EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK

[Osem]

I'm not sure the Germans do 'double edged swords' which don't suit themselves...

"How Germany benefits from the Euro in economic terms."

Originally Posted by Horizon

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

Because the civil service drafted legislation to put before parliament which would have given the British government legal authority to refuse to pay anything towards the budget of the EEC. This draft bill was never published, but its existence was quietly explained to the representatives of all the other member states.

They agreed the rebate because they knew Thatcher was deadly serious about derailing the entire European project if she didn't get it. Cameron should take note, because he won't get any concession worthy of the name out of the EU unless he is similarly prepared to put a bomb under it and wave the detonator under their noses.

[heero_yuy]

That button is the only thing they understand, I suggest we use it.



heero6.jpg

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.



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

I'll come back to this later, but I should've said we used to pay less into the EU coffers than anyone else, that's before all the Eastern European countries joined the EU. The very same countries we wanted to join the EU in the first place.

Why I am taking a pro-European stance when we've just been landed a nasty bill, I've no idea. I'll slap myself and wake up soon.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Why I am taking a pro-European stance when we've just been landed a nasty bill, I've no idea. I'll slap myself and wake up soon.

Don't worry I'll come and give you a hard slap myself.

[Pierre]

The EU has approved France's budget for 2015,

It's the very last paragraph that got my attention.........now there's a stroke of luck?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29810370

[Osem]

I used to think that common sense could/would one day prevail in Europe. That events would serve to show the Eurocrats their vision was flawed - an illusion doomed to fail. I kidded myself that these people would finally see sense and accept reform - take the good bits and cut out the rest of what has become a grotesque continental cancer fast becoming end stage. I hoped that we could enjoy the benefits of closer trade ties etc. without the absurd straightjacket of a singe currency, unfettered immigration, ever increasing bureaucracy, interference in just about every aspect of our lives and a constant drive for further expansion. I even used to delude myself that these people would respect and accommodate the views of the populations of member nations and reflect them in their decision making. How about that for stupid eh?!

Sadly, these people have shown they're not interested in any of that. They do what they want and refuse to listen to those who have the temerity to disagree. They have learned little or nothing from the chaotic events they've presided over and it's full steam ahead for more of the same so far as I can see.

I used to think that in a referendum I'd be able to vote to stay in because some form of common sense had prevailed and we'd be able to enjoy the best of what the EU could and should have been without sacrificing everything else. I now believe that's just as much a pipe dream as the Eurocrats' vision for Europe. I see no prospect at all of Cameron being able to extract any meaningful concessions from the EU and have no faith whatsoever that, even if he did, they'd actually materialise. I believe any concessions these people offered would not be done so in good faith and that they'd find a way to worm their way out of them if we vote to stay in.

Yes there will be turmoil if we pull out, let nobody think otherwise, but I fear it's the only way we can have any meaningful say in the future direction our nation takes and detach ourselves to any extent from the Euro train wreck. A vote to stay in will be the final nail in the UK's coffin and will be used forevermore by the Eurocrats as a stick to beat us with - an argument for us having to suck up even more of what nonsense they decide to hand us.

It will be damaging and we cannot isolate ourselves from the fallout whatever we do but better to start the process now than let things drag on until there is turmoil and who knows what will stem from that. We may even be beyond the point where anything can be done to prevent a catastrophic meltdown in Europe but IMHO the least worst option is getting out as soon as we can and doing what we can to forge better, more productive links with the rest of the world. Surely irons in many fires has to be better than a deluded reliance on the leadership and vision of people who've shown themselves to be wholly intractable and virtually impervious to reason.

How to achieve the referendum? I see the only realistic possibility being an alliance between UKIP and the Tories after the next election. A vote for Same Old Labour, the Fib-Dems or any combination thereof will see more of the same and worse to come. It'll be interesting to see whether Cameron's so keen to stay in the EU that he would rather lose the election (i.e. refuse any possible coalition with UKIP) if he were unable to come up with anything significant from his 'negotiations'.

Originally Posted by Osem

How to achieve the referendum? I see the only realistic possibility being an alliance between UKIP and the Tories after the next election. A vote for Same Old Labour, the Fib-Dems or any combination thereof will see more of the same and worse to come. It'll be interesting to see whether Cameron's so keen to stay in the EU that he would rather lose the election (i.e. refuse any possible coalition with UKIP) if he were unable to come up with anything significant from his 'negotiations'.

