even as a fan of the EU this is sitting laughing with your head in your hands time.
Its beyond parody
As per @somewhats's and @monkey's posts it seems it was the coke and hookers 😀
[i]Eurostat arrived at the €2.1bn figure on the basis of new methods of calculating member states’ GNI since 1995, taking account of previously unreported or under-reported black economy elements, such as drug dealing and consumption or the sex industry.[/i]
Accounting changes across the EU have seen key illegal economic activities such as prostitution and drug trafficking included in a country’s official GDP measure.
Its April 1st surely?
So its the bankers again. I've seen wolf on wall street.
[i]It's a something out of nothing story. The calculation was based on forecasts. Those forecasts have turned out to be a bit pessimistic and we've had far better growth than we said we would therefore we owe more money.[/i]
The bit I don't understand is that if the 'rules' are known by all then the UK Govt (and presumably the others too) would calculate this on an on-going basis anyway to make sure that they paid in the right amount. I can't imagine that they rely on been sent a bill.
They'd run forecasts etc and should know exactly what the bill will be for any given forecast, and if it relies upon other countries economies too - then add them into the model.
Also in the story is this small sentance...
The UK has received rebates in the past as a result of this process.
Non-story: the revision. It's how these things work (albeit with a complex and opaque process)
Story: why the EU cannot tell a straight story and communicate effectively
So guys, tell us, is this simply a surcharge to reflect a change in accounting rules or not.Yes, no, yes is not helpful.
Accounting changes are a 2016 story surely?
Not sure there is much CMD can do here. Manna from heaven for UKIP though. I wonder if Farage has attended enough meeting to understand how the EU budget works?
CMD "will not pay" may come back to haunt him.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/cameron-urges-britons-to-steal-from-european-hotels-2014102492080 ]Dave has come up with some proposals[/url]
He's got a point binners, the freebie shower gel is MUCH better in germany
footflaps said:
You do know we agreed to all this when we joined....
What we agreed to join was the Common Market, its primary aim was to make trading easier with the other 5 members.
No mention of the laughingly entitled 'human rights' legislation or any other of the ludicrous socialist policies imposed upon us. No mention of paying vast sums to poor countries that their population might come and burden us with their presence, a burden born by we the UK tax payer.
This latest demand is simply a ploy to avoid the promised UK referendum*. Didn't Bliar and Brown promise such a thing ? Even they realised that the EU needs us far more than we need it, so no referendum.
HTF does bankrupt Greece need to contribute more? Oh I know 'lend' them yet more money to write-off at some point in the future - only the EU could make that one up .
* That ploy looks like a huge gamble because the undecided have already leapt off the fence to vote 'yes we leave ASAP'.
Sounds like a UKIP manifesto!
Funny how the things we did sign up to - free movement of people, capital, goods, services etc - seem to create so much aggravation!
<Cynical>
Perhaps a deal behind the scenes, EU agreed to announce this and then back down, allowing Dave to look tough and like he's taking on the EU, thereby keeping us in and preventing a referendum ever really happening.
</Cynical>
No mention of the laughingly entitled 'human rights' legislation
The European Convention on Human Rights isn't anything to do with the EU. It's a europe wide treaty, even Russia has signed it.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good old moan though.
jfletch - Member
No mention of the laughingly entitled 'human rights' legislation
The European Convention on Human Rights isn't anything to do with the EU. It's a europe wide treaty, even Russia has signed it
Yeah right. And they stick to it eh?
It's like all the daftest rules, it seems it's only the UK that actually seems stick to them. It is the same with business grants system - other countries bend the rules (or misappropriate, depending on your view) which is one of the main reasons why the EU has never been able to get a set of audited accounts in its entire history.
[quote=ninfan said]<Cynical>
Perhaps a deal behind the scenes, EU agreed to announce this and then back down, allowing Dave to look tough and like he's taking on the EU, thereby keeping us in and preventing a referendum ever really happening.
</Cynical>
did that one up there ^^^^^
ninfan - Member<Cynical>
Perhaps a deal behind the scenes, EU agreed to announce this and then back down, allowing Dave to look tough and like he's taking on the EU, thereby keeping us in and preventing a referendum ever really happening.
