Full Trump meltdown, it's coming..

There is no moral obligation to pay tax.

Yes there is. Unless you advocate building your own road to connect your house to the world.

The majority of this forum would agree with Insider Trader, that as long as it is legal, it is well and good. Thus: Facebook paying £4k UK tax in a year, Trump paying (it may be) $4 in eighteen years. And, by extension, sex-tourism is SE Asia is ok too, because it is legal there.

So whatever side they are on, I want to be on the other.

Ok Biscuits what rate of tax would you pay out of choice? If you have two shops on your street that are in different states. No import duty between the states. One has sales tax at 10% and the other has sales tax at 50%.

Where would you shop?

Ok Tony what rate of tax would you pay out of choice? If you have two shops on your street that are in different states. No import duty between the states. One has sales tax at 10% and the other has sales tax at 50%.

Where would you shop?  Where is your moral compass?

Tax has never been raised "out of choice", nor ever will be. If Tesco asked us how much VAT we wish to pay on petrol..

Taxi for Insider Trader!

You refuse to answer the question tony.

When VC first moved to Gib and offered 3% transaction charge instead of the 10.75% betting duty here did you choose to legally bet with him or carry on betting on the high street?

Before the POCT in the UK did you bet with Betfair even though they were based offshore or did you only bet with UK onshore bookmakers?

Do you ever buy anything from Amazon based out of Sarl as it is cheaper because of the VAT situation?

In short, do you ever use a service or buy a product from a company based outside the UK because the product is cheaper?

If you can hand on heart say you never use Betfair and the like you can take the high moral ground.

same for United Biscuits. Refuse to answer if you have ever gone for the lower tax product or service.

If he was perfectly entitled to pay no tax for 20 years why hasn't he nipped this in the bud and said so months ago.

Tony, UB, I fear you are banging your head against a brick wall. The blinkered Trump lovers will not be swayed by reasoned argument or facts. The upside is that some of them will have some money in the market, and they cannot or will not see that Trump's campaign is doomed to failure. Don't waste your time arguing with them. Just take their money. I have already made a few grand and laid it off, but if his price goes any higher, I may well go in again and get a couple of grand more.

There's no equivalence between a keen gambler going offshore and a billionaire confecting a loss that absolved him from 18 years of tax, or Facebook paying less tax in the UK than a plumber.

I meant Clinton's price, obviously.

Wow, BBC news really stuck the boot in Trump's tax-avoidance face on the news.

unitedbiscuits   

02 Oct 16 21:43 
Joined:  27 Jan 02      | Topic/replies: 5,686  | Blogger: unitedbiscuits's blog   



There's no equivalence between a keen gambler going offshore and a billionaire confecting a loss that absolved him from 18 years of tax, or Facebook paying less tax in the UK than a plumber.

....

So you agree there is no moral obligation to pay betting tax. Is it just some taxes there is a moral obligation to pay?

So you agree there is no moral obligation to pay betting tax. Is it just some taxes there is a moral obligation to pay?

That is to grab the wrong end of the stick. I agree - tell me if you differ - that tax must be raised. I assume you agree that tax should be gradated. Therefore, no excuse for a billionaire to pay less tax than his cleaner.

Chump has had a winge at Hedge Funds saying they should pay more Tax. He is a classic hippocrite. If he is so smart and wants to support the ordinary American perhaps he should say how he will close the loopholes that have allowed him to allegdly paid no Federal Tax in 20 odd years.

So although everyone says they would choose the law tax option if they had a choice they complain when Trump does it.

Would you rather have a leader who tries to minimize costs and maximize value for his workers and businesses or someone who would just spend, spend and spend with no idea about value?

The mainstream media will do anything to divert attention from Hillary's health. In the 7 days between tomorrow and the next debate she doing one fundraising event. That is it. A couple of things today and tomorrow and then virtually a week off. Does that sound right for someone applying for the hardest job in the world? No proper press conference since December 2015 and weeks off at a time.

Ha, so Hilary coughing is more important than her opponent refusing time and time again to reveal whether he paid any tax at all into the purse to help the sick, veterans, those on benefits etc etc. Despite being so ill, she found time to prepare for the first debate. If she could do that much more than Donald when at death's door, imagine how much better she'll be when she's fit and well.

Again, if it's so fine that this multi-millionaire businessman paid zero tax for twenty years why hasn't he just come out and confirmed it?

Pineapple, you think it is a good idea to have a President that lies to Congress, likes to start wars, doesn't like young people, cannot cope with press conferences and has no policies?

'she did not start any wars'

who was the chief person behind the war in Libya and then the movement of arms from Libya to fighters in Syria?

'republican party started the iraq war..not clinton'

Clinton voted for it after reading far more info than Trump as a private citzen had. Bush and the neo-cons (which are both republican and democrat (globalists)) started it.

Trump does open press conferences regularly. Not like the oranges on a plane Clinton uses. e.g. in Mexico.

Policies on Trade Trump is clear. Do what is best for America... Clinton pro TTIP, EU, NAFTA etc. She is a Globalist. Clinton will change nothing. She is financed by Wall Street. The foundation is backed by the Saudis, Russia etc who pay to play.

Had on Heart do you think Hillary Clinton is a wonderful person that has the best interests of America as her number 1 priority?

I am amazed that anyone who is not a member of the Globalist Elite could support her.

Tony,

Do you think NAFTA has been a great success for the American people?

Do you think TTIP will be a great success for the American people?

Do you think centralising the police and other powers from the states to the Federal Government and the UN is/will a great success for the American people?

Do you think American foreign policy in Syria, Iraq and Libya while HC was secretary of state was a great success for the American people?

Notice I say for the 'American people'. I am not saying for Goldman Sachs or for the people running the EU and the IMF. I am talking about the general worker/man on the street in America.

Listen to how clueless she is:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BVDZhOWE9o

Laughing about a sovereign leader being killed and making completely out of touch comments about how great Libya is now.

InsiderTrader
03 Oct 16 15:55

Pineapple, you think it is a good idea to have a President that lies to Congress

As a matter of interest IT, do you think it a good idea to have a President who lies to the American people?

Do you think Chump has not been telling any whoppers? Did he back or oppose the Iraq War? Does he even know?

I think he was like most people after 9/11 when Bush/Blair were telling everyone Saddam was a threat. We were told they had the intelligence and we had to believe them. Trump was probably like the rest of us and shrugged his shoulders and said ok we have to do what the governments are telling us we have to do. It was not like we had the intel or a vote on it.

Then as soon as the invasion was over it was clear it was a massive mistake because the idiots who had told us we had to invade had no plan for afterwards. Nothing. At that point it was clearly a massive mistake. At that point Hillary et al were still saying it was good. Saddam needed to go. Iraq and the world better without him etc. Trump was like what are we doing there? Where is the plan for the region?  He was a private citizen not a politican like HC.

So they make this 'mistake' once. Then they go again in Libya. Again no plan. Result ISIS grows. Then again in Syria. Again no plan. Result ISIS grows. Then again in Ukraine. Again no plan. Russia/West relations get worse. The situation is a mess. How can you support a foreign policy they takes relatively stable countries and turns them into bloodbaths?

His empire is coming crashing down bit by bit :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37547094?ns_mchannel=social&ns_cam...

Oct 3, 2016 -- 6:44PM, LendUsAFiver wrote:

His empire is coming crashing down bit by bit : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37547094?ns_mchannel=social&ns_cam...

More bad news for trump backers.

PorcupineorPineapple • October 2, 2016 3:33 PM BST
Can't disagree with that. Trump does want less tax. In fact no tax. For himself.

Jesus people please understand the tax system properly. Income tax, NI, VAT, business rates, corporation tax are added to the costs of goods and services. Each of us pay tax when we spend money. Trump no doubt spend more money as a consumer than most people do therefore paying more tax than most people do.

No one pays tax out of their salary. The taxes are deducted from your salary. Deduct and pay are two different words with two different meanings. Be mindful of your poor English semantics.

Be mindful of your poor English semantics.

You shouldn't be criticising other people's English when your own grammar and punctuation are as bad as this,imo!

Jesus people please understand the tax system properly. Income tax, NI, VAT, business rates, corporation tax are added to the costs of goods and services. Each of us pay tax when we spend money. Trump no doubt spend more money as a consumer than most people do therefore paying more tax than most people do.

tony57 03 Oct 16 19:10 Joined: 13 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 8,815 | Blogger: tony57's blog
they are not responsable for isis..the fight is inside islam sunni shia..when obarma was elected he was elected on a promise to get out..which he did..they left the shia in power as that was  who the republicans wanted ..they promised to include all of the iraqis ..but they killed sunnia etc..then civil war ..then isis..the region is at fault.

......

Tony,
you really think Isis would exist with thousands of foreign fighters that have been brought up in Western countries if the west had not gone into Iraq, Syria, Libya, and all the rest? If it was just Iraq that was attempted with no planning I would accept that it was just a mistake by establishment Republican and Demomcrats. But why the same mistakes again and again?

Did you approve of the way Hillary laughed and bragged about killing the Libyan leader? Libya was a stable country, Syria was a stable country. Iraq was a stable country. Yes they might have been repressive by western standards by so are many African countries the Clinton Foundation takes money from.

Foreign policy under the establishment politicans like Clinton is a complete mess. Could you name one success of Clinton's foreign policy?

Big problem for Clinton now.

Does she continue to turn the screw on him avoiding paying any tax for 20 years. He's the only presidential candidate in the last 40 years to refuse to release his tax returns. The only one. What's he scared of exactly?

Anyway, does she continue to turn the screw on this or move on to something new.

Does she mention veterans? Apparently those suffering PTSD are "not strong" and "couldn't handle combat" according to you know who. So presidential.

Does she instead move on to his charitable foundation being ordered to suspend fundraising? Reports of its misuse include: Trump himself not making any contributions to the fund since 2008 (very, very rare for a family charitable foundation); spending $20,000 on a portrait of Trump (what do the poor need? A portrait.); $250,000 to settle lawsuits against his companies; a $25,000 to a political campaign group.



Again, for IT who seems to be coming unravelled, I'm no Clinton fan. The world would be a better place if Sanders came to office but her opponent is a dangerous crank.

Again IT,

You make a point about Shrillary being a Liar and gloss over the fact that Chump only lies when he is moving his lips.

Forget Shrillary for a minute. Is Chump fit to lead the Western World?

Really?

Give me a simple answer InsiderTrader!

Death,
There are only two choices.

Trump; politically incorrect comment about a beauty contest winner, used the tax code to offset loses on profit, calls a war hero not smart for being captured.

Are these real issues that are important?

Hillary; national security threat e.g. confidential emails, Conflict of interest pay for play while holding high office, major health concerns, wants more open borders, wants more free trade deals and supranational unelected governance.

Are these real issues that are important?

I don't see how a comment about a beauty contest (where the winner has agreed to enter this contest that is based on looks) can regarded as worse than having confidential information exposed.

I bet you have the prettiest wife in the world IT!

Death,

Hillary supporters cannot win on policy so they get personal. I am not saying it was a nice thing to say. Its just not very important in the scheme of things compared to policy. HC trying to fight the campaign in the gutter. My guess is to goad Trump into talking about how her and Bill treat the women so she had play the sympathy card. It is a diversion to avoid talking about policy.

Which policies that she is proposing do you like? In debate 1 she did not mention a single policy.

Jesus, first sentence of that last post

IT

You really are shooting yourself in the foot.

Oct 4, 2016 -- 11:58AM, InsiderTrader wrote:

Death,Hillary supporters cannot win on policy so they get personal. I am not saying it was a nice thing to say. Its just not very important in the scheme of things compared to policy. HC trying to fight the campaign in the gutter. My guess is to goad Trump into talking about how her and Bill treat the women so she had play the sympathy card. It is a diversion to avoid talking about policy.Which policies that she is proposing do you like? In debate 1 she did not mention a single policy.

What impresses you about Trump's policies beyond climate change being an invention, a conspiracy, made up by the chinese to hurt the US based manufacturers and him blaming Mexico and China for all supposed ills that have befallen the US of A?

detailed list with explanation please if you don't mind

you mentioned TTIP. Now I fully understand why Europeans are worried about some of the things meant to be in TTIP, but why should US citizens worry about it?

Clinton btw has voiced her concerns about TTIP as well btw. Just so you know.

Speaking of TTIP: I hope you realize that the UK, as by far the strongest neoliberal force on the European continent, will be more susceptible to deals like TTIP once you're not part of the EU where the likes of France are always likely to block such agreements.

Pineapple and Death why just the personal insults against me? No comments on policy?

edy at least talks about policy. On policies I support moving from illegal to legal immigration and not pushing new Treaties that hand power from nation states to multinational corporations. Trump's policies are more in line with my thinking than Clintons. True Clinton spoke again TPP the other day. But she was part of building it. I think she would just say whatever the current audience want to hear.

Are you serious when you say that the American people (as opposed to American corporations) have nothing to fear from TTIP?

I didn't say that. I simply don't know what they have to fear. We have to fear liberalisation and privatisation of important public sectors along with being flooded by crappy american products that don't meet our high standards.

What do US citizens have to fear from TTIP that isn't already a reality over there?

European TTIP opponents have also mentioned that EU jobs would go to the US since their worker protection is much lower.

My view from reading the leaks out so far is that TTIP will not help medium and small business. The USA will have to give some ground on regulations - i.e. have more stringent regulations. Big companies with deep pockets will be able to pay for these.

Big companies will also be able to sue national governments that try to stop them as has already happened many times with Nafta. But how can small and medium firms compete? America does not have anything like the same regulations as us for holiday pay, child care, sick pay etc. You may think that is wrong but surely it should be up the national governments to decide these policies. As with the EU America will be drawn into these regulations in return for tariff free access. Of course not all regulations will apply. The EU will have to dilute theirs and the USA will have to increase their regs.

So in the end the US citizens would win because they get to enjoy some of our topnotch regulations? Sounds good to me for them.

Ok, moving on. What do you mean specifically with "I support moving from illegal to legal immigration" that sets Trump apart from Clinton? Because Clinton is well on the record that she will tackle an immigration reform that opens up ways to legal immigration and citizenship.

Wait a second. Are you saying the American people would benefit if EU style regulations were imposed upon them from outside the USA?

InsiderTrader
04 Oct 16 15:02

Pineapple and Death why just the personal insults against me? No comments on policy?




IT

You shot your mouth off so I am just highlighting to you what you said

InsiderTrader
04 Oct 16 11:58

Death,

Hillary supporters cannot win on policy so they get personal. I am not saying it was a nice thing to say. Its just not very important in the scheme of things compared to policy. HC trying to fight the campaign in the gutter. My guess is to goad Trump into talking about how her and Bill treat the women so she had play the sympathy card. It is a diversion to avoid talking about policy.

Which policies that she is proposing do you like? In debate 1 she did not mention a single policy.


I don't want to make any personal insults. You have stuck your neck out and made a statement....good. I like that. Now I want you to read back what you have said and try and justify it. That is called debate or argument. I like that too. I am more than happy to debate with you.

Now you have said Hillary supporters cannot win on policy so they get personal. First and foremost it is The Donald who gets personal and nasty when challenged, Megyn Kelly, The Gold Star parents Mr and Mrs Khan, calling the beauty pageant winner Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping. Do you think these remarks are acceptible for a man who wants to be President?

With regard to policies could you kindly tell me what are Chumps policies? Build a wall and make Mexico pay? even he knows this will not happen. Mexico will not pay and there are vast stretches along the river that are needed for cattle to water. Not honour Nato Treaty obligations? Allow Japan to re-arm and get their own Nuclear weapons to defend themselves against North Korea? Cut taxes for the rich like himself and massively increase spending on the military, who is going to pay for that? What is he going to do to stop people like himself get away with not paying Federal Taxes?

No insults IT just questions. Please reply I would like to know what you think.

Sure, why not? Imposed from outside is very much the wrong phrasing anyway. Any regulations that are adapted would be part of a deal that was negotiated by the respective governments/partners for years.

Adapting common standards and regulations in itself as a part of a trade agreement are nothing bad at all. It's about what those standards end up being.

Ok. Are you American?

I am not, why?

With somewhat comparable partners like the the EU and USA that are not in desperate need of the agreement, you really can't speak of imposing from the outside. That's just highly nationalistic propaganda rhetoric. If one of the partners says "Mates, you gotta do this and that" then the other partner is perfectly free to say "hmmm, good idea actually", or "ok, but in return you'll do this that benefits us", or "screw you guys, going home".

It is interesting people believe that small and medium size businesses and their employees want regulation to be imposed upon them.

This was an issue in the Brexit debate. I remember Alan Johnson saying we had to stay in the EU otherwise the Tories would impose less regulations. The interviewer said well people can vote them out if they don't like it. That is democracy.

Why would anyone choose to have rules imposed on them? TIPP may impose more regulations on the USA and less on the EU. Within the EU some countries, that want to compete would be happy, others like France not so much.

This is what Brexit was all about. That why we got out.

That is weird now. Sorry, but earlier you ranted against globalism and now you speak up for fewer regulations and crap on france's usage of regulations as maybe the most important and effective tool against full on globalism?

I'll let you answer Whisperingdeath now anyway. Unless you want to answer my immigration question from earlier.

Sorry just to be clear. I believe in democracy. i.e. Populations can elect the people who make the decisions and get rid of them in the next election if they don't like the policy.

If France elect leaders who want lots of regulations than they get what they want. If the USA elect leaders who want less regulation they get what they want.

With big deals like the EU and TTIP the electorate get no say in the policy. Policy is framed for big business and special interest groups by unelected bureaucrats.

The respective populations get no say? Given that TTIP are part of the presidential debate, and political debate across Europe, I would very much say the populace has a say on whether they want it or not. You still have to wrong idea with your "unelected bureaucrats" btw. The EU Commission negotiates these things on behalf of the respective elected government of its member countries. If they didn't give the orders to the commission, there would be no TTIP negotiations. A Juncker doesn't just go his jolly way and decide he wants to create a TTIP himself.

You really don't understand how tooth- and powerless the EU commission and european parliament are in reality, do you? The decisions are made in the Council of the European Union and the European Council. Both of which fully comprise of elected and accountable government officials from the member states.

death,

lets get the destracting stuff out the way first..

Now you have said Hillary supporters cannot win on policy so they get personal. First and foremost it is The Donald who gets personal and nasty when challenged, Megyn Kelly,

She attacked him first digging up stuff he had said long ago completely out of contest. His reaction was unacceptable and not politically correct.

The Gold Star parents Mr and Mrs Khan,

This was all very strange. Why did they them to the DNC given the background of Mr Khan. Was it the head of the DNC that had to resign over the leaked emails about stitching up Bernie that invited them? It was to goad Trump and get him to respond to their attack on him. Again it kept the press off policy and onto Trump the person who is not politically correct.

calling the beauty pageant winner Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping.

Again Clinton picked up on politically incorrect comments and went with it to bait Trump. A 90 minute debate and she thought that was more relevant than policy to talk about. Pathetic.

Do you think these remarks are acceptible for a man who wants to be President?

The guy is not politically correct. That is him. He won the nomination being like that. That is who he is. Its a character flaw.

But when I look at the opponent's record through dozens of years in public life any concern about his flaws become irrelevant. Stuff like lying about the emails and Libya. Destablising the middle east. Pay for play through Bill's speeches and the Foundation when she was in the state department. Taking money from foreign contributors. Lying about her health. Laughing about killing people. These are really really bad character flaws. I think they are worse than not being politically correct.

edy, were in favour of the UK staying in the EU?

haha you better believe it

I think both the remaining EU countries and the UK would've kept benefitting more from each other than they will with a Brexit, yes.

