4 ms·

I voted no, I don't want more legislation. More and more, the EU is taking away liberties of people and countries in name of a 'common good' and a 'better euro

by BSousa 15y ago

I voted no, I don't want more legislation. More and more, the EU is taking away liberties of people and countries in name of a 'common good' and a 'better europe'. A good example is the now credit crisis which was mostly a problem with EU interfering with countries. For example production "Ok, you stop producing X and we will pay you Y for you to buy X from us" which short sighted politicians were all too happy to accept since it meant money coming to countries and reelection was easier. It is hard to get payment gateways ala feefighters and others, sure, but you can go to a normal bank, get a merchant account and accept those payments yourself. About taxes, it isn't that complicated to be honest. VAT is charged at the rate your business as a presence in (usually your home country) when selling to someone in EU. Corporate taxes is dependent on country but UK isn't that bad. Most countries that have bad corporate tax structures are usually riddled with corruption. Most countries now are also trying to offer a better environment for new companies. UK is lowering taxes for small business if I'm not mistaken. Portugal decreased the minimal capital from 5000 euros to 1 euro. Some countries are decreasing taxes to companies that export alot(by giving them tax incentives) Most EU small business have access to programs that offer them line of credit and sometimes free money for projects (in portugal it is called QREN no idea what is called elsewhere) that comes from EU. And maybe it is just me, but whenever I see lobbying mentioned, I shriek! Trying to do this on the EU scale would probably involved a lot of money under the tables.

jvandenbroeck 15y ago
" A good example is the now credit crisis which was mostly a problem with EU interfering with countries. " This is completely untrue, if the EU had more power the crisis would be much easier to solve. For example with one interest rate for the whole Euro zone instead of a different one for each country.
- BSousa 15y ago
  Please note I mentioned an example that wasn't the response in 2009-2010 to the crisis, but what happened before causing part of the crisis. Easy influx of money, both in interest rates by joining the Euro (more borrowing but not fault or EU per se) and influx of money from EU to close specific industries and/or production of goods (Agriculture for example) was a problem. Also, at least in Portugal, during this crisis there were incentives to buy new cars that were influenced by EU. This benefited some countries but countries that do not have an auto industry were screwed. Also for example, there were added taxes from pakistan on textile products. When the floods hit, EU wanted to lift those taxes as a whole, hurting a lot of countries that have a good amount of people employed in those industries. These are the examples I mention with interfering. A central parliament where the members are payed an enormous amount of money to be there (yes, I also have a problem with the money and benefits they get there), deciding for the whole EU where individual countries get shafted because some countries (UK, Germany, France and Italy together get more than 50% of votes) can get a majority easily and can look after their own interests.
VonLipwig 15y ago
I see the benefits of Europe but I do not like how the EU is moving towards a single mega state. This isn't what I want the EU to be or do. If anyone should be lobbied it should be your countries government, not the EU.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > This isn't what I want the EU to be or do. I have to ask: why not?
  - VonLipwig 15y ago
    I'm British, I prefer this identity to being European. You can see with the single currency that one size doesn't fit all. Flying under one giant flag reduces individual states ability to stimulate their economy and promote a certain sector to grow. The EU isn't bad and I certainly wouldn't want Britain to stop being a member however - economic woes aside - I am generally happy with how things are currently. Europe doesn't need to become the United States of Europe to prosper.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      That's because the EU is a heterogeneous environment and so there is a big difference between British/German standards, quality of life and mentality and the Greeks. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Apparently 50 states in the U.S. that are spread across an area that's almost as big as all of Europe and with a population that's racially and ethnically very diverse, can get along.
      - ajuc 15y ago
        I assume you are citizen of USA. Would you like USA to join countries like Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Kuba, Wenezuela, Peru, and others to form one huge country with common political system (mix of current political systems of these countries), new official language (let's say it won't be English), common currency, etc? For this analogy to hold don't assume USA will dominate this union (even thought it would in reality), because for most countries in EU - they won't dominate. Think about this - more people in this new country would live outside of USA than inside, so when some hard decision comes, there's big chance former USA will lose the voting. There's big chance that people from USA will be minority in government of that new country. That's how many people in EU think about EU becoming one state.
jwr 15y ago
You could lobby for _less_ legislation. I think what the OP had in mind was creating a better business environment, which usually means less legislation and less regulation.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  Yes, when I think about harmonization, that would often mean less national regulations. The EU already often intervenes against national regulations that are anticompetitive, so this wouldn't be a first time.
arethuza 15y ago
"the EU is taking away liberties of people and countries in name of a 'common good' and a 'better europe'" I'm struggling to think of what individual liberties I've lost to the EU. On the other hand the fact that people from anywhere in the EU can come here to live and work here in the UK is great and the fact I can work, live and travel where I want within the EU looks like a huge increase in liberty to me.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  I'm from Italy, and, even if there are some things I don't like coming from the EU (for example, some regulations about food), I find that a LOT has improved in Europe thanks to it. I would just like things to improve even more ;)
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Even with food, things like the Protected Geographical Status seem like a damn good idea - we have fantastic local foods in the EU and this can do a lot to protect manufacturers from blatantly unfair competition and give good guarantees to consumers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status
    - Shivetya 15y ago
      So forty six thousand words designating what is acceptable as a 'quality wine' is a good thing? To be a quality wine requires that the wine be produced in a designated area? Sorry, but to me that is nothing more than good old protectionism to prevent worthy competitors from entering a market. I would not doubt that it is so corrupt that you can buy your way into a designated area provided you have the connections. While some protection of known names is valid, determine who makes a good product simply based on their geographical domain is not. What we have is government bureaucrats picking winners and losers. Fantastic local foods protect themselves by upholding their quality and their name. I fully agree that names need protecting, however determine quality by the region its produced in; the wine example; is wrong.
davidw 15y ago
> whenever I see lobbying mentioned, I shriek! danmaz74's idea came because he's part of the http://SrlFacile.org http://SrlFacile.org initiative, which is lobbying for less laws and complications for the creation of limited liability companies in Italy!

