That's a fair comparison in some ways, but there is an important difference. The elected M.P.'s in Westminster may put forward bills proposing new legislation or changes to existing legislation, and may then have extensive debate about it before voting on it. The elected representatives to the European Parliament may propose neither new legislation nor changes to existing legislation; that perogative is reserved to the unelected European Commission, and M.E.P.'s are there only to vote for or against it. They may not even accept the general principle of some proposed regulation but suggest changes before it is put into effect, only vote for or against as it is set before them. And the so-called "debate" in the European Parliament is nothing but a farce, with so many items being pushed through at such speed that in many cases a complex directive which might have serious ramifications gets no more than about 2 minutes of time before it is rushed through to a vote.
The real problem with the EU is whose in control.
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I was intending to address this issue when I eventually started to address and create the thread about "Regulation in EU".
But I'll address it briefly now.
In EU the commission suggests new legislation and it is presented to EU Parliament and heads of countries for ratification, or other.
That means it has been scrutinised and assessed considerably before presentation.
http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm
In contrast legislation in UK is presented by politicians and often in their own interest. It is debated in Parliament, passed to H of L, and if ratified becomes law.
Often, a majority of whatever party is sufficient to ensure its passage to law. Indeed some popular new laws can be 'filibustered' out the door, purely because of insufficient time allowed.
Thus the UK model is highly politicised and much backroom to'ing and fro'ing, giving and taking, scratch mine and I'll scratch yours, goes on.
This, in your opinion might be a good system, but IMO, it's fraught with dangers, political intrigue, insufficient scrutiny, political interest, knee-jerk re-actions, and often devoid of popular support.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone would argue that the U.K. system might be highly politiczed and that M.P.'s might be proposing things for their own personal interests or with the backing of some particular group (the same applies here in the U.S., of course). But whatever makes you think that the EU Commission isn't influenced in exactly the same way?
So if the U.K. decided it wanted to put VAT on financial services it would be free to do so? If the U.K. decided for some reason not to charge VAT on, say, stationery supplies, you think the EU would not object? (And before answering that last one by saying that it could make it zero-rated like food, books, and so on, just remember how the EU is already making a fuss about how "unfair" it is that the U.K. zero-rates food.)
Sponsored Links
You're rather pushing me ahead faster than I'm prepared. But a quick response for now and I'll deal with Taxation more fully when I'm ready.
The VAT settings, i.e. minimum and maximums are sensible anti-competitive tools.
Suppose UK wanted to give Scotch Whisky a competitive advantage over Irish or Breton whisky by reducing the VAT on Scotch Whisky?
Suppose UK wanted to give VAT relief on kilts, bagpipes, Welsh slate, etc, etc?
It becomes obvious that the allowable margins for VAT is an important anti-competitive mechanism.
Each country can set their tax rates within margins.
D
Deleted member 63160
Yet another benefit of being in the EU I suppose?
If any country applied VAT rates below the allowable margins we could see a large increase in cross-border shopping. Or of course it there was an unacceptable hike by any country.
I can see the point but I don't think that is the best way to describe it.
An interesting article for people who have progressed beyond the Daily Mail.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/26b6a12c-daf2-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/26b6a12c-daf2-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html
By whom though? You don't mention who exactly is "scrutinising" and "assessing considerably" before the EU parliament get their 2 minutes worth. (or don't you know who's doing the scrutinising and assessing? I don't either)
You would know if you read the links that I provided.
I didn't think it necessary to reprint the article.
MP's don't propose new bills or changes. Well they do but private members bills are extremely unlikely to get passed. A subset of the cabinet who you haven't voted for plus civil servants propose bills and mp's of which you may or may not have voted for 1 out of 650 do as they are told.
Have you actually watched a debate in the commons. There is no debate, just a list of mp's standing up and spouting on. An actual debate would consist of mp 1 standing up and saying 'It should be 42' and then mp 2 saying 'No it should be 53 because etc etc'. That doesn't happen.
Weirdly the house of lords seems more democratic and none of them are elected by anyone.
The only way I can see to have any influence at all is to join an activist organisation like 38 Degrees, but I suspect a lot of people round here wouldn't like that much
Please do. They even accept people like me
EDIT:
Love em.
A definite opposition to PBC's claim:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-powers
Clearly, you have just regurgitated urban mythology rather than researching the factual position.
Sponsored Links