</Cynical>
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but looking at the BBC headlines, the same thought just crossed my mind. It all seems a little bit too convenient.
A good wheeze to make the C3PO-shaped, Europhile ham look competant?somewhatslightlydazed - MemberI'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but looking at the BBC headlines, the same thought just crossed my mind. It all seems a little bit too convenient.
Cameron was on on the new saying absolutely no way will this 2.1Bn euro be paid.
Wonder when he'll quietly u-turn? Ask for it to be paid in June?
I heard him say he would not pay on time not that it wont be paid
Yip - Dave's sticking it to the EU. And 'Battling for Britain' seems to amount to asking for an extension to pay it, while looking really really cross!
Fixed that for you.binners - Member
Yip - Dave's sticking it to the EU. And 'battling for Britain' seems to amount to asking for an extension to pay it, while looking really really [s]cross[/s] constipated.
Nothing he ever says about [i]his[/i] opinions on the EU ever rings true for me. I'm afraid my inclination is to believe he is one of the piggies drawn to the EU trough.
Loving Cameron's faux outrage
Its almost as though its scripted, the treasury knew about it for a while but this email s obviously the right time for Dave to take a stand
As I said on another thread on the subject, Daves a Thatcherite. He loves the EU! No matter what he says when he's posturing, trying to woo UKIP voters.
His corporate paymasters demand an endless stream of cheap labour to drive wages down. He's more than happy to oblige. He won't do a thing about immigration for this reason. Dave represents the interests of the corporate boardrooms in the City. And they like Europe just the way it is, thanks very much.
He just needs to pop over the channel every once in a while and pretend to be really really annoyed, and the whole ridiculous charade continues
seems to amount to asking for an extension to pay it, while looking really really cross!
If you push him he will wag his finger and look really really disapprovingly at you.
Binners is spot on - I am no UKIP supporter but the whole political system in the UK is driven by self interest - I hated Thatcher and what she did to the north east of england (we are mired in her decisions today with no way out) but at least she believed she was trying to improve things - Blair and Cameron are exactly the same (except Dave aspires to be like Tony) we are ruled by wealth takers and not wealth makers - it's not going to change get used to it - this all goes back to the Norman Conquest (don't get me started on that one)
Knowing the current political situation in the country and an election next year. It would be a good time to destabilise a country....if thats what someone wants to do.
Despite Dave's blusyer I suspect the bill will be paid in full and on time, but out of sight of Mr Farage.
What we agreed to join was the Common Market, its primary aim was to make trading easier with the other 5 members.
No mention of the laughingly entitled 'human rights' legislation
The Human Rights Act is an act of the UK parliament. It is not EU legislation. Parliament did not have to pass it; it chose to.
The European Convention on Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU, EC, EEC or Common Market.
I heard him say he would not pay on time not that it wont be paid
Glad someone else noticed that.
Taxes going up soon then.
The Treasury where told last week, the Government / PM was told yesterday I believe. Yes Cameron said it would not be paid Dec 1 but he didn't say it would not be paid.
We should note that the £1.7bn is greater than the amount the Labour Party said they'd increase NHS spending by
It's seems quite ridiculous that there is a formula for the calculation of this tax which takes into account the black market economy which by its very nature is largely unknown.
On the ECHR its my understanding its a condition of joining the EU that you sign up for it. We do have the right to pass new laws which mean we are not driven by the ECHR precedents. It is these which are the real issue as the law itself is very close to what we already had in place, it's the case law / precedent which differs. This issue is related to opposition to the EU as its another examle of foreign bodies having a greater authority than UK Parliament and our courts
What's funny (to me anyway) is we've just had a big Scottish referendum thing where we were told over and over that pooling and sharing of resources is a good thing. Isn't that all this is?
I thought you wanted independence?
It's like all the daftest rules, it seems it's only the UK that actually seems stick to them. It is the same with business grants system - other countries bend the rules (or misappropriate, depending on your view) which is one of the main reasons why the EU has never been able to get a set of audited accounts in its entire history.
