Cable Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33699177)

Hugh 10-11-2014 18:25
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35740165)
Your point is? Zero is a lot less than 76 million.

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------



I don't play it for a number of reasons but that's not the point. The point was the Lottery could have been run as a non-profit operation ..

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------




Wow, do you always insult people when they have an opinion contrary to your own?
My point was that you were (seemingly) mixing percentages and whole numbers in a way that made the profit made by Camelot disproportionate - if you had used percentages or whole numbers, your post might not have been so loaded....;)

Or to put it another way -
Camelot made a profit of £76 million on an income of over £750 million, with £1,175 million going to good causes, and £3,524 million going to Lottery winners - not quite as emotive, is it?

ianch99 10-11-2014 18:32
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35740179)
My point was that you were (seemingly) mixing percentages and whole numbers in a way that made the profit made by Camelot disproportionate - if you had used percentages or whole numbers, your post might not have been so loaded....;)

Or to put it another way -
Camelot made a profit of £76 million on an income of over £750 million, with £1,175 million going to good causes, and £3,524 million going to Lottery winners - not quite as emotive, is it?
You are (seemingly) missing the point that Richard Branson offered to run the scheme as a non-profit.

rhyds 10-11-2014 18:52
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35740180)
You are (seemingly) missing the point that Richard Branston offered to run the scheme as a non-profit.
Branson (Branston is a brand of pickle) took part in a previous franchise round and lost the vote 4-1. There's nothing stopping him from trying again in 2019.

Hugh 10-11-2014 20:17
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35740180)
You are (seemingly) missing the point that Richard Branson offered to run the scheme as a non-profit.
No, I wasn't (I actually believe that non-profit should be the way to go) - I just thought that your emotive slant on the stats was not the best argument.

ymmv

ianch99 10-11-2014 20:55
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyds (Post 35740184)
Branson (Branston is a brand of pickle) took part in a previous franchise round and lost the vote 4-1. There's nothing stopping him from trying again in 2019.
You are right, he was in a right pickle when he lost the vote in 2000. He said at the time: "It goes without saying we are all extremely disappointed and sad by the decision. Having said that we congratulate Camelot in a good fight and for being able to turn around the decision where four out of five judges had voted for the People's Lottery only two-and-a-half months ago. One new judge turns up and somehow manages to switch a number of them around"

I suspect that after waiting nearly 20 years, he may have lost his enthusiasm.

---------- Post added at 21:55 ---------- Previous post was at 21:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35740197)
No, I wasn't (I actually believe that non-profit should be the way to go) - I just thought that your emotive slant on the stats was not the best argument.

ymmv
I was honestly not trying to slant anything emotively or otherwise. I included the profit number because I believe they should not be making *any* and I listed the percentage because I think it should be a higher proportion i.e. no Government Taxes.

Hugh 11-11-2014 06:03
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
In that case, please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your post.

Ignitionnet 11-11-2014 07:33
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Wonder how much better off the EU as a whole would be had the now-President of the European Commission with his penchant for shady backroom deals not been running a European tax haven?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ker-commission
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...t-9852596.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...signation.html
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...er-needs-to-go

Osem 11-11-2014 08:48
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Why does the EU remind me of Tower Hamlets? :confused:

Ignitionnet 18-11-2014 12:17
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
So about that budget reduction 'victory'...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-say-MEPs.html

They really are delusional.

EDIT: Actually no the MEPs aren't delusional. Why wouldn't net-recipient countries want an increase in the budget? It's in their interests for it to be as high as possible.

Osem 18-11-2014 16:22
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35741695)
So about that budget reduction 'victory'...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-say-MEPs.html

They really are delusional.

EDIT: Actually no the MEPs aren't delusional. Why wouldn't net-recipient countries want an increase in the budget? It's in their interests for it to be as high as possible.
No it's not really a big surprise is it. About as much of a surprise as their poor heading over this way because our benefits system is relatively generous and/or less onerous than their own. Mind you, that never happens does it, they're all far too busy being net contributors... :rolleyes:

Derek 16-09-2015 07:56
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
You know that 1.7 billion that Dave and George said they wouldn't pay, was outrageous and loudly proclaimed that they had halved?

That seems to have worked out well for them.

Quote:
Britain quietly settled its latest altercation over the European Union budget by paying a 1.7 billion-pound ($2.6 billion) bill that Prime Minister David Cameron originally derided as “appalling.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ing-by-cameron

---------- Post added at 08:56 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

Bodes well for the renegotiated EU before the referendum.

Ignitionnet 16-09-2015 08:08
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
This'll leave the odd journalism house in a bind. Wanting to put the boot into the Tories but at the same time so far up the EU's behind they need telescopic legs to do so.

figgyburn 16-09-2015 08:59
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 26320

OLD BOY 16-09-2015 09:36
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35798290)
You know that 1.7 billion that Dave and George said they wouldn't pay, was outrageous and loudly proclaimed that they had halved?

