This farce seems strangely familiar ... Ah yes, The Life of Brian.
"Promised me the world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the forum. Slaves, Asses milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me. Voom! ... Like a rat out of an aqueduct."
I know it's not funny, but ... "He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so."
So he was ordered to have sex with her without using contraception? Why not ask him to pay towards maintenance? Or is that no longer done?
Of course she is entitled to maintenance. As every other of the hundreds of thousands of single parents are. But £400K of taxpayers money? I just don't get it.
Duh. She couldn't track him down for maintenance because he was an undercover cop - that's why the Met are responsible.
Why does that make the Met responsible? There are plenty of other ways he could have been untraceable. What if he was a travelling salesman? Or in a witness protection scheme? Or a Labour Party policy?
is a "tart tax" some kind of sequel to the pasty debacle?
I suppose in some ways it is (and I was going to say but you cannot eat these tarts which of course would have been totally untrue because you can). What can be said is this one will have more legs than the Pasty Tax I expect!
The fact it's demanding a huge amount off impoverished Greece, which is always living in danger of an interest rate spiral just around the corner and would blow up the whole Eurozone, suggests it's not a conspiracy. Nobody would risk that for a PR exercise. This is just a great EU cock-up.
I agree, but it's a cock-up which Cameron is rightly seizing on, in the hopes of turning it into vetogasm 2.0.
It could work.
Did the euro surge come at the expense of UKIP or others last time?
So what exactly would happen if we, along with the Dutch and Italians, refused to pay? Would they really kick us out of the EU? Or would they just put it down to experience and not try and retrospectively apply new standards to old budgets? If Dave just keeps telling them to feck off what are they really going to say to us? Leave and take your massive balance of payments deficit with you? I find that unlikely.
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
the £5.4 billion (our payment from it apparently was £680 million) was in the first Telegraph article about the Tart Tax and the other was from an article I posted earlier:
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
The Euro Parliament is a joke of an institution filled with jokers like Farage. At least it would be if he could be bothered turning up.
They do not set the budget. They have a right to be involved in the process but they cannot demand a settlement which the Council of Ministers has not agreed to.
Not according to the EU:
Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now shares the power to decide on the entire annual budget of the EU with the Council of the European Union and it has the final say.
Furthermore as I understand it the EU Budget moves from a Unanimity vote to Qualified Majority Voting on the 1st of November this year so Dave will lose his veto as well!
The budget requires to be agreed by the EU Council and the Parliament. Agreement on the Council requires to be unanimous. In fact to get that unanimity Cameron was able to insist on cuts. The EU Parliament is free to disagree but in that case there will be no budget as long as Cameron holds his ground.
My understanding is that in those circumstances the current budget will continue to apply in which case spending will have to fall in real terms.
"Were this a female met officer who had seduced a man, then disappeared and left him with a baby I suspect we'd have more moral outrage at the actions of the state."
I doubt it
It's called the honey trap although they usually use contraception. It takes two to make a baby but it's usually the woman who is left with the baby.
The officer should have used precautions obviously. And why was it necessary to have sex to maintain his undercover status? That in itself says a lot. Poor judgement and a disciplinary offence - but you and I are paying a massive bill.
"....But at some point during her ascent of the party ranks — eventually securing third place on UKIP’s north west regional list for the European elections in May — ‘van de Bours’ appears to have ditched her tussenvoegsel to become simply ‘Bours’.
Could a foreign-sounding surname be some form of impediment with xenophobic UKIP activists?"
Well, it doesn't seem to have held back that Huguenot Farage, has it?
The Guardian blog has been out in the street in Rochester...
"10 Things I've learnt from talking to the voters of Rochester"
"7 - Voters have noticed today’s story about the EU demanding an extra £1.7bn from Britain. At least two people mentioned it spontaneously, and seemed to have a good understanding of the details. It reinforced their intention to vote for Ukip"
It is very Truman Showesque. The lady concerned and her offspring have every right IMO to be totally Effed Off by the Met. This was taking going-undercover into a totally unethical area.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
There was a link earlier indicating that there were about 6 adjustments going on with the EU budget right now, some positive and some negative. This is an exceptionally large sum but the principles were surely clear enough.
I posted that link. It was a very naughty bit of spin from the Guardian to suggest only that some of the others could be in Britain's favour, without also mentioning that they might - possibly - call for an extra contribution from Britain. So far, we don't know.
It's all very mysterious that we've only been told about this one budget adjustment, out of the seven on the table. What people will be concerned about is the total amount [re]payable. Higher? Lower?
When will this be in the public domain? Surely the Treasury will already have the figures? I feel like I'm being manipulated. I might not be, but partial publication of information is always very suspect.
This demand story is all over the newspapers, despite no announcement about it from the EU. Why is that? My bet is on it being because the Tories seized on this as a means of allowing Dave to talk and act tough with Brussels at a time when it is politically expedient for him to be seen to be talking and acting tough with Brussels. They alerted the press to what had happened and then delivered their outrage. It's potentially very clever stuff from the Tories. But if it turns out that the Treasury has known for some time that this has been coming, then the whole story falls to pieces and Dave ends up looking like a lemon.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Perhaps Shadsy would like to make a book on how much of the £1.7 billion Britain will end up paying. If I were a bookie which I most decidedly am not, I think I'd be inclined to keep the odds nice and simple as follows:
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
the £5.4 billion (our payment from it apparently was £680 million) was in the first Telegraph article about the Tart Tax and the other was from an article I posted earlier:
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
The Euro Parliament is a joke of an institution filled with jokers like Farage. At least it would be if he could be bothered turning up.
They do not set the budget. They have a right to be involved in the process but they cannot demand a settlement which the Council of Ministers has not agreed to.
