EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Oh we'll pay it. Of that I am in no doubt.

I very much hope Dave pays the political price.

Though I hope Ed and Nick pay an equally high price given that in private they're probably cheering the EU on here being the sycophantic europhiles they are.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Oh we'll pay it. Of that I am in no doubt.

Correct, Its the EU that runs this country not our elected Prime Minister

when the EU give us an order we CANNOT disobey it.

[Pierre]

Funny thing though, is that if you want an in/out referendum...if you believe DC will keep his promise......then voting Tory is the only way you'll get it.

Of course his get out clause is if there's another coalition.

[deadite66]

even if the torys keep their promise it will be one small party campaigning for out and pretty much everyone else voting for in.
we saw how dirty the Scottish elections got, i expect an EU one to be much worse.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by deadite66

even if the torys keep their promise it will be one small party campaigning for out and pretty much everyone else voting for in.
we saw how dirty the Scottish elections got, i expect an EU one to be much worse.

Absolutely. The entire EU machine can weigh in on the referendum - look at Ireland.

Spending our money campaigning to win a referendum to ensure that they can keep spending our money. There's democracy at work.

[rhyds]

The only thing that does concern me about this whole debacle is what the international bond markets will make of it. We're borrowing so heavily that to simply refuse to pay could lead to some seriously "interesting" movements in that market.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think Merkel is right. Freedom of movement isn't one of the many wonderful aspects of EU membership that have been foisted on us since we joined. It is one of the founding principles. We can't say we didn't know about it and we can't reasonably seek an exemption from it whilst still remaining a member of the EU.

The pathway is now very clear. We cannot remain in the EU; all we can do is invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, announcing our intention to leave and compelling the other member states to negotiate our post-membership relationship with the EU. Only with a bespoke, negotiated associate membership can we hope to regain control of our borders.

This thing about the immigrants/freedom of movement is a complete red herring.

Everyone in the EU has the right to come here and look for a job, and we have the same right to do this as well in other EU countries. But there is nothing in EU law that says we have to pay benefits to foreigners from other EU countries who have no intention of working.

Personally, I think there is everything to play for and no need to invoke article 50. The treaties are old and could do with a bit of tweaking while keeping the principle of free movement of workers.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by rhyds

The only thing that does concern me about this whole debacle is what the international bond markets will make of it. We're borrowing so heavily that to simply refuse to pay could lead to some seriously "interesting" movements in that market.

It wouldn't be considered a default of any kind and wouldn't be indicative of the UK's creditworthiness.

If the bond markets are feeling feisty there are a ton of EU countries they could attack, alongside the USA.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Well the Germans tried to rule Europe twice via war now they will do it via the EU

Just had to post that

The Germans are coming at this from a different angle. They feel their "influence" is being eroded by the ever increasing power of Brussels. That's the thing about "ever closer Europe" aka a federal Europe, is that no one country does rule.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

According to the Times, Cameron's refusing to pay it. We shall see.

I wonder if this could be an excuse for the war the EU was allegedly set up to prevent between member states of Europe? If so, they'll get what they got in WW2 - a sound thrashing!

One question no-one has answered to my satisfaction: in terms of trading with European countries, why do we 'need' to be part of the EU? The States, Japan et al certainly aren't, and the EU doesn't mind trading with them. Why can't we go it alone?

The entire EU concept doesn't work and never did. The member countries are too different and have different cultures and economies - membership of the EU has not changed that fact in the slightest. The same would be true for the 'world government' so beloved to SF. As long as our culture is driven by the profit motive - the acquisition of wealth at all levels from individual up to government and/or corporations (if there's a difference!) - it can't work. Economic unity and free-trade capitalism are mutually exclusive; trading only works when the two or more parties have different goods to offer each other. If they're all the same, as the EU is trying (and failing, fortunately) to make them, there's no point in trading.

Only in a Star Trek type of world would unity have a chance - and even then we'd have to elect politicians who didn't want the job...because otherwise we'd end up with the harshest tyranny imaginable.

I share your concerns about the different cultures of Europe and would have preferred if the "pace" of European integration were slower, a lot slower.

To answer your point about the benefits of being in the EU, we are part of a single market of 500 million people which is bigger than America and its worth 11 trillion quid. All without trade barriers like customs duties and tariffs. Plus, we broadly have to follow the same rules.

