The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

One thing that interests me - the other bobbies involved who leaked the story to the press were said to have lost their jobs & their pensions. How does that work? Surely the money they've paid into the scheme cant be taken off them can it?

Some pensions are paid without the employee paying anything in, although I have no idea how UK police pensions work.[/quote]

UK Police definitely pay something in. I wonder if they get their contributions returned to them in this instance but lose the employer's wedge and any tax relief they would have got?[/quote]

Since it seems they were but telling the truth, should they not be re-instated with full benefits?

[thebish]

I think it was subsequently found that the police where most definitely NOT telling the truth in other matters - ie. making up witnesses who weren't actually there... it wasn't just about whether he called them f'ing plebs or not!

he should have quit while he was ahead - a few months ago the media and politician friends were waving him about like a persecuted national treasure... now he's managed to pour molten cack over his reputation!

[Harry Genshaw]

I think it was the leaking to the press that resulted in their dismissal. Pretty harsh punishment though imo

[thebish]

I think it was the leaking to the press that resulted in their dismissal. Pretty harsh punishment though imo

surely not if it involves a much loved national treasure like Andrew Mitchell?? come on! there are limits!!!

[LeverEnd]

One thing that interests me - the other bobbies involved who leaked the story to the press were said to have lost their jobs & their pensions. How does that work? Surely the money they've paid into the scheme cant be taken off them can it?

Some pensions are paid without the employee paying anything in, although I have no idea how UK police pensions work.

UK Police definitely pay something in. I wonder if they get their contributions returned to them in this instance but lose the employer's wedge and any tax relief they would have got?[/quote]

Since it seems they were but telling the truth, should they not be re-instated with full benefits?[/quote]

No they weren't. One claimed he witnessed the altercation and was proven to have lied, the others I think got flirted for leaking stuff to the press. They certainly conspired to screw Mitchell over. I have no sympathy for anyone involved, including that arrogant tool Mitchell.

[thebish]

No they weren't. One claimed he witnessed the altercation and was proven to have lied, the others I think got flirted for leaking stuff to the press. They certainly conspired to screw Mitchell over. I have no sympathy for anyone involved, including that arrogant tool Mitchell.

aye - sounds about right - that's how I remember it...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Andrew Mitchell loses his libel case against the police officer - judge says he is pretty damn sure that Mitchell DID call him an f'ing pleb... Mitchell now has to pay all the court costs - in xs of £1.5million.... Awwwwww....

I was surprised at the verdict initially. He sounds like a grade a Tw*t but I was prepared to believe he hadn't used the pleb word since he was so vehement about it.

One thing that interests me - the other bobbies involved who leaked the story to the press were said to have lost their jobs & their pensions. How does that work? Surely the money they've paid into the scheme cant be taken off them can it?

Some pensions are paid without the employee paying anything in, although I have no idea how UK police pensions work.

UK Police definitely pay something in. I wonder if they get their contributions returned to them in this instance but lose the employer's wedge and any tax relief they would have got?

If they pay something in it is tax deductible - so presumably taxed when they get their contribution out. I suppose 'lose their pension' means it doesn't get paid when they reach retirement age, with its assorted benefits. Over here if this happened one could put the refund in a registered retirement savings plan to avoid tax, but losing the employer's share would hurt.

[Hoboh]

On the 1st November 2014 the right of Parliament to legislate over us in 43 areas, the important ones, will be removed and be made subject to approval. They call it QMV, Qualified Majority Voting.

Each member State will lose it right of Veto over these areas, so Cameron’s idea of negotiation to recover any areas goes out the window at the same time.

The following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting only:

Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Administrative co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Asylum – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Border controls – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Citizens’ initiative regulations – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Civil protection – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Committee of the Regions – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Common defence policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Crime prevention incentives – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal judicial co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal law – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Culture – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Diplomatic & Consular protection – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Economic & Social Committee – Nice: QMV Lisbon: QMV
Emergency international aid – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Energy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
EU budget – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurojust – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Central Bank – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Court of Justice – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Europol – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurozone external representation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Foreign Affairs High Representative election – Lisbon: QMV
Freedom of movement for workers – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Freedom to establish a business – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon QMV
Freedom, security, justice, co-operation & evaluation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Funding the Common Foreign & Security Policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
General economic interest services – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Humanitarian aid – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Immigration – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Intellectual property – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Organisation of the Council of the EU – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Police co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
President of the European Council election – Lisbon: QMV
Response to natural disasters & terrorism – Lisbon: QMV
Rules concerning the Armaments Agency – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Self-employment access rights – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Social Security Unanimity – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Space – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Sport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Structural & Cohension Funds – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Tourism – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Transport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Withdrawal of a member state – Lisbon: QMV

A brief review of the Treaties confirms the Transitional arrangements which allow, only on specific votes, for the Nice Treaty Provisions to apply from 1st November 2014 until March 2017, hence I imagine PM David Cameron’s determination to delay our referendum beyond that date, tying Britain for ever within the non-democratic, totalitarian and now clearly despotic EU.

Seem it would be difficult to leave the table without permission, the EU just gets sicker and sicker, read the list and weep this is your glorious, democratic EU.

[thebish]

surely QMV will make it easier for us to negotiate reform as such reforms would not fall because one member were blocking it, we only have to persuade a qualified majority?

are you SURE you really want unanimity??? The clear majority being blocked by one member - is that what you REALLY mean by "democracy"??

[Hoboh]

surely QMV will make it easier for us to negotiate reform as such reforms would not fall because one member were blocking it, we only have to persuade a qualified majority?

are you SURE you really want unanimity??? The clear majority being blocked by one member - is that what you REALLY mean by "democracy"??

Check the vote entitlement of member states then see if you reckon we could muster 255 out 0f the 345 to get anything passed.
The blind who think it's all about business conveniently skip over things like this.
Voting for a UK government? You might as well be voting for a parish council for all the good they would be.

[thebish]

surely QMV will make it easier for us to negotiate reform as such reforms would not fall because one member were blocking it, we only have to persuade a qualified majority?

are you SURE you really want unanimity??? The clear majority being blocked by one member - is that what you REALLY mean by "democracy"??

Check the vote entitlement of member states then see if you reckon we could muster 255 out 0f the 345 to get anything passed.

granted I only have a degree in maths, BUT - isn't 255 out of 345 easier to achieve than 345 out of 345?? or did I miss something? you seemed to be objecting to the idea of moving away from unanimity??

ahhh - I see - you want unanimity for OTHER nations trying to bring change - but not for us! Now I understand how democracy works!

[Hoboh]

surely QMV will make it easier for us to negotiate reform as such reforms would not fall because one member were blocking it, we only have to persuade a qualified majority?

are you SURE you really want unanimity??? The clear majority being blocked by one member - is that what you REALLY mean by "democracy"??

Check the vote entitlement of member states then see if you reckon we could muster 255 out 0f the 345 to get anything passed.

granted I only have a degree in maths, BUT - isn't 255 out of 345 easier to achieve than 345 out of 345?? or did I miss something? you seemed to be objecting to the idea of moving away from unanimity??

ahhh - I see - you want unanimity for OTHER nations trying to bring change - but not for us! Now I understand how democracy works!

No I want democracy in this country, the ability to vote for a UK government that passes laws for UK people that if I or anyone else do not like what they are doing we can get rid of them.
Why should we have to gain approval of Bulgarians, Latvians, Germans, French or Spanish etc. to decide what is in our better interests?
Business does not have a vote why should we be expected to cow tow to their whims and desires, they sure as hell ain't in it for us, looking for employees in Poland before advertising vacancies over here says whose interests they put first.
Lets vote for a couple of commissioners every 4-5 years, turn Parliament into a fun fair abolish local government in favour of the latest German flavour of the month overlord, have our foreign policy forged by ever growing numbers of EU nationals, who knows if we get the Ukraine on board and thy come over here in great numbers to join all the Poles and others we might stupidly attack Russia.
The great fallacy of peace will end in tears for all of us if we stick by the EU, no democracy, ruled by Brussels and at war, wow result.

[thebish]

for the same reason that people in the South West have to gain the approval of the people in the North East and the Midlands and scotland and wales in order to achieve governments that we hope will act in our interests... it's what happens when you decide to be part of a wider union - there are others involved. we decided to be in it - and we agreed the rules (our governments that we voted for)

I STILL don't see how moving away from unanimity to QMV makes it worse... can you explain?

[Hoboh]

There's the door, shut it on the way out!

But Angie babes I was only joking to keep the kippers quiet

[Hoboh]

for the same reason that people in the South West have to gain the approval of the people in the North East and the Midlands and scotland and wales in order to achieve governments that we hope will act in our interests... it's what happens when you decide to be part of a wider union - there are others involved. we decided to be in it - and we agreed the rules (our governments that we voted for)

I STILL don't see how moving away from unanimity to QMV makes it worse... can you explain?

No we didn't!!! We agreed to a trading block and No government since then has had a mandate for political union, nor has it been included in any manifesto.

[thebish]

so - what exactly is you beef about all the gubbins you cutted and pasted re. moving away from unanimity to QMV? would you rather have QMV on those issues or unanimity?

[Hoboh]

so - what exactly is you beef about all the gubbins you cutted and pasted re. moving away from unanimity to QMV? would you rather have QMV on those issues or unanimity?

QMV does absolutely nothing to further British interests in Europe, quite the opposite.

If we proposed to give every Frenchman a thousand Euros the French government would vote against it because it was a British suggestion.
There are a lot of nations that will constantly vote down anything we suggest and push their own favourable agendas which we will no longer be able to veto.

[thebish]

i suspect you misunderstand how UK democracy works slightly... we don't vote for programmes or policies - or even manifestos - we vote for governments who we give 5yrs to in order to act as they see fit in the interests of the UK with the approval of parliament where necessary...

those parliaments have approved the major structural changes to EU law since we joined it.

if as you say there are malicious european govts who would vote down anything we ever proposed - then HOW is it better to insist that they ALL agree than to suggest that a qualified majority agrees?? you're making no sense at all!! If france is so against us - how does it help to give them a veto??

[Hoboh]

Here we go round the mulberry bush,

So you don't vote on a parties manifesto, just who you like the look of then?

No veto and we accept anything at all in bish style democracy, I do understand how a UK government is supposed to work, they welch on deals they get kicked out, just like the current set of morons will be.

[Worthy4England]

This clearly isn't about QMV, per se, that came in with the Treaty of Rome in 1958...