It was not unexpected. The UK was warned it would have to pay extra under the new rules back in January. The Dutch Government knew about it and set aside a reserve fund to pay it. The claims from the UK Government are about as convincing as a schoolkid claiming the dog ate their homework.
So they are choosing to pick a political fight over it.
Something they can probably drag out all the way until May 2015 if they choose?
Cameron said this afternoon that the 'Quality Assurance' of these payments will continue well into 2015. You just know what that means. He's going to drag it out.
- Ongoing powers for Brussels over the UK - Continued mass immigration - "Positive" discrimination against whites - An extra £1.7 billion handed over to the EU, no questions asked - No parliament for the English
That could go on every UKIP leaflet in the north of England. It's almost like he agrees with his Dad:
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are."
It was not unexpected. The UK was warned it would have to pay extra under the new rules back in January. The Dutch Government knew about it and set aside a reserve fund to pay it. The claims from the UK Government are about as convincing as a schoolkid claiming the dog ate their homework.
So they are choosing to pick a political fight over it.
Something they can probably drag out all the way until May 2015 if they choose?
A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.
@Socrates He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment? I can see how that works. What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?
A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.
Across the channel
"Theoretically, France could end up with a heavy fine, but this is widely considered to be extremely unlikely.French officials said the budget sent to Brussels would not deviate from the already announced numbers, setting up a major test of the EU's resolve to apply the rules to the bloc's second-biggest economy and a founding member."
@Socrates He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment? I can see how that works. What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?
When did we sign up for backpayments from 15 years ago?
@Socrates He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment? I can see how that works. What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?
[He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment?]
How many languages can you speak Smarmy?
[What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?]
It seems Dave is stuck between a rock and a hard place
Some rebellious types think that the eventual bill cannot go higher than £400 million, which seems a near impossible demand when it is currently £1.7 billion. But David Cameron’s aides have already passed on intelligence gathered on the backbenches that if the bill is paid in full or with an insignificant reduction, there would be ‘not 46 but 70 letters’ going to Graham Brady demanding a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister.
Furthermore with Dave talking referendum and Ed not why on earth would Brussels do anything to help Dave? Referendums are not something Brussels are fond of. They cause them far too many difficulties.
@Socrates He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment? I can see how that works. What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?
""We decide the budget," Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on Saturday as he warned his European partners to "respect France, a big country." Those words riled some EU countries which are concerned that France will benefit from a double standard, with smaller countries facing Brussels' wrath even as big countries benefit from being seen as too big too fail. "There can be no favouritism, the rules are the same for everyone," Spanish Economy Minister Luis de Guindos said on Monday.
Can you quote when they've mentioned Norway as a possible model? The only thing I've ever heard them say is that Norway is evidence that free trade and EU membership are not synonymous.
Yes, it's a dishonest piece of spin, citing Norway as an example for the bits they like, and then running away when someone points out that Norway is landed with most of the disadvantages of the EU, notably on immigration. So then they mention Switzerland, until someone points out the same thing.
In the real world, you don't get everything you want and nothing you don't want. It's UKIP's Salmond-like denial of this basic reality which completely puts me off them. They are not putting forward a serious proposition, they are just being childish.
Incidentally, this is a good article on the actual reality:
@Socrates He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment? I can see how that works. What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?
When did we sign up for backpayments from 15 years ago?
Have you got a Scoop we should know about Socrates?
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
@Socrates Same thing as a tax return, you tell the IR that you are only earning so much, then later you tell them you were earning more. Now, the time all this should have been discussed is well before, but it seems somewhere between the treasury, and the PM, "the eye was off the ball". His government were in meetings signing it off a fortnight ago.
Moer to the point I have regularly set out the various options when asked this question by Richard and others and have also indicated what the UKIP position is and what my preferred position is - making clear that mine and UKIPs position are not the same.
Other UKIP members on here have done the same.
So the claim that no one on here has answered Richard's questions is another of his many "statements of dubious reliability"
Come off it, Richard T. At one point you were ludicrously trying to claim that Norway wasn't subject to the free movement of labour rules. Quite how you have the gall to impugn my integrity is a matter for your conscience.
Can you quote when they've mentioned Norway as a possible model? The only thing I've ever heard them say is that Norway is evidence that free trade and EU membership are not synonymous.