Remember all that guff about Brussels rules dictating that fruit has to be the same size, shape etc. Well, that's simply so that everyone in the EU can trade on the same terms with each other.

---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:27 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Why is Cameron even the slightest bit surprised by this ,after all Eurostat are only using figures that HMG provide .It should also be noted that HMG have made quite a few changes in the last few years as to how they work out how the economy is doing ,they have included a lot of things they should have been including for years ,in other words Cameron has been bigging up the UK economy and now it's bit him right up the ass.

You could liken this to someone over stating there taxable allowances on their return and finally getting caught out

Cameron wasn't surprised, it was all show for the cameras.

What Cameron should have highlighted is the massive rebate we get back from the EU, the one that was negotiated by Thatcher. We pay less into the EU per head of population than anyone else in the EU.

---------- Post added at 23:52 ---------- Previous post was at 23:32 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The only vote there has ever been was for a common market trading bloc. Not this nonsense.

Roll on a UKIP balance of power holding at the next election and consign the EU mess to the scrap heap of history.

It was never explained to our people in the 70s when that vote happened what "Europe" was all about.

It was never just about a common market but a means to integrate countries together (especially France and Germany) that had fought each other in WW2, so that war in Europe never happened again. Churchill was one of main people behind it, and despite her public musings, so was Thatcher. She signed every single European treaty given to her.

Originally Posted by Derek

I suppose the UK could agree to pay it just as soon as the EU gets its accounts signed off by the auditors.

That should put the matter to bed for the next 25 years or so.

Originally Posted by Matth

And how much of it will go down the great sinkhole of EU bureaucracy, waste and extravagance. If Cameron gets back in, then I hope the EU calls our bluff, and he sticks to his guns and offers a fair and honest referendum.

Sadly, I think it WILL be vote Farage, get Miliband - pity we never got alternative vote, as that would have allowed voting for who you really want, and for best chance of defeating who you don't want.

Obviously, with this bill we have to pay, the subject of Europe is a thorny one at the moment, but that aside, everything is going our way.

They mostly speak our language in the European parliament and comission. They have adopted our free market way of thinking and much of EU law is based on English law.

The EU is wasteful and their accounts haven't been signed off. But we'll win on all of this. We'll get the number of Eurocrats cut down and even decide on one place where "Europe" should be based, rather than the current nonsense of moving between two different locations with all the vast expense that carries.

And the biggest blinder of all, thanks to Major, we can enjoy all things Europe, without having to pay for many of its problems aka we're not in the Euro - Yay! They, in Europe, hate us for that and envy us at the same time. If the Germans could do it all again, there is no way they would have voted to join the euro.

We have the best of both worlds, lets pay that damn bill and get on with it.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Horizon

We have the best of both worlds, lets pay that damn bill and get on with it.

No we have the best of what Brussels allow us to have anything else is forbidden. I say don't pay the bill and call there bluff. If that ends up with a referendum and us leaving the United States of Europe then that's there loss not ours. I have never been given a chance to vote on being part of a United States of Europe and i do want a vote now.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The Germans are coming at this from a different angle. They feel their "influence" is being eroded by the ever increasing power of Brussels. That's the thing about "ever closer Europe" aka a federal Europe, is that no one country does rule.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------

I share your concerns about the different cultures of Europe and would have preferred if the "pace" of European integration were slower, a lot slower.

To answer your point about the benefits of being in the EU, we are part of a single market of 500 million people which is bigger than America and its worth 11 trillion quid. All without trade barriers like customs duties and tariffs. Plus, we broadly have to follow the same rules.

Remember all that guff about Brussels rules dictating that fruit has to be the same size, shape etc. Well, that's simply so that everyone in the EU can trade on the same terms with each other.

---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:27 ----------

Cameron wasn't surprised, it was all show for the cameras.

What Cameron should have highlighted is the massive rebate we get back from the EU, the one that was negotiated by Thatcher. We pay less into the EU per head of population than anyone else in the EU.

---------- Post added at 23:52 ---------- Previous post was at 23:32 ----------

It was never explained to our people in the 70s when that vote happened what "Europe" was all about.

