1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Slippery Dave is defeated again - is it good value for money?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Cantandmorecant, Dec 6, 2015.

  1. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    Britain has been landed with another EU bill this time for £1 million for the doubling of European Court judges. The government had tried to block the plan but found itself the only country to vote against it. The number of EU judges will rise from 28 to 56, each of who are paid £158,000 a year.

    The plan will come into force next month and will cost £9.7 million, with Britain being forced to pay £935,750. Now some might wonder why Britain wasn't forced to pay the lot considering other judgements, votes and demands imposed upon it, and the fact that it has a backlog of cases amounting to 1,270 which has increased from 600 in just five years. So the question of value for money has to be asked. What exactly do we get out of it?

    Well the court is the main arena for EU law, including the higher court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. So? Well um... well it's high isn't it? And...? Well it has ruled against Britain on several occasions and claims it will save money in the long run because there are damages claims against it for outstanding cases amounting to £19.3 million from those whose cases have been delayed. At least that's the justification of the EU.

    Conservative MP Bill Cash has said, "This vast increase in the number of judges is because the system is out of control, far too complex and undemocratic. Our Government doesn't have the will to stop the system, and when we are working with the system we have no influence." So even within the EU we still don't have a say. Kind of puts paid to the myth of losing any influence if we leave. After all, how can you lose something you don't have in the first place?

    The decision was made on the same day that Cameron said he might have to campaign for a Brexit if his requests are continue to be rejected by the EU. The FT has reported on seeing a letter by Marc Jaeger, the court president, registering his “deep concern” over the plan in a letter to the head of the European Council late last year:
    “There are more appropriate, more effective and less onerous means by which to strengthen the General Court and to achieve better and even faster outcome for litigants" he said.

    It was recently revealed that the court had fined Britain to the tune of £15 million, a 'Dracula tax' for imports of garlic. They demanded the money after they decided Britain had not charged enough to China for the import.

    What next? A Frankenstein tax for not importing enough GM EU maize?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-56-four-years-despite-appeal-ministers.html
     
  2. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
  3. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    The amount Britain will have to pay in millions

    [​IMG]
     
    Cliffedge and Christmas_Kippers like this.
  4. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    Go back to la la land.
     
    Cliffedge and Christmas_Kippers like this.
  5. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    On a scale of 1 to 10 that's how interesting your post is.

    1 million quid is small change in government terms.....not worth getting in a flap about
     
  6. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    You're forgetting the £15 million last week.
     
    Christmas_Kippers likes this.
  7. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    5 X 3 = the EU Dracula tax fine of Britain

    [​IMG]
     
    Christmas_Kippers and Cliffedge like this.
  8. ulambasalu

    ulambasalu Occasional commenter

    ZZZZZZZFFS! PILLOCK
     
  9. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    The amount we will get back

    [​IMG]
     
    Christmas_Kippers and Cliffedge like this.
  10. ulambasalu

    ulambasalu Occasional commenter

    LOL:)
     
  11. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    Temper Temper
     
    Scintillant likes this.
  12. ulambasalu

    ulambasalu Occasional commenter

    [​IMG]
     
  13. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

  14. ulambasalu

    ulambasalu Occasional commenter

    Ooooòoh you are awful
    [​IMG]
     
  15. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    If Britain leaves the EU the UK would probably need to join the European Economic Area (EEA), The other likely option is to negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU, like Switzerland does.

    Nothing much would change when it comes to the European Court as EEA states are obliged to accept the majority of EU regulations without being part of the EU law making process. So Norway participates in nearly all EU social and employment policies as EEA agreements incorporate many EU directives and the influence of the ECJ would still be felt because the EFTA/EEA Court, which interprets EEA rules, is obliged to follow ECJ case law. For example, the free movement of people is an integral part of the EEA agreement and Switzerland has also signed up to this principle.

    The Swiss arrangement does not offer much more hope of escape to British ‘eurosceptics’ as Swiss Law follows EU law and consequently Switzerland has hundreds of legal or identical agreements with the EU, so Swiss Law, like Norwegian Law incorporates EU law and follows ECJ judgements but has no say in the development of the law.

    Like EEA states or the Swiss, the UK (or part of the UK) outside the EU would certainly be able to negotiate some exemptions from EU Law. However this would be limited: for example when it comes to EU Employment Law the UK would not be allowed to undercut EU states through lower employment standards while remaining part of a free market.
     
  16. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

  17. ulambasalu

    ulambasalu Occasional commenter

  18. Cantandmorecant

    Cantandmorecant Lead commenter

    It could if it wanted to. There is no law that says it has to though.

    That would depend on the negotiations. Not on anything else.

    Because Norway and chose to. Not much skillful negotiation went on at the time.

    That is incorrect. EEArules are trade rules not laws.

    Incorrect. You are misinterpreting trade rules for laws.

    They negotiated this. They were not obliged to do so.

    They would be able to negotiate whatever exemptions they felt necessary. The same with laws and other standards. Nothing is set in stone where the EU is concerned as we have seen in several conutries unilateral actions recently. The EU just like tp act as though nothing can be changed. This is however, far from the reality.
     
    Christmas_Kippers and Cliffedge like this.
  19. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    And this passes for intelligent debate?
     
    ilovesooty and lanokia like this.
  20. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

     
    Christmas_Kippers likes this.

Share This Page