Danish referendum decided by British bribes
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003551208843280
&rtmo=gwnZrrnu&atmo=rrrrrrvs&pg=/et/00/10/1/wdane01
.html>
Just like I said.
--
Lars Jørgen Helbo <la...@helbo.com>
http://mrohs-helbo.homepage.dk
http://haurumsall.cjb.net
http://www.salldata.dk
jdc
> Just like I said.
Wow, so maybe the yes side could only outspend the no by 10 to 1 instead of
11 to one.
What was the bribe? The adverts were to tell the Danes what their
politicians will not - that the leaders of Europe want a United States of
Europa. They deserve to know that, all of Europe deserves to know that, and
it doesn't matter who has to pay to tell them.
Sour grapes?
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<GuFB5.4449$L12.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>What was the bribe? The adverts were to tell the Danes what their
>politicians will not - that the leaders of Europe want a United States
>of Europa. They deserve to know that, all of Europe deserves to know
>that, and it doesn't matter who has to pay to tell them.
That is not the problem, the problem was that they were paid secretly.
Try to imagine that a US billionaire of Irish origin would secretly spend 5
million £ in support for a political party in the UK - a party that was in
favour of Irish reunification. I really don't think the proud British
people would like that? Or we could compare it to the US funding of the
IRA. "After all that only helps giving the IRA a fair chanca against the
British army".
And therefore even you should be able to understand that we don't like it
either.
I am pretty sure that you will see a strong reaction against in during the
coming days. During the past two days the no-side has demanded direct
influence on the future Danish EU-policy. IMO this disclosure could blow
their hopes for that.
Many of those, who voted no, will now feel betrayed and mislead. That way
it will make it a lot easier to get a new referendum ;-)
Richard Gregory
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003551208843280
> &rtmo=gwnZrrnu&atmo=rrrrrrvs&pg=/et/00/10/1/wdane01
> .html>
>
> Just like I said.
> --
Sorry in what way was this a bribe? I thought in democracies
people were free to give money to causes.
After all, taxpayer's money from every EU state goes to fund
things like the so called "information campaign" and the
European Movement.
jdc
> Sorry in what way was this a bribe?
> I thought in democracies
> people were free to give money to causes.
And in the EU we have free movement of capital :-)
What Lars means is "European referendum fought with European money"... he's
just trying to play up to the xenophobic element.
jdcxxx
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<39D785...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>Sorry in what way was this a bribe? I thought in democracies
>people were free to give money to causes.
There are two problems in this case. First of all the funding was kept
secret, which is actually illegal here.
Secondly we do not like it, when foreigners try to buy our democracy this
way. If the British are happy with their checkbook-democracy, that is your
problem, but please keep it inside your own borders.
Or are you happy, when americans send money to the IRA?
jdc
> Or are you happy, when americans send money to the IRA?
You see, what you're missing here, is that voting "no" is an act allowed by
the government, whereas blowing people up is considered naughty.
jdcxxx
Alex Tate
wrote:
>rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
><39D785...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
>>Sorry in what way was this a bribe? I thought in democracies
>>people were free to give money to causes.
>
>There are two problems in this case. First of all the funding was kept
>secret, which is actually illegal here.
>
>Secondly we do not like it, when foreigners try to buy our democracy this
>way. If the British are happy with their checkbook-democracy, that is your
>problem, but please keep it inside your own borders.
>
>Or are you happy, when americans send money to the IRA?
So you are now comparing the Danish 'No' movement to a terrorist
organization like the IRA.
By extension you are saying that over 53% of Danes were 'bought'. Are
you happy with the level of venality not to say lack of intelligence
you impute to those of your fellow countrymen who voted 'No'?
Alex
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<puOB5.5678$uq5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>You see, what you're missing here, is that voting "no" is an act allowed
>by the government, whereas blowing people up is considered naughty.
And what you are missing could be that the IRA never had a chance to use
democratic means - being banned from the press etc.
peter
<he...@bigfoot.com> stated: -
>john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in
><puOB5.5678$uq5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
>>You see, what you're missing here, is that voting "no" is an act allowed
>>by the government, whereas blowing people up is considered naughty.
>
>And what you are missing could be that the IRA never had a chance to use
>democratic means - being banned from the press etc.
" A Vision for Europe" - a major speech to The European Policy
Centre by the Prime Minister of Belgium [21/9/2000]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It was the initial impetus to the development of a community approach,
step by step forging the European integration by joining and sometimes
also by abolishing national sovereignty into a joint approach.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
Ireland - catastrophe
What do the authorities do about it? Nothing; that is the answer because
they no longer have the power to take action. Ireland needs an interest
rate
of around 8% but instead has the one set by the European Central Bank in
Frankfurt of 4.25% to suit the French and German economies. It cannot
alter
this. Irelandąs central bank governor, Maurice OąConnell, says ł"I keep
telling everyone it can't go on... There's nothing we can do. We can
take no
action on interest rates or exchange rates; they're gone. We can no
longer
put a cap on credit either. We have no corrective mechanism any more on
monetary policy." The governor of the European Central Bank, Wim
Duisenberg
says ł "There is nothing that the ECB can do about it," he claims,
"except
trying to convince the national authorities in Ireland that these
developments, which are indeed somewhat worrisome . . . that it's their
piece of cake [sic] to deal with." (If only it were a piece of cake.)
Because it cannot raise interest rates, Ireland's economy is "running
into
the buffers", according to Mark Wall of Deutsche Bank.. Mortgage rates
at
4% are 2% below inflation. So people are being paid to borrow money!.
And
borrowing money is precisely what they are doing!
Dictatorship
_->
One other section in the Nice proposals which we should milk for all its
worth, and one which I've not seen any comment on, is the new draft
Article
217, which says,
"The President shall determine the political orientation of the
Commission".
Just read that again slowly to let it sink in. What's that all about
then? Prodi will apparently be responsible for determining who shall
and who shall not sit as a Commission member. Unbelievable!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the
minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and
national identification."
Brock Chisholm, when director of UN World Health Organisation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
peter
till.ru...@number-two.com
I heard that UK contributed some £ 300,000 to the No-campaign, and that
there were some 4 million voters, about 3% of which swayed the outcome
of the referendum. Now this means £ 300 000 / ( 4 000 000 * 3 / 100 )
= £ 2.50 per vote. Therefore people whose vote decided the outcome
changed their opinion for as little money as they would spend on a box
of condomes - hardly a ringing endorsement for the success of the 'No'
campaign.
:-)
--
--- Till Ruessmann ---
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sean...@my-deja.com
till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> In article <21lftske79g92sbcp...@4ax.com>,
> Alex Tate <on...@crotalus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
that
> there were some 4 million voters, about 3% of which swayed the outcome
> of the referendum. Now this means £ 300 000 / ( 4 000 000 * 3 / 100 )
> = £ 2.50 per vote. Therefore people whose vote decided the outcome
> changed their opinion for as little money as they would spend on a box
> of condomes - hardly a ringing endorsement for the success of the 'No'
> campaign.
>
Are all "Yes" campaigners as sour and bitter as you and Lars?
till.ru...@number-two.com
sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8r9lh1$8q6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > In article <21lftske79g92sbcp...@4ax.com>,
> > Alex Tate <on...@crotalus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> that
> > there were some 4 million voters, about 3% of which swayed the
outcome
> > of the referendum. Now this means £ 300 000 / ( 4 000 000 * 3 /
100 )
> > = £ 2.50 per vote. Therefore people whose vote decided the outcome
> > changed their opinion for as little money as they would spend on a
box
> > of condomes - hardly a ringing endorsement for the success of
the 'No'
> > campaign.
> >
>
> Are all "Yes" campaigners as sour and bitter as you and Lars?
Are you from Germany ? Your humour seems to be a bit teutonic.
jdc
> And what you are missing could
> be that the IRA never had a chance to use
> democratic means
That's because, by their own admission, they are an "army", not a "party".
If people want to *vote* for a united Ireland, rather than *bomb* for it,
they have Sinn Fein.
> - being banned from the press etc.
Myth.
jdcxxx
till.ru...@number-two.com
> <puOB5.5678$uq5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
> >You see, what you're missing here, is that voting "no" is an act
allowed
> >by the government, whereas blowing people up is considered naughty.
>
> And what you are missing could be that the IRA never had a chance to
use
> democratic means - being banned from the press etc.
Democratic rights only to those who follow the democratic rules! The
IRA are terrorists, please define how you want to grant them democratic
rights.
sean...@my-deja.com
till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> In article <8r9qm4$c8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8r9lh1$8q6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > > In article <21lftske79g92sbcp...@4ax.com>,
> > > Alex Tate <on...@crotalus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > that
> > > there were some 4 million voters, about 3% of which swayed the
> outcome
> > > of the referendum. Now this means £ 300 000 / ( 4 000 000 * 3 /
> 100 )
> > > = £ 2.50 per vote. Therefore people whose vote decided the outcome
> > > changed their opinion for as little money as they would spend on a
> box
> > > of condomes - hardly a ringing endorsement for the success of
> the 'No'
> > > campaign.
> > >
> >
> > Are all "Yes" campaigners as sour and bitter as you and Lars?
>
> Are you from Germany ? Your humour seems to be a bit teutonic.
No. My question still stands however.
till.ru...@number-two.com
sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8r9usn$f7v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > In article <8r9qm4$c8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8r9lh1$8q6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > > > In article <21lftske79g92sbcp...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Alex Tate <on...@crotalus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
and
> > > that
> > > > there were some 4 million voters, about 3% of which swayed the
> > outcome
> > > > of the referendum. Now this means £ 300 000 / ( 4 000 000 * 3 /
> > 100 )
> > > > = £ 2.50 per vote. Therefore people whose vote decided the
outcome
> > > > changed their opinion for as little money as they would spend
on a
> > box
> > > > of condomes - hardly a ringing endorsement for the success of
> > the 'No'
> > > > campaign.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are all "Yes" campaigners as sour and bitter as you and Lars?