It was never just about a common market but a means to integrate countries together (especially France and Germany) that had fought each other in WW2, so that war in Europe never happened again. Churchill was one of main people behind it, and despite her public musings, so was Thatcher. She signed every single European treaty given to her.



Obviously, with this bill we have to pay, the subject of Europe is a thorny one at the moment, but that aside, everything is going our way.

They mostly speak our language in the European parliament and comission. They have adopted our free market way of thinking and much of EU law is based on English law.

The EU is wasteful and their accounts haven't been signed off. But we'll win on all of this. We'll get the number of Eurocrats cut down and even decide on one place where "Europe" should be based, rather than the current nonsense of moving between two different locations with all the vast expense that carries.

And the biggest blinder of all, thanks to Major, we can enjoy all things Europe, without having to pay for many of its problems aka we're not in the Euro - Yay! They, in Europe, hate us for that and envy us at the same time. If the Germans could do it all again, there is no way they would have voted to join the euro.
We have the best of both worlds, lets pay that damn bill and get on with it.

I was under the impression that being part of the Euro has kept the price of German exports 'artificially' low and hence been a major boost to their economy.

[spanna]

Originally Posted by Horizon

What Cameron should have highlighted is the massive rebate we get back from the EU, the one that was negotiated by Thatcher. We pay less into the EU per head of population than anyone else in the EU.

Because we get demonstrably less back per head of population (why did the other countries agree to it otherwise)

As net contributors to the EU your claim that we pay less is a red herring

If we pay £10 in and get £5 back and somebody else pays £15 but gets £20 back, we get a worse deal

[jonbxx]

Is this a new precedent? If I get a pay rise, can I refuse to pay more tax?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Horizon

We pay less into the EU per head of population than anyone else in the EU.

The majority of the EU's 28 members are net recipients from the EU. In 2010 which are the first figures I could find as I'm not going to obsess over it 19 of the member states were net recipients, 9 net donors.

In 2010 our net contribution per capita was E75.26, which of the 9 net donors placed us above Austria and France and at a level virtually identical to Italy.

So rather than paying less in per head than anyone else in Europe we were in 2010 actually 7th out of 28, meaning that not only were we in the top half over the EU28 but we also paid in more than the majority of the Eurozone.

Or were you perhaps going for % of GDP? In which case our net contribution of 0.27% of GDP places us just 0.02% of GDP below Germany, obviously above the vast majority of the member states and they are net recipients, and continues to place us above Austria and France.

The rest of the post is largely a combination of recycled comments alongside outright fantasy. We can't trade with Europe without being in the EU even though Switzerland do, Europe is apparently coming over more to our way of thinking which is beyond comedy given there are veerings towards more socialist ways of thinking after a completely botched austerity spree, Germany regretting Eurozone membership when they've been the main beneficiary, France not opposing any attempts to pull Strasbourg off the gravy train.

A really simple example of how misplaced your optimism is is that David Cameron was, not that long ago, trumpeting how he'd won a reduction in the EU budget.

Here's what's actually rumbling through the EU machine. Overspend from 2013 to be paid for, and indeed actively overspent knowing it will probably be funded as QMV is coming in imminently across more policy areas, reversal of budget cuts for 2015, probably be an overspend in 2014.

Too many nations in receipt of other people's money who of course want to keep that flow going.

This story goes back to February 2013. On 7th and 8th February at an EU Budget summit, Cameron and other EU leaders agreed a €908 billion limit for the seven-year period 2014 – 2020. This was 3% lower than in the seven-year period 2007 – 2013 which was then approaching its end. This was trumpeted as the first-ever cut in real terms spending in the EU’s history, with Cameron taking plaudits for his ‘tough talking’. But Cameron himself had no way of enforcing the agreement or of protecting the UK’s own share of the payments needed to cover the expenditure.

Unfortunately, the agreement’ of 8th February did not stick. A few weeks later the EU’s finance ministers had their own council meeting. On 15th May they in effect overrode what Cameron thought had been settled with Europe’s prime ministers. A big increase in the 2013 EU Budget was pushed through, with the UK’s own additional bill in that one year amounting to £770 million. As the decision was taken by qualified majority voting, the UK could not stop it. The Daily Mail noted, ‘Conservative MEP and former European Commission chief accountant Marta Andreasen said yesterday that [the outcome] “made a joke” of the recent budget agreement and “sets a terrible precedent”.’