Yes, it's a dishonest piece of spin, citing Norway as an example for the bits they like, and then running away when someone points out that Norway is landed with most of the disadvantages of the EU, notably on immigration. So then they mention Switzerland, until someone points out the same thing.
In the real world, you don't get everything you want and nothing you don't want. It's UKIP's Salmond-like denial of this basic reality which completely puts me off them. They are not putting forward a serious proposition, they are just being childish.
Incidentally, this is a good article on the actual reality:
You claimed UKIP used Norway as a model that we should follow. You were challenged on providing evidence for that, and have ducked the question and are now trying to change the subject. Please provide the quote you are talking about.
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
I think you'll find that the concern is that Cameron lacks the stones to see this through to the end and either he or Miliband will eventually capitulate and in doing so cost the UK taxpayer even more than it needed to given neither of them will take us out of the EU.
I have also just looked at your article. Open Europe have done "analysis" of how much immigration the UK would get outside the EU ... by calculating the immigration Switzerland gets on a per capita basis and assuming the UK would get the same. Is this really the sort of crap analysis that Open Europe has descended to? They used to be a respected organisation. How pathetic.
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
It"ll be a sad day when a British Government follows French practices.
@Socrates Same thing as a tax return, you tell the IR that you are only earning so much, then later you tell them you were earning more. Now, the time all this should have been discussed is well before, but it seems somewhere between the treasury, and the PM, "the eye was off the ball". His government were in meetings signing it off a fortnight ago.
You claimed UKIP used Norway as a model that we should follow. You were challenged on providing evidence for that, and have ducked the question and are now trying to change the subject. Please provide the quote you are talking about.
I have also just looked at your article. Open Europe have done "analysis" of how much immigration the UK would get outside the EU ... by calculating the immigration Switzerland gets on a per capita basis and assuming the UK would get the same. Is this really the sort of crap analysis that Open Europe has descended to? They used to be a respected organisation. How pathetic.
At least they are doing some analysis, unlike UKIP.
@Socrates I thought I had mentioned downthread that I had no idea if he would pay or not? Dave knew this was coming, and did an EU flounce about it before the bye election. Everyone else seems to have known about it, or perhaps they were asleep during the meeting, and just signed it off anyway?
@Socrates I thought I had mentioned downthread that I had no idea if he would pay or not? Dave knew this was coming, and did an EU flounce about it before the bye election. Everyone else seems to have known about it, or perhaps they were asleep during the meeting, and just signed it off anyway?
Smarmy, I'm of course amiss to offer you more info.
But apparently George knew and Dave didn't.
Where's your source/sauce for this Dave knowing stuff??
It seems Dave is stuck between a rock and a hard place
Some rebellious types think that the eventual bill cannot go higher than £400 million, which seems a near impossible demand when it is currently £1.7 billion. But David Cameron’s aides have already passed on intelligence gathered on the backbenches that if the bill is paid in full or with an insignificant reduction, there would be ‘not 46 but 70 letters’ going to Graham Brady demanding a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister.
Furthermore with Dave talking referendum and Ed not why on earth would Brussels do anything to help Dave? Referendums are not something Brussels are fond of. They cause them far too many difficulties.
Not really, if the result of the referendum goes against them they just ignore it.
You claimed UKIP used Norway as a model that we should follow. You were challenged on providing evidence for that, and have ducked the question and are now trying to change the subject. Please provide the quote you are talking about.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Eqv8ZQvuo
50 seconds in.
His statement was that we'd be better off in Norway's position than as an EU member, before saying we should go and get a bilateral deal.
This is quite obvious, and I've pointed it out to you before. You are either being thick or mendacious. I think it's the latter.
Moer to the point I have regularly set out the various options when asked this question by Richard and others and have also indicated what the UKIP position is and what my preferred position is - making clear that mine and UKIPs position are not the same.
Other UKIP members on here have done the same.
So the claim that no one on here has answered Richard's questions is another of his many "statements of dubious reliability"
Come off it, Richard T. At one point you were ludicrously trying to claim that Norway wasn't subject to the free movement of labour rules. Quite how you have the gall to impugn my integrity is a matter for your conscience.
Nope I pointed out - quite correctly as you were forced to admit - that they are able to insist on certain criteria such as the 300 hours compulsory Norwegian language and culture classes before anyone is allowed to settle there.
