Eurozone for Euro securities transactions.

It is their currency, so I cannot see you could grudge them that tax revenue or the right to say that transactions in their currency should be taxed. We in the UK want nothing to do with the Euro, so why should we give a damn about people being taxed by the EU for Euro transactions? A refusal to accept a tax on Euro transactions is telling Brussels what to do. Is it right for us to do that?

DVardysShadow

IronWolf wrote: »

Well its hard to tell really, the whole thing is so opaque, I haven't read any news source that has actually had some detail about what the deal was on the table.

And this is supposed to be a democratic organisation...

Well, I suppose being a democrat, Dave will eventually tell parliament what was on the table, which will sprinkle it with the unicorn dust of British Democracy.

A._Badger

IronWolf wrote: »

Well its hard to tell really, the whole thing is so opaque, I haven't read any news source that has actually had some detail about what the deal was on the table.

And this is supposed to be a democratic organisation...

And it's why the brighter commentators, like Dr Richard North, are throwing up their hands in horror at the sub-tabloid quality of reporting.

There was no treaty. There was no veto. There were simply the usual plots, schemes and the elegant tomfoolery with which the nomenklatura while away the hours spending the money they extract from us by force.

DVardysShadow

A._Badger wrote: »

And it's why the brighter commentators, like Dr Richard North, are throwing up their hands in horror at the sub-tabloid quality of reporting.

There was no treaty. There was no veto. There were simply the usual plots, schemes and the elegant tomfoolery with which the nomenklatura while away the hours spending the money they extract from us by force.

This is the barmy talk which leads to wars. What force?

IronWolf

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But I would say that we could have negotiated for it only to apply to Euro transactions. That would meet their legitimate expectations. This compromise would have left us on a level playing field with the Eurozone for Euro securities transactions.

It is their currency, so I cannot see you could grudge them that tax revenue or the right to say that transactions in their currency should be taxed. We in the UK want nothing to do with the Euro, so why should we give a damn about people being taxed by the EU for Euro transactions? A refusal to accept a tax on Euro transactions is telling Brussels what to do. Is it right for us to do that?

They dont want a tax on euros, Sarkozy has said there is no point in the tax unless the whole of the EU signed up to it. It was just a way of sponging money from the UK

ILW

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But I would say that we could have negotiated for it only to apply to Euro transactions. That would meet their legitimate expectations. This compromise would have left us on a level playing field with the Eurozone for Euro securities transactions.

It is their currency, so I cannot see you could grudge them that tax revenue or the right to say that transactions in their currency should be taxed. We in the UK want nothing to do with the Euro, so why should we give a damn about people being taxed by the EU for Euro transactions? A refusal to accept a tax on Euro transactions is telling Brussels what to do. Is it right for us to do that?

Does not a currency belong to whoever owns it at any particular time?

DVardysShadow

ILW wrote: »

Does not a currency belong to whoever owns it at any particular time?

Are you confusing currency and money? When I say currency, I mean the Euro. There is only 1 Euro.

ILW

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Are you confusing currency and money? When I say currency, I mean the Euro. There is only 1 Euro.

I am getting confused, If I were to buy say 1000 Euros and have them credited to my bank account, what would stop me selling them to say an American? How could I be forced to go through a European exchange?

DVardysShadow

IronWolf wrote: »

They dont want a tax on euros, Sarkozy has said there is no point in the tax unless the whole of the EU signed up to it. It was just a way of sponging money from the UK

Well Sarkozy will have to be satisfied with a tax across the Eurozone plus whoever else. And on Euro transactions.

And specifically for Euro transactions, if the Eurozone applied the tax, it would be a bit rich for us not to apply the tax and not to hand it over. Why should we get away with being an offshore haven for Euro transactions? It would be arrogant in the extreme to presume to f!! them over in that way as you put it