EU Overturns Agreement With US On Banking Data
Following the lead of the civil liberties committee which last week recommended dropping it (against the wishes of the US), qmaqdk writes "The EU parliament overturned the previous agreement with the US which allowed US intelligence agencies to access EU banking data."
FYI, the Euro is tanking against the dollar right now, as investor's fear of a crash of the Euro due to the PIGS. And that is against an already heavily devalued dollar. Now would not be a good time to deny European banks access to the American market. Your plan would pretty much ensure the demise of the Euro as European countries end up pulling out of the Eurozone so they don't have to bail out the PIGS. If they don't figure out some way to devalue the Euro even further for the countries that are in deep trouble (Greece), people are going to have to start cleaning the crap off the walls....
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.
Nope. Sorry. This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection. This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens. The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with). Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The Americans tax their citizens on their world-wide income, no matter where they live. The reverse isn't true. So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system? Though I may sound a little harsh on your system, you under-estimate your fellow Americans. My job is to sell luxury real estate to the wealthy, and I also arrange private banking in Monaco. Virtually none of my American clients are eager to avoid paying taxes.I won't name other nationalities, for fear of being accused of stereotyping, but I will say that in my experience Americans are in the very top percentile of honest tax payers. Though you may have problems with corporations, where every tax dodge is purely for the benefit of the shareholder, you should have more faith in your fellow citizens. Overall you can be proud of them.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
The european government consists of two elements - the commission and the parliament.
What you need to know in short:
The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic, and holds most of the power and does most of the actual activity. It also bends over backwards whenever the US wants something. It was the commission who gave away our flight data, our personal data, our Internet data and now our banking data.
The parliament is elected, is the democratic body, and has very limited powers (though they have shifted around a bit with the last reform). It isn't exactly a mecca of reason, but it more often than not stops the worst excesses of the commission.
So once again, I applaud the parliament. They're fighting uphill battles against the commission all the time.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.
No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.
Undemocratic? We got not one, but two votes on the Lisbon Treaty here in Ireland :)
In fairness, the Treaty was signed by people's elected governments (democracy - you vote in a government to run your country as they see fit), and in countries other than Ireland, was not in conflict with the constitution (despite scrutiny in a number of countries it was found not to be a problem). Even in Ireland, if the government had wanted to, they could have passed almost all of Lisbon without a constitutional amendment (the amendment was only necessary for certain items). As far as I know, the main difference with Ireland is that the constitution is very detailed, and a previous amendment pretty much meant all European treaties had to be appended by constitutional amendment.
Besides, direct democracy isn't very sensible - Switzerland is an example (or indeed the history of constitutional amendments in Ireland). The majority can hold up essential reform (like not letting women have the vote till late 60s/early 70s) or pass dubious votes (e.g. the minarets vote) where a government, despite having to keep an eye on what voters want, does have some freedom to enact unpopular measures that may nevertheless be needed.
Anyone who thought Lisbon was a bad idea should have come here to Ireland to see the appalling scaremongering tactics by the opponents (Lisbon will mean your foetuses aborted, your sons conscripted, the elderly euthanised) as well as negative campaigning (the unpopular ruling government want you to vote Yes, fat cats want the gravy train to continue, etc.). These are tactics that political parties have refrained from using in general elections etc. as they just lead to a vicious downward spiral. The proponents used standard political tactics based on generalisation of arguments (so "Vote Yes for Recovery", "Vote Yes for Jobs", etc.). These kind of tactics are acceptable enough and the public are familiar enough with them. You do have to sum up your arguments snappily on election posters. And all you need is some clever brainstorming to get your point across this way - no need to resort to dirty tactics.
Besides, as cynical as people are about politicians and the establishment - when *all* main political parties, opposition and government are speaking together - surely it should suggest that they may be right? Admittedly losing the first vote also showed they were incompetent.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Having spent a few years as a lobbyist in the European Parliament during the EU software patents directive, I can tell you that it's very easy to affect the MEPs.
I learned that they're mostly lost, and the centre-left guy will vote your way just as quickly as the centre-right guy will, so which one you voted for doesn't make a huge difference, but talking to them does. (FWIW, the best party in there is clearly the Greens.) Tell them your concerns and show them your evidence. Showing evidence is essential so they can justify their vote.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
That's not including the 25% value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase
25% VAT? Where do you live in the EU then? VAT is 15% in most of the EU. Also, for a 'small business owner' you seem to completely fail to understand how VAT works. Value Added Tax is a tax on value added. You charge VAT on things that you sell, deduct from that the amount of VAT that you paid on things that you bought, and only pay the remainder to the government. If you're paying the full VAT amount on stuff that you're buying, then it means that you're not producing anything.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Small correction. The EU commission is named in the following way: The EU Parliament votes for the EU Commission chief (in this case Barroso), the chief assembles his team and after that the team must be validated by the Parliament again.
right...
Actually it's not quite as good of a decision as was being made out once you get past the headlines.
The decision in question was specific to a few paragraphs in a report which the UK government had said had to be censored because the US asked us to keep out of the public - so we did.
At some point, a report in the US publically quoted those paragraphs and so UK courts ruled that since the information was now in the public domain there was no reason not to publish the censored paragraphs ourselves
The decision did however go against the UK governments continued wish to keep the paragraphs censored since those paragraphs basically said the UK knew about and supported torture of a UK citizen.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.