Anyway, you are playing straw man again. You said that no one from UKIP has been willing to talk about the options after withdrawal. That is an outright lie. Something you are all too willing to do on a regular basis and then cry faux outrage when someone points it out.
It is a detestable trait and one of the reasons why you deserve to be treated with scorn.
I have also just looked at your article. Open Europe have done "analysis" of how much immigration the UK would get outside the EU ... by calculating the immigration Switzerland gets on a per capita basis and assuming the UK would get the same. Is this really the sort of crap analysis that Open Europe has descended to? They used to be a respected organisation. How pathetic.
At least they are doing some analysis, unlike UKIP.
Pathetic. There's no excuse for such sloppy analysis from a think tank, which means an organisation that does analysis. Open Europe are clearly no longer credible as a source in this debate.
Can you quote when they've mentioned Norway as a possible model? The only thing I've ever heard them say is that Norway is evidence that free trade and EU membership are not synonymous.
Yes, it's a dishonest piece of spin, citing Norway as an example for the bits they like, and then running away when someone points out that Norway is landed with most of the disadvantages of the EU, notably on immigration. So then they mention Switzerland, until someone points out the same thing.
In the real world, you don't get everything you want and nothing you don't want. It's UKIP's Salmond-like denial of this basic reality which completely puts me off them. They are not putting forward a serious proposition, they are just being childish.
Incidentally, this is a good article on the actual reality:
Well except like so much of the garbage the Tory media peddle its bollocks. UKIP policy (and it was announced and published:well before that article you like so much:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So it will not be an identical relationship with the EU as either Norway or Switzerland have. What is childish is that for the large part the UKIP that exists in the collective mindset of the Tory party is a creation of their own desperate self-serving delusions.......
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
Hardly. The position of UKIP is that as long as you are a member of a club you have to abide by its rules. That is exactly what Farage meant when he said the other daythat we would have to pay.
That is why we want to leave. It is the Tory position apparently that we can be a member of a club and then refuse to obey the rules when it doesn't suit us. Arrogant and dangerous.
His statement was that we'd be better off in Norway's position than as an EU member, before saying we should go and get a bilateral deal.
This is quite obvious, and I've pointed it out to you before. You are either being thick or mendacious. I think it's the latter.
The only person being mendacious is Nigel Farage.
I can't be bothered to discuss politics with people who accuse me of lack of integrity, so I shall no longer respond to you or Richard T (except to collect my winnings!)
Well except like so much of the garbage the Tory media peddle its bollocks. UKIP policy (and it was announced and published:well before that article you like so much:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So it will not be an identical relationship with the EU as either Norway or Switzerland have. What is childish is that for the large part the UKIP that exists in the collective mindset of the Tory party is a creation of their own desperate self-serving delusions.......
Tories and much of the media just lie about UKIP's positions. It's because they can't debate on the merits of their actual positions, because they know UKIP are right.
His statement was that we'd be better off in Norway's position than as an EU member, before saying we should go and get a bilateral deal.
This is quite obvious, and I've pointed it out to you before. You are either being thick or mendacious. I think it's the latter.
The only person being mendacious is Nigel Farage.
I can't be bothered to discuss politics with people who accuse me of lack of integrity, so I shall no longer respond to you or Richard T (except to collect my winnings!)
Cool. Don't worry we will continue to point out when you are being dishonest in your statements, just so you know we haven't forgotten you.
Well except like so much of the garbage the Tory media peddle its bollocks. UKIP policy (and it was announced and published:well before that article you like so much:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So it will not be an identical relationship with the EU as either Norway or Switzerland have. What is childish is that for the large part the UKIP that exists in the collective mindset of the Tory party is a creation of their own desperate self-serving delusions.......
No, it wouldn't be an identical relationship. But we would have to negotiate on the same set of issues, and therefore some of the same compromises would have to be made as Norway and Switzerland have to make. In particular, the EU would have a major bargaining chip, which is that we would be very keen indeed to have free access to the Single Market in services.
As I have said, I would genuinely like to have a serious debate about this, but not one which is based on the fantasy that we just get everything we want for nothing in return.
His statement was that we'd be better off in Norway's position than as an EU member, before saying we should go and get a bilateral deal.
This is quite obvious, and I've pointed it out to you before. You are either being thick or mendacious. I think it's the latter.
The only person being mendacious is Nigel Farage.
I can't be bothered to discuss politics with people who accuse me of lack of integrity, so I shall no longer respond to you or Richard T (except to collect my winnings!)
