@Nigel_Farage: Osborne trying to spin his way out of disaster. UK still paying full £1.7bn, his credibility is about to nose dive.
I think Farage is wrong about this. Osborne was quite clear that the bill had halved.
The bill hasn't halved.
What you're witnessing is a shift from the focus on P&L to one on cashflow.
Edit: which means I'm more in agreement with Farage! Hell hath frozen over!
Strange bedfellows!
Anyway, surely, surely Osborne isn't so stupid as to give this the full smoke and mirrors treatment. He must know that it would unravel by tea-time and he'd look like a total putz. Surely.
You are wrong - our rebate is increasing because of this bill and the increase in the rebate is to be used for paying part of the bill.
Downing Street denied these claims and said that there was no "legal certainty" from the EU that the rebate would apply to the budget bill.
Downing Street said the bill had been halved because Britain’s rebate from Brussels is now being applied to the bill."
So it sounds like BenM was right. The rebate that we would have gotten anyway ("no legal certainty" is obviously weasel wording) is just applying earlier, meaning the total cost of the bill remains the same. For God's sake Osborne...
Rumour has it I believe that Tory backbenchers set a maximum threshold of £400 million for the payments Osborne has just agreed to. So Dave and George have failed their party's expectations. Michael Gove will be busy. Perhaps there will be two internecine bun-fights this weekend. The Sunday Papers should be worth reading for once.....
norm morse @normmoo 3m3 minutes ago @CarlWil35586309@MikkiL@LBC Fair play to Farage, he is going as far as he can to support "A". No other party leaders have grown a pair.
Farage defending the traditional British right to commit murder.
Yeah, right. I suppose that's the kind of British values UKIP want to celebrate.
Presumably UKIP would take the same view if, say, evidence came to light of an Argentinian officer killing a wounded British soldier in cold-blood.
You are a miserable fool, Nabavi. Your words show how twisted your mind is.
MikeK, from the article you linked to:
After this, Nick reminded Nigel of the full account of the charges levied at Marine A, which led to his sentence.
The killing was unintentionally filmed by one of his fellow soldiers who was wearing a helmet mounted camera. The footage showed Sgt. Blackman shooting the badly wounded Taliban soldier point blank in the chest saying “There, shuffle off this mortal coil. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us.”
He then turned to his fellow marines that he was on patrol with and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention.''
We're supposed to be better than the Taliban - which was the basis on which we went into Afghanistan in the first place.
That means we have to put some of our own soldiers behind bars when they break the rules of war and kill prisoners.
@Nigel_Farage: Osborne trying to spin his way out of disaster. UK still paying full £1.7bn, his credibility is about to nose dive.
I think Farage is wrong about this. Osborne was quite clear that the bill had halved.
The bill hasn't halved.
What you're witnessing is a shift from the focus on P&L to one on cashflow.
Edit: which means I'm more in agreement with Farage! Hell hath frozen over!
THAT I can believe as plausible for the Tories to do: get the rebate netted off the first payment, rather than getting it back later. But it just seems unlikely that the numbers work. Does the rebate exactly half the bill? I don't buy it.
A good rule of thumb is that the annual UK net contribution is about half its gross contribution.
Seeing as the message from Osborne is that he's "halved" the bill, it follows that the rebates and other bits of extra funding have been factored in.
Nothing has changed except for timing of cashflow.
Oh and the rule about adding interest to outstanding payments which actually is a decent win in itself.
Downing Street denied these claims and said that there was no "legal certainty" from the EU that the rebate would apply to the budget bill.
Downing Street said the bill had been halved because Britain’s rebate from Brussels is now being applied to the bill."
So it sounds like BenM was right. The rebate that we would have gotten anyway ("no legal certainty" is obviously weasel wording) is just applying earlier, meaning the total cost of the bill remains the same. For God's sake Osborne...
Seems very strange that Mr Farage an experienced expert on all things EU hadn't spotted this - was he in the pub for a week ?
With Labour in a bit of trouble it might be a good time to bet on the Greens in Norwich South. It wouldn't surprise me if Labour are taking the seat for granted since they were just 300 votes behind the LDs in 2010.
norm morse @normmoo 3m3 minutes ago @CarlWil35586309@MikkiL@LBC Fair play to Farage, he is going as far as he can to support "A". No other party leaders have grown a pair.
Farage defending the traditional British right to commit murder.
Yeah, right. I suppose that's the kind of British values UKIP want to celebrate.
Presumably UKIP would take the same view if, say, evidence came to light of an Argentinian officer killing a wounded British soldier in cold-blood.
You are a miserable fool, Nabavi. Your words show how twisted your mind is.
Richard is right. Farage is mistaken on this. It was a cold-blooded killing and the British should hold themselves to a higher standard.
Agreed - this is UKIP bigotry at its least attractive.
@Nigel_Farage: Osborne trying to spin his way out of disaster. UK still paying full £1.7bn, his credibility is about to nose dive.
I think Farage is wrong about this. Osborne was quite clear that the bill had halved.
The bill hasn't halved.
What you're witnessing is a shift from the focus on P&L to one on cashflow.
Edit: which means I'm more in agreement with Farage! Hell hath frozen over!