> >
> > Are you from Germany ? Your humour seems to be a bit teutonic.
>
> No. My question still stands however.
Then let it stand erect and be bitter and sour !
Richard Gregory
>
> >What was the bribe? The adverts were to tell the Danes what their
> >politicians will not - that the leaders of Europe want a United States
> >of Europa. They deserve to know that, all of Europe deserves to know
> >that, and it doesn't matter who has to pay to tell them.
>
> That is not the problem, the problem was that they were paid secretly.
>
> Try to imagine that a US billionaire of Irish origin would secretly spend 5
> million £ in support for a political party in the UK - a party that was in
> favour of Irish reunification. I really don't think the proud British
> people would like that?
I think you'd be surprised how many British people see Northern
Ireland as a problem rather than something to be held onto at all
costs. It's expensive and causes endless problems. But as for
such a campaign, I personally would have no objections to it.
> Or we could compare it to the US funding of the
> IRA. "After all that only helps giving the IRA a fair chanca against the
> British army".
Well, it would if the RoI was in a state of war with Britain; otherwise,
it's simply funding of a group whose actions were regarded as illegal
by their own Government.
> And therefore even you should be able to understand that we don't like it
> either.
You might not like it, but it's certainly not illegal or immoral.
Why not think of it as a European giving money to other Europeans?
Isn't that the idea of the EU...you know, all Europeans...leaving
our nationalisms behind...free movement of money...blah blah...
> I am pretty sure that you will see a strong reaction against in during the
> coming days. During the past two days the no-side has demanded direct
> influence on the future Danish EU-policy. IMO this disclosure could blow
> their hopes for that.
> Many of those, who voted no, will now feel betrayed and mislead. That way
> it will make it a lot easier to get a new referendum ;-)
Yes yes, I'm sure this is as accurate as your prediction that the vote
was going to be a yes..
I'm not sure why this money should suddenly make what the no side was
saying wrong.
Bob Spowart
The infamous Eurinal Lars Jørgen Helbo wrote in message
<8FC150C55l...@192.168.0.1>...
>john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in
><puOB5.5678$uq5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
>>You see, what you're missing here, is that voting "no" is an act allowed
>>by the government, whereas blowing people up is considered naughty.
>
>And what you are missing could be that the IRA never had a chance to use
>democratic means - being banned from the press etc.
Are they?? News to me.
Bob
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Yes yes, I'm sure this is as accurate as your prediction that the vote
>was going to be a yes..
That is quiet simple. I thought we were going to have a fair and democratic
referendum. I had never ever thought the British would buy out our
democrathy. But it seems the British conservatives are now satisfied, that
the Danish no was worth the money they paid for it.
Richard Gregory
>
> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
> <39D8D4...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Yes yes, I'm sure this is as accurate as your prediction that the vote
> >was going to be a yes..
>
> That is quiet simple. I thought we were going to have a fair and democratic
> referendum.
And you got one.
> I had never ever thought the British would buy out our
> democrathy.
They didn't. You obviously have a very poor view of your own democracy -
and the Danish people - if you think otherwise. I'd like you to list
the number of people who voted No because they were paid to do so.
Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission funded
propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states - which
you've conveniently snipped. Maybe you can't answer those. Or how
about my point about "what's wrong with one European donating
his own money to other Europeans?". Can't people in two democracies
do that? Isn't that one of the fundamental concepts of the EU?
If you can't accept this sort of thing, maybe you should
campaign to have things like international charities or
movements like Greenpeace or the European Movement banned
in Denmark; they operate under the same principle.
On the other hand, maybe you've just got a really bad case of sour
grapes. Your posts show the typical symptoms: sulky, ignoring things
you don't like or can't answer, calling people (fellow Danes)
nasty names like "loosers", empty rhetoric "we will win in the
end" and grasping at straws like "British bribes". ROTFL!
> But it seems the British conservatives are now satisfied, that
> the Danish no was worth the money they paid for it.
Hilarious!
Why don't you move to a euroland country Lars? I'm sure you'd
be happier there.
jdc
> That is quiet simple. I thought we
> were going to have a fair and democratic
> referendum.
Yawn. "Yes" spent more than "No", so the referendum was not decided by
money - anyone's money. Compris?
jdcxxx
Martin Rytter Jensen
> Yawn. "Yes" spent more than "No", so the referendum was not decided by
> money - anyone's money. Compris?
- To some point yes. However - It has been very clear thoughout the campain
that everyone seemed to agree that outsiders should not interfere with our
referendum. Both the yes and no side had turned down offers of support from
the outside (and broken it a little from time to time) - however - the
problem is not the money - the problem is that is was an outsider.
You might say does it matter - and yes - it matters very much. It would also
matter if the money came to the yes side. And yes - the yes side had lost
quite a lot of support because they have recieved founding from the EU. So
would the NO side - if it had come to a day before.
Cheers
/Martin
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission funded
>propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states -
For which you have never brought any documentation. There was no commission
funded propaganda in the campaign for the referendum, please prove your
statement or stop telling these lies.
>If you can't accept this sort of thing, maybe you should
>campaign to have things like international charities or
>movements like Greenpeace or the European Movement banned
>in Denmark; they operate under the same principle.
No, they do not. They tell that they are campaigning and they tell, where
they get their money from. This is in no way comparable to a coward like mr
Sykes.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<8rb6mj$5b1$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>:
>- To some point yes. However - It has been very clear thoughout the
>campain that everyone seemed to agree that outsiders should not
>interfere with our referendum. Both the yes and no side had turned down
>offers of support from the outside (and broken it a little from time to
>time) - however - the problem is not the money - the problem is that is
>was an outsider.
AND because it was kept secret.
till.ru...@number-two.com
> <39D903...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>
> >Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission funded
> >propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states -
>
> For which you have never brought any documentation. There was no
commission
> funded propaganda in the campaign for the referendum, please prove
your
> statement or stop telling these lies.
Any information material the EU publishes in which it states it's
raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between what
is information material and propaganda is a very fine one because you
can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
particularly if this information is used selectively.
peter
stated: -
>In article <8FC259CC4l...@192.168.0.1>,
> he...@bigfoot.com (Lars Jørgen Helbo) wrote:
>> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk (Richard Gregory) wrote in
>> <39D903...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>>
>> >Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission funded
>> >propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states -
>>
>> For which you have never brought any documentation. There was no
>commission
>> funded propaganda in the campaign for the referendum, please prove
>your
>> statement or stop telling these lies.
>
>Any information material the EU publishes in which it states it's
>raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between what
>is information material and propaganda is a very fine one
it does not exist - see below
> because you
>can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
>particularly if this information is used selectively.
>
>--
> --- Till Ruessmann ---
>
>
A word in defence of propaganda - please remember the word propaganda
does not mean lies. Propaganda is the literature or medium used to
transmit information, a process of spreading opinions. It originated in
a particular congregation of the Roman Catholic church in 1622 which was
charged with the spreading of the Roman Catholic faith [de propaganda
fide or concerning the faith to be propagated].
I merely add this as a caveat in order to not let our side NO think that
we do not propagandise at every convenient time and place and that the
YES side always lie. In the UK pro EU propaganda may conceal the whole
truth most of the time and contain some serious lies but on the
continent they are much more honest in their desire for a single Europe
and a single European Government, Army, Legislature, Revenue etc.
It is just that, well, we prefer freedom.
Chris Wright
"Lars Jørgen Helbo" wrote:
> Take a look at this:
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003551208843280
> &rtmo=gwnZrrnu&atmo=rrrrrrvs&pg=/et/00/10/1/wdane01
> .html>
>
> Just like I said.
> --
As I understand it the advertisements were simply quotes from top
European politicians. How on Earth can you object to that? Perhaps you
should compliment Paul Sykes for using his money to spread knowledge of
the European Union. In fact, as a citizen of the European Union, it was
his duty!
Or can it be that the yes campaign were trying to suppress the obvious
truth? Fortunately the Danish people were not so easily deceived.
Best regards,
Chris
Richard Buttrey
wrote:
>john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in
><puOB5.5678$uq5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
>>You see, what you're missing here, is that voting "no" is an act allowed
>>by the government, whereas blowing people up is considered naughty.
>
>And what you are missing could be that the IRA never had a chance to use
>democratic means - being banned from the press etc.
What on earth are you babbling about Lars?
There was a time when IRA / Sinn Fein spokesmen were prevented from
having their own voices used in propaganda broadcasts, but there words
were heard spoken by others, and there has never been a time when they
were not reported.
You've presumably forgotten that Adams and McGuiness had access to the
ultimate democratic process - their right to occupy a seat in the
House of Commons. That they chose not to take up their right is hardly
a denial of democracy.
I sense a whiff of sour grapes following last weeks mandate from
Denmark.
Rgds
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>Any information material the EU publishes in which it states it's
>raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between what
>is information material and propaganda is a very fine one because you
>can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
>particularly if this information is used selectively.
This is absolutely correct, but even totally objective information-material
did not play _any_ role in the campaign before the referendum.
I am pretty sick and tired of these stuck-up englishmen, who think they
know everything about how things are and work in my country, even though
they have never been here and do not understand the language.
Maybe they could get away with this attitude in the days of the empire,
when Britain was still a big power. But it is about time that they learn to
be a little more humble. After all the UK is now just another small
European country.
till.ru...@number-two.com
peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8rc82v$bhm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, till.ruessmann@number-
> >> <39D903...@interalpha.co.uk>:
> >>
> >> >Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission funded
> >> >propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states -
> >>
> >> For which you have never brought any documentation. There was no
> >commission
> >> funded propaganda in the campaign for the referendum, please prove
> >your
> >> statement or stop telling these lies.