Why do you ask? Does it in any way invalidate my previous post highlighting your ignorance about how the EU even works?

What do you think of this btw?

http://fortune.com/2016/08/31/small-business-and-regulation/

death.. policy:

With regard to policies could you kindly tell me what are Chumps policies? Build a wall and make Mexico pay? even he knows this will not happen. Mexico will not pay and there are vast stretches along the river that are needed for cattle to water.

Hillary also supports a 'physical' barrier between the USA and Mexico. Could he make them pay for it? Indirectly yes through tariffs and money transfer charges.

Not honour Nato Treaty obligations?

He said members should all honor their obligations. Why should the USA pay to protect everyone else when some countries do not pay their way and pay the 2.5% in GDP in defence? He wants everyone to pay their way.

Allow Japan to re-arm and get their own Nuclear weapons to defend themselves against North Korea?

Not sure what the first part means. Japan has rearmed. It is number 8 in the world on military spending. Should they have their own nukes? Don't agree with spreading nuke tech personally. I think they should continue to pay the USA to protect them.

Cut taxes for the rich like himself and massively increase spending on the military, who is going to pay for that?

Really? Are we going to go there? The USA has spent trillions on wars in recent years both under all governments. I have not seen the numbers on this but he talks about getting much more for less money but not buying untested weapons from special interest groups.

What is he going to do to stop people like himself get away with not paying Federal Taxes?

It depends if you think people who lose money should be allowed to offset future profits against those losses. He proposes reducing corporate tax on small and medium size business.

edy   

04 Oct 16 16:42 
Joined:  13 Dec 06      | Topic/replies: 141,450  | Blogger: edy's blog   



I think both the remaining EU countries and the UK would've kept benefitting more from each other than they will with a Brexit, yes.

Why do you ask? Does it in any way invalidate my previous post highlighting your ignorance about how the EU even works?

....

We could argue all day on that. I do not think the EU is democratic in the way it is run. Why are there so many lobbyists in Brussels pushing policy? Anyway that battle has been won already for democracy.

but you just showed that you don't have the slightest idea on how the EU is run

You just insist on that "unelected bureaucrats" being some kind of dictators thing that you probably picked up in some tabloid.

edy, good article that. He is saying regulate the big firms. I agree with that. Don't let them circumvent national laws with these big trade agreements, ISDS etc. Don't let TTIP bring less European style lack of regulation to the big banks. Limit what companies like Goldman can contribute to political campaigns. Take the Federal reserve out of private hands. These are all policies that could be explored.

edy, why would you want to be shackled to a corpse like the eu

The lack of tough EU-wide banking regulations is largely thanks to the UK's government blocking any such proposals from France and Germany btw in case you didn't know.

so maybe after Brexit that will finally become a reality in the EU.

Oct 4, 2016 -- 5:05PM, edy wrote:

The lack of tough EU-wide banking regulations is largely thanks to the UK's government blocking any such proposals from France and Germany btw in case you didn't know.

which btw leads us back to there not being the big dictatorship EU that can just decide stuff.

edy   

04 Oct 16 16:57 
Joined:  13 Dec 06      | Topic/replies: 141,452  | Blogger: edy's blog   



but you just showed that you don't have the slightest idea on how the EU is run

...

Until the Brexit vote had the British people had a vote that could directly affect EU policy in the forty years prior in your opinion? If so when? What policy that the EU brought through did the British people have a vote on?

Oct 4, 2016 -- 4:35PM, InsiderTrader wrote:

death,lets get the destracting stuff out the way first..Now you have said Hillary supporters cannot win on policy so they get personal. First and foremost it is The Donald who gets personal and nasty when challenged, Megyn Kelly, She attacked him first digging up stuff he had said long ago completely out of contest. His reaction was unacceptable and not politically correct.The Gold Star parents Mr and Mrs Khan, This was all very strange. Why did they them to the DNC given the background of Mr Khan. Was it the head of the DNC that had to resign over the leaked emails about stitching up Bernie that invited them? It was to goad Trump and get him to respond to their attack on him. Again it kept the press off policy and onto Trump the person who is not politically correct.calling the beauty pageant winner Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping. Again Clinton picked up on politically incorrect comments and went with it to bait Trump. A 90 minute debate and she thought that was more relevant than policy to talk about. Pathetic.Do you think these remarks are acceptible for a man who wants to be President?The guy is not politically correct. That is him. He won the nomination being like that. That is who he is. Its a character flaw.But when I look at the opponent's record through dozens of years in public life any concern about his flaws become irrelevant. Stuff like lying about the emails and Libya. Destablising the middle east. Pay for play through Bill's speeches and the Foundation when she was in the state department. Taking money from foreign contributors. Lying about her health. Laughing about killing people. These are really really bad character flaws. I think they are worse than not being politically correct.

People keep saying one candidate is a criminal and the other a shady businessman. Yet they want to listen to what the policies are. If there were ever two people who could make a deal on who should win the elections, its hillary and trump. I am guessing both of them already know who the president is.

Oct 4, 2016 -- 5:07PM, InsiderTrader wrote:

edy    04 Oct 16 16:57  Joined:  13 Dec 06      | Topic/replies: 141,452  | Blogger: edy's blog   but you just showed that you don't have the slightest idea on how the EU is run...Until the Brexit vote had the British people had a vote that could directly affect EU policy in the forty years prior in your opinion? If so when? What policy that the EU brought through did the British people have a vote on?

You continuously affected every single EU regulation and policy through your national government.

Do you directly vote on every law change on a national level? No? Oh ok.

So if you vote for a tory government, that tory government, at EU level, is going to push for other things, and ultimately create a different consensus decision on policy and regulations, than a labour government would. So yes, the British people have had a lot of votes in these past fourty years that directly affected the EU and its direction.

pretty self explanatory if you actually had a clue on how things work

That's true but you normally have a manifesto and you have vote on that manifesto every 4 or 5 years. The government then (sometimes) does what it says it will do.

But with the EU I don't see where the public ever had a vote to change the policy the block. For instance did we ever have choice over the block expanding and continued free movement at any election?

If you had guided the political debate in that direction ahead of your general elections, forced the parties to make it part of their programme, then yes. Not the EU's fault if the populace is too lazy or ignorant to do so.

Or rather than using lazy or ignorant as a description, maybe I should say it must simply not have been important to the populace.

As you will be aware, every national government of the existing member states must agree to every extension member.

And if the next general election is far away and you see in the news that there are talks about an extension that you don't fancy, you can get off your arse, organise protests and try to influence your government's decision that way or maybe urge them to have a referendum.

With the way the EU is organised, all the power lies in all the national governments of the members as I already told you. The EU in reality is a council of national governments trying to find a consensus on stuff.

That's why it's often so horribly slow to reach decisions. Why it is often so horribly ineffective in the things it does and when it does stuff it's the usually lowest common denominator.

That is what's wrong with the EU, not the plain wrong, utterly idiotic, view of it being some kind of dictatorship.

If the UK remained in the UK could the British people vote to stay in the EU and put restricts on the number of people who could move here from EU countries? Is this something the British people could have a say on while we remained in the EU?

Unlikely. As I just explained to you, the EU is consensus based. You could've back in the day blocked free movement of labour becoming part of the Maastricht Treaty. You didn't. To now restrict free movement of labour, your government would have needed to convince the other national governments that the restriction would be beneficial.

Exactly. This is the issue with these trade deals. You vote for X and 40 years later you have Y and you have a lot of policy areas you have no control over at the ballot box.

edy,
   the eu is anti democratic,the commission rubber stamps policy made in secret?the 5 presidents are not elected?(the public cannot name them anyway) as for policy..when we went in after first vote we were told it would be a trading partnership..slowly it has turned into a political and monertery union without the countrys haveing a vote..they just rubber stampped edict from meetings..when the public rejected anything, the eu put pressure on them to have another vote?
i think thats anti democratic enough for me?
they waste money and no one knows were it goes because they refuse to audit for last 12years..more secrets? the meps are powerless to stop anything the commission wishes to do..also it is totally unrealistic to expect 28 countrys to come together and agree..its why the whole thing is rotten to the core...germany and france carve up power as they pay the bills...i thank the britsh people for being brave and giving my kids the chance to have abetter future in a country free from the dictat of unelected bankers..who make the people of greece slaves because of the debt they helped incur..

