| The Comments |
Yes, they do use independent auditors. I can't link from my tablet (my granddaughter's gone to bed so can't show me how) but there's a site from Europa that shows the Telegraph, the Mail and others claims about not signing them off are actually lying. They have been signed off for years.
And,again, the EU doesn't regulate the banks. Other international and national organisations do that. We already have people blaming the EU for over regulation. If they started regulating financial services and taxes it would give even more ammunition to the out camp.
Already the EU is being blamed for over regulation and bureaucracy. I suppose it makes a change to have them blamed for not regulating enough.
0
Like
|
Bobaol
Keith Rule effectively requested many years ago that if the Bank of Spain and Spanish Government failed to act within defined timescales that the European Parliament and EU Commission take firm and effective action demanding that these very serious financial illegalities be addressed as a matter of extreme urgency. But they still did nothing in full knowledge of the fact that the Bank of Spain took no action. Did they defend the rule of law and show willingness to investigate further or make any attempt to protect EU citizens? No. As for illegal demolitions and blighting of properties etc with several representations to the European Parliament.......again did they defend the rule of law and show willingness to protect EU citizens? No. And if the argument be used that they were impotent to defend citizens in these dire circumstances then there are many who rightly suggest that any organisation that fails to defend the rule of law in this manner begs many questions as to its effectiveness and moral responsibilities. So here's hoping that lessons have been learned and that the EU comprehend the major insecurities that arise from such failures, and that they ensure that adherence to the rule of law in protection of citizens rights becomes high on their list of priorities in the months and years ahead.
As for regulation, its a complete nonsense to suggest that Banks dont require further regulation when so many countries have been subjected to such austerity off the back of their manipulative tactics and lack of compliance that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Not to mention ongoing illegalities within the Spanish real estate industry and mortgage provision (illegal contract clauses, non payment of community debts, obstructive behaviour to delay enforcement of law, etc).
Likewise with large corporations that manipulate their legal affairs to deny countries of their tax obligations (google and facebook being classic examples). If ever there was need for the EU to step up to the mark and work together with other countries to identitfy solutions/strategies to deal with these issues, let alone address internal reform associated with transparency, efficiency and accountability, its now.
These shouldn't be issues to hide away from in fear of British exit ( If they started regulating financial services and taxes it would give even more ammunition to the out camp. ).... these issues should be recognised and addressed head on where required, and shouldn't be confused with other regulations that inhibit growth.
Anyway, here's hoping that facts and lack of infomation re future strategies/commitments to address reform etc will become more evident in the next few months, allowing each and everyone of us to make rational judgements as to the best way forward.
0
Like
|
I watched Simon Reeves' BBC documentary (ostensibly a travel program) on Greece last night.
I was shocked to see how completely undefended our "Union's" borders are - boat loads of refugees simply landing on beaches with no sign of any authorities there to greet them. I was shocked to see children scavenging on mountains of waste, people living in shipping containers - as Reeves said, "this is not sub-Saharan Africa....this is Europe...2015".
Much more of this (no doubt unintended) negative publicity, and an OUT vote seems an inevitability, if the IN camp don't start explainng to us why we should be part of this. (Although I still believe an IN vote will be the only acceptable one to those in control)
_______________________
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"
Mark Twain
0
Like
|
I’m not going to defend the derivative financial markets, or CMC but those points I posted are an insight into how the market generally views the prospect of Brexit. In tandem with that sentiment then is the Goldman Sachs prediction of a 20% devaluation of Sterling if the vote is OUT.
Sterling has already depreciated since the turn of the year at the prospect of the referendum and expected low interest rates especially if the vote is an exit. The value of Sterling directly effects the expat population in the EU with a Sterling income.
I think most ordinary voters in the UK have already made up their minds. The so called ‘don’t knows’ just don’t tell the pollsters. It’s clear from the interesting posts on here that you are firm in your views.
Like it or not the global financial markets run Britain. They, apart from the odd maverick are clear in their collective opinion that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. It will make the country poorer and smaller in the long term.
The EU is far from perfect but it’s a single market of 500 million with much clout and influence in the world. Britain will be reduced to an off shore providence outside the club with reduced influence in the world.
I note no politicians is even discussing the plan B. What they will do if Brexit is chosen? That is because there really isn’t one that’s acceptable to most. The entire referendum was called to reduce the power of the Tory back benchers and UKIP before the migrant crisis.
The problem now is the political confidence of a vote to stay in has evaporated and exit is looking more and more likely. It’s a slow walk towards disaster the British will eventually bitterly regret.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 08/02/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
I'm firm in my views that I want more factual information!