I didn't say you were mendacious. I said you were being mendacious. If someone makes a claim once, twice, or even thrice after it has been pointed out to them they are being inaccurate, I can put it down to a mistake. We all make incorrect claims sometimes before needing to be corrected. But by now you know full well that Farage says in that very video that the right model for the UK was a bilateral agreement, not EEA membership. So don't pretend otherwise or throw a hissy fit when someone points it out.
Well except like so much of the garbage the Tory media peddle its bollocks. UKIP policy (and it was announced and published:well before that article you like so much:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So it will not be an identical relationship with the EU as either Norway or Switzerland have. What is childish is that for the large part the UKIP that exists in the collective mindset of the Tory party is a creation of their own desperate self-serving delusions.......
No, it wouldn't be an identical relationship. But we would have to negotiate on the same set of issues, and therefore some of the same compromises would have to be made as Norway and Switzerland have to make. In particular, the EU would have a major bargaining chip, which is that we would be very keen indeed to have free access to the Single Market in services.
As I have said, I would genuinely like to have a serious debate about this, but not one which is based on the fantasy that we just get everything we want for nothing in return.
Except both Korea and Canada (shortly) have agreed a free market in services with the EU, without having free movement of labour.
I have carers for my mother, the Europeans tell me they couldn't live independently in their own countries, they would have to live with their families. Of course a young English person doesn't get that freedom.
Well except like so much of the garbage the Tory media peddle its bollocks. UKIP policy (and it was announced and published:well before that article you like so much:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So it will not be an identical relationship with the EU as either Norway or Switzerland have. What is childish is that for the large part the UKIP that exists in the collective mindset of the Tory party is a creation of their own desperate self-serving delusions.......
No, it wouldn't be an identical relationship. But we would have to negotiate on the same set of issues, and therefore some of the same compromises would have to be made as Norway and Switzerland have to make. In particular, the EU would have a major bargaining chip, which is that we would be very keen indeed to have free access to the Single Market in services.
As I have said, I would genuinely like to have a serious debate about this, but not one which is based on the fantasy that we just get everything we want for nothing in return.
And we would have a larger bargaining chip of being their largest external export market and a valuable military ally on their borders. Sadly as in so many things you Tories no longer seem to be able to think independently and imagine yourselves outside the current constrained environment. It's like listening to abuse victims suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Just because the issues would be the same does not mean we have to agree to the same solutions and in particular solutions that are not in the nations best interests.
Any impartial observer watching the HofC today, and as someone who couldn't care less who is next PM if the choice is Ed or Dave I count myself as one, will have seen Ed Miliband pick apart Cameron's claims that he didn't know about the EU bill, reveal that Nicky Morgan had written a letter about it in March, and show the PM's synthetic outrage for what it was
Cameron's response was straight from page one of the slippery evasion manual, to attack the last Labour governments record, while sidestepping the question
Look how he lapped up Kate Hoey's intervention saying it didn't matter when he knew, it was more important to focus on what to do about it.
PR stunts designed to win back the people who have seen through him and done the off
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
Hardly. The position of UKIP is that as long as you are a member of a club you have to abide by its rules. That is exactly what Farage meant when he said the other daythat we would have to pay.
That is why we want to leave. It is the Tory position apparently that we can be a member of a club and then refuse to obey the rules when it doesn't suit us. Arrogant and dangerous.
Indeed.
I wonder if Cameron would mind if the self-employed decide they're wont make their self-assessment payments as the law requires.
Likewise is it now allowable for businesses not to make their next set of tax payments ?
Great work, as ever. Do you have the ratio for sitting MPs, and (a long shot) candidates at the previous election. Would be interesting to see if thee is a gender bias in terms of selection for safe seats.
I have carers for my mother, the Europeans tell me they couldn't live independently in their own countries, they would have to live with their families. Of course a young English person doesn't get that freedom.
Great work, as ever. Do you have the ratio for sitting MPs, and (a long shot) candidates at the previous election. Would be interesting to see if thee is a gender bias in terms of selection for safe seats.
Not yet. I know that a slight majority of candidates in Labour's top 106 targets are women.
OT I've got a month's worth of Amazon Prime and not impressed at the range of titles.
