Tampon Tax : who should decide

michaels

If you run a trade surplus with the UK (most countries given we rund a deficit), why would you not want to try to keep the same level of access to the UK market as you currently have?

UK consumers pay about 15% more for their food due to trade restrictions imposed by the EU. I understand for the rich this is a non-issue, they can afford it. For the poor who spend more of their income on food it is probably more of a problem. The UK obviosuly imports more food than it exports so we are imposign high costs on our poorest to support EU farmers who are often extremelly rich. How progressive is that?

Free movemnt of people supresses the wages of the lowest skilled in the UK whilst holding down prices of all those services such as cleaners and Capacinos that only the well off can afford - again no wonder the chattering classes are in favour where as those without an articulate voice lose out - but then who cares about people who can't speak up for themselves - surely they aren't smart enough to deserve a vote anyway?

kinger101

mayonnaise wrote: »

The Commission drafts laws, not the parliament.

Drafted laws need approval from both Parliament and Commission.

My point entirely. The unelected body, in which Malta has parity with Germany, is responsible for initiating new laws. What is the motivation for writing these laws when the body no longer has any meaningful link with the electorate. The EU is, and always has been, a highly technocratic system.

wymondham

I bet Dave feels a bit silly fighting for the right to have zero vat on tampons - highlights the silliness of the EU. This will help the anti-EU's cause no end as it shows how we struggle to manage our own country when we don't actually control it?!

littlegreenfrog_2

michaels wrote: »

If you run a trade surplus with the UK (most countries given we rund a deficit), why would you not want to try to keep the same level of access to the UK market as you currently have?

UK consumers pay about 15% more for their food due to trade restrictions imposed by the EU. I understand for the rich this is a non-issue, they can afford it. For the poor who spend more of their income on food it is probably more of a problem. The UK obviosuly imports more food than it exports so we are imposign high costs on our poorest to support EU farmers who are often extremelly rich. How progressive is that?

Free movemnt of people supresses the wages of the lowest skilled in the UK whilst holding down prices of all those services such as cleaners and Capacinos that only the well off can afford - again no wonder the chattering classes are in favour where as those without an articulate voice lose out - but then who cares about people who can't speak up for themselves - surely they aren't smart enough to deserve a vote anyway?

You have to look at the whole picture. In some ways we would be better off out of the EU and in other ways we would be worse off. I don't think focusing in on certain issues and ignoring others is helpful. The EU is very complex - probably too complex, but to some extent this is inevitable given its size and the sheer number of very different countries it represents. It is difficult to get a grip on all the issues to come up with an informed opinion, but my view is that overall we are better off in, and the kind of economic repercussions we would face if we were to leave the single market would hit "the poor" much harder than any potential benefits of leaving. Apart from anything else I think it is extremely likely that the value of the pound would plummet against most other currencies, so certainly in the short to medium term it would be more expensive to import everything, whether it's from the EU or not.

Terms and conditions of sale are usually dictated by the seller, not the buyer. So when people say "Germany will still want to sell us BMWs and Audis" they are getting it the wrong way round. The question is, will we still want to buy BMWs and Audis? If so, the Germans will be happy to sell them to us provided the price is right. Whether we will be able to afford them is another matter, and may well have more to do with the value of our currency than the existence or otherwise of any free trade agreement. Also, Germany will not get to make that decision. It will have to be made by all the other member states acting together, and I imagine at least one of them will want to make things difficult for us.

mayonnaise

michaels wrote: »

(I don't need to sigh and feign intellectually superiority over those who might want to discuss the applicabilty of a democratic mandate but then I don't see myself as one of the 'betters' who should be allowed to make decisions no behalf of the uneducated)

Apologies if it came over that way michaels, I did not intend to feign intellectual superiority.
I just keep hearing ad nauseam about this so called democratic deficit within the EU institutions, while at home we put up with an unelected head of state, an unelected upper house and to top it off that unelected upper house rejects legislative proposals made by the only elected body in the country, the lower house. (as we've seen with tax credits recently)
Or is a democratic deficit OK as long as it's homegrown?

kinger101

wymondham wrote: »

I bet Dave feels a bit silly fighting for the right to have zero vat on tampons - highlights the silliness of the EU. This will help the anti-EU's cause no end as it shows how we struggle to manage our own country when we don't actually control it?!