> >
> >raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between what
> >is information material and propaganda is a very fine one
>
>
> >can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
> >particularly if this information is used selectively.
> >
> > --- Till Ruessmann ---
> >
>
> >
>
> A word in defence of propaganda - please remember the word propaganda
> does not mean lies. Propaganda is the literature or medium used to
> transmit information, a process of spreading opinions. It originated
in
> a particular congregation of the Roman Catholic church in 1622 which
was
> charged with the spreading of the Roman Catholic faith [de propaganda
> fide or concerning the faith to be propagated].
>
> I merely add this as a caveat in order to not let our side NO think
that
> we do not propagandise at every convenient time and place and that the
> YES side always lie. In the UK pro EU propaganda may conceal the
whole
> truth most of the time and contain some serious lies but on the
> continent they are much more honest in their desire for a single
Europe
> and a single European Government, Army, Legislature, Revenue etc.
>
> It is just that, well, we prefer freedom.
>
>
What an open refreshing, honest view on propaganda. I like your last
sentence most, though. That's in itself could have been copied from a
text book by Goebbels - or Saatchi & Saatchi.
--
--- Till Ruessmann ---
Lars Jørgen Helbo
@nospamkline.demon.co.uk>:
> As I understand it the advertisements were simply quotes from top
>European politicians. How on Earth can you object to that? Perhaps you
>should compliment Paul Sykes for using his money to spread knowledge of
>the European Union. In fact, as a citizen of the European Union, it was
>his duty!
> Or can it be that the yes campaign were trying to suppress the obvious
>truth? Fortunately the Danish people were not so easily deceived.
Well, if Paul Sykes was just trying to inform the Danish people about the
truth. Why did he have to lie about the origin of the money? Before the
referendum it was publicly declared that these advertisements were financed
with a large number of small contributions, of which _NONE_ were above 20£.
Today Frank Dahlgaard (his Danish puppet) says that Paul Sykes spend
200.000 £, and that he (Frank Dahlgaard) got the money without any
conditions for their use, and that he ordered and designed the adverts. In
contrast to this Paul Sykes says the amount was above 500.000 £ and that he
ordered and designed the advertisements.
It is obvious that they were both liing before the referendum, and it is
obvious that at least one of them is continuing to lie, why?
peter
stated: -
what, the part about us preferring freedom?
>--
> --- Till Ruessmann ---
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
peter
peter
<he...@bigfoot.com> stated: -
>till.ru...@number-two.com wrote in <8rc82v$bhm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>Any information material the EU publishes in which it states it's
>>raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between what
>>can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
>>particularly if this information is used selectively.
>
>did not play _any_ role in the campaign before the referendum.
>
>I am pretty sick and tired of these stuck-up englishmen,
it's Englishmen with a capital E
>who think they
>know everything about how things are and work in my country, even though
>they have never been here and do not understand the language.
I worked for a Jutland based company for 5 years.
I stayed in the Limfjordshotel in Aalborg -
I clubbed at the Ambassadors
I drank your Gameldansk and your aqavit - you Faxe beer and your
Elephant beer -
Don't tell me I don't know Denmark -
I stayed at Nyhaven and the Admirals Hotels in Copenhagen
I also worked with a Danish woman in Africa -
I know Denmark and the people love freedom - the EU will take their
freedom away. simple.
>
>Maybe they could get away with this attitude in the days of the empire,
>when Britain was still a big power. But it is about time that they learn to
>be a little more humble. After all the UK is now just another small
>European country.
with the fourth largest economy in the world
the largest contributor to the EU after Germany
a population of 60 million souls
Go scratch!
--
peter
till.ru...@number-two.com
>
> >Any information material the EU publishes in which it states it's
> >raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between what
> >is information material and propaganda is a very fine one because you
> >can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
> >particularly if this information is used selectively.
>
> This is absolutely correct, but even totally objective information-
material
> did not play _any_ role in the campaign before the referendum.
>
they
> know everything about how things are and work in my country, even
though
> they have never been here and do not understand the language.
It's usually the Germans who always know better (according to English
knowledge) :-)
>
> Maybe they could get away with this attitude in the days of the
empire,
> when Britain was still a big power. But it is about time that they
learn to
> be a little more humble. After all the UK is now just another small
> European country.
A lot of the things they say is meant only half as serious as it may
come across to the Continentals. They like ribbing (just consider the
opposition leader who is a joke incarnate).
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<XGZJFABv...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>:
>I know Denmark and the people love freedom
Exactly, fredom from foreign interference, e.g. from the UK.
>with the fourth largest economy in the world
>the largest contributor to the EU after Germany
>a population of 60 million souls
Somehow you remind me of the Russians. They also still believe that they
are still a superpower ;-)
till.ru...@number-two.com
peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8rceto$g24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, till.ruessmann@number-
two.com
> stated: -
> >In article <kwglY+DI$a25...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>,
> > peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <8rc82v$bhm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, till.ruessmann@number-
> >two.com
> >> stated: -
> >> >> <39D903...@interalpha.co.uk>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission
funded
> >> >> >propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states -
> >> >>
> >> >> For which you have never brought any documentation. There was no
> >> >commission
> >> >> funded propaganda in the campaign for the referendum, please
prove
> >> >your
> >> >> statement or stop telling these lies.
> >> >
> >> >raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between
what
> >> >is information material and propaganda is a very fine one
> >>
> >>
> >> >can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
> >> >particularly if this information is used selectively.
> >> >
> >> > --- Till Ruessmann ---
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
Yes. It's a bit like Freiheit statt Sozialism. Did you not realize?
Gosh, you must have fallen victim to your own propaganda then(unless
you really believed what you wrote beforehand).
Lars Jørgen Helbo
>A lot of the things they say is meant only half as serious as it may
>come across to the Continentals. They like ribbing (just consider the
>opposition leader who is a joke incarnate).
I know yes - both of it ;-). However, sometimes I can not help getting a
bit tired of this attitude. It is OK to exchange a few jokes, and Danes
also like being ironic.
The problem is, if this is _all_ there is - if it is impossible to have a
serious discussion, because they just have to put in their oh so funny
jokes again and again.
till.ru...@number-two.com
>
> >A lot of the things they say is meant only half as serious as it may
> >come across to the Continentals. They like ribbing (just consider the
> >opposition leader who is a joke incarnate).
>
> I know yes - both of it ;-). However, sometimes I can not help
getting a
> bit tired of this attitude. It is OK to exchange a few jokes, and
Danes
> also like being ironic.
>
> The problem is, if this is _all_ there is - if it is impossible to
have a
> serious discussion, because they just have to put in their oh so
funny
> jokes again and again.
No, you must not say this - otherwise you are a proof that you have no
sense of humour.
I do not agree that what you are saying is true for this NG as a whole.
peter
stated: -
>In article <LGQOV+AL...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>,
> peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <8rceto$g24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, till.ruessmann@number-
>two.com
>> stated: -
>> >In article <kwglY+DI$a25...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>,
>> > peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In article <8rc82v$bhm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, till.ruessmann@number-
>> >two.com
>> >> stated: -
>> >> >> <39D903...@interalpha.co.uk>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Not to mention the points I've raised about the Commission
>funded
>> >> >> >propaganda - funded by the taxpayers of all the EU states -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For which you have never brought any documentation. There was no
>> >> >commission
>> >> >> funded propaganda in the campaign for the referendum, please
>prove
>> >> >your
>> >> >> statement or stop telling these lies.
>> >> >
>> >> >Any information material the EU publishes in which it states it's
>> >> >raison d'etre and objectives is paid by the EU. The line between
>what
>> >> >is information material and propaganda is a very fine one
>> >>
>> >> it does not exist - see below
>> >>
>> >> > because you
>> >> >can always claim that information in itself is propaganda -
>> >> >particularly if this information is used selectively.
>> >> >
>> >> > --- Till Ruessmann ---
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
> --- Till Ruessmann ---
>
Till I am no socialist.
The foundation does not stand-alone for there are many more layers of
lies to expose. Ted Heath's biographer stated "that parliament in
1971 and the country in 1975 was hoodwinked into signing up for more
than it was ever told". Sir Roger Tomkys a civil servant involved in
the Labour referendum campaign and who at that time was pro-European;
said 'the Labour government's referendum of 1975 was a fraud
perpetrated by civil servants with the [then] government's connivance,
designed (rightly in my opinion - RT) to keep us in but also (wrongly)
to conceal as far as possible the countervailing disadvantages of
membership'. More recently from a recent interview with Klaus Kinkel
(NRC Handelsblad, January31st 1998): about the German government trying
to convert the German people to the EMU] comes the following gem which
exemplifies the EU's Master's definition of democracy. The interviewer
is "Q":
Q.: But citizens do not understand what the politicians do.
A.: "There is a communications problem, apparently. How are the opinion
polls in the Netherlands?"
Q.: More than half wants to keep the Guilder, according to a recent
poll.
A.: "Well, OK. Then, politicians should have the courage to take
decisions, if necessary against the
will of the people."
Q.: Excuse me?
A.: "With the consent of Parliament of course."
till.ru...@number-two.com
peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8rcpi1$olj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, till.ruessmann@number-
That's rather clear to me. My quote Freiheit statt Sozialism (which
means "freedom instead of socialism" which no doubt you will have
gathered yourself already) refers to a clever election campaign by the
CDU (the Tory counterpart in Germany) in the '70. This associated the
SDP (the German Labour) with the socialist regimes in the east.