I tried Netflix 2yrs ago and it wasn't much either. Any PBres have a view? I hear about Hulu on other boards, is it available in the UK? This all reminds me a lot of the walled gardens back in the 90s/early 00s when it comes to choice.
OT I've got a month's worth of Amazon Prime and not impressed at the range of titles.
I tried Netflix 2yrs ago and it wasn't much either. Any PBres have a view? I hear about Hulu on other boards, is it available in the UK? This all reminds me a lot of the walled gardens back in the 90s/early 00s when it comes to choice.
Whatever happened to AOL?
Yes I have a view.
I smash any monthly streams within a couple of months. Apparently you're not allowed to fancy Suzi Perry or like films anymore...
Saw a local newspaper today with an extra front and back page advertising the election, seemingly paid for by the Home Office.
The big headline being 'Stay at Home on October 30th and criminals will benefit' or something similar.
To emphasise the message there are photos of 'criminals' about their activities - there's a white burglar and a white mugger and two more of the white burglar again.
It must have been an interesting discussion at the Home Office as to which imagery represented crime concerns in South Yorkshire at present.
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
Hardly. The position of UKIP is that as long as you are a member of a club you have to abide by its rules. That is exactly what Farage meant when he said the other daythat we would have to pay.
That is why we want to leave. It is the Tory position apparently that we can be a member of a club and then refuse to obey the rules when it doesn't suit us. Arrogant and dangerous.
Indeed.
I wonder if Cameron would mind if the self-employed decide they're wont make their self-assessment payments as the law requires.
Likewise is it now allowable for businesses not to make their next set of tax payments ?
Jeez, I was beginning to think I was the only person in Christendom who thought this.
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
In most clubs the subscription is known in advance.
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
In most clubs the subscription is known in advance.
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
Not just pay more, but claim you have underpaid for years and have to pay up retrospectively for an extra amount for the last two decades.
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
Hardly. The position of UKIP is that as long as you are a member of a club you have to abide by its rules. That is exactly what Farage meant when he said the other daythat we would have to pay.
That is why we want to leave. It is the Tory position apparently that we can be a member of a club and then refuse to obey the rules when it doesn't suit us. Arrogant and dangerous.
Indeed.
I wonder if Cameron would mind if the self-employed decide they're wont make their self-assessment payments as the law requires.
Likewise is it now allowable for businesses not to make their next set of tax payments ?
Jeez, I was beginning to think I was the only person in Christendom who thought this.
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
Four of us, as it happens. Where we differ is as you will probably guess - I'd like to leave the EU, the UN and a bucketful of other international organisation in the name of independence and self-government. But we agree that if you're in, you pay the subs.
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
In most clubs the subscription is known in advance.
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
Except these club rules were apparently clearly known not least because we actually agreed to them. It is not just a case of being a member of a club and finding the executive has unexpectedly increased your club fees, it is rather a case of being on the executive that decides the club fees, agreeing the increase and then moaning about it afterwards.
So he didn't in fact know, in March. Glad we cleared that up.
Haha you must be dizzy with all that spinning
He didn't know how much, in March, just as we didn't know how much we got back in other years when we got a rebate...but no one has said he did (that's the strawman you are clinging to)
He should have been prepared for it to be a large amount, that is all that has been said..
But he wasnt
So the outrage was synthetic, and Miliband, the butt of so many jokes from people whose tweets you like to copy and paste, exposed it for all to see
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
In most clubs the subscription is known in advance.
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
Not just pay more, but claim you have underpaid for years and have to pay up retrospectively for an extra amount for the last two decades.
I think that's the kicker.. it is effectively a retroactive increase in the membership fees due to a change in the way they are computed. It wouldn't have been a problem if the EU had simply applied the change from this date onwards.
@Socrates Same thing as a tax return, you tell the IR that you are only earning so much, then later you tell them you were earning more. Now, the time all this should have been discussed is well before, but it seems somewhere between the treasury, and the PM, "the eye was off the ball". His government were in meetings signing it off a fortnight ago.
So you think Ed Miliband will pay it then?
Whoever's elected will pay it. Even Farage would pay it. Cameron will just be hoping to delay the payment until after the election.
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
In most clubs the subscription is known in advance.
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
Not just pay more, but claim you have underpaid for years and have to pay up retrospectively for an extra amount for the last two decades.
I think that's the kicker.. it is effectively a retroactive increase in the membership fees due to a change in the way they are computed. It wouldn't have been a problem if the EU had simply applied the change from this date onwards.