THAT I can believe as plausible for the Tories to do: get the rebate netted off the first payment, rather than getting it back later. But it just seems unlikely that the numbers work. Does the rebate exactly half the bill? I don't buy it.
A good rule of thumb is that the annual UK net contribution is about half its gross contribution.
Seeing as the message from Osborne is that he's "halved" the bill, it follows that the rebates and other bits of extra funding have been factored in.
Nothing has changed except for timing of cashflow.
Oh and the rule about adding interest to outstanding payments which actually is a decent win in itself.
I don't follow your logic because only a chunk of the difference between net and gross amounts is the rebate - we do get some structural funds and CAP subsidies, for instance.
That said, the government weasel wording seems to imply your claims are right. If the only difference is timing of payments, that's a pretty horrendous spin job by the government that will be made clear pretty quickly.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
Well reintroducing the spare room subsidy (Kipper policy) is not going to help.
Ah yes bravo lets salami slice one policy and ignore everything else. Nor does ringfencing International Aid but hey that's all right because British voters get no benefit from that!
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
Well reintroducing the spare room subsidy (Kipper policy) is not going to help.
Let's see: £50 million out of £100 billion. You're right: it will make things worse by 0.05% of the gap.
Pretty obvious from a cursory glance at most polls. However even with this swing the gap between the two parties is not insurmountable.
However I would have thought that the Lib Dems 'undecided' - more than Tory or Labour are going to feature prominently.
There are of course many scenarios for this 'undecided' vote (for all four parties).
If you're a UKIP supporter you hope that these are people who are tending towards UKIP but who aren't certain that they should take a radical step, or who wish to make a protest vote.
If you're Conservative then you look at the uncertain Lib Dems and think - 'they haven't switched to Ed for 4 1/2 years, we could get quite a few of them - and our undecideds, faced with the possibility of a Labour Government will surely come back to us'.
If you're Lib dem you hope you can persuade them to come back to you.
If you're labour you think - at least they haven't decided to vote against us yet.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
Well reintroducing the spare room subsidy (Kipper policy) is not going to help.
Ah yes bravo lets salami slice one policy and ignore everything else. Nor does ringfencing International Aid but hey that's all right because British voters get no benefit from that!
British voters get huge benefits from improving growth and reducing instability in Africa and India.
Downing Street denied these claims and said that there was no "legal certainty" from the EU that the rebate would apply to the budget bill.
Downing Street said the bill had been halved because Britain’s rebate from Brussels is now being applied to the bill."
So it sounds like BenM was right. The rebate that we would have gotten anyway ("no legal certainty" is obviously weasel wording) is just applying earlier, meaning the total cost of the bill remains the same. For God's sake Osborne...
A demand for £1.7bn, which it was previously said had to be paid by 1st December otherwise we'd be paying punitive rates of interest, is now £850 million and payable next year.
In plain English, it's half as much, it's payable later, and there's no interest payable.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
Well reintroducing the spare room subsidy (Kipper policy) is not going to help.
Let's see: £50 million out of £100 billion. You're right: it will make things worse by 0.05% of the gap.
Yes - that's just the kind of Labour speak that got us into the present mess. Good government looks after the pennies.
If Osborne has just agreed to pay the £1.7bn but in instalments, with some chicanery to make it look like it's been cut in half, then he is finished, Cameron is finished, and the Tories are finished.
If Osborne truly wanted to deflect attention from EdM's plight, then way to go, George!
I smell a great big stinking rat.
The BBC is reporting it as being halved.
No, it is reporting that Osborne says it is being halved. A crucial distinction.
It would be monumentally stupid to agree the full bill, but even more monumentally stupid to pretend you weren't when the truth will come out in a couple of hours. I don't believe the Tories, for all their faults, are that stupid.
Looks like it's unravelled in about one hour rather than a couple.
There was talk yesterday about EdM being out of a job by Monday. I think Cameron may be the one seeking gainful employment by Tuesday....
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
Well reintroducing the spare room subsidy (Kipper policy) is not going to help.
Ah yes bravo lets salami slice one policy and ignore everything else. Nor does ringfencing International Aid but hey that's all right because British voters get no benefit from that!
British voters get huge benefits from improving growth and reducing instability in Africa and India.
Which aid only stymies, unless you are claiming you know more than Lord Bauer did? Aid and charity is for the individual not the state to decide anyway.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
I genuinely struggle to understand why the Conservatives have managed to get the party of fiscal responsibility tag.
@EdConwaySky: Now the dust is settling, this really DOES look like an effective reduction in the EU bill. Eg one that doesn't eat into future rebate cash
@OpenEurope: EU Budget Commissioner Georgieva: According to "preliminary calculations", UK surcharge would be "in the order" of €1bn (down from €2.1bn).
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
I genuinely struggle to understand why the Conservatives have managed to get the party of fiscal responsibility tag.
Downing Street denied these claims and said that there was no "legal certainty" from the EU that the rebate would apply to the budget bill.
Downing Street said the bill had been halved because Britain’s rebate from Brussels is now being applied to the bill."
So it sounds like BenM was right. The rebate that we would have gotten anyway ("no legal certainty" is obviously weasel wording) is just applying earlier, meaning the total cost of the bill remains the same. For God's sake Osborne...
Seems very strange that Mr Farage an experienced expert on all things EU hadn't spotted this - was he in the pub for a week ?