>
> The foundation does not stand-alone for there are many more layers of
> lies to expose. Ted Heath's biographer stated "that parliament in
> 1971 and the country in 1975 was hoodwinked into signing up for more
> than it was ever told".
A view not shared by all respectable sources. Last week's Economist
included an article about the greatest UK politicians, with Attlee and
Thatcher in the lead, followed by Edward Heath (even before Churchill).
> Sir Roger Tomkys a civil servant involved in
> the Labour referendum campaign and who at that time was pro-European;
> said 'the Labour government's referendum of 1975 was a fraud
> perpetrated by civil servants with the [then] government's connivance,
> designed (rightly in my opinion - RT) to keep us in but also (wrongly)
> to conceal as far as possible the countervailing disadvantages of
> membership'.
How terrible! Yet I am not quite sure what you are trying to say, other
than some wailing about the immorality of British governments. Or is
this another attempt to make up an equation like 'Heath lied for the
EEC, therefore the EU as a whole is bad'.
> More recently from a recent interview with Klaus Kinkel
> (NRC Handelsblad, January31st 1998): about the German government
trying
> to convert the German people to the EMU] comes the following gem which
> exemplifies the EU's Master's definition of democracy. The
interviewer
> is "Q":
> Q.: But citizens do not understand what the politicians do.
> A.: "There is a communications problem, apparently. How are the
opinion
> polls in the Netherlands?"
> Q.: More than half wants to keep the Guilder, according to a recent
> poll.
> A.: "Well, OK. Then, politicians should have the courage to take
> decisions, if necessary against the
> will of the people."
> Q.: Excuse me?
> A.: "With the consent of Parliament of course."
Mr Kinkel is known as a not so astute politician, and this was a slip
of his tongue. What he meant was that politicians should stand up and
say what they believe should be done, even if this does not make them
popular. That's probably not quite the way how a certain carnevale
politician in the UK would define politics.
--
--- Till Ruessmann ---
till.ru...@number-two.com
I think it is perfectly legitimate for Paul Sykes to spend £200K-500K
on the referendum. He did the same thing in the UK (at the last
election Mr Sykes bankrolled those who would break party policy by
opposing British entry to the euro).
Probably he will get a peerage in the UK like Lord Ashcroft for
transfering the money from the Democracy Movement to the Tories.
Willem Hoogerbrugge
"proudness". Wat was it that just-elected-prime-minister Tony Blair said to
the whole of Europe? "We are the third european country with the most
poors." (oh, sorry Peter, I forgot the "capital" E with europeans). That
is likely different to what Peter said, "We are the fourth largest economy
in the world". It also contrasts with the better continental European social
welfarestates.
Yours Edward,
peter
<WimHoog...@hetnet.nl> stated: -
>Perhaps I may contribute to this dialogue. To enlarge the continental
>"proudness". Wat was it that just-elected-prime-minister Tony Blair said to
>the whole of Europe? "We are the third european country with the most
>poors."
I know Blair is an idiot but surely he speaks better English than that?
> (oh, sorry Peter, I forgot the "capital" E with europeans)
E = European = free men = nations
EU = Evil Union
>. That
>is likely different to what Peter said, "We are the fourth largest economy
>in the world". It also contrasts with the better continental European social
>welfarestates.
>
welfare............... fare well......... we are leaving!
>Yours Edward,
>
>
--
peter
Alex Tate
<WimHoog...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> It also contrasts with the better continental European social
>welfarestates.
>
>Yours Edward,
It also contrasts with the exorbitant social security deductions from
peoples' salaries in many european (small 'e') countries, the high
taxation on businesses and high level of personal taxation in most of
them, and with the grossly if notdownright negligently underfunded
state pension funds in the likes of Germany. Not to mention rigid
labour markets, protectionism and prehistoric business practices.
It's called poor economic management. The Euroruble is down again
today, are you at all surprised?
Alex
>
Alex Tate
wrote:
[snip]
>Today Frank Dahlgaard (his Danish puppet) says that Paul Sykes spend
>200.000 £, and that he (Frank Dahlgaard) got the money without any
>conditions for their use,.......
Why do I have the horrible feeling that this anglophobe and bitter
Dane would have felt much happier serving his foreign masters in the
danish puppet regime of the 1940s.
rudi breens
"Alex Tate" <on...@crotalus.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:nbcktsoa22ptv9ack...@4ax.com...
It is clear that you "live on an island"... But your right on the taxation:
it pay around 60 percent of tax... as a worker! The rich do not pay anything
here.
>
> Alex
> >
>
Willem Hoogerbrugge
O' course I know, but I am therefore not a "Brit"
> > (oh, sorry Peter, I forgot the "capital" E with europeans)
>
> E = European = free men = nations
>
> EU = Evil Union
Oh sorry, Peter, I always learned at secundary school that EU means,
European Union, and as you say that European is free men. We are the most
free continent in the whole world
> >. That
> >is likely different to what Peter said, "We are the fourth largest
economy
> >in the world". It also contrasts with the better continental European
social
> >welfarestates.
> >
>
> welfare............... fare well......... we are leaving!
That would be a pity for a lot of people in Britain who really believe in
Europe and a free and liberal European Union.
Yours, Edward, owner of the estate.
Lars Jørgen Helbo
<eIRSHNWLAHA.179@net003s>:
>Perhaps I may contribute to this dialogue. To enlarge the continental
>"proudness". Wat was it that just-elected-prime-minister Tony Blair said
>to the whole of Europe? "We are the third european country with the most
>poors." (oh, sorry Peter, I forgot the "capital" E with europeans).
>That is likely different to what Peter said, "We are the fourth largest
>economy in the world". It also contrasts with the better continental
>European social welfarestates.
I can only agree to this. Before the referendum there were many discussions
about the welfare-state and a lot of comparing to other EU-countries, and
it me it seems obvious that the level og welfare throughtout the EU is
about the same. We have rich and poor countries of course, we may also have
different traditions on financing etc.; but the very basic approach to
welfare is about the same - the UK is however one big exemption from the
rule, and it seems to me that the UK in this respect has a lot more in
common with the US. Or shoudl we say that the UK is somewhere in the middle
between EU and US.
till.ru...@number-two.com
peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <eIRSHNWLAHA.179@net003s>, Willem Hoogerbrugge
> <WimHoog...@hetnet.nl> stated: -
> >"proudness". Wat was it that just-elected-prime-minister Tony Blair
said to
> >the whole of Europe? "We are the third european country with the most
> >poors."
>
that?
>
>
> E = European = free men = nations
>
> EU = Evil Union
>
> >is likely different to what Peter said, "We are the fourth largest
economy
> >in the world". It also contrasts with the better continental
European social
> >welfarestates.
> >
>
Back to the good ole days of Dickens! Without the workhouses of course,
only evil comes out of those socialist institutions.
Till M Ruessmann
"Alex Tate" <on...@crotalus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ebdktsosilq38r6r6...@4ax.com...
Perhaps because you are mentally stuck in the '40?
Richard Buttrey
<ad...@sleipner.dk> wrote:
>
>> Yawn. "Yes" spent more than "No", so the referendum was not decided by
>> money - anyone's money. Compris?
>
>- To some point yes. However - It has been very clear thoughout the campain
>that everyone seemed to agree that outsiders should not interfere with our
>referendum. Both the yes and no side had turned down offers of support from
>the outside (and broken it a little from time to time) - however - the
>problem is not the money - the problem is that is was an outsider.
Am I the only one to detect a rich irony here?
The europhiles, who would have us all as one happy nation ruled from
Brussels / Strasbourg / Frankfurt, are nevertless feeling miffed that
another fellow European dares to have a say in the common goal towards
which they are driving?
Bah, humbug.
Rgds,
till.ru...@number-two.com
On the other hand how does it come that the One Great English Nation
Party that is so fervently against outside influence allows donations
coming in from abroad to determine domestic politics?
IMO it is hypocracy to lament about influence from Frankfurt/Brussels
etc.
Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
Phil Neal
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
news:8resh0$gm9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> On the other hand how does it come that the One Great English Nation
> Party that is so fervently against outside influence allows donations
> coming in from abroad to determine domestic politics?
>
> IMO it is hypocracy to lament about influence from Frankfurt/Brussels
> etc.
Possibly because they are not opposed to outside influence as such, but to
the federalist demand that only left wing countries be allowed to have
influence here.
Philip Neal
till.ru...@number-two.com
To my mind Europe is one country.I do not have any problem if an
individual or an organisation from one EU country donates to another
(without breeching local donation policies). With Mr - sorry - Lord
Ashcroft that's not the case, his money cames from a tax haven. No
wonder that the Tories are so opposed to the EU which is trying to
close such loop holes.
BTW - you seem to simplify. Left = federal = bad, Right = national =
good. May I remind you that in many EU countries such as France &
Germany it were the conservatives who set up the EU (or EEC) agenda?
Perhaps this simplification helps you in coming to terms with the
complexities of today's world, but some may find it rather offending.
sean...@my-deja.com
> > Possibly because they are not opposed to outside influence as such,
> but to
> > the federalist demand that only left wing countries be allowed to
have
> > influence here.
>
> To my mind Europe is one country.
Do you really think that say the average Swede and the average Greek
see themselves as belonging to one country?
I do not have any problem if an
> individual or an organisation from one EU country donates to another
> (without breeching local donation policies). With Mr - sorry - Lord
> Ashcroft that's not the case, his money cames from a tax haven.
Why should that make any difference to the principle?
till.ru...@number-two.com
sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Possibly because they are not opposed to outside influence as
such,
> > but to
> > > the federalist demand that only left wing countries be allowed to
> have
> > > influence here.
> >
> > To my mind Europe is one country.
>
> Do you really think that say the average Swede and the average Greek
> see themselves as belonging to one country?