BBC is doing a documentary on the Baby P case. It is allowing Ed Balls to put his view forward unchallenged, including saying the Tories playing politics by nastily talking about a "feckless teenage mother", which "suited their purposes".
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
In most clubs the subscription is known in advance.
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
Not just pay more, but claim you have underpaid for years and have to pay up retrospectively for an extra amount for the last two decades.
I think that's the kicker.. it is effectively a retroactive increase in the membership fees due to a change in the way they are computed. It wouldn't have been a problem if the EU had simply applied the change from this date onwards.
Comments
Can someone please mail me Excel.
Merci Beaucoup
He is not paying the bill because his treasury department was incompetent?
Try that line next time you go out for a meal.
Socrates - That is not the reason.
Anyone would think that 2Bn (or 1.7, presumably gbp) mattered to you...
Still that's better than Ed who is "More, you want more? Of course you can."
He leads a sovereign country that signs things, then changes it's mind and reneges on the spur of the moment?
I can see how that works.
What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?
"Theoretically, France could end up with a heavy fine, but this is widely considered to be extremely unlikely.French officials said the budget sent to Brussels would not deviate from the already announced numbers, setting up a major test of the EU's resolve to apply the rules to the bloc's second-biggest economy and a founding member."
afp.com/en/news/defiant-france-tests-eu-resolve-budget-rules
How many languages can you speak Smarmy?
[What will he want the EU rebate to be calculated on?]
Shengin and GDP presumably...
Some rebellious types think that the eventual bill cannot go higher than £400 million, which seems a near impossible demand when it is currently £1.7 billion. But David Cameron’s aides have already passed on intelligence gathered on the backbenches that if the bill is paid in full or with an insignificant reduction, there would be ‘not 46 but 70 letters’ going to Graham Brady demanding a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/tory-mps-threaten-trouble-for-pm-over-eu-bill/
Furthermore with Dave talking referendum and Ed not why on earth would Brussels do anything to help Dave? Referendums are not something Brussels are fond of. They cause them far too many difficulties.
Those words riled some EU countries which are concerned that France will benefit from a double standard, with smaller countries facing Brussels' wrath even as big countries benefit from being seen as too big too fail.
"There can be no favouritism, the rules are the same for everyone," Spanish Economy Minister Luis de Guindos said on Monday.
In the real world, you don't get everything you want and nothing you don't want. It's UKIP's Salmond-like denial of this basic reality which completely puts me off them. They are not putting forward a serious proposition, they are just being childish.
Incidentally, this is a good article on the actual reality:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11189366/Would-Ukips-plan-to-quit-the-EU-really-cut-immigration.html
FTR - Bbc parliament airs on freeview...
'A very dangerous and costly position to take given that the EU is threatening fines of £1.3 million a day for every day the UK doesn't pay. If it drags out to the election that is somewhere over an additional £200 million we would owe.'
We will just follow the French government example & not pay,the EU will back off just as they did with EU fines over France refusing UK beef.
A UKIP supporter worrying about the UK not paying a fine to the EU gives a whole new meaning to faux outrage.
Same thing as a tax return, you tell the IR that you are only earning so much, then later you tell them you were earning more.
Now, the time all this should have been discussed is well before, but it seems somewhere between the treasury, and the PM, "the eye was off the ball".
His government were in meetings signing it off a fortnight ago.
I have also just looked at your article. Open Europe have done "analysis" of how much immigration the UK would get outside the EU ... by calculating the immigration Switzerland gets on a per capita basis and assuming the UK would get the same. Is this really the sort of crap analysis that Open Europe has descended to? They used to be a respected organisation. How pathetic.
'Cameron is posturing.'
Get real,it's Ed that's posturing,he would have already paid up.
Of course dear.
Invoice from EU:
1.7Bn GBP
Britain replies: F*ck your shit.
50 seconds in.
I thought I had mentioned downthread that I had no idea if he would pay or not?
Dave knew this was coming, and did an EU flounce about it before the bye election.
Everyone else seems to have known about it, or perhaps they were asleep during the meeting, and just signed it off anyway?
Strange you didn't mention it dear.
Oh deary me.
But apparently George knew and Dave didn't.
Where's your source/sauce for this Dave knowing stuff??
Just as we should do with this demand..
This is quite obvious, and I've pointed it out to you before. You are either being thick or mendacious. I think it's the latter.