That seems to have worked out well for them.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ing-by-cameron

---------- Post added at 08:56 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

Bodes well for the renegotiated EU before the referendum.
If my memory serves me correctly, it was the unexpected nature of this payment that was the main issue. We had no option but to pay it under the existing rules, but David Cameron said we should have had more notice.

Russ 21-09-2015 04:48
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
IIRC Cameron said something along the lines of "If they think we're paying that £1.7m on December 1st they can sling their hook", thereby (intentionally) giving the impression he'd tell them to shove off, or at least resist the demand.

I don't think he fooled anyone though but what he was actually telling us was we weren't going to pay it....by December 1st. Typical politician games-with-words BS.

RizzyKing 23-09-2015 15:44
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Roll on the vote so we can get out of the whole corrupt mess.

Osem 24-09-2015 15:32
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Yes, judging by some of the comments being made you wouldn't think the UK was a large net contributor to the EU. We need to get out.

heero_yuy 02-10-2015 09:26
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35800048)
Yes, judging by some of the comments being made you wouldn't think the UK was a large net contributor to the EU. We need to get out.
Quote:
If we stop giving £19bn to EU we can pay for 200 hospitals
Brits scrimp as membership of the EU leaves us shackled to an economic corpse, says MEP
Quote:
To put it another way, during the last Parliament our EU taxes soaked up more than twice as much as we saved through the whole austerity programme.

It’s true that some of this cash is spent in Britain. Around half of what we hand over dribbles back to us.

But it isn’t spent on things we’d choose ourselves. A lot of it goes on advertising the EU. Some goes in grants to big landowners through the Common Agricultural Policy.

A chunk goes to professional associations, charities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the hope that it’ll make them back Brussels.

What does Britain get in return? Amazingly, our £19billion buys us membership of the only stagnant trade bloc in the world.

North America will grow by three per cent this year, Africa by 4.5 per cent, Asia by five per cent. But the Eurozone, after six years of flat-lining, will grow by less than one per cent.

As long as we’re in the EU, we cannot sign independent trade deals with booming countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand, which are among our oldest friends.
Quote:
No one is suggesting we give up on our trade with Europe, only that we lift our eyes to more distant horizons. You don’t have to be in the EU to be part of the European common market.

The European free trade area stretches from Iceland to Turkey, including EU and non-EU states alike, with only Russia and Belarus non-participants.
Paywall link

Chris 02-10-2015 09:29
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Dan Hannan, perchance?

heero_yuy 02-10-2015 09:32
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35801554)
Dan Hannan, perchance?
Yes, but from the same source:

Quote:
It’s telling that Nigel Lawson has changed his mind, and thinks we’d be better off out. Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor knows a thing or two about economics and it’s great to have him heading up the Tory campaign to quit.
Quite a big beast.

Chris 02-10-2015 09:36
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
I wish Dan would stand for election to Westminster. His erudite speeches against the EU are pretty much wasted in Strasbourg. You might as well stand in the middle of St Peters and demand everyone fall down and worship Vishnu.

Osem 02-10-2015 11:59
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
When all a campaign (stay in) pretty much has is scaremongering (we'll lose millions of jobs and the Germans will stop selling us their cars blah, blah, blah...) as a means to achieve its ambitions then I'd say they don't have much of a case. The union of nations has proved to be anything but. Decisions made in and forced through by Germany have caused huge problems in other countries. Add to the above the endless bickering, intransigence, and dithering which is endemic in the EU even in times of emergency and you have the best possible case for getting out. We must get out. I wish it was different but it will never be different. The Eurocrats could drive us all over a social and economic precipice and they'd still claim everyone else was wrong. I used to think their fixation was just naïve and they'd see the error of their ways but they won't and that's highly dangerous. If we don't agree an amicable and orderly separation we're going to see a hugely acrimonious and correspondingly expensive divorce with all the inevitable recriminations. I'd rather we were as detached from that as possible frankly and the more time we have to adapt and look outwards the better.

Damien 02-10-2015 12:38
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
As with the Scottish Referendum those campaigning to keep the status-quo can really only highlight what would be lost as the benefits are already been conferred. I think, like the Scottish Referendum, to dismiss that as scaremongering is disingenuous. How are those in favour meant to campaign to stay in if they can't highlight what would be lost?

Still maybe the Stay campaign will learn from Better Together and try and fame the conversation more positively, it's helps they've kept the 'Yes' option this time. The fact they will probably have 'a deal' at the start of the campaign will help too but the migrant crisis has come at a bad time for them.

I think the Yes campaign does have a case though, it's not one that would find an audience on here. This Economist article, from a few years ago now, highlights some of them: http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ld-be-reckless

Osem 02-10-2015 15:24
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
There's nothing wrong in highlighting what 'might' be lost but they're saying these things 'would' be lost. To give the impression that the UK would somehow be left excluded from the EU market is disingenuous.

Damien 02-10-2015 16:09
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35801640)
There's nothing wrong in highlighting what 'might' be lost but they're saying these things 'would' be lost. To give the impression that the UK would somehow be left excluded from the EU market is disingenuous.
I am sure the out campaign will also be speaking in authoritative terms of the benefits of leaving too. Campaigners rarely want to give the impression of uncertainty in their proclamations. For example you can find examples of out supporters saying that the EU will, not might, allow us to enter some sort of Norway type deal.