For a UKIP/Tory coalition to be viable, UKIP has to actually win seats. The chances are that it will do well enough to steal votes in most constituencies but not well enough to win more than a handful at best. I know it's becoming a cliche but the way the electoral maths stack up, a vote for UKIP is more likely to result in a Labour plurality in the Commons, if not an outright majority, and the one thing you can be sure of, with Ed Millipede as PM, with or without a Lib Dem coalition, is no renegotiation and no referendum.

Our general elections are designed for a two party system and when people cast their votes for fringe parties based on a narrow range of issues, the outcomes are rarely what anyone intended. Only two men stand any chance of being Prime Minister after next May. The best course of action is to decide which of them best represents your views and outlook, and then vote for the local prospective MP who will support them.

There will be an in/out referendum in 2017 if there is a Tory majority in the commons next January. Cameron has been forced into that position because of UKIP. It was to achieve that, that I have voted UKIP where possible in elections since 2010. But now, the safest way of securing that referendum is not to play Russian roulette with our electoral system, it is simply to vote Tory.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

For a UKIP/Tory coalition to be viable, UKIP has to actually win seats. The chances are that it will do well enough to steal votes in most constituencies but not well enough to win more than a handful at best. I know it's becoming a cliche but the way the electoral maths stack up, a vote for UKIP is more likely to result in a Labour plurality in the Commons, if not an outright majority, and the one thing you can be sure of, with Ed Millipede as PM, with or without a Lib Dem coalition, is no renegotiation and no referendum.

Our general elections are designed for a two party system and when people cast their votes for fringe parties based on a narrow range of issues, the outcomes are rarely what anyone intended. Only two men stand any chance of being Prime Minister after next May. The best course of action is to decide which of them best represents your views and outlook, and then vote for the local prospective MP who will support them.

There will be an in/out referendum in 2017 if there is a Tory majority in the commons next January. Cameron has been forced into that position because of UKIP. It was to achieve that, that I have voted UKIP where possible in elections since 2010. But now, the safest way of securing that referendum is not to play Russian roulette with our electoral system, it is simply to vote Tory.

I agree. For the purposes of ensuring a referendum, voting UKIP ought to be only a consideration in those seats which they can win without defeating a Tory. We may not trust Cameron entirely but we can say with certainty that either voting red or yellow will ensure we don't get one. This is why I believe there could well be a UKIP-Tory pact before the election and Cameron could well cite the extraordinary intransigence of the EU as the reason for any apparent u turn on a deal with UKIP.

[Derek]

The sweetie wife soon to be in charge up here is sticking her oar in. Obviously the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people in telling her to shut her hole hasn't sunk in yet.

A referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would need to have the clear support of the UK nations, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon has insisted.
She said England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should each deliver a majority vote to make withdrawal legal.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-...itics-29805045

I could see the Tories going along with this as a get out if their hand is forced into actually having a vote on the EU.

[Osem]

She's sounding like a Eurocrat already.

Originally Posted by Derek

The sweetie wife soon to be in charge up here is sticking her oar in. Obviously the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people in telling her to shut her hole hasn't sunk in yet.



http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-...itics-29805045

I could see the Tories going along with this as a get out if their hand is forced into actually having a vote on the EU.

They would have to be monumentally stupid to allow the SNP to establish this as a constitutional precedent. The UK is not a federation. It never has been, and as far as I can see the only proposal on the table that would turn it into one has come from the SNP - and that's because they want it as a gradualist route to independence, not because they think the UK would work better that way.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Chris

They would have to be monumentally stupid to allow the SNP to establish this as a constitutional precedent.

It's a cracking get out clause just in case the British public give the 'wrong' result.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Horizon

I'll come back to this later, but I should've said we used to pay less into the EU coffers than anyone else, that's before all the Eastern European countries joined the EU. The very same countries we wanted to join the EU in the first place.

Why I am taking a pro-European stance when we've just been landed a nasty bill, I've no idea. I'll slap myself and wake up soon.

This may help with the waking up.

The figures show the UK’s contribution to the EU was £2.7bn in 2008, rising to £3.8bn in 2009, £7.2bn in 2010, £7.5bn in 2011, £8.5bn in 2012 and £11.3bn in 2013.

[Mr Angry]

Spectacular mismanagement and sleight of hand by Cameron & Co.