Read what Farage said again:
on an LBC radio phone-in on Friday morning, Farage said Cameron would have little option but to go along with the demand, which will have to be paid in December.
“Of course he will pay up. These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do,” he said.
The only thing that has changed as far as I can see is that the UK has deferred the payment and given the EU are now reviewing the payment rules altogether clearly they have been persuaded they were being unreasonable demanding payment in a matter of weeks but nevertheless the UK will eventually have to pay the full demand as Farage indicated.
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?""
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?""
@DavidGauke: Contrary to what some are suggesting, £850k is not the same as £1.7bn & December '14 is not the same point in time as July & September '15.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
Well reintroducing the spare room subsidy (Kipper policy) is not going to help.
Ah yes bravo lets salami slice one policy and ignore everything else. Nor does ringfencing International Aid but hey that's all right because British voters get no benefit from that!
British voters get huge benefits from improving growth and reducing instability in Africa and India.
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
If Osborne has just agreed to pay the £1.7bn but in instalments, with some chicanery to make it look like it's been cut in half, then he is finished, Cameron is finished, and the Tories are finished.
If Osborne truly wanted to deflect attention from EdM's plight, then way to go, George!
I smell a great big stinking rat.
The BBC is reporting it as being halved.
No, it is reporting that Osborne says it is being halved. A crucial distinction.
It would be monumentally stupid to agree the full bill, but even more monumentally stupid to pretend you weren't when the truth will come out in a couple of hours. I don't believe the Tories, for all their faults, are that stupid.
I think Cameron may be the one seeking gainful employment by Tuesday....
There's support for a party. There's wilful support for a party against all odds.
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?""
One shouldn't bandy the "L" word around too easily. Will it apply to George Osborne though?
From Bloomberg:
U.K. Fails to Win Budget Payment Cut as EU Defies Cameron
Britain failed to win a cut in an extra payment demanded by the European Union, complicating Prime Minister David Cameron’s efforts to fend off an anti-EU movement at home.
EU finance ministers agreed in Brussels today to stretch out Britain’s payment of a 2.1 billion-euro ($2.6 billion) bill until September 2015, while leaving the amount untouched.
In Brussels, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said Britain’s payments in the second half of next year will only be about 850 million pounds ($1.3 billion). He arrived at that figure by bringing forward a rebate that Britain is scheduled to get anyway.
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?"
@joeyjonessky: RT @Ed_Miliband "Labour will fight street-by-street so we can change the country for the better" < Streetfighter Ed? One for @GeneralBoles.
@Nigel_Farage: Osborne trying to spin his way out of disaster. UK still paying full £1.7bn, his credibility is about to nose dive.
I think Farage is wrong about this. Osborne was quite clear that the bill had halved.
The bill hasn't halved.
What you're witnessing is a shift from the focus on P&L to one on cashflow.
Edit: which means I'm more in agreement with Farage! Hell hath frozen over!
THAT I can believe as plausible for the Tories to do: get the rebate netted off the first payment, rather than getting it back later. But it just seems unlikely that the numbers work. Does the rebate exactly half the bill? I don't buy it.
A good rule of thumb is that the annual UK net contribution is about half its gross contribution.
Seeing as the message from Osborne is that he's "halved" the bill, it follows that the rebates and other bits of extra funding have been factored in.
Nothing has changed except for timing of cashflow.
Oh and the rule about adding interest to outstanding payments which actually is a decent win in itself.
I don't follow your logic because only a chunk of the difference between net and gross amounts is the rebate - we do get some structural funds and CAP subsidies, for instance.
That said, the government weasel wording seems to imply your claims are right. If the only difference is timing of payments, that's a pretty horrendous spin job by the government that will be made clear pretty quickly.
I think @BenM has it wrong: it would be completely irrational of Osborne to make stuff up here when everyone is looking.
I expect that what happened is the the *gross* bill was £1.7bn. After the rebate calculation, that would fall to £850m or so.
So the *actual* payment is - and always was going to be - c. £850m on a net basis.
What Osborne is saying is correct - they have cut the bill. But he's trying to big up something that a stuffed monkey (but perhaps not Ed Miliband) would have been able to achieve
On the question of the EU budget, everyone will believe what they want to believe.
Looking at it from first principles, it seems to me that there are only really two questions worth considering:
1) did Britain actually owe the money? 2) was Britain given adequate notice of the sum required?
The answer to 1 seems to be yes and the answer to 2 seems to be no.
In those circumstances we should pay what we owe, but over a sensible timescale. That seems to have been broadly what has been achieved and if we strip away the high-handed, technocratic and procedurally inept approach of the Commission on the one side and the rampant Europhobia stoked up by a craven government on the other side, we seem to have reached a sensible ending to this farrago.
When they assure us that the UK rebate applies - am I right in meaning that the rebate applies as a percentage of all payments? if so then I can understand why £1.7 billion gross could be reduced down considerably.
Of course if it hadn't been for Tony Blair trying to bribe his way to the European presidency the rebate would be higher.
One shouldn't bandy the "L" word around too easily. Will it apply to George Osborne though?