>
> I do not have any problem if an
> > individual or an organisation from one EU country donates to another
> > (without breeching local donation policies). With Mr - sorry - Lord
> > Ashcroft that's not the case, his money cames from a tax haven.
>
> Why should that make any difference to the principle?
Good question. It's just that many countries would frown upon if
foreign countries tried to influence. Come to think of it I would not
have any problem in abolishing this altogether. Of course it should be
published who donated.
--
--- Till Ruessmann ---
Phil Neal
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
news:8rfeav$u68$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8rfb3d$abd$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>,
> > > IMO it is hypocracy to lament about influence from
> Frankfurt/Brussels
> > > etc.
> >
> but to
> > the federalist demand that only left wing countries be allowed to have
> > influence here.
>
> individual or an organisation from one EU country donates to another
> (without breeching local donation policies). With Mr - sorry - Lord
> wonder that the Tories are so opposed to the EU which is trying to
> close such loop holes.
You are conceding exactly what I said, that the aims of the EU
conflict with the aims of conservatism. It stands for high taxation,
regulation, corporatism, protectionism and the general crippling
of enterprise.
> BTW - you seem to simplify. Left = federal = bad, Right = national =
> good. May I remind you that in many EU countries such as France &
> Germany it were the conservatives who set up the EU (or EEC) agenda?
I have many times demonstrated in postings to this newsgroup that
the allegedly conservative parties of the continent are not conservative.
> Perhaps this simplification helps you in coming to terms with the
> complexities of today's world, but some may find it rather offending.
It isn't complex, it is very simple. Conservatives have no allies in the EU
and if we want to escape from permanent, constitutionally entrenched
socialism we have to leave it.
Philip Neal
till.ru...@number-two.com
"Phil Neal" <pn...@interxtechnology.com> wrote:
>
> <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
> news:8rfeav$u68$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8rfb3d$abd$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>,
> > > > IMO it is hypocracy to lament about influence from
> > Frankfurt/Brussels
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > Possibly because they are not opposed to outside influence as
such,
> > but to
> > > the federalist demand that only left wing countries be allowed to
have
> > > influence here.
> >
> > To my mind Europe is one country.I do not have any problem if an
> > individual or an organisation from one EU country donates to another
> > (without breeching local donation policies). With Mr - sorry - Lord
> > Ashcroft that's not the case, his money cames from a tax haven. No
> > wonder that the Tories are so opposed to the EU which is trying to
> > close such loop holes.
>
> You are conceding exactly what I said, that the aims of the EU
> conflict with the aims of conservatism. It stands for high taxation,
> regulation, corporatism, protectionism and the general crippling
> of enterprise.
Apparently you defend the principles of dodging taxes. BTW - in some
important respects entrepreneurial conditions are becoming better in
Germany than in the UK - or even the US.
Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK was
20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe. Perhaps the English
perception of the world moves on in quantum leaps. 1940, 1990, etc.
>
> > BTW - you seem to simplify. Left = federal = bad, Right = national =
> > good. May I remind you that in many EU countries such as France &
> > Germany it were the conservatives who set up the EU (or EEC) agenda?
>
> I have many times demonstrated in postings to this newsgroup that
> the allegedly conservative parties of the continent are not
conservative.
So they are left? Anyway I wonder what Conservatism is (and what left
and right etc.). Not that I like T Blair's definition either.
>
> > Perhaps this simplification helps you in coming to terms with the
> > complexities of today's world, but some may find it rather
offending.
>
> It isn't complex, it is very simple. Conservatives have no allies in
the EU
> and if we want to escape from permanent, constitutionally entrenched
> socialism we have to leave it.
Conservatives do not seem to have allies in their own country. All the
other stuff in your last paragraph is unreflected nonsense, because you
you have not considered many other facets that in many respects make
life on the Continent more worthwhile than in the UK. Not that I agree
with any of the facets you did mention.
Perhaps you have experience from life on the Continent. I for my part
can make an informed decision between the UK way of life, a decision
that is not based on prejudices or on non sensical socialism versus
conservatism rubbish.
Willem Hoogerbrugge
himself.....................................................................
......................
Fred Blogs
>Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
>treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
powers?
Fred
Fred Blogs, London, UK
fredb...@hotmail.com
=========================================
The regulation of the EC bureaucracy by
the democratically elected EP must be the
indispensible first condition for further
integration and/or extension of the EU.
=========================================
Fred Blogs
>Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK was
>20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe.
I'm glad someone mentioned this. In the last twenty years the UK has
embarked on a policy of lower taxation and lower governmental spending,
the result is that the "sickness" has ended. It is now Euro-Land that
is the sick man of Europe. There is no way the British are going to
vote to return to that state.
Fred Blogs
>I am pretty sick and tired of these stuck-up englishmen, who think they
>know everything about how things are and work in my country, even though
>they have never been here and do not understand the language.
>
>Maybe they could get away with this attitude in the days of the empire,
>when Britain was still a big power. But it is about time that they learn to
>be a little more humble. After all the UK is now just another small
>European country.
>-
A country of some sixty million people. Maybe we should have minded our
own business in 1939?
Probably the main reason for a possible British NO vote will be this
prejudicial paranoia against the Anglo Saxons. After the initial double
rejection of Britons application by Charles de Gaul, (we didn't sign up
until *after* he died), to be followed by ten years of intense hostility
by Margaret Thatcher, we are now known as "Bad Europeans".
This is NOT something to sign up to, it is something to withdraw from.
Europe is *not* the only option for the UK. Britain developed
independently of Europe for centuries, we could adapt to that situation
again. A US senator did a study to show that the UK would initially
loose out by leaving the EU for the North American trading block. But
in the longer term we would be hitched to the most efficient economy of
all time.
Lucky Larry
Fred Blogs <Fred...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fHqGuDAu...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk...
side against those ungrateful yurupeens, hell man we saved their donkeys
during two wars, the 17 to 18 and the 41 to 44.
Who says the wanks have the most efficient economy in the known world, why
it's the wanks who say it.
Even allowing for the decline in the youroo, more yuroopeens have more money
than most wanks.
wanks = 280 million
yurupeens = 320 million.
wanks have 40 million on benefits
yurupeens have 15 million.
Go figure as the wanks say.
Then dear old blighty can become the poor man of wankland, should boost
Arkansas out of the poverty trap.
Big Flower Corhollio
"Lars Jørgen Helbo" wrote:
>
> I can only agree to this. Before the referendum there were many discussions
> about the welfare-state and a lot of comparing to other EU-countries, and
> it me it seems obvious that the level og welfare throughtout the EU is
> about the same. We have rich and poor countries of course, we may also have
> different traditions on financing etc.; but the very basic approach to
> welfare is about the same - the UK is however one big exemption from the
> rule, and it seems to me that the UK in this respect has a lot more in
> common with the US. Or shoudl we say that the UK is somewhere in the middle
> between EU and US.
I think you are right with that one. And thats probably where most people
in England want to be. We like the idea of welfare, but don't want to pay for
it if we don't get it. More importantly, we most definately do not want to pay
for other peoples with whoom with have little attachment. For example, I
suspect
that we would rather import Carribean bananas (and pay a subsidy) than
American slave labour ones. Similarly, we don't want to see our carefuuly built
up pension funds used to bail out the burgers of Berlin or olive growers in
Greece.
The only point of difference is that we have a free health service (wouldn't
use it myself) and poor returns on taxes if you are middle class (like most
people are).
Cliff Morrison
<FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A US senator did a study to show that the UK would initially
> loose out by leaving the EU for the North American trading block. But
> in the longer term we would be hitched to the most efficient economy of
> all time.
No longer a country, just a grovelling servile lapdog that had sold-out
its own right to exist.
jdc
> There is no way the British are going to
> vote to return to that state.
But since you seem to believe the EU would be fine if it were "democratic",
what if a majority across the EU voted for parties in the EP which wanted to
promulgate that state of affairs?
jdcxxx
Fred Blogs
We learnt our lesson, I don't think we will ever vote to return to all
that.
Fred Blogs
Except of course that NAFTA is just a trading group with no political
aspirations at all. There would be far more autonomy for UK than is
possible at present under the Brussels Commissioners.
Fred Blogs
>yurupeens = 320 million.
>wanks have 40 million on benefits
>yurupeens have 15 million.
>Go figure as the wanks say.
UK doesn't have a Mexico on its border, and in an enlarged NAFTA these
people would have no rights to UK domicile: as is the case at present in
the EU.
Cliff Morrison
<FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
> >In article <fHqGuDAu...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk>, Fred Blogs
> ><FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A US senator did a study to show that the UK would initially
> >> loose out by leaving the EU for the North American trading block. But
> >> in the longer term we would be hitched to the most efficient economy of
> >> all time.
> >
> >No longer a country, just a grovelling servile lapdog that had sold-out
> >its own right to exist.
>
> Except of course that NAFTA is just a trading group with no political
> aspirations at all. There would be far more autonomy for UK than is
> possible at present under the Brussels Commissioners.
So *Yankland* has no "political aspirations"?
So they never interfered in central or southern America politics?
So the EU didn't start off as the alleged NAFTA of another continent?
So companies shipping in cheapie labour or relocation to get at it is ok?
So you think the two aren't offshoots of the same crony-corporate nexus?
Cliff Morrison
<FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Lucky Larry <lucky...@fsnnet.co.uk> writes
> >yurupeens = 320 million.
> >wanks have 40 million on benefits
> >yurupeens have 15 million.
> >Go figure as the wanks say.
>
> UK doesn't have a Mexico on its border, and in an enlarged NAFTA these
> people would have no rights to UK domicile: as is the case at present in
> the EU.
No of course not: they'd clandestinely ship the Mexicans in to run as
cutprice illegals in case the refugee supply dries up.