Contrast this with…
Eurostat arrived at the €2.1bn figure on the basis of new methods of calculating member states’ GNI since 1995, taking account of previously unreported or under-reported black economy elements…
And…
It's seems quite ridiculous that there is a formula for the calculation of this tax which takes into account the black market economy which by its very nature is largely unknown.
So, if we're the country that follows the rules, we have no black market…?
Or are we as corrupt and off the books as any other country, we just like to fool ourselves that we're the honest and all on the books country?
pennyfarthing - MemberNo mention of the laughingly entitled 'human rights' legislation or any other of the ludicrous socialist policies imposed upon us.
It's interesting to note that you should consider human rights legislation be "socialist policies".
It's also interesting to note that you appear blissfully unaware that conservatives, not socialists, have dominated the EU Parliament ever since it's been called the EU.
The current makeup :
[img] 
[/img]
Although I'm prepared to accept that despite being dominated by Conservatives the EU Parliament still isn't right-wing enough for some people. UKIP fruitcakes typically see anyone slightly to the left of Thatcher as socialists.
And in a single stroke Ernie made sense of everything. Awesome 8)
It's seems quite ridiculous that there is a formula for the calculation of this tax which takes into account the black market economy which by its very nature is largely unknown.
Exactly. Spurious bullshit. Are they going to try & tax the Mafia too??? Lets see how far they get with that. Moving on from that - exactly how has illegal activity benefited the UK economy? Wheres the tax paid on hookers & coke?
Pile of steaming shite is what it is!
Moving on from that - exactly how has illegal activity benefited the UK economy?
I suspect it's benefitted a few eastern European gangsters more than us.
exactly how has illegal activity benefited the UK economy?
Well it's helped lift Italy out of recession.
[url= http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/1015/652528-italy-economy/ ]Italy out of recession thanks to black market[/url]
[i]Adding illegal revenue from prostitutes, drugs and black market cigarettes and alcohol to the euro zone's third-biggest economy boosted gross domestic product figures.
Black, or undeclared, market revenues are also expected to help reduce Italy's debt to GDP ratio, which stands at a 132%, more than twice the EU ceiling of 60%. [/i]
Pile of steaming shite is what it is!
Or alternatively, merely the application of international accounting standards.
Races bunch these accountants with some "interesting" audits 😉
Anyone still labouring under the misapprehension that the EU is somehow socialist, and sees Angela Merkal as some modern day Che Guevara should have a look at the detail of the latest US - EU Trade agreement they're presently cooking up
It's a Milton Friedman corporatist wet dream
The fact that the EU is not considered right wing enough is a reflection of our own present political parties, in the wake of Nu Labour, not Europe
Folks can say what they like about how its legal & above board, you can't escape they fact that its a bill for over a billion £ & we've been given shag all time to pay it - & it's been issued at a time when we need the money here in the UK!
it's been issued at a time when we need the money here in the UK!
Yes, we have a war and lots of new nuclear weapons to pay for.
I thought you wanted independence?
I did, and an independent Scotland would have wanted to stay in the EU. Instead we face being dragged out of the EU against our wishes.
It's a Milton Friedman corporatist wet dream
Is just as inaccurate, in fact more so.
Mrlebowski - don't confuse the Treasury not (allegedly) telling Cameron with shag all time to pay it. We may also "need" to be in the EU and therefore pay our share of the budget. Some would argue that the UK "needs" that too.
At least the FT brings a sense of proportion to the issue
But the £1.7bn figure is a one-off payment which accounts [b]for less than 0.1 per cent of UK gross national income.[/b] Since it is a top-up to UK contributions covering 11 years, Britain is being asked to pay an extra £150m a year over the period. [b]A sum like this would barely deserve a footnote in the UK’s annual accounts.[/b]
Quite.
If it had been £150m a year over 10 years thats fine - but £1.7B when the money is sorely needed here??
[i]It's seems quite ridiculous that there is a formula for the calculation of this tax which takes into account the black market economy which by its very nature is largely unknown.[/i]
Not really, you can estimate most things - and if you use the same formula across other countries while you may not reach the 'right' number you'll be fairly consistent.
I still find it comical that as a part of the Govt's Statistical Dept they haven't a model for this.
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/
£200m pa running costs.