From Bloomberg:
U.K. Fails to Win Budget Payment Cut as EU Defies Cameron
Britain failed to win a cut in an extra payment demanded by the European Union, complicating Prime Minister David Cameron’s efforts to fend off an anti-EU movement at home.
EU finance ministers agreed in Brussels today to stretch out Britain’s payment of a 2.1 billion-euro ($2.6 billion) bill until September 2015, while leaving the amount untouched.
In Brussels, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said Britain’s payments in the second half of next year will only be about 850 million pounds ($1.3 billion). He arrived at that figure by bringing forward a rebate that Britain is scheduled to get anyway.
Well, it's certainly taken coverage of the Labour leadership out of the weekend papers. All the talk will now be about who replaces Osborne and Cameron.
Could they be forced into humiliating climbdowns by end of this afternoon?
Fantastic analogy! Unfortunately due to the poor leadership of 'Big X', and his 35% strategy, the tunnel is 20 feet short of the inside of the perimeter fence.
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?"
Kippers look on with amusement........
Either GO has won a reduction or the Kippers et al are mutton heads who totally missed a trick on the rebate - choose your preference.
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
Not just Kippers and Labour. I'm not the only Tory who can see right through this.
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
Seems like the smartest guy is the one with the red case in no 11.
Predictions that Cameron will be out by Tuesday providing much mirth - liquid lunch on a Friday seems to be involved.
This is devastating for the Tories. Why on Earth do they do this? It's like vetoing the EU fiscal compact, only to allow it to happen through the backdoor. Or refusing to contribute in the Eurozone bailouts, only to do contributions by independent channels. Now we've found out that we're still effectively paying the same amount, it's just the rebate is being knocked off earlier rather than later. What a disaster.
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
Not just Kippers and Labour. I'm not the only Tory who can see right through this.
@Nigel_Farage: Osborne trying to spin his way out of disaster. UK still paying full £1.7bn, his credibility is about to nose dive.
I think Farage is wrong about this. Osborne was quite clear that the bill had halved.
The bill hasn't halved.
What you're witnessing is a shift from the focus on P&L to one on cashflow.
Edit: which means I'm more in agreement with Farage! Hell hath frozen over!
THAT I can believe as plausible for the Tories to do: get the rebate netted off the first payment, rather than getting it back later. But it just seems unlikely that the numbers work. Does the rebate exactly half the bill? I don't buy it.
A good rule of thumb is that the annual UK net contribution is about half its gross contribution.
Seeing as the message from Osborne is that he's "halved" the bill, it follows that the rebates and other bits of extra funding have been factored in.
Nothing has changed except for timing of cashflow.
Oh and the rule about adding interest to outstanding payments which actually is a decent win in itself.
I don't follow your logic because only a chunk of the difference between net and gross amounts is the rebate - we do get some structural funds and CAP subsidies, for instance.
That said, the government weasel wording seems to imply your claims are right. If the only difference is timing of payments, that's a pretty horrendous spin job by the government that will be made clear pretty quickly.
I think @BenM has it wrong: it would be completely irrational of Osborne to make stuff up here when everyone is looking.
I expect that what happened is the the *gross* bill was £1.7bn. After the rebate calculation, that would fall to £850m or so.
So the *actual* payment is - and always was going to be - c. £850m on a net basis.
What Osborne is saying is correct - they have cut the bill. But he's trying to big up something that a stuffed monkey (but perhaps not Ed Miliband) would have been able to achieve
It makes the "leak" of the story to the FT in the first place look very suspicious. It's expectations management writ large.
What's worse than a €1bn bill from the EU? A €2bn bill from the EU. So when you know you're faced with the former it helps the public relations side of things to scare people with the latter.
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?"
Kippers look on with amusement........
Either GO has won a reduction or the Kippers et al are mutton heads who totally missed a trick on the rebate - choose your preference.
Actually the rebate rules have not changed have they so they will have always applied. How is it then that the Treasury seemed to think they wouldn't? After all it was Cameron who went nuclear over the £1.7 billion bill?
I think its far more worrying that the Treasury either misrepresented the figure in the first place or worse didn't realise the rebate applied
What seems to have happened here is that our EU friends (and Nigel Farage, and every journalist in the land) forgot to apply the historic rebate to the demand. That might explain why the Treasury were so surprised by the original demand for £1.7bn.
Wonder how long it will take David "details man" Cameron to realise that, after stitching him up by not telling him about the bill before the EU Summit, the Treasury has stitched him up again by agreeing a smoke and mirrors plan that has seemingly not changed a thing on the bill he promised not to pay!
Will this be how the Tories announce an improvement in immigration figures? They've cut them in half, from the gross number of half a million to the net figure of 250,000? Ridiculous spinning on here today. Nothing's been cut. The bill's the same.
norm morse @normmoo 3m3 minutes ago @CarlWil35586309@MikkiL@LBC Fair play to Farage, he is going as far as he can to support "A". No other party leaders have grown a pair.
Farage defending the traditional British right to commit murder.
Yeah, right. I suppose that's the kind of British values UKIP want to celebrate.
Presumably UKIP would take the same view if, say, evidence came to light of an Argentinian officer killing a wounded British soldier in cold-blood.
You are a miserable fool, Nabavi. Your words show how twisted your mind is.
My words show that I am a consistent upholder of the principles of British justice, irrespective of who commits the crime and the ethnicity of the victim.