Richard Gregory
>
> till.ru...@number-two.com writes
> >Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
> >treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
>
> I can't believe this. Like there were no other European colonial
> powers?
>
> Fred
Not to mention the former colonies that chose to fight with the
British during WWII.
Phil Neal
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
news:8rfp3f$8as$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8rfje5$bam$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>,
> > > To my mind Europe is one country.I do not have any problem if an
> > > individual or an organisation from one EU country donates to another
> > > (without breeching local donation policies). With Mr - sorry - Lord
> > > Ashcroft that's not the case, his money cames from a tax haven. No
> > > wonder that the Tories are so opposed to the EU which is trying to
> > > close such loop holes.
> >
> > You are conceding exactly what I said, that the aims of the EU
> > conflict with the aims of conservatism. It stands for high taxation,
> > regulation, corporatism, protectionism and the general crippling
> > of enterprise.
>
> Apparently you defend the principles of dodging taxes. BTW - in some
> important respects entrepreneurial conditions are becoming better in
> Germany than in the UK - or even the US.
Ashcroft is not a tax dodger. He is a resident of a low tax country.
When you say that the EU is trying to close loopholes such as
Belize, perhaps you could tell us exactly what kind of interference
in the affairs of a sovereign country is envisaged.
I refuse to believe that Germany is more entrepreneurial than
the UK or the US. If it is, why have successive German governments
supported the Common Agricultural Policy, the Social Chapter,
the Working Time Directive, the withholding tax and EU policy
in general?
> Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK was
> 20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe. Perhaps the English
> perception of the world moves on in quantum leaps. 1940, 1990, etc.
If Britain is no longer the sick man of Europe, it is largely thanks to the
policies of Margaret Thatcher. She was consistently obstructed,
opposed and undermined by the EU leadership and particularly by
the Christian Democrats. Those who deposed her did so in the name
of the EU.
> > > BTW - you seem to simplify. Left = federal = bad, Right = national =
> > > good. May I remind you that in many EU countries such as France &
> > > Germany it were the conservatives who set up the EU (or EEC) agenda?
> >
> > I have many times demonstrated in postings to this newsgroup that
> > the allegedly conservative parties of the continent are not
> conservative.
>
> So they are left? Anyway I wonder what Conservatism is (and what left
> and right etc.). Not that I like T Blair's definition either.
They are corporatists. They do not want society to be based on competition.
> > > Perhaps this simplification helps you in coming to terms with the
> > > complexities of today's world, but some may find it rather
> offending.
> >
> > It isn't complex, it is very simple. Conservatives have no allies in
> the EU
> > and if we want to escape from permanent, constitutionally entrenched
> > socialism we have to leave it.
>
> Conservatives do not seem to have allies in their own country. All the
> other stuff in your last paragraph is unreflected nonsense, because you
> you have not considered many other facets that in many respects make
> life on the Continent more worthwhile than in the UK. Not that I agree
> with any of the facets you did mention.
British political parties are not supposed to have allies. They aim to
govern outright, not in coalition.
> Perhaps you have experience from life on the Continent. I for my part
> can make an informed decision between the UK way of life, a decision
> that is not based on prejudices or on non sensical socialism versus
> conservatism rubbish.
On visits to the continent I see a standard of living much the same as
ours in Britain. The issue is that EU policies are not designed to
improve that standard by promoting economic growth.
Philip Neal
till.ru...@number-two.com
But only after Germany declared war on them. Anyway, I must apologize:
England has already paid back - today UK is a colony of her former
colony :-)
till.ru...@number-two.com
Fred Blogs <FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> till.ru...@number-two.com writes
> >Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK
was
> >20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe.
>
> embarked on a policy of lower taxation and lower governmental
spending,
> the result is that the "sickness" has ended. It is now Euro-Land that
> vote to return to that state.
I think you failed to understand what I was saying. My English can't be
that bad.
maxbe...@my-deja.com
he...@bigfoot.com (Lars Jørgen Helbo) wrote:
> john.co...@ntlworld.com (jdc) wrote in
> <GuFB5.4449$L12.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
> >What was the bribe? The adverts were to tell the Danes what their
> >politicians will not - that the leaders of Europe want a United
States
> >of Europa. They deserve to know that, all of Europe deserves to know
> >that, and it doesn't matter who has to pay to tell them.
>
> That is not the problem, the problem was that they were paid secretly.
>
> Try to imagine that a US billionaire of Irish origin would secretly
spend 5
> million £ in support for a political party in the UK - a party that
was in
> favour of Irish reunification. I really don't think the proud British
> people would like that? Or we could compare it to the US funding of
the
> IRA. "After all that only helps giving the IRA a fair chanca against
the
> British army".
>
> And therefore even you should be able to understand that we don't like
it
> either.
This actually happens with Sein Fein. As a result they are one
of the richest parties in Ireland. Strangely, the UK rules on foreign
donations are not applied to them.
Fred Blogs
>In article <5GDf+RAN...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk>, Fred Blogs
><FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lucky Larry <lucky...@fsnnet.co.uk> writes
>> >yurupeens = 320 million.
>> >wanks have 40 million on benefits
>> >yurupeens have 15 million.
>> >Go figure as the wanks say.
>>
>> UK doesn't have a Mexico on its border, and in an enlarged NAFTA these
>> people would have no rights to UK domicile: as is the case at present in
>> the EU.
>
>No of course not: they'd clandestinely ship the Mexicans in to run as
>cutprice illegals in case the refugee supply dries up.
That's OK. Then we can ship them on to Euroland ;)
Fred Blogs
>In article <6W4fKLAg...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk>, Fred Blogs>> >In article <fHqGuDAu...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk>, Fred Blogs
>> ><FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A US senator did a study to show that the UK would initially
>> >> loose out by leaving the EU for the North American trading block. But
>> >> in the longer term we would be hitched to the most efficient economy of
>> >> all time.
>> >
>> >No longer a country, just a grovelling servile lapdog that had sold-out
>> >its own right to exist.
>>
>> Except of course that NAFTA is just a trading group with no political
>> aspirations at all. There would be far more autonomy for UK than is
>> possible at present under the Brussels Commissioners.
>
>So *Yankland* has no "political aspirations"?
Don't we all?
>So they never interfered in central or southern America politics?
Don't we all?
>So the EU didn't start off as the alleged NAFTA of another continent?
Actually, Winston Churchill, in one of his speeches, was the first to
say that France and Germany must get together.
>So companies shipping in cheapie labour or relocation to get at it is ok?
If it provides decent jobs for people who seek them and are prepared to
relocate, then yes.
>So you think the two aren't offshoots of the same crony-corporate nexus?
A rose by any other name still smells just as sweet.
Fred
Alex Tate
>In article <39DCC6...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>> Fred Blogs wrote:
>> >
>> > till.ru...@number-two.com writes
>> > >Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
>> > >treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
>> >
>> > I can't believe this. Like there were no other European colonial
>> > powers?
>> >
>> > Fred
>>
>> Not to mention the former colonies that chose to fight with the
>> British during WWII.
>>
>
>But only after Germany declared war on them. Anyway, I must apologize:
>England has already paid back - today UK is a colony of her former
>colony :-)
Please provide dates for Germany's declaration of war on Australia,
New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Rhodesia, India...
And for the rest don't talk such juvenile rubbish.
till.ru...@number-two.com
He is a tax dodger. Why else does he live over there? As for
interference I guess there are as many ways the EU could deal with Mr
Ashcroft as Inland Revenue does with people who work in several
countries. BTW - I am so fed up with talk about anti-entrpreneurial
Europe whilst it is the UK that introduced IR35.
>
> I refuse to believe that Germany is more entrepreneurial than
> the UK or the US. If it is, why have successive German governments
> supported the Common Agricultural Policy, the Social Chapter,
> the Working Time Directive, the withholding tax and EU policy
> in general?
>
> > Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK
was
> > 20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe. Perhaps the
English
> > perception of the world moves on in quantum leaps. 1940, 1990, etc.
>
> If Britain is no longer the sick man of Europe, it is largely thanks
to the
> policies of Margaret Thatcher. She was consistently obstructed,
> opposed and undermined by the EU leadership and particularly by
> the Christian Democrats. Those who deposed her did so in the name
> of the EU.
So what? I am not arguing the fact that the UK has come a long way, put
you you seem to assume that only a Maggie can do such a turnaround.
Which is rubbish. BTW - the UK was always the country that was in the
forefront in enabling competition. Not anymore by a large margin:
England has been relegated to the 2nd tier as far as telco
competitiveness is concerned. So much to an area I understand.
>
> > > > BTW - you seem to simplify. Left = federal = bad, Right =
national =
> > > > good. May I remind you that in many EU countries such as France
&
> > > > Germany it were the conservatives who set up the EU (or EEC)
agenda?
> > >
> > > I have many times demonstrated in postings to this newsgroup that
> > > the allegedly conservative parties of the continent are not
> > conservative.
> >
> > So they are left? Anyway I wonder what Conservatism is (and what
left
> > and right etc.). Not that I like T Blair's definition either.
>
> They are corporatists. They do not want society to be based on
competition.
You are comparing apples with pears. Corporatism is one side of the
scale, shereholder value on the other. Neither of them is primarily
concerned with competition. Rather it is about short-term and long-term
planning.
Societies based on competition? How far do you want to take this?
Darwin? Genetic enhancements? Let the frail die away?
>
> > > > Perhaps this simplification helps you in coming to terms with
the
> > > > complexities of today's world, but some may find it rather
> > offending.
> > >
> > > It isn't complex, it is very simple. Conservatives have no
allies in
> > the EU
> > > and if we want to escape from permanent, constitutionally
entrenched
> > > socialism we have to leave it.