Not according to the EU:
Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now shares the power to decide on the entire annual budget of the EU with the Council of the European Union and it has the final say.
Furthermore as I understand it the EU Budget moves from a Unanimity vote to Qualified Majority Voting on the 1st of November this year so Dave will lose his veto as well!
The budget requires to be agreed by the EU Council and the Parliament. Agreement on the Council requires to be unanimous. In fact to get that unanimity Cameron was able to insist on cuts. The EU Parliament is free to disagree but in that case there will be no budget as long as Cameron holds his ground.
My understanding is that in those circumstances the current budget will continue to apply in which case spending will have to fall in real terms.
The current budget would be far better as the new budget had an increase in the UK's contribution.
So what exactly would happen if we, along with the Dutch and Italians, refused to pay? Would they really kick us out of the EU? Or would they just put it down to experience and not try and retrospectively apply new standards to old budgets? If Dave just keeps telling them to feck off what are they really going to say to us? Leave and take your massive balance of payments deficit with you? I find that unlikely.
Indeed. This is a fight that Cameron actually can't lose if he chooses not to. That's why it is so good for him. In theory there is no real downside to it.
The Guardian blog has been out in the street in Rochester...
"10 Things I've learnt from talking to the voters of Rochester"
"7 - Voters have noticed today’s story about the EU demanding an extra £1.7bn from Britain. At least two people mentioned it spontaneously, and seemed to have a good understanding of the details. It reinforced their intention to vote for Ukip"
"Ukip tell me that Survation aren’t doing a poll for the Mail on Sunday after all. Apparently it was cancelled because it would come too soon after the ComRes poll."
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
"Mr Juncker followed this up by pledging to embark upon another great spending splurge. He plans to unveil a 300-billion-euro investment package before Christmas to boost jobs and growth, amid global fears of a return of the eurozone debt crisis. Meanwhile, MEPs rejected the budget cuts imposed by the Council of Ministers, at Mr Cameron’s behest, earlier this year. National leaders had accepted the argument that if they were having to bite the austerity bullet, then the EU should too – MEPs have not only voted to reverse their suggested cuts of £1.7 billion but to add an extra £3.7 billion on top"
The fact it's demanding a huge amount off impoverished Greece, which is always living in danger of an interest rate spiral just around the corner and would blow up the whole Eurozone, suggests it's not a conspiracy. Nobody would risk that for a PR exercise. This is just a great EU cock-up.
I agree, but it's a cock-up which Cameron is rightly seizing on, in the hopes of turning it into vetogasm 2.0.
It could work.
Did the euro surge come at the expense of UKIP or others last time?
The most scandalous revelation of the day is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thinks that it is good English to say "if you think that, you've got another thing coming".
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
This doesn't make sense. Why would changes in the UK cause Finland and Greece to have to pay more and France and Germany to get rebates?
This demand story is all over the newspapers, despite no announcement about it from the EU. Why is that? My bet is on it being because the Tories seized on this as a means of allowing Dave to talk and act tough with Brussels at a time when it is politically expedient for him to be seen to be talking and acting tough with Brussels. They alerted the press to what had happened and then delivered their outrage. It's potentially very clever stuff from the Tories. But if it turns out that the Treasury has known for some time that this has been coming, then the whole story falls to pieces and Dave ends up looking like a lemon.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
This doesn't make sense. Why would changes in the UK cause Finland and Greece to have to pay more and France and Germany to get rebates?
Presumably each country submits figures each year at around the same time.
The EU making life easy for Cameron by giving him some outrageous things to oppose.
6 weeks to come up with €2bn? Dating back some twenty years?
The ECJ recognises that it is permissible to allow the correction of long-standing errors only going back so many years (say 5 or 7) for this reason.
Incidentally, does anyone know what the bill would be if it were limited to that sort of time period?
£1.7bn
They've only gone back 4 years to calculate the charge.
No, according to all the reports I have read they have gone back to 1995 which is why Greece is also getting hammered.
It does seem a bit odd that both Germany and France are winners, while the UK is the biggest loser.
"The additional payment was requested after the European Commission's statistics agency, Eurostat, reviewed the economic performances of member states since 1995, and readjusted the contributions made by each state over the past four years based on their pace of growth."
So the extent to which the new 2011 contribution differed from the old dates back to 1995, but the actual contribution being asked for covers the last four years only.
What did catch [the Treasury] by surprise was what it sees as a deliberate leak by EU officials of the news last night - which they see as an attempt to embarrass David Cameron, as he meets other EU leaders to discuss, among other things, his controversial hopes of being able to restrict migration of EU nationals to Britain.
This demand story is all over the newspapers, despite no announcement about it from the EU. Why is that? My bet is on it being because the Tories seized on this as a means of allowing Dave to talk and act tough with Brussels at a time when it is politically expedient for him to be seen to be talking and acting tough with Brussels. They alerted the press to what had happened and then delivered their outrage. It's potentially very clever stuff from the Tories. But if it turns out that the Treasury has known for some time that this has been coming, then the whole story falls to pieces and Dave ends up looking like a lemon.
Indeed, one can only wonder how those Eurocrats really thought this news would be received in the UK. It would be interesting to hear the views of PB's arch pro-Europeans, such as OGH, etc to this money grab.
I have a feeling that Europe may just move up the list of issues of concern to people
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
This doesn't make sense. Why would changes in the UK cause Finland and Greece to have to pay more and France and Germany to get rebates?
Presumably each country submits figures each year at around the same time.