'"There can be no favouritism, the rules are the same for everyone," Spanish Economy Minister Luis de Guindos said on Monday.'
At least he's got a good sense of humor.
Anyway, you are playing straw man again. You said that no one from UKIP has been willing to talk about the options after withdrawal. That is an outright lie. Something you are all too willing to do on a regular basis and then cry faux outrage when someone points it out.
It is a detestable trait and one of the reasons why you deserve to be treated with scorn.
Ed's position is that cosying up to the European class bully will keep him safe from bullying.
No wonder he's not spelling it out.
Are George and Dave not talking these days? Is their status "complicated"?
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
So it will not be an identical relationship with the EU as either Norway or Switzerland have. What is childish is that for the large part the UKIP that exists in the collective mindset of the Tory party is a creation of their own desperate self-serving delusions.......
That is why we want to leave. It is the Tory position apparently that we can be a member of a club and then refuse to obey the rules when it doesn't suit us. Arrogant and dangerous.
I hate Academic days.
As an aside - Uni Challenge in 15 mins!!!
I can't be bothered to discuss politics with people who accuse me of lack of integrity, so I shall no longer respond to you or Richard T (except to collect my winnings!)
As I have said, I would genuinely like to have a serious debate about this, but not one which is based on the fantasy that we just get everything we want for nothing in return.
Con: 76% / 24%
Lab: 65% / 35%
LD: 79.5% / 20.5%
UKIP: 89.5% / 10.5%
Greens: 60% / 40%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
Just because the issues would be the same does not mean we have to agree to the same solutions and in particular solutions that are not in the nations best interests.
Cameron's response was straight from page one of the slippery evasion manual, to attack the last Labour governments record, while sidestepping the question
Look how he lapped up Kate Hoey's intervention saying it didn't matter when he knew, it was more important to focus on what to do about it.
PR stunts designed to win back the people who have seen through him and done the off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
I wonder if Cameron would mind if the self-employed decide they're wont make their self-assessment payments as the law requires.
Likewise is it now allowable for businesses not to make their next set of tax payments ?
OU beat LSE!!!
Um...
You'll get yourself arrested at this rate.
I tried Netflix 2yrs ago and it wasn't much either. Any PBres have a view? I hear about Hulu on other boards, is it available in the UK? This all reminds me a lot of the walled gardens back in the 90s/early 00s when it comes to choice.
Whatever happened to AOL?
PS you forgot to say who tweeted that
There are adjustments every year, as he made clear if you were listening to his statement.
I smash any monthly streams within a couple of months. Apparently you're not allowed to fancy Suzi Perry or like films anymore...
Saw a local newspaper today with an extra front and back page advertising the election, seemingly paid for by the Home Office.
The big headline being 'Stay at Home on October 30th and criminals will benefit' or something similar.
To emphasise the message there are photos of 'criminals' about their activities - there's a white burglar and a white mugger and two more of the white burglar again.
It must have been an interesting discussion at the Home Office as to which imagery represented crime concerns in South Yorkshire at present.
Seems there are two others who think that if you join a Club you have to pay the subscription, or leave. Shall we three form a Party?
Typical arrogant posh boy behaviour, "I'll do what I want rules are for the plebs"... Socialist states like the EU don't work like that
Only in a few select clubs (you may perhaps be familiar with some) do they mug you on the way out the door claiming you need to pay more because you were having too good a time...
So he didn't in fact know, in March. Glad we cleared that up.
Where we differ is as you will probably guess - I'd like to leave the EU, the UN and a bucketful of other international organisation in the name of independence and self-government.
But we agree that if you're in, you pay the subs.
He didn't know how much, in March, just as we didn't know how much we got back in other years when we got a rebate...but no one has said he did (that's the strawman you are clinging to)
He should have been prepared for it to be a large amount, that is all that has been said..
But he wasnt
So the outrage was synthetic, and Miliband, the butt of so many jokes from people whose tweets you like to copy and paste, exposed it for all to see
If he didn't like the terms, why did he sign up to them in the first place?
LINKY INCOMING
LINKY INCOMING
Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
*ahem*
What would be the consequence?
The People's Army being demobbed and a few P45s for Brussels gravy-trainers? Returning the stockbroker to the margins?
One for the boys
http://discover.economist.com/?a=21611074&p=LC&cid1=dis