> >
> > Conservatives do not seem to have allies in their own country. All
the
> > other stuff in your last paragraph is unreflected nonsense, because
you
> > you have not considered many other facets that in many respects make
> > life on the Continent more worthwhile than in the UK. Not that I
agree
> > with any of the facets you did mention.
>
> British political parties are not supposed to have allies. They aim to
> govern outright, not in coalition.
I am talking about voters. I guess even conservatives need those allies.
>
> > Perhaps you have experience from life on the Continent. I for my
part
> > can make an informed decision between the UK way of life, a decision
> > that is not based on prejudices or on non sensical socialism versus
> > conservatism rubbish.
>
> On visits to the continent I see a standard of living much the same as
> ours in Britain.
Housing? Factories? Health Systems? Facilities? You are putting your
head in the sand. I would do probably the same if I was you because in
the end it is your country. I mean I live here, too, despite my
observations.
> The issue is that EU policies are not designed to
> improve that standard by promoting economic growth.
That smacks of arrogance. How did Germany and France get to the wealth
they have got nowadays? There is not one 'right' way how a country can
create wealth.
--
--- Till Ruessmann ---
Richard Gregory
>
> In article <39DCC6...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > Fred Blogs wrote:
> > >
> > > till.ru...@number-two.com writes
> > > >Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
> > > >treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
> > >
> > > I can't believe this. Like there were no other European colonial
> > > powers?
> > >
> > > Fred
> >
> > Not to mention the former colonies that chose to fight with the
> > British during WWII.
> >
>
> But only after Germany declared war on them. Anyway, I must apologize:
> England has already paid back - today UK is a colony of her former
> colony :-)
Sorry: I don't recall Germany declaring war on Canada, New Zealand,
Australia or India. Troops from all these countries fought on the
British side LONG before the USA joined the war, something which is
often and lamentably overlooked.
Richard Gregory
>
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:19:58 GMT, till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
>
> >In article <39DCC6...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> > Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Fred Blogs wrote:
> >> >
> >> > till.ru...@number-two.com writes
> >> > >Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
> >> > >treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
> >> >
> >> > I can't believe this. Like there were no other European colonial
> >> > powers?
> >> >
> >> > Fred
> >>
> >> Not to mention the former colonies that chose to fight with the
> >> British during WWII.
> >>
> >
> >But only after Germany declared war on them. Anyway, I must apologize:
> >England has already paid back - today UK is a colony of her former
> >colony :-)
>
> New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Rhodesia, India...
>
> And for the rest don't talk such juvenile rubbish.
One could equally claim that BeNeLux behave like colonies of
Germany.
Bob Spowart
Fred Blogs wrote in message ...
>till.ru...@number-two.com writes
>>Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
>>treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
>
>I can't believe this. Like there were no other European colonial
>powers?
>
Bob
Fred Blogs
>In article <QXfF6eA7...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk>,
> Fred Blogs <FredB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> till.ru...@number-two.com writes
>> >Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK
>was
>> >20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe.
>>
>> embarked on a policy of lower taxation and lower governmental
>spending,
>> the result is that the "sickness" has ended. It is now Euro-Land that
>> is the sick man of Europe. There is no way the British are going to
>> vote to return to that state.
>
>I think you failed to understand what I was saying. My English can't be
>that bad.
>
Fred Blogs
>In article <39DCC6...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>> Fred Blogs wrote:
>> >
>> > >Anyway it does the English right if they get a bit of the colonial
>> > >treatment they dealt out during the past 200 years.
>> >
>> > I can't believe this. Like there were no other European colonial
>> > powers?
>> >
>>
>> Not to mention the former colonies that chose to fight with the
>> British during WWII.
>>
>
>But only after Germany declared war on them. Anyway, I must apologize:
>England has already paid back - today UK is a colony of her former
>colony :-)
>
history. Britain and the Colonial Allies declared war on Germany, not
the other way round, with at least one of them doing so before Britain.
Fred
Richard Gregory
>
> > Ashcroft is not a tax dodger. He is a resident of a low tax country.
> > When you say that the EU is trying to close loopholes such as
> > Belize, perhaps you could tell us exactly what kind of interference
> > in the affairs of a sovereign country is envisaged.
>
> He is a tax dodger.
IMHO a "tax dodger" is one who uses illegal means to avoid
paying rightful taxes.
> Why else does he live over there?
To take advantage of living somewhere that has lower tax rates.
Given that taxes aren't uniform across the EU, you could make
this charge against tens of millions of people.
> >
> > I refuse to believe that Germany is more entrepreneurial than
> > the UK or the US. If it is, why have successive German governments
> > supported the Common Agricultural Policy, the Social Chapter,
> > the Working Time Directive, the withholding tax and EU policy
> > in general?
> >
> > > Your attitude above unveils a rather static view. Consider where UK
> was
> > > 20 years ago. Then it was the sick man of Europe. Perhaps the
> English
> > > perception of the world moves on in quantum leaps. 1940, 1990, etc.
> >
> > If Britain is no longer the sick man of Europe, it is largely thanks
> to the
> > policies of Margaret Thatcher. She was consistently obstructed,
> > opposed and undermined by the EU leadership and particularly by
> > the Christian Democrats. Those who deposed her did so in the name
> > of the EU.
>
> So what? I am not arguing the fact that the UK has come a long way, put
> you you seem to assume that only a Maggie can do such a turnaround.
> Which is rubbish. BTW - the UK was always the country that was in the
> forefront in enabling competition. Not anymore by a large margin:
> England has been relegated to the 2nd tier as far as telco
> competitiveness is concerned. So much to an area I understand.
Yes indeed. Gosh, maybe has something to do with having NuLab take
on ideas like the Social Chapter, minimum wage and so forth...
Yes.
>
> > The issue is that EU policies are not designed to
> > improve that standard by promoting economic growth.
>
> That smacks of arrogance. How did Germany and France get to the wealth
> they have got nowadays?
Devaluing their currency.
Paulo Alexandre Rocha
"Richard Gregory" escreveu na mensagem
news:39DF06...@interalpha.co.uk...
> till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> >
> > That smacks of arrogance. How did Germany and France get to the wealth
> > they have got nowadays?
>
Then Russia, Brazil and Indonesia would be the wealthiest countries in the
world.
Regards,
Paulo Rocha
till.ru...@number-two.com
Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > Ashcroft is not a tax dodger. He is a resident of a low tax
country.
> > > When you say that the EU is trying to close loopholes such as
> > > Belize, perhaps you could tell us exactly what kind of
interference
> > > in the affairs of a sovereign country is envisaged.
> >
> > He is a tax dodger.
>
> paying rightful taxes.
He is a tax dodger in the sense that he does not pay tax as everybody
else has to - because other people have not got the means to evade tax.
Whether it is feasible to clamp down legally on people like him is a
different matter altogether. From a taxation point of view and in the
interest of equity one could certainly make a case for it. This has
nothing to do with the EU, by the way.
>
> > Why else does he live over there?
>
> To take advantage of living somewhere that has lower tax rates.
> Given that taxes aren't uniform across the EU, you could make
> this charge against tens of millions of people.
I did not now that there are millions of people who make their business
in the UK but live in a tax haven. You make me feel really silly that I
am not one of them.
> Yes indeed. Gosh, maybe has something to do with having NuLab take
> on ideas like the Social Chapter, minimum wage and so forth...
Probably England lost because of New Lab (I really had to rub this in).
Your argument seems to be flawed to me: the continent does have Social
Chapter, minimum wage, etc - yet they have a better competition over
there in telecoms. Or should it be that New Lab is even more evil than
the evil continent?
> Yes.
Yes what?
>
> >
> > > The issue is that EU policies are not designed to
> > > improve that standard by promoting economic growth.
> >
> > That smacks of arrogance. How did Germany and France get to the
wealth
> > they have got nowadays?
>
> Devaluing their currency.
>
Are you saying that in '70 England was better off than Germany when in
GBP dived and D-mark soared? Seems to be another flawed argument.
sean...@my-deja.com
till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> In article <39DF06...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > Ashcroft is not a tax dodger. He is a resident of a low tax
> country.
> > > > When you say that the EU is trying to close loopholes such as
> > > > Belize, perhaps you could tell us exactly what kind of
> interference
> > > > in the affairs of a sovereign country is envisaged.
> > >
> > > He is a tax dodger.
> >
> > IMHO a "tax dodger" is one who uses illegal means to avoid
> > paying rightful taxes.
>
> He is a tax dodger in the sense that he does not pay tax as everybody
> else has to - because other people have not got the means to evade
tax.
> Whether it is feasible to clamp down legally on people like him is a
> different matter altogether. From a taxation point of view and in the
> interest of equity one could certainly make a case for it. This has
> nothing to do with the EU, by the way.
You're confusing tax avoidance (legal) with tax evasion (illegal).
Ashcroft is doing nothing illegal. Like many businessmen, he seeks to
keep his company's tax bill as low as possible - as do I.
till.ru...@number-two.com
sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8rs0fu$ha5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Ashcroft is not a tax dodger. He is a resident of a low tax
> > country.
> > > > > When you say that the EU is trying to close loopholes such as
> > > > > Belize, perhaps you could tell us exactly what kind of
> > interference
> > > > > in the affairs of a sovereign country is envisaged.
> > > >
> > > > He is a tax dodger.
> > >
> > > IMHO a "tax dodger" is one who uses illegal means to avoid
> > > paying rightful taxes.
> >
> > He is a tax dodger in the sense that he does not pay tax as
everybody
> > else has to - because other people have not got the means to evade
> tax.
> > Whether it is feasible to clamp down legally on people like him is a
> > different matter altogether. From a taxation point of view and in
the
> > interest of equity one could certainly make a case for it. This has
> > nothing to do with the EU, by the way.
