EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK

[Derek]

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.

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]

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]

eu-dead-chicken.jpg

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Derek

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]

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.

Roll on the vote so we can get out of the whole corrupt mess.

[Osem]

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]

Originally Posted by Osem

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.

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

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.

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

Dan Hannan, perchance?

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Dan Hannan, perchance?

Yes, but from the same source:

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Osem

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.