British Indy: What Happens Now?

Let's face it we need a People's Revolution to bring down the ruling elite. Let's have a system that's run for the benefit of all if they are prepared to give as well as take and not for a privileged few.

 

I think you now have to put your cards on the table and tell us which historical example of a "People's Revolution" is close to the type that you favour. If you wish, you can add commentary as to how it was "all derailed by external reactionary elements": France (if that counts)? Russia? China? Cuba? Iran? North Korea?

 

that would be nice but human nature being what it is.. just look at the graph several posts back. classic example of how money can be used to propagate the "them and us" mentality. who should care what other people make unless its stolen? more importantly are they worth it? (lots of way's to steel money btw) tory boys and kippers, blairites and anyone close to them have been doing it since time began. How much does toilet gob make and whats his pension gonna be when he retires from the EU? up shot its all hopefully going to lead to this.
Charlie Hebdo pens forecast of Scottish independence (or, 'Ecosse, bientot les couilles libres sous le kilt', as they say in France) | News | The National

 

Although this is helpful in showing just how much some of the officials are paid on a yearly basis, I suspect that the "Estimated pension cost to taxpayers" is an entirely misleading underestimate. That's because it appears to show simply on an annual basis how much may be being added to the pension fund and attributed to the official's "potential total cost". But the trouble is that, like nearly all public sector schemes, the fund is inadequate and builds up a greater and greater deficit each year; it can't go on forevere on a Ponzi-scheme basis by hoping that there will be more and more new employees to make contributions, and more and more taxpayer funds to fill the deficit. This is the reason that there is a big argument looming in connection with Brexit - it turns out that all the "British" officials and ex-officials cannot have their pensions adequately paid based on what is in the fund now, and whatever they themselves paid in in the past, or are paying in now if currently employed... so the UK taxpayer is going to be expected (by the EU) to cough up a massive amount more in future to keep the likes of Peter Mandelson in the style to which he is accustomed during his retirement.

 

A new one. That puts people first and not political idealism, the wealthy, nor the State. Are public services will soon be non existent but for the NHS and education.

 

Quite right, although I think in the case of some "Captains of industry" the contracts were wrong, and where they have left a financial disaster behind them (Fred Goodwin springs to mind) some reduction in benefits might be appropriate (in fact, I think Fred did suffer some reduction, but his pension is still a 6-figure annual sum I suspect).

However, I don't feel this applies to the EU situation - the UK has paid it's dues year by year in good faith (albeit with some unhappiness) and if the EU (not the UK) set up a pension scheme which has to continue for decades to come, then it's the EU that has to make that good if it is underfunded. The nationality of the pensioners is irrelevant - they were employees plain and simple. If the UK should cease to be a member of the EU, then as long as we have paid up to the date of our departure, we should not have to pay any more. The contract I would think is between the EU and the employees. A private employer cannot go back to its former customers and ask them to hand over money to make good their DB pension scheme deficit - they have to make that money from future business with future customers (unless they go the way of BHS of course). Of course, all this could have some bearing on how much money has to be paid to the EU after UK departure from now on by its current members, and indeed any future members (Scotland, Albania, perhaps?) - just like a private employer it would be desirable for the EU to be obliged, over time, to repair the deficit in its pension scheme.

 

any truth in this?
Exclusive: Britain Has A €25-Billion E.U. Bill Outstanding · Handelsblatt Global Edition

 

Just like Philip Green then?

 

So who employed Peter Mandelson and who is responsible for paying his pension ?

 

In the sense that the EU is like Philip? Running a pension scheme up to a massive deficit and then trying to get someone else to pay?

I have no time for him, of course, and I very much doubt he was a member of the BHS scheme because he will have done better with other arrangements (in fact recent HMG tax changes - post Labour! - have made pension arrangements that give more than £50K per annum no longer tax efficient to contribute to).

Something is badly wrong with regulation if it's true that he started with a scheme in a healthy state and managed to leave it with such a large deficit. After all, I can't believe that extravagent and unaffordable additional benefits (and salary increases) were added for the benefit of the BHS staff during his involvement.

 

Pension funds. Another act of fiction. Deficits are estimates. City again ripping working people off.

 

I don't know either, but it certainly wasn't the UK taxpayer.

Maybe Tony Blair should pick up the bill, it was he who gave him the job, and I don't recall seeing it advertised

 

Unless you have a government pension or at least £250k in a private scheme then pension contributions you have made will only have made someone else wealthy instead.

 

EU commissioners are appointed by the elected government of each member state so they are no more or less representative than any other government appointment.

 

I have no doubt that it will be honoured many times over.