Europe

[Furunculus]

IIRC, 1/3rd of all British children are growing up in poverty. One in three. That is a disgusting, utterly revoltingly high figure. And the Tories have gibbering on about the deficit and the need to cut public wages as if it was the public sector's fault for the recession.

Well, we could reduce our demographic poressures if we let more immigrants into Europe.
Although that's not likely to happen any time soon.

No. We have an advantage in banking and financial services over other nations. But we have drifted into a situation akin to a Banana Republic; we are far too dependant on sector of the economy for our growth, and the City's presence in the UK's economy should be restrained.

but we do, public spending vampiricily consumes nearly 45% of GDP, that is immoral!

you would be replacing demographic pressure with socio/cultural pressure, riots much.

you mean cut it down to size; so less money to the exchequer which can be spent on malnourished children? i'm not saying we are not overly dependant on financial services, but your solution seems a bit arse-about-face, surely we should build up other sectors rather than destroy financial services....................... at a time when every penny is needed to finance the deficit?

[Subotan]

but we do, public spending vampiricily consumes nearly 45% of GDP, that is immoral!

I know that it is not that high, and there is no way you can consider middle classes having to endure the woeful burden of a few extra taxes (Inheritance tax! Stamp Duty! TUITION FEES! The HORROR!) to be as immoral as one in three children in Great Britain growing up in poverty. I guess it's only Great for 66% of us, huh?

you would be replacing demographic pressure with socio/cultural pressure, riots much.

Possibly. But then again, the modern pension system, when subject to increasing lifespans is essentially the world's biggest Ponzi scheme; you need more and more suckers to buy into it and work to provide the money for pensions of old people, in the hope that they themselves will have a golden retirement.

you mean cut it down to size; so less money to the exchequer which can be spent on malnourished children? i'm not saying we are not overly dependant on financial services, but your solution seems a bit arse-about-face, surely we should build up other sectors rather than destroy financial services....................... at a time when every penny is needed to finance the deficit?

Making financial services act responsibly does not equal cutting them down. Besides, the government seems to be quite skilled at destroying things we're good at which aren't banks (See their support of record companies over musicians, and their neverending crusade to rid Britain of good computer games developers), so maybe the banks have the government by the balls just as much as the unions did back in the 70's.

[Furunculus]

I know that it is not that high, and there is no way you can consider middle classes having to endure the woeful burden of a few extra taxes (Inheritance tax! Stamp Duty! TUITION FEES! The HORROR!) to be as immoral as one in three children in Great Britain growing up in poverty. I guess it's only Great for 66% of us, huh?

Possibly. But then again, the modern pension system, when subject to increasing lifespans is essentially the world's biggest Ponzi scheme; you need more and more suckers to buy into it and work to provide the money for pensions of old people, in the hope that they themselves will have a golden retirement.

Making financial services act responsibly does not equal cutting them down. Besides, the government seems to be quite skilled at destroying things we're good at which aren't banks (See their support of record companies over musicians, and their neverending crusade to rid Britain of good computer games developers), so maybe the banks have the government by the balls just as much as the unions did back in the 70's.

maybe if we taxed less, the productive part of the economy would be able to achieve more.

again, we had the best private pension provision in the world................. until gordon decided to tax it.

oh yes it does. if we become over-regulated (read: european) financial services will move elsewhere, much as it moved to britain after sarbanes-oxley over-regulated the american financial services industry.

[Subotan]

maybe if we taxed less, the productive part of the economy would be able to achieve more

Maybe. But then it follows that we should tax the banking services.

And that depends on what the root causes for the failings of British industry are. If they're badly managed, or have no ideas, having taxes of 0% isn't going to help them.

again, we had the best private pension provision in the world................. until gordon decided to tax it.

[Citation Needed]
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought private pensions plans often invested in company stocks? Like, uh, the banks? meaning that even if they hadn't been taxed, they would have failed anyway.

oh yes it does. if we become over-regulated (read: european) financial services will move elsewhere, much as it moved to britain after sarbanes-oxley ove-rregulated the american financial services industry.

And look how fantastic that was for Britain. If companies feel a need to move because of their shady business practices, then we probably wouldn't want them anyway.

[Furunculus]

Maybe. But then it follows that we should tax the banking services.

And that depends on what the root causes for the failings of British industry are. If they're badly managed, or have no ideas, having taxes of 0% isn't going to help them.

[Citation Needed]
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought private pensions plans often invested in company stocks? Like, uh, the banks? meaning that even if they hadn't been taxed, they would have failed anyway.

And look how fantastic that was for Britain. If companies feel a need to move because of their shady business practices, then we probably wouldn't want them anyway.

How?

So your answer is that many parts of britains industry are becoming less productive, so lets kick the financial sector in the balls - equality of outcome and all that?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/taxraid
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pension...1&in_page_id=6
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...9&in_page_id=2
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/op...author_id=2025
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...3&in_page_id=2
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pension...4&in_page_id=6
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/op...in_author_id=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099428.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html
that do you?

shady practices? they operate within the most benign regulatory regime available. can we bring this back on topic now?