The BBC describes the bit about prostitution as an "example". I'm also pretty sure the UK ONS was forced to do this by Eurostat, rather than by its own choice.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
No, it is because of the ESA 2010 regulation which comes from Brussels. Nothing to do with the UK. The EU decided to recalculate all of the national contributions based on ESA 2010 values rather than the old ones and apply ESA 2010 retrospectively. It goes against the basic principal of not taxing people retrospectively. ESA 2010 may be a reform worth having (I'm not convinced that we can really measure the black economy very well, if we could then it wouldn't be called the black economy) but applying those rules retrospectively and then adjusting national contributions based on them is absolutely stupid.
I always enjoying reading the shock in pieces from the likes of Guardian and LRB journalists who - for once - step outside the London bubble into what I would call 'real' England:
'Immigration is overwhelmingly the issue affecting the voters I met. “It is about time somebody stood up and said enough is enough. This [immigration] has gone on for too long, especially when you’re someone like me who’s has a son who’s had a hard time getting a job,” one female pensioner told me. And this is driving Ukip support. When I asked Lee Frost, a former maintenance worker, why he thought Ukip would win, he told me it was because “everyone is pissed off” [with Europe and immigration]. A former prison officer said he was supporting Ukip because “at least Ukip are listening to what people say.” And it was not just blue collar workers who were making comments like this. A woman who works a GP practice manager told me that she was switching to Ukip from the Conservatives because she was fed up with the impact of immigration. This area has gone down so quickly in recent years. There is a street here that English people cannot walk down without feeling threatened. When I challenged her about it this, she would not name the street, but said it was “well known”. If you were Eastern European, you were okay, she said.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
Nope that is simply not true. The new rules for accounting were established by Eurostat and this is the first time they have been applied.
I may be wrong but I think it has something to do with this: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk0713/com_2011_199_techadjust_for_2012_en.pdf This was a decision taken in the Council on15th April 2011 which amended the budget for the EU in accordance with the GNI figures as revised by the countries that had adopted it. The document does not spell out the implications for individual countries but under EU law the multi annual financial framework is set as a % of the overall income of the EU. Alterations increased the budget available and that increase should come from those countries that gained from the alterations. That would be us.
Also, with the EU asking for a relatively small figure like £1.7bn as opposed to the normal £300bn or whatever their annual budget is, it makes it understandable for normal people. In my experience when politicians or business people start talking in figures over £10bn most people just zone out, below that and it has more impact. Few people can put £11bn into context, it is hard to see what £11bn can buy. £1.7bn on the other hand is easy to put into context, it is five new hospitals or twenty new schools. Dave needs to hold his nerve here and tell the EU to do one. The best move would be to try and pass a new referendum bill on the back of this as well, and then try and see if Labour or the Lib Dems block it.
I always enjoying reading the shock in pieces from the likes of Guardian and LRB journalists who - for once - step outside the London bubble into what I would call 'real' England:
'Immigration is overwhelmingly the issue affecting the voters I met. “It is about time somebody stood up and said enough is enough. This [immigration] has gone on for too long, especially when you’re someone like me who’s has a son who’s had a hard time getting a job,” one female pensioner told me. And this is driving Ukip support. When I asked Lee Frost, a former maintenance worker, why he thought Ukip would win, he told me it was because “everyone is pissed off” [with Europe and immigration]. A former prison officer said he was supporting Ukip because “at least Ukip are listening to what people say.” And it was not just blue collar workers who were making comments like this. A woman who works a GP practice manager told me that she was switching to Ukip from the Conservatives because she was fed up with the impact of immigration. This area has gone down so quickly in recent years. There is a street here that English people cannot walk down without feeling threatened. When I challenged her about it this, she would not name the street, but said it was “well known”. If you were Eastern European, you were okay, she said.
Completely unfair. The Guardian is always sending journos into parts of England that are well away from metropolitan. John Harris for example has been sending a steady stream of long articles all year about the 'forgotten' parts of England (and Scotland) and warning that voters views are completely out of step with the main parties.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
No, it is because of the ESA 2010 regulation which comes from Brussels. Nothing to do with the UK. The EU decided to recalculate all of the national contributions based on ESA 2010 values rather than the old ones and apply ESA 2010 retrospectively. It goes against the basic principal of not taxing people retrospectively. ESA 2010 may be a reform worth having (I'm not convinced that we can really measure the black economy very well, if we could then it wouldn't be called the black economy) but applying those rules retrospectively and then adjusting national contributions based on them is absolutely stupid.
That's not what it says on the BBC website ...
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
No, it is because of the ESA 2010 regulation which comes from Brussels. Nothing to do with the UK. The EU decided to recalculate all of the national contributions based on ESA 2010 values rather than the old ones and apply ESA 2010 retrospectively. It goes against the basic principal of not taxing people retrospectively. ESA 2010 may be a reform worth having (I'm not convinced that we can really measure the black economy very well, if we could then it wouldn't be called the black economy) but applying those rules retrospectively and then adjusting national contributions based on them is absolutely stupid.
I agree with this completely.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, though, one reason to include an estimate of the size of the black economy is that it provides an additional incentive for member states to reduce the size of the black economy. Otherwise reducing the size of the black economy could be fiscally self-defeating, as it would simply result in higher contributions to the EU.
Of course, there's nothing we can do now to reduce the size of the black economy in 2002, so this reinforces the point about applying it retrospectively to be a particularly bad idea.
Ladbrokes saying even more likely UKIP will win now.
Probably so, as a knee-jerk reaction. But the Tories may benefit in the longer term, leading up to the GE if (and it's an enormous IF) Cameron stands firm.
With developments in Brussels appearing to play into UKIP's hands, the bookies have been forced to make them even firmer by-election favourites at just 1/7 (from 1/5).
Conservative candidate Kelly Tolhurst now appears to have a real fight on her hands and as such her odds of beating Mark Reckless have jumped instantly to 9/2 from 7/2. The Conservatives, who were odds-on for the race at the start of the month are now at their biggest ever price.
