Safer from terror attacks by leaving the EU?

[sutty27]

but what about all the things which aren't in the manifesto?

 

They are the elected government and their policies are put to parliament and voted on.

 

 

 

 

we buy far more food and energy from the eu than they buy from us. we kinda need that, it might be possible to source these from elsewhere but only probably at a higher price.

 

Yes that's a problem that gets worse every year that passes and until we cut immigration it will continue to get worse, the sooner we start to fix that problem the easier it will be to fix.

 

 

 

assuming we have the staff with the skills to produce it.

 

If we don't have the staff then we don't have unemployment, if we have the staff without the skills they will have to be trained.

 

 

 

no one knows if we would still be 5th outside of the eu and the eu would likely be a far more attractive trade partner to do a deal with.

 

We was the fourth before joining the EU and there is no reason to assume we wouldn't still be a very high consumption society.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 17:55 ----------

 

You are in the ball park.

 

A fact that many of the out campaign and frothy mouthed fail to realise is an EU directive cannot be placed directly upon any part of British lives.

 

We have a parliament with our own laws and own statutes. When a directive is set out by the EU, its up to our own government to implement the scope of it through the existing statutes, amendments or if necessary the repeal of a law so that the terms and purpose of a directive are met.

 

Its the "interpretation" of a directive which is applied not directly. Its still our OWN laws. Its still our OWN parliament. Its still our OWN policy that affects the man on the street.

 

If that was the case we would be able to stop sending benefits abroad and stop allowing the free movement of people.

[ECCOnoob]

You are missing the point.

 

The rule and law and rule of supremacy are clear. Its how judges interpret statutes every single day.

 

The point I am making is that the directive wording itself is NOT directly applicable to us. Its OUR parliament who will interpret the terms/scope of a directive and apply it to our either existing, new or old laws.

 

With respect to the VAT on solar panels issue. It was not the government who went to Court and lost.

 

The case referred was an issue between a private individual and the Austrian tax office. The dispute was linked to the fact that the householder was earning money by having the solar panels. The Judge considered that the installation of the solar panels was done to allow to the householder to gain a net increase of money over the amount than they would need to pay out for their electricity supply. It was deemed to be an "economic activity" and therefore subject to standard VAT rate within the law.

 

This has become "case law" and can be used against the UK government when dealing with legal disputes. The HMRC could still proceed to challenge it. The government could amend any existing laws regarding solar panels and the links between "economic activity" and "VAT" to avoid any potential legal issues with the EU.

 

However, ball is in their court.

 

So, in a nutshell, its still not a direct EU application. Our own laws still apply and its our own HMRC who have chosen to apply full VAT.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 18:00 ----------

 

 

If that was the case we would be able to stop sending benefits abroad and stop allowing the free movement of people.

 

We signed up to agreements and treaties.

 

Its not the same thing.

[sutty27]

We signed up to agreements and treaties.

 

Its not the same thing.

 

What the consequences of not signing up to rules passed by the EU?

[Guest]

If anything we would be less safe. I very much doubt that a terrorist would arrive at our borders with guns and explosives in his bag so how will the border agencies know a visitor is a terrorist or not..?

 

I suppose we could always ask them if they were terrorists and hope they told the truth.

 

And of course, that wouldn't do anything about internal terrorists.

 

Which is pretty much what they do in Schengen countries. Those machine guns that were used in last years Paris attacks will have simply been brought into France in the boot of a car. They drive into France with them as naturally as someone drives their Meadowhall shopping out of Sheffield and home into Rotherham.

[unbeliever]

With respect to the VAT on solar panels issue. It was not the government who went to Court and lost.

 

The case referred was an issue between a private individual and the Austrian tax office. The dispute was linked to the fact that the householder was earning money by having the solar panels. The Judge considered that the installation of the solar panels was done to allow to the householder to gain a net increase of money over the amount than they would need to pay out for their electricity supply. It was deemed to be an "economic activity" and therefore subject to standard VAT rate within the law.

 

This has become "case law" and can be used against the UK government when dealing with legal disputes. The HMRC could still proceed to challenge it. The government could amend any existing laws regarding solar panels and the links between "economic activity" and "VAT" to avoid any potential legal issues with the EU.

 

However, ball is in their court.