It is very important to emphasize here that the UK could neither prevent EU over-spending nor refuse to pay its share. If it had refused to pay its share, the Commission would have taken our government to the European Court of Justice, resulting in a large fine. No doubt George Osborne, our Chancellor of the Exchequer, registered loud and angry protests. But he could do nothing against the brute fact of a qualified majority in favour of more spending.

Worse was to follow. At another meeting in December 2013 the agreement of February 2013 was more or less torn up. A new medium-term budget was put in place, with the UK’s contribution soaring relative to the numbers envisaged less than a year earlier. I have to confess that it is not easy to dig up newspaper stories on exactly what was decided, but the following is from the report in The Daily Telegraph by Matthew Holehouse on 5th December,

Britain will give an extra £10bn to the European Union because of the weakness of struggling eurozone economies, it has emerged. The British contribution to the EU will rise dramatically from £30bn to £40bn over the next five years, the Office for Budget Responsibility said. It includes a surprise £2.2bn jump in funding to £8.7bn this year.

Let it be acknowledged here that a 2nd December press release from the EU Council on the 2014 – 2020 multi-annual financial framework says that the February 2013 agreement remained in place, and that it implied reductions of 3.5% on expenditure commitments (and 3.7% in expenditure payments) relative to the 2007 – 13 MFF. However, it is clear that

1. The split of payment commitments between countries was altered in December 2013, with very adverse consequences for the UK, and

2. In practice the Commission has now started to overspend relative to agreed budgets, in the expectation that at Council of Minister finance meetings the overspending will receive retrospective endorsement from a qualified majority. The UK then has to stump up its share.

In the 2014 edition of How much does the European Union cost Britain? I have set out the consequences of these events for our net and gross contributions in the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years, and the 2012 and 2013 calendar years. I have used official sources, principally the balance-of-payments data prepared by the Office for National Statistics and the annual White Paper on European Union Finances from the Treasury. The figures are appalling, showing that

– the UK’s net payments to EU institutions in 2013 were more than double the 2009 level, and

– successive government White Papers admit massive overspending relative to the original so-called ‘plans’.

Given the above, it is preposterous for Cameron – or indeed any of his ministers – to claim that the present government has ‘cut the EU Budget’. Absolutely preposterous. In yesterday’s e-mail on this subject, I set out some of the statistics and suggested that someone should call Cameron a liar if he continued with his nonsense about ‘cutting the EU Budget’. He has repeated the claim in this morning’s Today programme. I am therefore going to call him an outright and brazen liar, and invite him or any member of his government to challenge me in court.

Just as well we have this huge amount of influence and are getting our own way...

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Sirius

No we have the best of what Brussels allow us to have anything else is forbidden. I say don't pay the bill and call there bluff. If that ends up with a referendum and us leaving the United States of Europe then that's there loss not ours. I have never been given a chance to vote on being part of a United States of Europe and i do want a vote now.

I think the referendum, should it go ahead, be on this subject and lets leave the subject of immigrants out of it. For what its worth, I don't want to be part of a federal Europe either, but I would like the chance to hear the arguments either way.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

I was under the impression that being part of the Euro has kept the price of German exports 'artificially' low and hence been a major boost to their economy.

But it's a double edged sword, isn't it?

When the sovereign debt crisis happened in countries like Greece, yes the Greeks were buying "cheap" German made trains, helping the German economy, but the Germans also had to fork out for bailing the Greeks out of their own mess...

I wish the euro would simply go away, but its the method the Germans and French have decided to integrate Europe together. Lets see how far it will go. Will the European Central Bank start buying up the debt of Greece, Italy etc? ANd will the Germans really transfer wealth from themselves to countries in Southern Europe? I can't see it happening.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Originally Posted by spanna

Because we get demonstrably less back per head of population (why did the other countries agree to it otherwise)

As net contributors to the EU your claim that we pay less is a red herring

If we pay £10 in and get £5 back and somebody else pays £15 but gets £20 back, we get a worse deal

That's the case now, but when we got the rebate it cost us far less and we got more back.

No idea why the other countries agreed to Thatcher's rebate, I'll look it up.