And you, Sir? And Mr Farage?
As far as I know Argentina are signatories to the Geneva Convention, the Taliban not so much so on a personal level I think the Govt should have the balls to raise the black flag against them.
What seems to have happened here is that our EU friends (and Nigel Farage, and every journalist in the land) forgot to apply the historic rebate to the demand. That might explain why the Treasury were so surprised by the original demand for £1.7bn.
I thought Kippers were the experts in all things EU - if they missed this simple trick then I wouldn't let them near a whelk stall..
norm morse @normmoo 3m3 minutes ago @CarlWil35586309@MikkiL@LBC Fair play to Farage, he is going as far as he can to support "A". No other party leaders have grown a pair.
Farage defending the traditional British right to commit murder.
Yeah, right. I suppose that's the kind of British values UKIP want to celebrate.
Presumably UKIP would take the same view if, say, evidence came to light of an Argentinian officer killing a wounded British soldier in cold-blood.
You are a miserable fool, Nabavi. Your words show how twisted your mind is.
My words show that I am a consistent upholder of the principles of British justice, irrespective of who commits the crime and the ethnicity of the victim.
And you, Sir? And Mr Farage?
So I take it you oppose the European Arrest Warrant in the way that it suspends the right of habeas corpus. And that you oppose the breach of client-lawyer confidentiality in trials by the intelligence services?
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?"
Kippers look on with amusement........
The mistake you're making is taking any notice of Hannan. But don't worry I won't be making any mistakes, I know you will make anything up that suits you.
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
The demand comes as part of what is known in Brussels as an amending budget proposal, a routine event that occurs regularly and is dependent on the ebb and flow of payments into the EU. There are another six amending budgets on the table in Brussels, some of which may entail returning funds to Britain, meaning the overall bill could yet be cut.
I then went and looked at the other amending budgets and calculated that taking them all into account would reduce Britain's liability to less than £1bn - and I posted to that effect to pb.com.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
I genuinely struggle to understand why the Conservatives have managed to get the party of fiscal responsibility tag.
Really?
By the time we get to the 2015 election the Con government will have borrowed vastly more over its 5 years in government than the last 5 year of the Lab government and the Lab government was supposed to be A) Massively imprudent fiscal wastrels Had to splurge some money on a teeny tinny global financial crisis.
I can only conclude that the Conservatives are enormous financial wasters.
What seems to have happened here is that our EU friends (and Nigel Farage, and every journalist in the land) forgot to apply the historic rebate to the demand. That might explain why the Treasury were so surprised by the original demand for £1.7bn.
I thought Kippers were the experts in all things EU - if they missed this simple trick then I wouldn't let them near a whelk stall..
George Osborne claimed he "halved" the demand. Are you now accepting that he hasn't done that at all?
One shouldn't bandy the "L" word around too easily. Will it apply to George Osborne though?
From Bloomberg:
U.K. Fails to Win Budget Payment Cut as EU Defies Cameron
Britain failed to win a cut in an extra payment demanded by the European Union, complicating Prime Minister David Cameron’s efforts to fend off an anti-EU movement at home.
EU finance ministers agreed in Brussels today to stretch out Britain’s payment of a 2.1 billion-euro ($2.6 billion) bill until September 2015, while leaving the amount untouched.
In Brussels, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said Britain’s payments in the second half of next year will only be about 850 million pounds ($1.3 billion). He arrived at that figure by bringing forward a rebate that Britain is scheduled to get anyway.
Well, it's certainly taken coverage of the Labour leadership out of the weekend papers. All the talk will now be about who replaces Osborne and Cameron.
Could they be forced into humiliating climbdowns by end of this afternoon?
It's even more laughable than that.
The French wanted their rebate next year so their books will be balanced and they won't get another virtual fine. So nothing for Britain but a favour for France.
What seems to have happened here is that our EU friends (and Nigel Farage, and every journalist in the land) forgot to apply the historic rebate to the demand. That might explain why the Treasury were so surprised by the original demand for £1.7bn.
I thought Kippers were the experts in all things EU - if they missed this simple trick then I wouldn't let them near a whelk stall..
George Osborne claimed he "halved" the demand. Are you now accepting that he hasn't done that at all?
He has got agreement that our rebate discount should apply - so our net payments are assured to be down.
If this was 100% "nailed on" - why did no Kipper mention this before this afternoon ?
The Tories' own MEPs are protesting that no cut has happened. This is obviously smokes and mirrors, and it's desperate arguments from the arch-loyalists to pretend otherwise.
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?""
So I take it you oppose the European Arrest Warrant in the way that it suspends the right of habeas corpus.
Yes, of course, and I have said so many times.
Whether it is practical to do anything about it now, beyond the improvements which this government has achieved, is another matter. I wouldn't have started from this point.
And that you oppose the breach of client-lawyer confidentiality in trials by the intelligence services?
The ALLEGED breach of client-lawyer confidentiality in trials by the intelligence services is being considered by the Independent Tribunal. I have no view on the matter for the very good reason that neither I, nor you, nor the Guardian, know the facts.
What seems to have happened here is that our EU friends (and Nigel Farage, and every journalist in the land) forgot to apply the historic rebate to the demand. That might explain why the Treasury were so surprised by the original demand for £1.7bn.
I thought Kippers were the experts in all things EU - if they missed this simple trick then I wouldn't let them near a whelk stall..
What about Cameron and Osborne and the Treasury? The rebate has always been in place. So were they
a) Misrepresenting the figure of £1.7 billion to deceive Parliament and the British public?
b) Totally unaware of it just as you accuse UKIP of being?
There are serious questions to be asked of the Tory leadership and the Treasury here!
The voters know that a country with a 100bn pound deficit annual deficit pays 8 billion to the EU and 10 billion to overseas aid, including countries that have space programmes.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
I genuinely struggle to understand why the Conservatives have managed to get the party of fiscal responsibility tag.
I think if that is true that is worse than having to fork out £1.7 billion..
Takes a special kind of curmudgeon (Fraser Nelson) to invent a reason so fatuous as this.
With the Treasury borrowing £100 billion a year (and recently exceeding it's targets again I believe) its not exactly rocket science to conclude that the Treasury is broke.......
I genuinely struggle to understand why the Conservatives have managed to get the party of fiscal responsibility tag.
Because they are in the process of cutting the massive structural deficit left by the last government. As part of this they have cut and are continuing to cut the public sector workforce and wage buill by massive proportions. I genuinely struggle to understand how you can be so superficial in your observations in the face of the facts.
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
The demand comes as part of what is known in Brussels as an amending budget proposal, a routine event that occurs regularly and is dependent on the ebb and flow of payments into the EU. There are another six amending budgets on the table in Brussels, some of which may entail returning funds to Britain, meaning the overall bill could yet be cut.
I then went and looked at the other amending budgets and calculated that taking them all into account would reduce Britain's liability to less than £1bn - and I posted to that effect to pb.com.
It has been a set-up from the start.
No, that doesn't count. Those amending budgets were not, as far as I know, about the application of the rebate to the sum demanded.
So I take it you oppose the European Arrest Warrant in the way that it suspends the right of habeas corpus.
Yes, of course, and I have said so many times.
Whether it is practical to do anything about it now, beyond the improvements which this government has achieved, is another matter. I wouldn't have started from this point.
Of course there's something practical to do about it: don't opt in to the EAW.
The voters know that a country with a 100bn pound deficit annual deficit pays 8 billion to the EU and 10 billion to overseas aid, including countries that have space programmes.
Indeed. And in fact we pay more like 19bn to the EU (gross). The 8bn is net after some of it comes back to the UK. But what comes back goes to farmers or windfarm operators or whoever - but is not a rebate to the UK's public finances. If we left the EU we'd save the 19 not the 8. (With, admittedly, some grumpy windmillers, etc).
.What about Cameron and Osborne and the Treasury? The rebate has always been in place. So were they
a) Misrepresenting the figure of £1.7 billion to deceive Parliament and the British public?
b) Totally unaware of it just as you accuse UKIP of being?
There are serious questions to be asked of the Tory leadership and the Treasury here!
They said all along that they did not think the £1.7bn figure was right.
Now they are getting the blame for being the only people who were correct!
The Bloomberg piece says the £1.7 figure is not discounted.
"...by rescheduling the payments to next July and September and netting out an automatic rebate of 1 billion euros that Britain was set to receive in 2016. The accounting maneuver cuts the one-time payment in half without altering Britain’s EU bill for the two-year period."
I appreciate that it's tough for the Kippers and Labour to accept they were wrong, but would those claiming Osborne hasn't achieved anything care to post some links to articles published BEFORE this meeting which explain that the £1.7bn demand was actually a demand for £850m?
The demand comes as part of what is known in Brussels as an amending budget proposal, a routine event that occurs regularly and is dependent on the ebb and flow of payments into the EU. There are another six amending budgets on the table in Brussels, some of which may entail returning funds to Britain, meaning the overall bill could yet be cut.
I then went and looked at the other amending budgets and calculated that taking them all into account would reduce Britain's liability to less than £1bn - and I posted to that effect to pb.com.
It has been a set-up from the start.
No, that doesn't count. Those amending budgets were not, as far as I know, about the application of the rebate to the sum demanded.The UK rebate has never been at the rate of 50% of our contributions, though, has it? [Genuine question, I don't know, but it doesn't seem so from the discussion BenM has had on this thread] If not then this can't be a simple matter of applying the "historic" UK rebate, because the sums wouldn't work out to a halving that way.
However, if you call the refunds that Britain receives from the other amending budgets a "rebate" then you can present it in that way, and avoid awkward questions over the fact that we were always going to get that money anyway. Language can be a slippery thing like that sometimes.
So Bloomberg say the bill hasn't changed. The Austrian head of government says the bill hasn't changed. The European Commission - who were the other side in the discussion - say the bill hasn't changedd. And the Tories' own MEPs say the bill hasn't been changed. Yet Osborne says with a straight face that the bill has been halved.
"Critics immediately pointed out that Britain was already due to be paid the rebate and insisted that the Government is effectively still paying £1.7billion.
Downing Street denied these claims and said that there was no "legal certainty" from the EU that the rebate would apply to the budget bill.
Downing Street said the bill had been halved because Britain’s rebate from Brussels is now being applied to the bill."
This seems a fair point. The EU asked for £1.7 billion due to the recalculation of the GDP figures going back over 10 years and more. They very pointedly did not say that rebates applied to this retrospectively, they could have done so easily. They did not because they did not want and did not believe that rebates applied to this. In comparison with Holland and others we probably get rebates and they do not, so we can see why. But now unlike the original intention the rebate is to be applied . The deal we have now got is a fair deal. People like Hannan and Farage could have brought it up if they had wanted before, but did not. They did not because they too did not believe that rebates applied. If they had not investigated this properly at the time before spouting off then they are merely shown up as being stupid.
Of course there's something practical to do about it: don't opt in to the EAW.
That assumes it would be practical to get agreement with 26 other countries for a suitable alternative arrangement. Doesn't sound easy, does it? They would just say 'why not use the existing EAW?'
Look, it's a mess. The responsibility for this mess is Labour's; they should have got it right in the first place. Cameron is doing an excellent job in mitigating the damage,as far as is practical. For example, the law has been changed so that warrants will not apply for minor offences, or if the matter is not a crime in the UK. It's still not perfect, but it is better than it was.
The voters know that a country with a 100bn pound deficit annual deficit pays 8 billion to the EU and 10 billion to overseas aid, including countries that have space programmes.
Indeed. And in fact we pay more like 19bn to the EU (gross). The 8bn is net after some of it comes back to the UK. But what comes back goes to farmers or windfarm operators or whoever - but is not a rebate to the UK's public finances. If we left the EU we'd save the 19 not the 8. (With, admittedly, some grumpy windmillers, etc).
Those are old figures. As we have seen from this whole sorry mess, the annual bill will now be a lot more, because we're being charged for the drug dealing and prostitution we don't collect tax on.
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?"
Kippers look on with amusement........
Either GO has won a reduction or the Kippers et al are mutton heads who totally missed a trick on the rebate - choose your preference.
Actually the rebate rules have not changed have they so they will have always applied. How is it then that the Treasury seemed to think they wouldn't? After all it was Cameron who went nuclear over the £1.7 billion bill?
I think its far more worrying that the Treasury either misrepresented the figure in the first place or worse didn't realise the rebate applied
You are forgetting that the demand for £1.7B was issued by the EU and NOT the Treasury. It was Britain which disputed the amount - correctly as it turned out. How funny that UKIP didn't know that.
So apart from changing the rules regarding rebates applying to this sum, getting the reduced payment deferred and agreement that no interest is to be charged - GO hasn't achieved much.
Kippers FEWMIN !
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?"
Kippers look on with amusement........
Either GO has won a reduction or the Kippers et al are mutton heads who totally missed a trick on the rebate - choose your preference.
Actually the rebate rules have not changed have they so they will have always applied. How is it then that the Treasury seemed to think they wouldn't? After all it was Cameron who went nuclear over the £1.7 billion bill?
I think its far more worrying that the Treasury either misrepresented the figure in the first place or worse didn't realise the rebate applied
You are forgetting that the demand for £1.7B was issued by the EU and NOT the Treasury. It was Britain which disputed the amount - correctly as it turned out. How funny that UKIP didn't know that.
The amount is correct. We would have given £1.7 billion over, and got the rebate back next year. What's happening is that they're netting the two payments together and claiming that's "halving" it. As BenM succinctly puts it, there's a change in the timing, but the overall cash position remains the same.
.What about Cameron and Osborne and the Treasury? The rebate has always been in place. So were they
a) Misrepresenting the figure of £1.7 billion to deceive Parliament and the British public?
b) Totally unaware of it just as you accuse UKIP of being?
There are serious questions to be asked of the Tory leadership and the Treasury here!
They said all along that they did not think the £1.7bn figure was right.
Now they are getting the blame for being the only people who were correct!
Well in that you are wrong. Nothing yet has said the £1.7 billion is incorrect. All Osborne has done is apply other standing measures which the Government conveniently did not mention previously that might reduce it. Either its rank misrepresentation or rank incompetence at least on the Treasury's part and perhaps on the Prime Minister's part. .
There were always questions about how this "£1.7 billion' bill exploded onto the Parliamentary scene without the Government being aware and now it looks in large part that the reason for that is that yet again we have PR stunt involving a hysterical response from the Prime Minister pre-fabricated in Downing Street followed by a less than satisfactory (we've still got to pay it) outcome.
The reason they get the blame is that few people now trust the motives of Cameron and Osborne on this and frankly on the basis of this latest episode little wonder!.
"So what’s the verdict? Who’s right, Farage, Osborne and Georgieva? Well, Farage is wrong, Osborne right on the amount but he has exaggerated the extent of the concession. The most right is probably Georgieva."
It's not that simple. None of the Cornish people in that pub were at all interested in being governed by a distant English or UK Parliament either. As the rest of the very interesting article makes clear, there are masses of different ideas for regional devolution within England - it's just that everyone has their own favoured solution. But it's not an idea that is going to just go away.
Comments
That means we have to put some of our own soldiers behind bars when they break the rules of war and kill prisoners.
Seeing as the message from Osborne is that he's "halved" the bill, it follows that the rebates and other bits of extra funding have been factored in.
Nothing has changed except for timing of cashflow.
Oh and the rule about adding interest to outstanding payments which actually is a decent win in itself.