On the positive side, the newspaper cartoonists are going to love this one.

kinger101

mayonnaise wrote: »

Apologies if it came over that way michaels, I did not intend to feign intellectual superiority.
I just keep hearing ad nauseam about this so called democratic deficit within the EU institutions, while at home we put up with an unelected head of state, an unelected upper house and to top it off that unelected upper house rejects legislative proposals made by the only elected body in the country, the lower house. (as we've seen with tax credits recently)
Or is a democratic deficit OK as long as it's homegrown?

So you are in favour of the elected house having the responsibility of drafting laws? As for the Lords, it does require reform, but it doesn't make the structure of the EU right. As for our queen, her duties are almost entirely ceremonial. I can't say it's a system I'd design, but at least she has virtually no power and is virtually uncorruptable in that sense.

CLAPTON

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

You have to look at the whole picture. In some ways we would be better off out of the EU and in other ways we would be worse off. I don't think focusing in on certain issues and ignoring others is helpful. The EU is very complex - probably too complex, but to some extent this is inevitable given its size and the sheer number of very different countries it represents. It is difficult to get a grip on all the issues to come up with an informed opinion, but my view is that overall we are better off in, and the kind of economic repercussions we would face if we were to leave the single market would hit "the poor" much harder than any potential benefits of leaving. Apart from anything else I think it is extremely likely that the value of the pound would plummet against most other currencies, so certainly in the short to medium term it would be more expensive to import everything, whether it's from the EU or not.

Terms and conditions of sale are usually dictated by the seller, not the buyer. So when people say "Germany will still want to sell us BMWs and Audis" they are getting it the wrong way round. The question is, will we still want to buy BMWs and Audis? If so, the Germans will be happy to sell them to us provided the price is right. Whether we will be able to afford them is another matter, and may well have more to do with the value of our currency than the existence or otherwise of any free trade agreement. Also, Germany will not get to make that decision. It will have to be made by all the other member states acting together, and I imagine at least one of them will want to make things difficult for us.

USA is quite large but reasonably easy to understand its democratic system, its taxation and its regulation.

Your view of the economic is simply an opinion that doesn't even mention trade with the rest of the world: it shows how inward looking the EU is becoming.

Germany seems to be doing all right with an 'undervalued' currency rate : if the value of the pound fell that might be to our advantage.
What is the 'right' rate for the pound?
In any event the pound has been at parity with the euro before and the world didn't stop turning.

Why do you say there are no economic benefits of leaving :
-no tariff barriers with the rest of the world so cheaper goods and services world wide
-no subs to the EU
-free to make trade agreement where mutually advantageous
-free to control immigration and so lessen the housing problems and other bottlenecks in the UK
-and of course there is no advantages to the EU of disrupting trade arrangements with the UK except malice

And of course we get to decide our own tax rates and other laws

so looks pretty good

Andy_L

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

Also, the EU don't really like the principle of anything being zero rated. The reason why certain things are currently zero rated is the result of political wrangling from certain member states (including the UK) to reach agreement in the first place. The reason why sanitary products are not zero rated is because the people who did the political wrangling at the time clearly didn't think it was important enough to argue about. It's not because the EU thinks having periods is a luxury.

IIRC only things that were zero rated in the counrty at the time of accession to the EU can be zero rated, nothing new can be added to the list. Thus Ireland has tampons zero rated while the UK doesn't

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

A
Or is a democratic deficit OK as long as it's homegrown?

yes democratic deficits at home tend to be easily rectified (cf AV referendum)
whereas democratic deficits in the international arena tend to lead to wars