Despite being installed at 7/1 Labour have drifted to 33/1 giving the contest the appearance of a two-horse race.
The Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296) makes it pretty clear about the reasons. Incredibly bad timing of course. Wonder if outher countries have similasrly “corrected their figues, or are in the process of doing so?
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
Brilliant. So it is actually as a result to the way that the UK itself calculates certain things and this assessment happens around this time every year.
No, it is because of the ESA 2010 regulation which comes from Brussels. Nothing to do with the UK. The EU decided to recalculate all of the national contributions based on ESA 2010 values rather than the old ones and apply ESA 2010 retrospectively. It goes against the basic principal of not taxing people retrospectively. ESA 2010 may be a reform worth having (I'm not convinced that we can really measure the black economy very well, if we could then it wouldn't be called the black economy) but applying those rules retrospectively and then adjusting national contributions based on them is absolutely stupid.
That's not what it says on the BBC website ...
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
The BBC's account is the same. When it says "The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year", it means as a result of the agreed European standards. Naturally the British government would prefer not to include the contribution of illegal services that are legal elsewhere, like prostitution (well, prostitution-related activities, to be precise).
The EU making life easy for Cameron by giving him some outrageous things to oppose.
6 weeks to come up with €2bn? Dating back some twenty years?
The ECJ recognises that it is permissible to allow the correction of long-standing errors only going back so many years (say 5 or 7) for this reason.
Incidentally, does anyone know what the bill would be if it were limited to that sort of time period?
£1.7bn
They've only gone back 4 years to calculate the charge.
No, according to all the reports I have read they have gone back to 1995 which is why Greece is also getting hammered.
The GDP adjustments have been made back to 1995 (basically adding in the black economy). But the payments are only being demanded for the last 4 years.
The payment/rebate is all to do with relative size - Germany already included prostitution in GDP, hence the rebate, for instance.
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
Again this is because ESA 2010 has been applied for the first time and they have backdated it to 1995. The BBC, unsurprisingly, have it wrong, or at least have not spelled out where and why the figures are so different. It is because of ESA 2010 which is an EU regulation which forces national statistics agencies to take into account the "black economy" among other things when calculating raw GDP. AIUI the ONS and Treasury will not report ESA 2010 figures to the UK press because they think it is all bullshit, but the EU will use them for budgeting reasons.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
They do not set the budget. They have a right to be involved in the process but they cannot demand a settlement which the Council of Ministers has not agreed to.
Not according to the EU:
Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now shares the power to decide on the entire annual budget of the EU with the Council of the European Union and it has the final say.
Furthermore as I understand it the EU Budget moves from a Unanimity vote to Qualified Majority Voting on the 1st of November this year so Dave will lose his veto as well!
I suggest you might read the following procedure with specific attention to the section in the table at the bottom of the page which deals with the period after the conciliation committee has produced the draft agreement:
7) the European Parliament approves the draft whilst the Council rejects it - the procedure continues.
The indication is that the EP has 14 days to review their demands but if they don't want to change them that's it. It gets approved.
On the Unanimity front there is a concession that vetoes can be used until 31 March 2017 (the real reason for renegotiation perhaps?) but after that it becomes QMV. When it comes to the EU we are facing a very 'Brave New World'.
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
Again this is because ESA 2010 has been applied for the first time and they have backdated it to 1995. The BBC, unsurprisingly, have it wrong, or at least have not spelled out where and why the figures are so different. It is because of ESA 2010 which is an EU regulation which forces national statistics agencies to take into account the "black economy" among other things when calculating raw GDP. AIUI the ONS and Treasury will not report ESA 2010 figures to the UK press because they think it is all bullshit, but the EU will use them for budgeting reasons.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
Of course it is down to the EU. But the demand is based on figures supplied by the UK government, so the idea that this has come as a complete surprise is a bit far-fetched to say the least. And if it is an agreed European standard the government would have known that too. And it would have known it might be liable for extra payments. It has had a while to kick up a fuss about this. But it chose not to.
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
Again this is because ESA 2010 has been applied for the first time and they have backdated it to 1995. The BBC, unsurprisingly, have it wrong, or at least have not spelled out where and why the figures are so different. It is because of ESA 2010 which is an EU regulation which forces national statistics agencies to take into account the "black economy" among other things when calculating raw GDP. AIUI the ONS and Treasury will not report ESA 2010 figures to the UK press because they think it is all bullshit, but the EU will use them for budgeting reasons.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
Of course it is down to the EU. But the demand is based on figures supplied by the UK government, so the idea that this has come as a complete surprise is a bit far-fetched to say the least. And if it is an agreed European standard the government would have known that too. And it would have known it might be liable for extra payments. It has had a while to kick up a fuss about this. But it chose not to.
No, it is based on accounting standards that the EU forced on us.
Something that we've not talked about much is the PCC by-election in South Yorks, which is on Thursday. The circumstances seem optimal for UKIP, but I'm not sure they'll find it that easy. Are any PBers in the region, and what do they make of the campaign?
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
Again this is because ESA 2010 has been applied for the first time and they have backdated it to 1995. The BBC, unsurprisingly, have it wrong, or at least have not spelled out where and why the figures are so different. It is because of ESA 2010 which is an EU regulation which forces national statistics agencies to take into account the "black economy" among other things when calculating raw GDP. AIUI the ONS and Treasury will not report ESA 2010 figures to the UK press because they think it is all bullshit, but the EU will use them for budgeting reasons.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
Of course it is down to the EU. But the demand is based on figures supplied by the UK government, so the idea that this has come as a complete surprise is a bit far-fetched to say the least. And if it is an agreed European standard the government would have known that too. And it would have known it might be liable for extra payments. It has had a while to kick up a fuss about this. But it chose not to.