TheDaddy 02-10-2015 16:14
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35801649)
I am sure the out campaign will also be speaking in authoritative terms of the benefits of leaving too. Campaigners rarely want to give the impression of uncertainty in their proclamations. For example you can find examples of out supporters saying that the EU will, not might, allow us to enter some sort of Norway type deal.
Who in their right mind would want a Norway type deal, obey all the EU rules without question and pay around 70% of what full members pay, that's if I'm remembering it right

I'm not remembering it right, it's 94% of the costs and don't think a deal like Switzerland got will be on the table either, they only got that because the vote was so close and it was a sop toward the Swiss eventually joining

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...osts-thinktank

Chris 02-10-2015 16:55
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Norway's deal was built on the assumption that Norway was going to join the EU. It was drawn up by a political class that was all in favour of membership. The pesky electorate went and vetoed the idea of joining the EU and that was the end of that.

The point, however, is that Norway negotiated its own deal, as did Switzerland, based on what each of them wanted from the EU, what the EU wanted from them, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side.

The UK is neither Norway nor Switzerland and a post-membership deal between the UK and the EU would not ape either of them. It would be designed to fit the UK's needs, and the EU's needs, and would reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

IIRC, right now, the UK (5th biggest economy in the world, jus' sayin') is growing strongly and its prospects are looking rather shinier than the EU's. And I can't see, for example, BMW or VW putting up with any threat of import tariffs. I suspect access to the common market on favourable terms will be pretty easy to come by and, let's face it, that is exactly what most people who are old enough to have voted in the last referendum thought they were getting.

Osem 02-10-2015 17:25
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35801660)
Norway's deal was built on the assumption that Norway was going to join the EU. It was drawn up by a political class that was all in favour of membership. The pesky electorate went and vetoed the idea of joining the EU and that was the end of that.

The point, however, is that Norway negotiated its own deal, as did Switzerland, based on what each of them wanted from the EU, what the EU wanted from them, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side.

The UK is neither Norway nor Switzerland and a post-membership deal between the UK and the EU would not ape either of them. It would be designed to fit the UK's needs, and the EU's needs, and would reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

IIRC, right now, the UK (5th biggest economy in the world, jus' sayin') is growing strongly and its prospects are looking rather shinier than the EU's. And I can't see, for example, BMW or VW putting up with any threat of import tariffs. I suspect access to the common market on favourable terms will be pretty easy to come by and, let's face it, that is exactly what most people who are old enough to have voted in the last referendum thought they were getting.
Yes, I think the UK is in a far stronger bargaining position than might easily have been the case not that long ago. Being tied too closely to the EU is a bad thing politically and economically. Time to call their bluff, get out and start building a new future with more control over our own affairs methinks.

OLD BOY 03-10-2015 13:02
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35801660)
Norway's deal was built on the assumption that Norway was going to join the EU. It was drawn up by a political class that was all in favour of membership. The pesky electorate went and vetoed the idea of joining the EU and that was the end of that.

The point, however, is that Norway negotiated its own deal, as did Switzerland, based on what each of them wanted from the EU, what the EU wanted from them, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side.

The UK is neither Norway nor Switzerland and a post-membership deal between the UK and the EU would not ape either of them. It would be designed to fit the UK's needs, and the EU's needs, and would reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

IIRC, right now, the UK (5th biggest economy in the world, jus' sayin') is growing strongly and its prospects are looking rather shinier than the EU's. And I can't see, for example, BMW or VW putting up with any threat of import tariffs. I suspect access to the common market on favourable terms will be pretty easy to come by and, let's face it, that is exactly what most people who are old enough to have voted in the last referendum thought they were getting.
Well said, Chris, I agree with that.

TheDaddy 04-10-2015 06:21
Re: EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35801660)
Norway's deal was built on the assumption that Norway was going to join the EU. It was drawn up by a political class that was all in favour of membership. The pesky electorate went and vetoed the idea of joining the EU and that was the end of that.

The point, however, is that Norway negotiated its own deal, as did Switzerland, based on what each of them wanted from the EU, what the EU wanted from them, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side.

The UK is neither Norway nor Switzerland and a post-membership deal between the UK and the EU would not ape either of them. It would be designed to fit the UK's needs, and the EU's needs, and would reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

IIRC, right now, the UK (5th biggest economy in the world, jus' sayin') is growing strongly and its prospects are looking rather shinier than the EU's. And I can't see, for example, BMW or VW putting up with any threat of import tariffs. I suspect access to the common market on favourable terms will be pretty easy to come by and, let's face it, that is exactly what most people who are old enough to have voted in the last referendum thought they were getting.
Time will tell how good the deal is, I'm not expecting to get the better deal in negotiations, we haven't so far but what we know is getting out is a deliberately costly and time consuming exercise


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:40.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum