Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

GM228 wrote: »

I really don't see any issue with EU staff pay and the special tax arrangements, fair play to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise it could be argued is a begrudger.

Yes EU staff don't pay normal incomel tax like the rest of us, but, they are subject to other national taxes such as VAT etc, they do pay a special Community Income Tax, this is a progressive tax which ranges between 8% and 45%, the average EU staff member pays between 12% and 25% tax. This is all provided for under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities.

There are also other deductions, for example they pay what is known as a Solidarity Levy of either 6% or 7% depending on grade, they pay a 10% pension levy, they pay a 1.7% health insurance levy, they pay a 0.1% accident insurance levy, they pay a 0.18% unemployment protection levy etc, but it is equally important to note that EU workers do receive other well paid bonuses, but their marginal tax rate can often rise above 50%.

The salaries I quoted considered all that, as there are European salary calculators that will calculate a net salary. The numbers I quite don't include allowances. I just don't think the salary levels within the commission are justified (JCJ and Tusk lift a cool €215k/yr net) and not just at the top but at all levels. When it's the ordinary worker that funds this largesse and especially when austerity is being dictated by a commission that will never experience it, it is hard to stomach.

Pointing this out is not about begrudgery either. It's about fairness and real solidarity, and in the context of EU salaries and allowances 7% is a pittance.

Anyway, this is all beside the point, it just illustrates that no criticism of the EU, valid or not is not welcome here. How can one have a fair debate when there is not even a semblance of trying to understand an opposing view on Europe, and I say that as someone who is quite pro European (I was even a federalist at one point in my youth!). But at least I am not blinded to the waste, failures problems and issues in the project.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The salaries I quoted considered all that, as there are European salary calculators that will calculate a net salary. The numbers I quite don't include allowances. I just don't think the salary levels within the commission are justified (JCJ and Tusk lift a cool €215k/yr net) and not just at the top but at all levels. When it's the ordinary worker that funds this largesse and especially when austerity is being dictated by a commission that will never experience it, it is hard to stomach.

Pointing this out is not about begrudgery either. It's about fairness and real solidarity, and in the context of EU salaries and allowances 7% is a pittance.

JCJ and Tusk are consummate professionals who would walk into an MNC or Oil/gas major and earn ten times that, we should be thanking our lucky stars their ilk have half a moral compass and actually want to do work that benefits people.

All EU employees need to be fluent in at least two EU languages, so comparisons with the Irish/British are moot, it's not other countries fault that they have a much better mastery of languages than we do. The aptitude and scenario testing is also very stringent if you want to work in a role with any kind of influence, comparing it to entry level paper pushers is ridiculous. The majority of that 40k would get jobs in industry with better pay, this isn't the post office.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In 2014, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, at the time Dutch Minister of Finance, described Juncker in an interview as a "heavy smoker and drinker". So yeah...

Anyway, I know two people in the commission and they have told me that the people in there are, in their opinion, are not any better than you'd find in a policy unit in a typical Irish department (which one came from). The work is relatively mundane consisting of analysing existing and proposing new policy. There are the pencil pushers and coasters too there of course.

Irish counts as a second language.

Tusk and Barnier are light years ahead of anyone in the UK cabinet (including Johnson) in terms of intelligence, sophistication, expertise and experience - even Richard Tice of the Brexit Party admitted this in a TV interview yesterday.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.

There's something bizarrely wrong with democracy if you are saying to 48% of voters that you are now forced to vote for only choices being dictated to you.

Might as well go full on North Korea style where Kim wins 99% every election

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Pointing this out is not about begrudgery either. It's about fairness and real solidarity, and in the context of EU salaries and allowances 7% is a pittance.

Anyway, this is all beside the point, it just illustrates that no criticism of the EU, valid or not is not welcome here. How can one have a fair debate when there is not even a semblance of trying to understand an opposing view on Europe, and I say that as someone who is quite pro European (I was even a federalist at one point in my youth!). But at least I am not blinded to the waste, failures problems and issues in the project.

Your point is akin to having a tree growing in your garden for decades and because a few leaves fall on to your car windscreen, that you don't like criticism for suggesting the tree should be cut down.

Nobody has argued about the EU being perfect but that it needs constant change and which it has undergone over the decades.

Trying to make a point about EU staff salaries in the context of the reasons for Brexit simply isn't critical thinking.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The one size fits all (really just Germany and France) monetary policy.

If the other Eurozone countries had agreed to reforms and had voted for much needed (maybe unpopular) financial policies, this would not have been any major problem.
The expectation by the Northern EU members of the Eurozone that the fiscal rules (60% max debt, 3% max deficit) would be followed as part of good governance turned out not to be true.

Just another example of the absolute necessity of good rules, regulations and controls.

Finland, the Baltic countries and Slovakia has shown good governance and been fairly OK with the Euro.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The Strasbourg parliament

This dual parliament is due to a kind of French inferiority complex.

It came into the treaties when Denmark voted 'No' to Maastricht and got four opt-outs at the Council meeting late 1992 in Edinburgh. The French managed at the same meeting to get Strasbourg into future treaties.

It cost around € 900 mill/year or €2/EU27Citizen/year (~ 1£80p/year).

It is a sad state of affairs.
However it is not any large economic problem given the population size of the EU. There are currently much larger and much more urgent problem for the EU to focus on.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The low/no salary taxes of EU staff wages. They do have a community tax but it's nowhere near the level of taxation in the Member States.

The salaries in EU are OK and very OK for people from some poorer countries. MEPs are taxed by an average 22% by the EU, but e.g. the Danish MEP are taxed by the Danish tax rules too. The tax paid to the EU is subtracted from the tax they have to pay to Denmark.
Nothing in EU rules prevents other member states to do the same (I believe many already do).

Good and fair salaries for EU civil servants and for the hardworking part of the MEPs is important to get the best people applying for an EU job or running for office (as MEP).
It is also important for being able to efficiently fight corruption and fraud.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The failure in policy that lead to Dieselgate

The low fuel consumption and low CO2 emission from Diesel engines fooled politicians to support these engines in new cars. The politicians did not understand or didn't wanted to know that NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) and micro particles were much higher from these engines.

Lower taxation of these cars and in more EU countries of Diesel fuel too, was national policies first and EU coordination second.
They were helped by the new wave of very small cars with very small Diesel engines.

Lars

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In 2014, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, at the time Dutch Minister of Finance, described Juncker in an interview as a "heavy smoker and drinker". So yeah...

Anyway, I know two people in the commission and they have told me that the people in there are, in their opinion, are not any better than you'd find in a policy unit in a typical Irish department (which one came from). The work is relatively mundane consisting of analysing existing and proposing new policy. There are the pencil pushers and coasters too there of course.

Irish counts as a second language.

I'd imagine you need to demonstrate some level of proficiency?

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'd imagine you need to demonstrate some level of proficiency?

You need a level B2 in your second language under the topics of understanding, speaking and writing.

CFER language level guides

You need level C1 in the first language.

Some positions however require C2 for first language and C1 for the second.

Anyone watching the DUP Conference - Arlene foster doesnt seem confident at all - genuinely, if anyone was watching last few minutes she is talking in a very shaky way

They are seriously rattled it seems -

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Their Tory PM has side lined them. The opposition who currently are cosying up to them are only interested in using them and the DUP know it. They backed the Brexit horse so they'd be more Britishy and to get one over on nationalists, has blown up in their face. In short, when it comes to Brexit they're as useful as t1ts on a bull. Roadkill of the Brexit bus who are resorting to threats of loyalist (them) violence.

Also the conditions that allowed them to be kingmakers in the HoC meant they had very little motivation to get Stormont up and running. But these same conditions then turned against them and as a result two policies they opposed vehemently has been passed and there was nothing they could do to stop it. They were trying to be too smart and it came back and bit them.

Then to really rub it in they have been thrown under the bus by Johnson with Brexit so they not only have lost their influence in Westminster and SSM and abortion is now legal in NI. Add into this the RHI scandal that is in the background as well, I suspect in their moments of reflection they would take longer than a few minutes to decide their Brexit strategy with the knowledge of hindsight.

liamtech wrote: »

Anyone watching the DUP Conference - Arlene foster doesnt seem confident at all - genuinely, if anyone was watching last few minutes she is talking in a very shaky way

They are seriously rattled it seems -

I have literally seen bigger audiences at weddings.

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Their Tory PM has side lined them. The opposition who currently are cosying up to them are only interested in using them and the DUP know it. They backed the Brexit horse so they'd be more Britishy and to get one over on nationalists, has blown up in their face. In short, when it comes to Brexit they're as useful as t1ts on a bull. Roadkill of the Brexit bus who are resorting to threats of loyalist (them) violence.

They took too hard a line. I'd have major criticisms of Sinn Fein's approach to Brexit, which has been to sit on their hands for the most part, but whether by accident or by design, Sinn Fein have at least followed the principle of not interrupting your opponent while they're making a mistake.

Let's be fair here, no matter where you put a border, be it on land or at sea, it holds the potential to invite violent causes. It's a huge problem with Brexit, generally. I have been prepared to be fair to both sides on that one. However, because of Arlene's flippant attitude towards the problems with a land border, I find my sympathy towards her crying about a sea border fading fast. Either admit they're both problematic or wind the neck in.

briany wrote: »

They took too hard a line. I'd have major criticisms of Sinn Fein's approach to Brexit, which has been to sit on their hands for the most part, but whether by accident or by design, Sinn Fein have at least followed the principle of not interrupting your opponent while they're making a mistake.

Let's be fair here, no matter where you put a border, be it on land or at sea, it holds the potential to invite violent causes. It's a huge problem with Brexit, generally. I have been prepared to be fair to both sides on that one. However, because of Arlene's flippant attitude towards the problems with a land border, I find my sympathy towards her crying about a sea border fading fast. Either admit they're both problematic or wind the neck in.

Whether one is unionist, nationalist or neither, Brexit is a terrible idea for the island of Ireland. So whether it's the DUP or whoever, they need to get that through their head. English nationalism does not care about Ireland, north or south. If they continue to misstep and there's no reason to expect that they'll suddenly wise up, a United Ireland will only be a matter of time.