I'm afraid not - it is lib-dem policy to hand over control of national taxaton to the EU. If they hand over control of tax, they will not be in charge of the money needed to fund amongst other things, education.
Many people in Britain are already members of private occupational pension schemes, or have taken out personal pension policies. This has partly been a response to tax incentives which the present government has largely withdrawn. This has placed Britain in a far better position than several other EU countries. There is little private pension provision in Germany and Italy, for instance, and so the pension 'overhang' in these countries is much greater than in the UK. It is widely acknowledged that these unfunded pension liabilities will become a serious burden, and this is a concern for Britain as a member of the EU because of the likelihood that we shall be obliged to assist through the EU budget. In simple terms this means the EU hoovering up our pension reserves to fund other less well prepared countries.
Harmonisation
Harmonisation is about getting the same levels of taxation across the EU. As one of the richest economies with the lowest tax levels we will have to use our money to fund the poorer countries whilst dropping to the average. An average across the EU is not possible at our level of wealth and taxation - we will have to drop for others to rise. This is EXACTLY what harmonisation means.
patronising
Under the 1996 British education act political indoctrination of any kind is illegal. Despite this EU Education Ministers' Resolution 88/C-177/02 provides 200 million euros per annum for propaganda much of which is used to support the following section of the above EU resolution:
"strengthen in young people a sense of European identity; prepare young people to take part in the economic and social aspects of the Community; make them aware of the advantages of the EU; improve knowledge of the Community."
No monies are provided from enforced taxation for those who do not wish to be encouraged to tow the EU line whilst at school or to demonstrate the disadvantages of the EU.
And now you advocate the curtailing of a free press if it does not agree with your aims - closer and closer to communism. . . . . .
I'm reading exactly what you are saying just as anyone else reading this thread is - 'I can make an educated decision but most anti-EU sentiment is knee-jerk or a tabloid opinion.' You are the one who keeps saying you know what is going on but most of the electorate can't be trusted to work it out.
Just re-read what you wrote - you can make a reasoned decision but you don't think most of the electorate can on EU matters. Cut the bullshit and prevarication - that is what you said and now you are back-peddling. You are right that I don't know you, thats why i base these posts entirely on what you have said, not assumptions that other people aren't bright enough to decide like you have.
Of course you can see it, you wrote it. Being more able to make a reasoned decision than us tabloid reading knee-jerk anti-EU types you are bound to be well ahead of me.
It's you who needs to re-read it. It's typical of your superior attitude to become abusive if anyone dares to disagree with you. If you can't enter into a political discussion without resorting to personal abuse and childish name-calling, you should avoid politics.
So you say the majority of the electorate don't understand european issues? You also say in an earlier post that you know enough about europe to make a reasoned decision when most others are lead by tabloids. What patronising, intellectualist nonsense. Has it never occured to you that everyone believes like you they can make a reasoned decision and that it's the others who can't?
The electorate worked perfectly at the last election - they reasoned that although the incumbants were deeply flawed, they were nonetheless still a better option than either the conservatives or lib-dems at the time. Though of course you will continue to assume they vote entirely on the basis of their tabloid headlines I am sure. . . . . . . .