No, it is based on accounting standards that the EU forced on us.
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
Again this is because ESA 2010 has been applied for the first time and they have backdated it to 1995. The BBC, unsurprisingly, have it wrong, or at least have not spelled out where and why the figures are so different. It is because of ESA 2010 which is an EU regulation which forces national statistics agencies to take into account the "black economy" among other things when calculating raw GDP. AIUI the ONS and Treasury will not report ESA 2010 figures to the UK press because they think it is all bullshit, but the EU will use them for budgeting reasons.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
Of course it is down to the EU. But the demand is based on figures supplied by the UK government, so the idea that this has come as a complete surprise is a bit far-fetched to say the least. And if it is an agreed European standard the government would have known that too. And it would have known it might be liable for extra payments. It has had a while to kick up a fuss about this. But it chose not to.
No, it is based on accounting standards that the EU forced on us.
has there been a single news event ever that hasn't benefited Ukip? Prior to the Indyref every event benefited the SNP naturally
Every one yourself or ScottP link to?
The reason that there has been a lot of positive news for UKIP goes hand in hand with the fact that the party have gone from 3% to high teens in the polls in the last two years... won the Euros, got an MP etc.. all these things only happened because the atmosphere is right for them to happen
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget. It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate. You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller. This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more? The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year. As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time. It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
Again this is because ESA 2010 has been applied for the first time and they have backdated it to 1995. The BBC, unsurprisingly, have it wrong, or at least have not spelled out where and why the figures are so different. It is because of ESA 2010 which is an EU regulation which forces national statistics agencies to take into account the "black economy" among other things when calculating raw GDP. AIUI the ONS and Treasury will not report ESA 2010 figures to the UK press because they think it is all bullshit, but the EU will use them for budgeting reasons.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
Of course it is down to the EU. But the demand is based on figures supplied by the UK government, so the idea that this has come as a complete surprise is a bit far-fetched to say the least. And if it is an agreed European standard the government would have known that too. And it would have known it might be liable for extra payments. It has had a while to kick up a fuss about this. But it chose not to.
No, it is based on accounting standards that the EU forced on us.
And until today we did not know it had happened?
We agreed to the changes and the consequences they had for the overall budget in 2011. See my post and link below.
Did we really think that money was going to come out of thin air?
Labour's Pat McFadden saying the ONS worked out the figures 5 months ago and pointed out these would be used in the calculations that worked out the 1.7bil
Fascinating post from the Guardian Rochester live blog:
Kelly Tolhurst is doing an event in the constituency this afternoon. But it’s running late and so I’m afraid I’m going to miss it.
After a fleeting visit, I’m not an expert on Rochester politics, but I know a bit more about the byelection than I did nine hours ago. There are four more weeks until the vote, and the situation could easily change, but here are my answers to the questions I flagged up at the start of the day.
Are the polls right? Is the Ukip lead solid? And will Ukip supporters stick with the party in the general election?
Yes, they probably are. The Ukip lead does look solid. And, if my conversations with Ukip supporters are any guide, these people are not going to flock back to David Cameron easily.
Now that the Tories have a candidate (Kelly Tolhurst was selected last night, following an all-postal ballot of voters in the constituency), will that make a difference? Is she any good?
Not much difference, though she has made a good impression on people. (I haven’t met her.) And to find a Tory with strong opinions about Gaza (see 4.50pm) is a rare treat.
Do Rochester voters like Reckless? The Tories believe he’s a less appealing candidate than Carswell, and there have already been hints they will run a negative campaign against him? Will that work?
Reading about the byelection from London, it did look as though the Tories’ only hope might be tear down Reckless with highly negative, personal campaign. But voters seem to respect him and, if that ever was an option, the Tories now seem to have abandoned it.
Will Labour and Lib Dem supporters vote tactically to keep Ukip out? Or might they do the opposite, and back Ukip to undermine Cameron?
I didn’t find any evidence to suggest that tactical voting could help the Conservatives win. But I did not meet any Labour supporters planning to vote Ukip just to destabilise Cameron either.
Ladbrokes saying even more likely UKIP will win now.
Probably so, as a knee-jerk reaction. But the Tories may benefit in the longer term, leading up to the GE if (and it's an enormous IF) Cameron stands firm.
C'mon Peter, you know that Cameron has the spine of a jelly fish and the mouth of a parrot. The only thing that may stiffen his resolve is a walkout by MP's and Tory party workers, which I cannot see happening.
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
"But Cameron’s anger was disingenuous. While he continuously said that Britain would not pay the bill by the due date, he did not rule out paying the bill altogether. He is angry about timing, not so much the matter of scale - about which he can probably do nothing.
Moreover, and this is utterly bizarre, he appeared to concede that while he only found out about the bill on Thursday night, the Treasury already knew of its existence for some time. Why was the PM not told – if he wasn’t told?"
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now shares the power to decide on the entire annual budget of the EU with the Council of the European Union and it has the final say.
Furthermore as I understand it the EU Budget moves from a Unanimity vote to Qualified Majority Voting on the 1st of November this year so Dave will lose his veto as well!
I suggest you might read the following procedure with specific attention to the section in the table at the bottom of the page which deals with the period after the conciliation committee has produced the draft agreement:
7) the European Parliament approves the draft whilst the Council rejects it - the procedure continues.
The indication is that the EP has 14 days to review their demands but if they don't want to change them that's it. It gets approved.
On the Unanimity front there is a concession that vetoes can be used until 31 March 2017 (the real reason for renegotiation perhaps?) but after that it becomes QMV. When it comes to the EU we are facing a very 'Brave New World'.
Stage 4 of that says: "4) it does not come to an agreement - the Commission must present a new draft budget."