Where is your detailed call for EU reform to identify the outstanding issues of concern that need to be addressed, and have you contacted any MEPs to identify the failings and demand they inform how they plan to address these major issues that concern the British public in the event that we remain in? Or are you happy to sit back rather than demand they communicate how they intend to address these legitimate concerns?
If they are reticent to communicate, what does this tell you about their commitment to reform?
Here's hoping that everyone endeavours to gain information from their MEPs so that this can be posted on web forums, if the British press are not to be trusted! Shouldn't we all be demanding information and start to make our MP's & MEPs (and the EU Commission for that matter) respond? It's called accountability....
Kind regards.
This message was last edited by ads on 08/02/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 08/02/2016.
1
Like
|
"The so called ‘don’t knows’ just don’t tell the pollsters." I haven't been (and won't be) polled, and it's academic anyway since I'm probably not eligible to vote, but I am a genuine don't know. Ads is right - far more info required.
_______________________
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"
Mark Twain
0
Like
|
Cameron has thrown a curved ball in respect of the possibility of a 2016 referendum, there is very little interest in the UK because no one is ready. There are no local radio phone in's, no posters, no car stickers, we are quite simply waiting for play to commence and to see who is on what side and what they have to say. Apparently Theresa May is supposed to be a leading light in the 'OUT' campaign, but I can't recall reading or hearing anything from her, even Nigel Farage appears to have been taken by surprise.
Maybe David Cameron has played a blinder. 
_______________________
I'm Spartacus, well why not?
0
Like
|
LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of refugees could flock to Britain from France if voters decide to leave the European Union, a spokesman for David Cameron said on Monday, underlining the prime minister's stance that an exit would hurt security.
In what critics said was the start of a "campaign of fear" to try to keep voters in the European Union, the spokesman said leaving the bloc could harm an agreement with France which allows British border guards to make immigration checks there.
"We have that relationship with the French partly because we are both partners in the EU. Should we leave the EU there is no guarantee that we would see those controls continuing," the spokesman said.
He has it all under control, but on the other hand it could be a lie because it's from the media, and we know he don't lie, so it's true then.
Apologies for repeating whats in the media because I have no other way of finding out whats going on.
1
Like
|
I've been trying to rationalise this logic and comparing this suggestion against the status quo, but bear with me..... (this is horrible using people as political footballs).
So economic migrants that are let through anyway as things stand (EU citizens) would, following exit from the EU, then run the risk of being put straight back on the next train if Cameron doesn't want to add to the numbers of economic migrants, which would do no favours to France?
Presumably (?) the refugees would be allowed to travel through the tunnel, but also could be turned back to Calais to be registered and accommodated in France, since Cameron has suggested he is only taking refugees from the large camps in Turkey etc, which would require strong border controls on the UK side of the tunnel where refugees would be prevented from entry?
Putting judgements aside this appears to make no sense whatsoever, or have I missed something?
Also a professor from Durham University who was interviewed after the statement suggested that from the outset this was a separate agreement with France and did not rely upon EU approval, in which case France would be taking a unilateral decision on this matter. Is this correct also?
0
Like
|
Prime Minister David Cameron is set to announce a major shakeup of the UK prison system, which he described as "scandalous". As part of the sweeping changes, he will grant more powers to prison governors and push for the inmates to be treated as **** potential assets **** rather than liabilities.
He, Cameron, gets better the more he has to drink.
Still lets all believe every word he tells us as to how much better of we will be....In.
0
Like
|
"Cameron, gets better the more he has to drink."
I know where he drinks (and occasionally forgets his kids) Sunday lunchtimes, if anyone wants to pop down and buy him a pint - "PM" me for details! (The owners of the pub also own a villa here in Torrie - next time I see them I'll ask their views, and whether or not they have any sway!)
_______________________
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"
Mark Twain
0
Like
|
The problem with migrants either economic or escaping war areas, once they land on uk soil, in the tunnel, English Chanel tunnel, they can apply for asylum, leaving the EU means not custom men in say Calais, French not bothered, so the people found in Dover would be asylum seekers and we have to keep them, so all it means is that the tent city in France will end up in Dover , great news, so we lose the east European workers, and gain untold amount of asylum seekers.
great!
_______________________
I Live in Warrington & Cabo Roig
0
Like
|
The reason they're in tents in Calais is that they haven't claimed asylum in France - if they did, they'd be housed in nice warm dormitories, fed & watered, but would also have to submit to being registered as asylum seekers in France. They don't want to be - they want to get to the UK. In or out, will make no difference to that fact.
