TwoPints

PS.. Do you disagree with any of them? If not, what's the problem? It seems to me that the EU have 'forced' very sensible and commendable laws on us and we would be worse off without them.

You tell me, did we have 57% trade with Europe.. I doubt it. No one has said there was no trade. As I said in the other thread, they could have been brought in but they're unlikely to have been. Certainly none of the European cooperation ones of which there are many wouldn't have happened. If you choose to believe that the UK government would have I been so accommodating in such matters then you have greater faith in UK politicians and politics than I do.

Here's the list... Let's see what would have happened without the EU : Providing 57% of our trade - nope Structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline - nope Clean beaches and rivers - unlikely Cleaner air - unlikely Lead free petrol - yes Restrictions on landfill dumping - maybe A recycling culture - maybe Cheaper mobile charges - nope Cheaper air travel - nope Improved consumer protection and food labelling - unlikely A ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives - very unlikely Better product safety - maybe Single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance - nope Break up of monopolies - unlikely Europe-wide patent and copyright protection - nope No paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market - nope Price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the euro zone - nope Freedom to travel, live and work across Europe - nope Funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad - nope Access to European health services - nope Labour protection and enhanced social welfare - depends who got into government Smoke-free workplaces - yes Equal pay legislation - maybe Holiday entitlement - maybe The right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime - unlikely Strongest wildlife protection in the world Improved animal welfare in food production - unlikely EU-funded research and industrial collaboration - nope EU representation in international forums - nope bloc EEA negotiation at the Web - nope EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - nope European arrest warrant - nope Cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling - maybe Counter terrorism intelligence - maybe European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa - nope Support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond - nope Investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital. - nope EU wide Data Protection legislation to protect our personal data throughout Europe; - nope However all of this is nothing compared with the greatest achievements of the EU which has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.*- certainly not. So, I make it about two that would have happened, a number of things that are likely or might have happened but plenty of things that we wouldn't /couldn't have benefited from.

Not sure I mentioned anything about millions. Your imagination is working overtime tonight. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Yep, it all happened but apparently all imaginary to some.

Both had choices. Trousers could have rented a house rather than buy one. The choice isn't between a mortgage or homelessness. Similarly Igsey could have chosen to get a job, earn money, and study in between as many do. Otherwise, he only has to pay the debt back if his education rewards him financially. Choices all round.

I think not. Latest European polls show UKIP around 25‰-30‰ of the vote.

I posted a very handy list of things that might fall into this category on the 'More UKIP bother' thread which might answer your question.

They're just quoting what's been in the UK media already but mixing the words up a bit to make it sound like a new story... Or that might just be Google translate!

You couldn't make it up could you. They're unbelievable.

Well they are milking the system aren't they as they openly admit that they don't attend and/or vote against everything in an attempt to disrupt the European parliament yet they continue to claim their 'allowance'.

Warm today wasn't it!

Tricky one that. On the one hand you have programmes like Question Time where they seemingly don't get to the meat of the parties policies by not getting down to the nitty gritty or you get someone like O'Brien whose approach is somewhat more adversarial and certainly put Farage on the spot. It's a tricky balance to get the right questions in without allowing the politician to just spout their party line in response but also without the questioner becoming too adversarial.

I wonder, do UKIP supporters not question why Farage chairs a committee of far right supporters in Europe?

I do ... Expenses are where (in theory) you have to have spent something whilst doing your job for which you can claim expenses. An allowance is where you're given s hit loads of cash but you don't actually have to do anything for it!

Well I'm certainly not disagreeing with any of that.

They all have and they all do so. They do so through legislation, taxation and education. It is naive to think that any government has allowed people behave as they like.

That's odd, I thought you'd just suggested that your plan might need modifying to put more meat on the bones when I asked about tax on alcohol and cigarettes. Apart from raising awareness **** loads of money those taxes are designed to modify behaviour, as was the extra tax on leaded petrol, as is lower car tax for low polluting cars. The government is there to govern and you vote for the party that you hope will make things better and sometimes that is achieved through higher taxes on certain things and tax breaks on others. Addiction is only one area that needs help, long term savings is another, pollution reduction is another. There are plenty to choose from.

Well you either have a flat rate of income tax for all with the abolition of the many other taxes imposed on us, whereby the government loses the ability to affect behaviour through taxation, ie reducing smoking, alcohol consumption, saving for retirement etc, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. As soon as you start putting limits on how much someone can save on their pension without paying tax the 'flat rate' is skewed, and it would be skewed in favour of those at the top of the pile.

... and presumably tax breaks to encourage people to save for retirement through pensions?

So your proposing the removal of tax on alcohol and cigarettes for example?

I wasn't narrowing any argument, I'll say again, I was answering the specific point made about a flat rate of income tax. If I'd responded by detailing my views of every piece of tax legislation from income tax, through inheritance tax, stamp duty to VAT and fuel tax then the point I was trying to make against the specific question would have been lost in pages of text.

Whatever you say pap. I was merely answering the point about a flat rate of income tax. If you want to read into that my opinion on the taxation system as a whole then you do so but really its rather ridiculous to do so. However if you want to gave a rant about something completely different to the point of discussion and make assumptions about people's views on completely different points then you go ahead.

I don't disagree with you pap but the question was about a flat rate of income tax. I'm not for one minute extolling the virtues of the other flat rate taxes that you refer to and I'm not sure why you would assume that I would be when I'm opposing a flat rate of income tax. Things are far from great but a flat rate of income tax would surely compound the problem. I think we're on the same page here.

It's also not quite correct to say that someone on £80k will be paying 40% whereas someone on £40k will only pay 20% as the £80k earner pays the same as the £40k earner until they get into the 40% tax rate at about £42k. So they're both paying the same rate of tax at the same levels of income.