Oct 4, 2016 -- 6:26PM, InsiderTrader wrote:

Exactly. This is the issue with these trade deals. You vote for X and 40 years later you have Y and you have a lot of policy areas you have no control over at the ballot box.

You have Y and no control over policies because you're impartial and don't care to organise political debate and serious protest over it. Could've urged your government to not sign the Maastricht treaty or to limit freedom of labour then. Could've prevented New Labour from giving immediate access to the labour market to Eastern Europeans in the early 2000s as well. E.g Germany and Austria opened the labour market to the new 2004 members (baltic states, Czechia, Hungary among others) 7 years later than the UK did.

thank the britsh people for being brave and giving my kids the chance to have abetter future in a country free from the dictat of unelected bankers

Isn't Theresa May kind of a banker? I guess she was technically elected by parts of the public, but not for her current position as PM, was she?

edy
you are correct but off topic!we are writing about brexit and the brave choice of the british people to say economic worrys are not to trump freedomofmovement and the right for us to make our own laws...i expect there will be a economic price we will pay..but in time i belive like the rest of the people who voted leave we will be better off..5-10 years down the line..i voted out for my kids more than me..

Exactly. You are either a globalist or you believe in democracy. You cannot be both.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the UK is far more neoliberal and elitist than the other EU members. If anything, I think it's highly likely UK will go more into that direction and the EU will become more socialist with France's and Spain's voice carrying more weight from now on.

So I'm having serious doubts if the future will be free of bankers rule. That is, if tories keep being elected with the rich boy eton and elite college graduates being far more common in that party (and UKIP as the collecting pond of xenophobe tories).

*far more common in that party compared to the other parties

The UK will follow the policies of its elected government. If we don't like the Tories we can vote for Corbyn.

Isn't that guy who runs Britain in reality, Rupert Murdoch, doing everything to destroy Corbyn? I think Corbyn is awesome, apart from his EU opposition, but I don't see him ever becoming PM.

The role of Murdochs press in elections is becoming weaker and weaker. The internet currently means people read more off Twitter etc than the mainstream media. He managed to win the Labour leadership twice from this kind of grassroots networking.

Provided the censoring of the online stuff does not get more and more extreme I think the main stream media will get more and more irrelevant.

insider ..says what needs to be said..if we are not happy we vote for others..we cannot do that with junker?...as for this rightwing uk...yes i think it will go more that way..but i,ll fight it , but if that is the wish of the british people then so be it....
corbyn will never be elected..3.8m labour voters voted for brexit..he sticks 2 fingers up to them and democracy by saying he wants open borders.....ive come to belive he doesnot want to be elected?..he wants to protest not govern..no one could be so stupid.

Insider if was Bernie Sanders against Trump who would you support ?

anxious,
    insider is a trumpet, logic and truth matter not....

Anxious my interest would be limited. From a UK point of view Sanders would probably be better as less flawed. Not sure his domestic policies would be my choice. They are both anti-globalists from different angles.

if we are not happy we vote for others..we cannot do that with junker?

First of all you're, just like Insidertrader, heavily overestimating the role and power of the President of the EU Commission. Secondly, Juncker and Schulz both ran as candidates during the latest EU Parliament and from the get go it was said that the winning bloc of parties would get the EUC presidency. Juncker ran for the Christian democratic/conservative bloc, Schulz for the social democrats. The UK population in that regard was indeed disadvantaged because tories refused to participate in the conservative bloc. UK Labour, Lib Dems and Greens all had a candidate for EU Commission presidency. Christian democrats got most votes, hence Juncker became EU Commission president as had been said before the vote.

So the EU citizens can vote Juncker out at the next vote if they don't like him anymore (if your national parties aren't pricks and refuse to take part) It's not all that important however with the position's lack of power who sits on it.