I'm unclear on whether it would be easier or harder for them to get to the UK, or for the UK to turn them away if the UK was in/out. Anybody?
_______________________
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"
Mark Twain
1
Like
|
As far as I can understand it, it will depend on France continuing with the agreement we have with them. It's not part of any EU agreement but I don't think that we can second guess what France will do. It's not in their interest to have all those tents in Calais so they may well decide to tear up the agreement and let them through. Once on British soil we have to keep them and process their claims, and you know how good we are with that. So, I don't think anyone can claim to know the answer to your question Roberto.
0
Like
|
To show how the press does like "playing to the crowd", I mentioned in an earlier post that expats going back to UK wouldn't be able to access NHS services. This was based on a couple of reports in both the Telegraph and the Daily Mail plus a report in the Guardian and several "internet" rants.
I had a query from Roberto so I went back to the horse's mouth and contacted my old practice. They told me that, yes, a 6 month residency was required except for asylum seekers and foreign students. However, probably due to press reports, they told me this policy had changed from April 2015 and previous residents of the UK are now allowed full access to the NHS and not just for emergency treatment. They do not require an EHIC for this.
Apologies for stating policy that has now changed for the better. Again, however, I note one of the reports in the Telegraph was published in September 2015, almost 6 months after the policy had changed.
Mea culpa and apologies for the rant and for believing press reports without substantiation.
2
Like
|
We're all struggling to gain the truth bobaol which demonstrates that whichever camp you are in, or "undeciders" we mustn't if possible fall into the trap of misinformation or lies.
The press of late however appear to be getting away with this even in the sporting field ;) On a serious note however, if this gets out of hand it could undermine our democracy and trust, so once again it comes down to accountability and dare I say it, the need for trusted independent regulatory bodies to inhibit such threats to our way of life and free speech. It's as though human nature and the belief that "anything goes" when it comes to getting what you want (banking abuse springs to mind but there are many other instances!!!) needs a counter mechanism (regulation and moral authority).
Thanks for your correction and honesty. :)
0
Like
|
Leave the EU? NO!
Utter Maddness
Just a shame the demographics of the UK will possibly vote to leave.
Much as I dislike cameron, very much. I hope he can rig it.
(waits for backlash)
TM
1
Like
|
I wonder how many people it is who left the UK, some might say deserted it, obversely for a better life, believe that the UK leaving the EU would be such a massive disaster for us still living here, while pretty much what happens to us here, from the EU has no immediate effect on them living in, lets say Spain.
Are they concerned for us or themselves?
This message was last edited by baz1946 on 09/02/2016.
0
Like
|
Nope! Three times I've read that last post, baz, and still can't make head nor tail of it. if you're asking if Brits living in Spain are worried about how a Brexit would affect them then of course they are.
And if I've "deserted" UK, can I please have the tax money you keep taking off me to the tune of a few thousand quid a year?
0
Like
|
I think those who are resident in Spain are concerned (among other things) that a Brexit may affect their right to free healthcare in Spain.
On that note, although not strictly relevant to Brexit, Bob, the Telegraph articles you referred to, and the "change of policy" your old practice mentioned actually had nothing to do with expats returning to live in the UK, rather to expats visiting the UK. I believe the 6 month residency rule to be a myth, but won't go into that here.
The statement "previous residents of the UK are now allowed full access to the NHS and not just for emergency treatment. They do not require an EHIC for this" refers to previous residents who are now expats, & only to British pensioners. Working age expats living in other EEA countries will be required to produce an EHIC from their country of residence, or face charges. In reality, this latter part was always the case, they're just being stricter now (that's the new policy I think!)
From one of the Telegraph articles: "Former UK residents who return there to settle will be eligible for free NHS care immediately, according to a department of health spokesman. (this I believe was always the case)
“This clamping down is an example of how the UK’s austerity measures are affecting expats. Times are changing and if you’re not a UK pensioner, you can no longer just nip back to the UK for free health care when it suits you"
And this from thelocal.es: "former UK residents were automatically entitled to use the NHS for free if they fell ill during a visit. In practice, many expats use the NHS for planned treatment too. But now this right is being removed."
There's plenty more info about this, from the press, including Telegraph (which on this ocassion at least appears to have published the correct information!) as well as more official sources. For the sake of avoiding a thread thrift, I will PM you, Bob. If anyone else is interested, feel free to PM me.
This message was last edited by Roberto on 09/02/2016.
_______________________
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"
Mark Twain
0
Like
|