 

So, in a nutshell, its still not a direct EU application. Our own laws still apply and its our own HMRC who have chosen to apply full VAT.

 

You're just obfuscating.

The UK government wants to operate a lower rate of VAT to save polar bears. The purpose of this was to create a financial incentive to deploy renewable energy.

The EU authorities have made that impractical. The court ruling means that either the VAT rate must be raised, increasing the cost of the solar panels by 14%. The only alternative would be for the government to arrange through some sort of law or tax that the energy saved from the solar panel installations (or anything similar) did not lead to the owner of said panels saving money.

 

There's no way to spin this which does not resolve to the EU increasing the cost of solar panels, wind turbines, insulation etc etc, by at least 14% (using the simple solution of raising the rate) or by far more (using a more complicated solution).

 

I don't care much. I'm highly sceptical about CAGW. I just think the UK government should decide such matters.

Do you think that increasing the cost (or removing the financial incentive) of insulation and renewables is a good thing?

 

Oh and the government did not put the VAT rate in the latest budget. I don't know why. I suspect that they're stalling bad news from EU membership because of the referendum, but that's just a guess.

Edited March 26, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

Which is pretty much what they do in Schengen countries. Those machine guns that were used in last years Paris attacks will have simply been brought into France in the boot of a car. They drive into France with them as naturally as someone drives their Meadowhall shopping out of Sheffield and home into Rotherham.

 

We're not in Schengen..........yet

 

Leaving the EU risks being forced to enter the Schengen zone as a condition of continued participation in the single market. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are in that position.

 

Don't say it won't happen because you simply cannot guarantee it wont.

[sutty27]

We're not in Schengen..........yet

 

Leaving the EU risks being forced to enter the Schengen zone as a condition of continued participation in the single market. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are in that position.

 

Don't say it won't happen because you simply cannot guarantee it wont.

 

No it doesn't that's just the opinion of people that are irrational.

[I1L2T3]

You're just obfuscating.

The UK government wants to operate a lower rate of VAT to save polar bears. The purpose of this was to create a financial incentive to deploy renewable energy.

The EU authorities have made that impractical.

 

Don't make me laugh. Is this a the same government that wants to ramp up our use of fossil fuel by fracking the landscape to bits, the same government that has knobbled the wind, biomass and solar industries by changing the subsidies, sold off the green investment bank and killed off initiatives to make homes more energy efficient.

 

What an absolute nerve you have to suggest we will have a greener government by leaving the EU. I rarely get angry on here.....but seriously that is totally not an aim of the Brexiters

 

You must be utterly desperate to try this on

 

---------- Post added 26-03-2016 at 11:01 ----------

 

No it doesn't that's just the opinion of people that are irrational.

 

No it's totally rational because it is what other countries outside the EU that want to participate in the single market have been forced to do.

 

You can't guarantee it wont happen.

[sutty27]

Don't make me laugh. Is this a the same government that wants to ramp up our use of fossil fuel by fracking the landscape to bits, the same government that has knobbled the wind, biomass and solar industries by changing the subsidies, sold off the green investment bank and killed off initiatives to make homes more energy efficient.

 

What an absolute nerve you have to suggest we will have a greener government by leaving the EU. I rarely get angry on here.....but seriously that is totally not an aim of the Brexiters

 

You must be utterly desperate to try this on

 

It one of my aims, I want a greener country but that can't be achieved whilst we are in the EU and suffering the undesirable consequences of large scale immigration.

 

---------- Post added 26-03-2016 at 11:03 ----------

 

 

No it's totally rational because it is what other countries outside the EU that want to participate in the single market have been forced to do.

 

You can't guarantee it wont happen.

 

They were not forced to do it and many countries that trade with the EU don't have free movement of people.

[I1L2T3]

It one of my aims, I want a greener country but that can't be achieved whilst we are in the EU and suffering the undesirable consequences of large scale immigration.

 

---------- Post added 26-03-2016 at 11:03 ----------

 

 

They were not forced to do it and many countries that trade with the EU don't have free movement of people.

 

You can't say immigration is causing the Tories to abandon green policies.

 

And unfortunately you are wrong. For single market access Schengen membership is a requirement for EEA countries and Switzerland. We're not talking about countries outside the single market here.