>
> Ashcroft is doing nothing illegal. Like many businessmen, he seeks to
> keep his company's tax bill as low as possible - as do I.
I am well aware of the distinction, and I see it that Ashcroft is
acting within the limits of the laws. I never said otherwise. What I
said is that I as a tax payer am not happy about loop holes like this,
because it is unjust. I certainly would not mind if IR would clamp down
on Guernsey, Belize etc. where feasible. Which would make Ashcroft
acting illegally. I acknowledge that it may not be feasible to do this
because you might hit companies which you were not targeting, but this
does not make Mr Ashcroft's actions any better. Mind you there are many
companies around who would find this sort of behaviour not acceptable
to their own code of conduct. The Tories obviously do so.
Richard Gregory
> > To take advantage of living somewhere that has lower tax rates.
> > Given that taxes aren't uniform across the EU, you could make
> > this charge against tens of millions of people.
>
> I did not now that there are millions of people who make their business
> in the UK but live in a tax haven. You make me feel really silly that I
> am not one of them.
Certain member states have, in the past, referred to the "unfair"
lower levels of taxation in Britain. The logical conclusion is
that, from a certain point of view, Britain itself could be regarded
as a tax-haven within the EU and the EU itself has made it easy
to relocate there.
Richard Gregory
>
> In article <8rsaue$obk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8rs0fu$ha5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > > Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Ashcroft is not a tax dodger. He is a resident of a low tax
> > > country.
> > > > > > When you say that the EU is trying to close loopholes such as
> > > > > > Belize, perhaps you could tell us exactly what kind of
> > > interference
> > > > > > in the affairs of a sovereign country is envisaged.
> > > > >
> > > > > He is a tax dodger.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO a "tax dodger" is one who uses illegal means to avoid
> > > > paying rightful taxes.
> > >
> > > He is a tax dodger in the sense that he does not pay tax as
> everybody
> > > else has to - because other people have not got the means to evade
> > tax.
> > > Whether it is feasible to clamp down legally on people like him is a
> > > different matter altogether. From a taxation point of view and in
> the
> > > interest of equity one could certainly make a case for it. This has
> > > nothing to do with the EU, by the way.
> >
> > Ashcroft is doing nothing illegal. Like many businessmen, he seeks to
> > keep his company's tax bill as low as possible - as do I.
>
> I am well aware of the distinction, and I see it that Ashcroft is
> acting within the limits of the laws. I never said otherwise. What I
> said is that I as a tax payer am not happy about loop holes like this,
> because it is unjust. I certainly would not mind if IR would clamp down
> on Guernsey, Belize etc. where feasible. Which would make Ashcroft
> acting illegally. I acknowledge that it may not be feasible to do this
> because you might hit companies which you were not targeting, but this
> does not make Mr Ashcroft's actions any better. Mind you there are many
> companies around who would find this sort of behaviour not acceptable
> to their own code of conduct. The Tories obviously do so.
> --
So what you really want is global tax harmonisation?
till.ru...@number-two.com
> > sean...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8rs0fu$ha5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > > Ashcroft is doing nothing illegal. Like many businessmen, he
seeks to
> > > keep his company's tax bill as low as possible - as do I.
> >
> > I am well aware of the distinction, and I see it that Ashcroft is
> > acting within the limits of the laws. I never said otherwise. What I
> > said is that I as a tax payer am not happy about loop holes like
this,
> > because it is unjust. I certainly would not mind if IR would clamp
down
> > on Guernsey, Belize etc. where feasible. Which would make Ashcroft
> > acting illegally. I acknowledge that it may not be feasible to do
this
> > because you might hit companies which you were not targeting, but
this
> > does not make Mr Ashcroft's actions any better. Mind you there are
many
> > companies around who would find this sort of behaviour not
acceptable
> > to their own code of conduct. The Tories obviously do so.
> > --
>
> So what you really want is global tax harmonisation?
I am not sure whether that's necessary. But one thing is sure, though:
after all this globalisation initiatives, after all the companies
offering their services & products on a world wide basis, I think this
will come anyway. I don't think that tax will be identical, but the
parameters within any governement is able to manoeuvre will become
tighter.
To that extent I could imagine that the EU tax harmonisation initiative
is just a precursor to something global. BTW - are you aware that
corporation tax in Germany is now lower than the UK one? So much about
the German capability to change (as was visible in the late Vembley;
sorry don't mention the vall).
till.ru...@number-two.com
Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
>
> > > To take advantage of living somewhere that has lower tax rates.
> > > Given that taxes aren't uniform across the EU, you could make
> > > this charge against tens of millions of people.
> >
> > I did not now that there are millions of people who make their
business
> > in the UK but live in a tax haven. You make me feel really silly
that I
> > am not one of them.
>
> lower levels of taxation in Britain. The logical conclusion is
> that, from a certain point of view, Britain itself could be regarded
> as a tax-haven within the EU and the EU itself has made it easy
> to relocate there.
There is a difference between a tax haven and a real country.
Phil Neal
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
news:8rund4$ma5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > So what you really want is global tax harmonisation?
>
> I am not sure whether that's necessary. But one thing is sure, though:
> after all this globalisation initiatives, after all the companies
> offering their services & products on a world wide basis, I think this
> will come anyway. I don't think that tax will be identical, but the
> parameters within any governement is able to manoeuvre will become
> tighter.
>
> To that extent I could imagine that the EU tax harmonisation initiative
> is just a precursor to something global. BTW - are you aware that
> corporation tax in Germany is now lower than the UK one? So much about
> the German capability to change (as was visible in the late Vembley;
> sorry don't mention the vall).
Will governments have less freedom to manoeuvre because of market
forces (global companies seeking out low tax countries) or because of
world regulation to protect high tax countries? Globalisation cannot mean
both world free trade and world regulation: which is it to be?
I am delighted to hear that Germany has cut a tax. If it is now going to
pursue a strategy of deregulation, what does it need the EU for?
Philip Neal
Phil Neal
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
news:8runls$mjk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39E23B...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> >
> > > > To take advantage of living somewhere that has lower tax rates.
> > > > Given that taxes aren't uniform across the EU, you could make
> > > > this charge against tens of millions of people.
> > >
> > > I did not now that there are millions of people who make their
> business
> > > in the UK but live in a tax haven. You make me feel really silly
> that I
> > > am not one of them.
> >
> > lower levels of taxation in Britain. The logical conclusion is
> > that, from a certain point of view, Britain itself could be regarded
> > as a tax-haven within the EU and the EU itself has made it easy
> > to relocate there.
>
> There is a difference between a tax haven and a real country.
At an early point in this thread, Till said that he regarded the EU
as one country. If Britain isn't a country, it is presumably as much
a target for federalist restrictions as Belize.
Philip Neal
jdc
> There is a difference between a tax
> haven and a real country.
So are you saying Belize should become British Honduras again, or what? How
big do you have to be to become a "real country"?
jdcxxx
till.ru...@number-two.com
> > > So what you really want is global tax harmonisation?
> >
> > I am not sure whether that's necessary. But one thing is sure,
though:
> > after all this globalisation initiatives, after all the companies
> > offering their services & products on a world wide basis, I think
this
> > will come anyway. I don't think that tax will be identical, but the
> > parameters within any governement is able to manoeuvre will become
> > tighter.
> >
> > To that extent I could imagine that the EU tax harmonisation
initiative
> > is just a precursor to something global. BTW - are you aware that
> > corporation tax in Germany is now lower than the UK one? So much
about
> > the German capability to change (as was visible in the late Vembley;
> > sorry don't mention the vall).
>
> Will governments have less freedom to manoeuvre because of market
> forces (global companies seeking out low tax countries) or because of
> world regulation to protect high tax countries?
Are saying that tax is something bad and should be kept as low as
possible? Why? IMO tax is a contribution to expenditures that a
community such as a state incurs in bying services. Hardly anybody will
argue the need for defence, health- and social service, infra-
structural investments etc, and it is up to the respective country to
decide to what degree this should be institutionalised, or offered and
consumed by individuals. In any case you will have countries who will
not incur those taxes at all - because they do not have any defence or
social service expenditure (the latter because they only allow
priviliged people in). With those countries one cannot compete on low
tax levels.
> Globalisation cannot mean
> both world free trade and world regulation: which is it to be?
I completely disagree with this choice. Globalisation requires a much
higher level of regulation. Just consider the implication on commercial
law if you start bying products over the web. I certainly do not want
to be ripped off by fraudsters.
>
> I am delighted to hear that Germany has cut a tax. If it is now going
to
> pursue a strategy of deregulation, what does it need the EU for?
Perhaps you could clarify what regulations you want abolished. As
outlined above regulation is something you need. I agree that there is
a lot of banana regulation which would drive me bananas, but I find it
too simplistic just to count the regulations and to say that there are
too many.
till.ru...@number-two.com
> > In article <39E23B...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> > Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > > till.ru...@number-two.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > To take advantage of living somewhere that has lower tax
rates.
> > > > > Given that taxes aren't uniform across the EU, you could make
> > > > > this charge against tens of millions of people.
> > > >
> > > > I did not now that there are millions of people who make their
> > business
> > > > in the UK but live in a tax haven. You make me feel really silly
> > that I
> > > > am not one of them.
> > >
> > > lower levels of taxation in Britain. The logical conclusion is
> > > that, from a certain point of view, Britain itself could be
regarded
> > > as a tax-haven within the EU and the EU itself has made it easy
> > > to relocate there.
> >
>
> as one country. If Britain isn't a country, it is presumably as much
> a target for federalist restrictions as Belize.
>
I am sure that I do not understand what you are driving at. Yes, there
is tax harmonisation which I believe will come with further
integration. If England is not part of EU then it will be treated like
other non-EU countries or non-core EU countries(according to the so-
called exclusive-cake-consumption principle).