[gaelic cowboy]

How?

So your answer is that many parts of britains industry are becoming less productive, so lets kick the financial sector in the balls - equality of outcome and all that?

I would have to completely agree with you there it make's no sense to destroy the Financialised part of the economy or any economy.

Instead more tidy regulation and maybe some incentive to invest in the like's of certain sectors like I dunno energy or some manufacturing.

Whats needed is a bit of emphasis on the Primary and Secondary industries but not the old style of said sectors. Both those sector's in a modern economy are always going to be dwarfed by the tertiary sector which include's the financial sector but its always a good idea to keep some going.

[Beskar]

Why do people think regulation is always a bad thing? I remember reading about the days when there were no regulation and missing body parts was an all time high. Regulation is important to make sure things go right and proper regulation would have stopped the problems in the economy.

Also, defending the banks all the time just shows naviety. Looks at the recent (see: month or so ago) when the banks made a big profit. They spent 2 billion on bonuses. While Furunculus might think this was a brilliant idea, especially as we had to bail them out for doing such a poor job, there were far better uses of that 2 Billion such as putting it into loans to help the economy, or even invest it in capital, or even pay back the tax payer some of its money.

On another note, could we stop talking about tax payers money in relation to GDP? It is a scam. You could go "Bankers Free Ride on the Government is 2% GDP" which translates to 10% of National Tax Income. It makes people think that it is only costing 2% when the ratio to taxes is far higher.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The European Parliament has approved a 122.9bn euro (£110bn) EU budget for 2010 - nearly half of which is to go to agriculture and natural resources.
It is a 6% increase on the 2009 budget, which was worth 116bn euros.

Good. More money to the EU!

The UK's net contribution to the EU budget will rise by almost 60% to 7.2bn euros (£6.4bn) next year, the UK Treasury has said, because of the costs of EU enlargement and a cut in the annual rebate to the UK.

While I don't trust British accountancy, especially concerning the EU, the increase if true is of course splendid news, suck 'em dry I say, always more where that came from, erm, I mean, an unfortunate turn of events for the UK.

A turn of events which obviously nobody saw coming. The British increase is not, I must insist not, the result of clever French negotiators - always drawn from the brightest minds France can muster, who apply en masse for diplomatic jobs like these because these carry far more prestige this side of the channel - who thoroughly outsmarted their British counterparts in predictable manner yet again.

It is the last year that the EU budget has been negotiated under Nice Treaty rules.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, which went into effect on 1 December, the European Parliament will have greater powers to influence the budget. All areas will be subject to parliament's "co-decision" with the EU governments.
For the first time MEPs will have the power to challenge farm spending figures.

Curse that Lisbon Treaty! It gives more power to the people, more power to parliament, and more power to those woho wish to challenge the size and allocation of the EU budget.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8418275.stm

[Furunculus]

Ah Louis,

Blair gave away the rebate in return for a promise that the EU would look to reform CAP, and in a way i am delighted that we have been seen to be screwed over once again, for it will only act to further harden our hearts against political governance from a federal EU. By the time we have a government willing to act against the interests of the ever-closer-union brigade, they will have an electorate that is willing to back them in the risky games of hi-jinx, you wait and see.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in other news, national sovereignty still exists within the EU, hoorah for the italians:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...l-sovereignty/

Who'd ha thunk it? Italian Constitutional Court tells ECHR to take a hike, asserts national sovereignty

By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: December 19th, 2009

The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)

The Constitutional Court ruled baldly that, where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such decrees “lack legitimacy”. In other words, they will not be enforced in Italy. Although this judgement related to issues concerning the civil service, the universal interpretation is that the ECHR’s aggressive ruling in Lautsi v Italy, seeking to ban crucifixes from Italian classrooms, shortly before, was what concentrated the minds of the judges in the Italian Supreme Court.

In fact, sources close to the Italian judiciary have informally briefed that the decision was a warning that activist rulings by the ECHR “will not be given deference”. The juridical principle at issue here is nothing less than national sovereignty. Where an alien court has the right to overrule a national constitution, sovereignty has de facto ceased to exist. Citizens may go to the polls at a general election to elect an administration, but the “government” they choose will be no more than a municipal council. This, of course, was always the intention of the Lisbon Treaty and its supporters.

Europhile politicians and commentators in Britain, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the ratting by the Vichy Tories on their promise of a referendum, were masochistically resigned to the United Kingdom becoming a province of Brussels. Now the Italians have overthrown the fatalistic notion of the irresistible march of Eurofederalism. They have simply said: if it encroaches upon our national sovereignty, it won’t fly here. This is excellent.

Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords.

But such considerations should not blind us to the fact that the sovereignty of European states has been given a crucial boost by the Italian ruling. It is also likely to bolster resistance in Ireland, where a similar activist case from the ECHR is expected to attempt to impose abortion on a state that has rejected it. Not everyone would have expected the first roll-back of Lisbon to come from Italy; but it has, so we should be heartened. Eurofederalism – just say no!