In short the Parliament can only insist if there is an agreement. If there is no agreement they can't. I think. This is absurdly complicated.
Labour's Pat McFadden saying the ONS worked out the figures 5 months ago and pointed out these would be used in the calculations that worked out the 1.7bil
So, to sum up: we agreed the change back in 2011, we knew that if would increase the size of the economy, we knew that the EU would be doing recalculations as a result and we supplied the figures to enable them to do it. And today we are shocked and furious that we owe more money. That is one whiffy rat I can smell.
Ashya King's parents too scared to come back to the UK because they don't trust the authorities...
"Asked why they were reluctant to return to Britain, Mr King said: "Because there is so much still at stake.
"We wouldn't want to lose Ashya. It would probably never happen but just having that small risk that you don't have to do anything wrong to have your children taken away and (be) thrown in prison..."
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
Our politicians can keep on agreeing to any old crap that comes out of the EU for as long as the EU gets the blame for it, rather than the British politicians who signed up to it.
Yet there are lots of posters who seem to be taking Cameron's theatrics at face value. And to think I'm often accused of being naive!
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
"But Cameron’s anger was disingenuous. While he continuously said that Britain would not pay the bill by the due date, he did not rule out paying the bill altogether. He is angry about timing, not so much the matter of scale - about which he can probably do nothing.
Moreover, and this is utterly bizarre, he appeared to concede that while he only found out about the bill on Thursday night, the Treasury already knew of its existence for some time. Why was the PM not told – if he wasn’t told?"
It's increasingly looking like this whole thing was engineered by Osborne and co to allow Cam & Crew to look tough on Europe ahead of the R&S by-election.
Problem is, it's a big tactical fail because people just don't trust mainstream politicians on Europe, the only party whose Euroscepticism they trust is UKIP, who will ultimately benefit from this latest news story.
I suggest you might read the following procedure with specific attention to the section in the table at the bottom of the page which deals with the period after the conciliation committee has produced the draft agreement:
7) the European Parliament approves the draft whilst the Council rejects it - the procedure continues.
The indication is that the EP has 14 days to review their demands but if they don't want to change them that's it. It gets approved.
On the Unanimity front there is a concession that vetoes can be used until 31 March 2017 (the real reason for renegotiation perhaps?) but after that it becomes QMV. When it comes to the EU we are facing a very 'Brave New World'.
Stage 4 of that says: "4) it does not come to an agreement - the Commission must present a new draft budget."
In short the Parliament can only insist if there is an agreement. If there is no agreement they can't. I think. This is absurdly complicated.
I agree it's as clear as mud. I think section 4.4 that you are referring to refers to the possibility of both the Council and the Parliament rejecting the proposal.
The other consideration is that from what I have read the Commission is backing the Parliament on the budget issues (surprise surprise) so if anything the chips are stacked against the Council of Ministers.
I don't totally discount your assessment its just when you take everything else into account and ever closer union into account at some point they will surely look to disempower the Council of Ministers (much as part of democratising the UK in the early 20th Century involved disempowering the House of Lords) and I suspect these changes are part of it.
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
"But Cameron’s anger was disingenuous. While he continuously said that Britain would not pay the bill by the due date, he did not rule out paying the bill altogether. He is angry about timing, not so much the matter of scale - about which he can probably do nothing.
Moreover, and this is utterly bizarre, he appeared to concede that while he only found out about the bill on Thursday night, the Treasury already knew of its existence for some time. Why was the PM not told – if he wasn’t told?"
It's increasingly looking like this whole thing was engineered by Osborne and co to allow Cam & Crew to look tough on Europe ahead of the R&S by-election.
Problem is, it's a big tactical fail because people just don't trust mainstream politicians on Europe, the only party whose Euroscepticism they trust is UKIP, who will ultimately benefit from this latest news story.
I hope that, wherever he is, tim is able to spare a moment for a small smile and the quiet words "Master Strategist" ...
Something that we've not talked about much is the PCC by-election in South Yorks, which is on Thursday. The circumstances seem optimal for UKIP, but I'm not sure they'll find it that easy. Are any PBers in the region, and what do they make of the campaign?
It would be interesting to hear the views of PB's arch pro-Europeans, such as OGH, etc to this money grab.
Personally, as a proEUer, I agree that it's outrageous behaviour on the part of the EU.
But please keep in mind that being pro-EU has never equated to agreeing with absolutely everything that the EU does any more than being pro-UK equates to agreeing with absolutely everything that the UK does or being in favour of the existence of the local council equates to agreeing with absolutely everything that it does either.
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
"But Cameron’s anger was disingenuous. While he continuously said that Britain would not pay the bill by the due date, he did not rule out paying the bill altogether. He is angry about timing, not so much the matter of scale - about which he can probably do nothing.
Moreover, and this is utterly bizarre, he appeared to concede that while he only found out about the bill on Thursday night, the Treasury already knew of its existence for some time. Why was the PM not told – if he wasn’t told?"
It's increasingly looking like this whole thing was engineered by Osborne and co to allow Cam & Crew to look tough on Europe ahead of the R&S by-election.
Problem is, it's a big tactical fail because people just don't trust mainstream politicians on Europe, the only party whose Euroscepticism they trust is UKIP, who will ultimately benefit from this latest news story.
I hope that, wherever he is, tim is able to spare a moment for a small smile and the quiet words "Master Strategist" ...
Ashya King's parents too scared to come back to the UK because they don't trust the authorities...
"Asked why they were reluctant to return to Britain, Mr King said: "Because there is so much still at stake.
"We wouldn't want to lose Ashya. It would probably never happen but just having that small risk that you don't have to do anything wrong to have your children taken away and (be) thrown in prison..."