by BSousa 15y ago

jvandenbroeck 15y ago

" A good example is the now credit crisis which was mostly a problem with EU interfering with countries. " This is completely untrue, if the EU had more power the crisis would be much easier to solve. For example with one interest rate for the whole Euro zone instead of a different one for each country.

BSousa 15y ago
Please note I mentioned an example that wasn't the response in 2009-2010 to the crisis, but what happened before causing part of the crisis. Easy influx of money, both in interest rates by joining the Euro (more borrowing but not fault or EU per se) and influx of money from EU to close specific industries and/or production of goods (Agriculture for example) was a problem. Also, at least in Portugal, during this crisis there were incentives to buy new cars that were influenced by EU. This benefited some countries but countries that do not have an auto industry were screwed. Also for example, there were added taxes from pakistan on textile products. When the floods hit, EU wanted to lift those taxes as a whole, hurting a lot of countries that have a good amount of people employed in those industries. These are the examples I mention with interfering. A central parliament where the members are payed an enormous amount of money to be there (yes, I also have a problem with the money and benefits they get there), deciding for the whole EU where individual countries get shafted because some countries (UK, Germany, France and Italy together get more than 50% of votes) can get a majority easily and can look after their own interests.

VonLipwig 15y ago

I see the benefits of Europe but I do not like how the EU is moving towards a single mega state. This isn't what I want the EU to be or do. If anyone should be lobbied it should be your countries government, not the EU.

masklinn 15y ago
> This isn't what I want the EU to be or do. I have to ask: why not?
- VonLipwig 15y ago
  I'm British, I prefer this identity to being European. You can see with the single currency that one size doesn't fit all. Flying under one giant flag reduces individual states ability to stimulate their economy and promote a certain sector to grow. The EU isn't bad and I certainly wouldn't want Britain to stop being a member however - economic woes aside - I am generally happy with how things are currently. Europe doesn't need to become the United States of Europe to prosper.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    That's because the EU is a heterogeneous environment and so there is a big difference between British/German standards, quality of life and mentality and the Greeks. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Apparently 50 states in the U.S. that are spread across an area that's almost as big as all of Europe and with a population that's racially and ethnically very diverse, can get along.
    - ajuc 15y ago
      I assume you are citizen of USA. Would you like USA to join countries like Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Kuba, Wenezuela, Peru, and others to form one huge country with common political system (mix of current political systems of these countries), new official language (let's say it won't be English), common currency, etc? For this analogy to hold don't assume USA will dominate this union (even thought it would in reality), because for most countries in EU - they won't dominate. Think about this - more people in this new country would live outside of USA than inside, so when some hard decision comes, there's big chance former USA will lose the voting. There's big chance that people from USA will be minority in government of that new country. That's how many people in EU think about EU becoming one state.

jwr 15y ago

You could lobby for _less_ legislation. I think what the OP had in mind was creating a better business environment, which usually means less legislation and less regulation.

danmaz74 15y ago
Yes, when I think about harmonization, that would often mean less national regulations. The EU already often intervenes against national regulations that are anticompetitive, so this wouldn't be a first time.

arethuza 15y ago

"the EU is taking away liberties of people and countries in name of a 'common good' and a 'better europe'" I'm struggling to think of what individual liberties I've lost to the EU. On the other hand the fact that people from anywhere in the EU can come here to live and work here in the UK is great and the fact I can work, live and travel where I want within the EU looks like a huge increase in liberty to me.

danmaz74 15y ago
I'm from Italy, and, even if there are some things I don't like coming from the EU (for example, some regulations about food), I find that a LOT has improved in Europe thanks to it. I would just like things to improve even more ;)
- arethuza 15y ago
  Even with food, things like the Protected Geographical Status seem like a damn good idea - we have fantastic local foods in the EU and this can do a lot to protect manufacturers from blatantly unfair competition and give good guarantees to consumers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status
  - Shivetya 15y ago
    So forty six thousand words designating what is acceptable as a 'quality wine' is a good thing? To be a quality wine requires that the wine be produced in a designated area? Sorry, but to me that is nothing more than good old protectionism to prevent worthy competitors from entering a market. I would not doubt that it is so corrupt that you can buy your way into a designated area provided you have the connections. While some protection of known names is valid, determine who makes a good product simply based on their geographical domain is not. What we have is government bureaucrats picking winners and losers. Fantastic local foods protect themselves by upholding their quality and their name. I fully agree that names need protecting, however determine quality by the region its produced in; the wine example; is wrong.

davidw 15y ago

> whenever I see lobbying mentioned, I shriek! danmaz74's idea came because he's part of the http://SrlFacile.org http://SrlFacile.org initiative, which is lobbying for less laws and complications for the creation of limited liability companies in Italy!