@MaxPB - I have looked and I cannot find anything to suggest that the UK was vehemently opposed to the new regime. It's certainly not something that we have chosen to make an issue out of up to now. It's also clear that its introduction has been well trailed. So for Cameron to claim that this is all a big shock is disingenuous, to say the least. We knew the regime had changed, we knew that the changes would have the affect of increasing the size of our economy and we knew what figures we had submitted.
"But Cameron’s anger was disingenuous. While he continuously said that Britain would not pay the bill by the due date, he did not rule out paying the bill altogether. He is angry about timing, not so much the matter of scale - about which he can probably do nothing.
Moreover, and this is utterly bizarre, he appeared to concede that while he only found out about the bill on Thursday night, the Treasury already knew of its existence for some time. Why was the PM not told – if he wasn’t told?"
It's increasingly looking like this whole thing was engineered by Osborne and co to allow Cam & Crew to look tough on Europe ahead of the R&S by-election.
Problem is, it's a big tactical fail because people just don't trust mainstream politicians on Europe, the only party whose Euroscepticism they trust is UKIP, who will ultimately benefit from this latest news story.
I hope that, wherever he is, tim is able to spare a moment for a small smile and the quiet words "Master Strategist" ...
Comments
There are plenty of other ways he could have been untraceable.
What if he was a travelling salesman?
Or in a witness protection scheme?
Or a Labour Party policy?
My understanding is that in those circumstances the current budget will continue to apply in which case spending will have to fall in real terms.
"Were this a female met officer who had seduced a man, then disappeared and left him with a baby I suspect we'd have more moral outrage at the actions of the state."
I doubt it
It's called the honey trap although they usually use contraception. It takes two to make a baby but it's usually the woman who is left with the baby.
The officer should have used precautions obviously. And why was it necessary to have sex to maintain his undercover status? That in itself says a lot. Poor judgement and a disciplinary offence - but you and I are paying a massive bill.
"10 Things I've learnt from talking to the voters of Rochester"
"7 - Voters have noticed today’s story about the EU demanding an extra £1.7bn from Britain. At least two people mentioned it spontaneously, and seemed to have a good understanding of the details. It reinforced their intention to vote for Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
It's all very mysterious that we've only been told about this one budget adjustment, out of the seven on the table. What people will be concerned about is the total amount [re]payable. Higher? Lower?
When will this be in the public domain? Surely the Treasury will already have the figures? I feel like I'm being manipulated. I might not be, but partial publication of information is always very suspect.
Incidentally, we have in the past, had rebates. If we’re let off the tax, shouldn’t we hand back the rebates, too?
If I were a bookie which I most decidedly am not, I think I'd be inclined to keep the odds nice and simple as follows:
75% - 100% ....... 1.80
50% - 75% .......... 3.60
25% - 50% .......... 5.40
0% - 25% ............10.80
All bets void if unresolved by end 2016.
If the child is the reason for the pay-out were the Met then guilty for not training their men in how to put on those rubber devices?
Stand to attention ... wait for it ... right unwrap, one, two, three. Put on, one, two three. Any questions?
Sorry, it just seems ludicrous all round.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
The sheer audacity boggles the mind.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11180190/The-scandal-of-Europes-ever-expanding-budget.html
Hey, @Ed_Miliband, refusing this EU budget hike would mean you could drop your property tax and still have £400 million left over.
So the extent to which the new 2011 contribution differed from the old dates back to 1995, but the actual contribution being asked for covers the last four years only.
(Different hair partings it has to be said)
What did catch [the Treasury] by surprise was what it sees as a deliberate leak by EU officials of the news last night - which they see as an attempt to embarrass David Cameron, as he meets other EU leaders to discuss, among other things, his controversial hopes of being able to restrict migration of EU nationals to Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296
'Immigration is overwhelmingly the issue affecting the voters I met. “It is about time somebody stood up and said enough is enough. This [immigration] has gone on for too long, especially when you’re someone like me who’s has a son who’s had a hard time getting a job,” one female pensioner told me. And this is driving Ukip support. When I asked Lee Frost, a former maintenance worker, why he thought Ukip would win, he told me it was because “everyone is pissed off” [with Europe and immigration]. A former prison officer said he was supporting Ukip because “at least Ukip are listening to what people say.” And it was not just blue collar workers who were making comments like this. A woman who works a GP practice manager told me that she was switching to Ukip from the Conservatives because she was fed up with the impact of immigration. This area has gone down so quickly in recent years. There is a street here that English people cannot walk down without feeling threatened. When I challenged her about it this, she would not name the street, but said it was “well known”. If you were Eastern European, you were okay, she said.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
This was a decision taken in the Council on15th April 2011 which amended the budget for the EU in accordance with the GNI figures as revised by the countries that had adopted it. The document does not spell out the implications for individual countries but under EU law the multi annual financial framework is set as a % of the overall income of the EU. Alterations increased the budget available and that increase should come from those countries that gained from the alterations. That would be us.
Over out to evens.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
It is my anecdotal experience that immigrants themselves are not averse to voting UKIP.
This is part of an annual process in which the European statistics agency Eurostat uses figures from member states to work out how much they should each be contributing to the EU budget.
It happens every year, and in some previous years I'm told that the UK has received a rebate.
You might not have noticed it in previous years, because the amounts involved have been smaller.
This year, however, the UK has been asked for an additional contribution, which is considerably higher than any other member state.
Why has it been asked for so much more?
The UK, in common with most other countries, has been making big changes to its methodology for measuring the size of its economy this year.
As a result of this, it has worked out the value of some things, such as illegal activities, which it should have been including in the national accounts for some time.
It has also improved the way it keeps track of some aspects of the economy such as services provided by charities, and it has received some new or improved information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29757296
Probably worth having a link to the Guardian running blog on Rochester & Strood available for the next few weeks?
The latest is that Tolhurst is an "anti Israeli activist..." according to the Jewish Chronicle
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
Just to play Devil's Advocate, though, one reason to include an estimate of the size of the black economy is that it provides an additional incentive for member states to reduce the size of the black economy. Otherwise reducing the size of the black economy could be fiscally self-defeating, as it would simply result in higher contributions to the EU.
Of course, there's nothing we can do now to reduce the size of the black economy in 2002, so this reinforces the point about applying it retrospectively to be a particularly bad idea.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
With developments in Brussels appearing to play into UKIP's hands, the bookies have been forced to make them even firmer by-election favourites at just 1/7 (from 1/5).
Conservative candidate Kelly Tolhurst now appears to have a real fight on her hands and as such her odds of beating Mark Reckless have jumped instantly to 9/2 from 7/2. The Conservatives, who were odds-on for the race at the start of the month are now at their biggest ever price.
Despite being installed at 7/1 Labour have drifted to 33/1 giving the contest the appearance of a two-horse race.
The payment/rebate is all to do with relative size - Germany already included prostitution in GDP, hence the rebate, for instance.
This is down to the EU, whether you like it or not.
I'd rather be on 45-50 @ 3/1 if I were playing this market.
I think Shadsy will win overall though. 5% betting bands in a by-election is a good way to take the punters money.
7) the European Parliament approves the draft whilst the Council rejects it - the procedure continues.
The indication is that the EP has 14 days to review their demands but if they don't want to change them that's it. It gets approved.
http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/budget_en.htm
On the Unanimity front there is a concession that vetoes can be used until 31 March 2017 (the real reason for renegotiation perhaps?) but after that it becomes QMV. When it comes to the EU we are facing a very 'Brave New World'.
He will stand firm. At least until December 2nd.
The reason that there has been a lot of positive news for UKIP goes hand in hand with the fact that the party have gone from 3% to high teens in the polls in the last two years... won the Euros, got an MP etc.. all these things only happened because the atmosphere is right for them to happen
Did we really think that money was going to come out of thin air?
Kelly Tolhurst is doing an event in the constituency this afternoon. But it’s running late and so I’m afraid I’m going to miss it.
After a fleeting visit, I’m not an expert on Rochester politics, but I know a bit more about the byelection than I did nine hours ago. There are four more weeks until the vote, and the situation could easily change, but here are my answers to the questions I flagged up at the start of the day.
Are the polls right? Is the Ukip lead solid? And will Ukip supporters stick with the party in the general election?
Yes, they probably are. The Ukip lead does look solid. And, if my conversations with Ukip supporters are any guide, these people are not going to flock back to David Cameron easily.
Now that the Tories have a candidate (Kelly Tolhurst was selected last night, following an all-postal ballot of voters in the constituency), will that make a difference? Is she any good?
Not much difference, though she has made a good impression on people. (I haven’t met her.) And to find a Tory with strong opinions about Gaza (see 4.50pm) is a rare treat.
Do Rochester voters like Reckless? The Tories believe he’s a less appealing candidate than Carswell, and there have already been hints they will run a negative campaign against him? Will that work?
Reading about the byelection from London, it did look as though the Tories’ only hope might be tear down Reckless with highly negative, personal campaign. But voters seem to respect him and, if that ever was an option, the Tories now seem to have abandoned it.
Will Labour and Lib Dem supporters vote tactically to keep Ukip out? Or might they do the opposite, and back Ukip to undermine Cameron?
I didn’t find any evidence to suggest that tactical voting could help the Conservatives win. But I did not meet any Labour supporters planning to vote Ukip just to destabilise Cameron either.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/24/rochester-and-strood-byelection-politics-live-blog#block-544a5f4ee4b01813b80f3113
Moreover, and this is utterly bizarre, he appeared to concede that while he only found out about the bill on Thursday night, the Treasury already knew of its existence for some time. Why was the PM not told – if he wasn’t told?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11185604/Both-the-EU-and-Cameron-must-come-clean-about-the-origins-of-this-outrageous-bill.html
"4) it does not come to an agreement - the Commission must present a new draft budget."
In short the Parliament can only insist if there is an agreement. If there is no agreement they can't. I think. This is absurdly complicated.
"Asked why they were reluctant to return to Britain, Mr King said: "Because there is so much still at stake.
"We wouldn't want to lose Ashya. It would probably never happen but just having that small risk that you don't have to do anything wrong to have your children taken away and (be) thrown in prison..."
http://news.sky.com/story/1359233/ashya-king-parents-still-fear-uk-authorities
Yet there are lots of posters who seem to be taking Cameron's theatrics at face value. And to think I'm often accused of being naive!
Problem is, it's a big tactical fail because people just don't trust mainstream politicians on Europe, the only party whose Euroscepticism they trust is UKIP, who will ultimately benefit from this latest news story.
The other consideration is that from what I have read the Commission is backing the Parliament on the budget issues (surprise surprise) so if anything the chips are stacked against the Council of Ministers.
I don't totally discount your assessment its just when you take everything else into account and ever closer union into account at some point they will surely look to disempower the Council of Ministers (much as part of democratising the UK in the early 20th Century involved disempowering the House of Lords) and I suspect these changes are part of it.
But please keep in mind that being pro-EU has never equated to agreeing with absolutely everything that the EU does any more than being pro-UK equates to agreeing with absolutely everything that the UK does or being in favour of the existence of the local council equates to agreeing with absolutely everything that it does either.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme · 3h3 hours ago
It seems Downing St knew of this £1.7bn demand *even when* they were pressuring Tory MEPs to vote for the Commission http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/10/sex-drugs-and-brussels-law-and-cameron.html …
GOsborneGenius
@GOsborneGenius @wallaceme Why does that surprise you?