That said, the government weasel wording seems to imply your claims are right. If the only difference is timing of payments, that's a pretty horrendous spin job by the government that will be made clear pretty quickly.
The reduced payment and rebate is in 2015/2016.
Does that mean the next rebate is 2016/2017? By which time, we'll either be having a referendum, or we won't.
However I would have thought that the Lib Dems 'undecided' - more than Tory or Labour are going to feature prominently.
There are of course many scenarios for this 'undecided' vote (for all four parties).
If you're a UKIP supporter you hope that these are people who are tending towards UKIP but who aren't certain that they should take a radical step, or who wish to make a protest vote.
If you're Conservative then you look at the uncertain Lib Dems and think - 'they haven't switched to Ed for 4 1/2 years, we could get quite a few of them - and our undecideds, faced with the possibility of a Labour Government will surely come back to us'.
If you're Lib dem you hope you can persuade them to come back to you.
If you're labour you think - at least they haven't decided to vote against us yet.
In plain English, it's half as much, it's payable later, and there's no interest payable.
So, yes, Osborne is right, as usual.
There was talk yesterday about EdM being out of a job by Monday. I think Cameron may be the one seeking gainful employment by Tuesday....
Oh dear....
Osborne - toast. Cameron - toast.
Farage - rampant....
:-(
on an LBC radio phone-in on Friday morning, Farage said Cameron would have little option but to go along with the demand, which will have to be paid in December.
“Of course he will pay up. These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do,” he said.
The only thing that has changed as far as I can see is that the UK has deferred the payment and given the EU are now reviewing the payment rules altogether clearly they have been persuaded they were being unreasonable demanding payment in a matter of weeks but nevertheless the UK will eventually have to pay the full demand as Farage indicated.
BBC News: "Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan suggested that the deal achieved by the Chancellor may not represent any reduction to the amount being demanded from the UK. He said: "The EU sticks us with a bill. Ministers double it, apply the rebate, return to the original figure and claim victory. We're meant to cheer?""
When's he off to UKIP?
What is wrong with these people?
Which is perfect
Kippers FEWMIN !
And then there are just prats.
Ed Miliband: "We are in a fight for the future of our country. Labour will show we are equal to the challenges". https://www.facebook.com/edmiliband/posts/857880350897594
From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-07/u-k-fails-to-win-budget-payment-cut-as-eu-defies-cameron.html
Kippers look on with amusement........
so we can change the country for the better" < Streetfighter Ed? One for @GeneralBoles.
I expect that what happened is the the *gross* bill was £1.7bn. After the rebate calculation, that would fall to £850m or so.
So the *actual* payment is - and always was going to be - c. £850m on a net basis.
What Osborne is saying is correct - they have cut the bill. But he's trying to big up something that a stuffed monkey (but perhaps not Ed Miliband) would have been able to achieve
Looking at it from first principles, it seems to me that there are only really two questions worth considering:
1) did Britain actually owe the money?
2) was Britain given adequate notice of the sum required?
The answer to 1 seems to be yes and the answer to 2 seems to be no.
In those circumstances we should pay what we owe, but over a sensible timescale. That seems to have been broadly what has been achieved and if we strip away the high-handed, technocratic and procedurally inept approach of the Commission on the one side and the rampant Europhobia stoked up by a craven government on the other side, we seem to have reached a sensible ending to this farrago.
Of course if it hadn't been for Tony Blair trying to bribe his way to the European presidency the rebate would be higher.
Boris Watch @BorisWatch·5 mins5 minutes ago
MASTER STRATEGIST OSBORNE INVENTS A NEW KIND OF HALF THAT INVOLVES DIVIDING BY ONE #maths
Oh dear part 4!
Well, it's certainly taken coverage of the Labour leadership out of the weekend papers. All the talk will now be about who replaces Osborne and Cameron.
Could they be forced into humiliating climbdowns by end of this afternoon?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-07/u-k-fails-to-win-budget-payment-cut-as-eu-defies-cameron.html
EU Budget Commissioner Georgieva: According to "preliminary calculations", UK surcharge would be "in the order" of €1bn (down from €2.1bn).
Predictions that Cameron will be out by Tuesday providing much mirth - liquid lunch on a Friday seems to be involved.
Links please.
What's worse than a €1bn bill from the EU? A €2bn bill from the EU. So when you know you're faced with the former it helps the public relations side of things to scare people with the latter.
I think its far more worrying that the Treasury either misrepresented the figure in the first place or worse didn't realise the rebate applied
It has been a set-up from the start.
A) Massively imprudent fiscal wastrels
I can only conclude that the Conservatives are enormous financial wasters.
Well, it's certainly taken coverage of the Labour leadership out of the weekend papers. All the talk will now be about who replaces Osborne and Cameron.
Could they be forced into humiliating climbdowns by end of this afternoon?
It's even more laughable than that.
The French wanted their rebate next year so their books will be balanced and they won't get another virtual fine. So nothing for Britain but a favour for France.
Well done George.
If this was 100% "nailed on" - why did no Kipper mention this before this afternoon ?
Whether it is practical to do anything about it now, beyond the improvements which this government has achieved, is another matter. I wouldn't have started from this point. The ALLEGED breach of client-lawyer confidentiality in trials by the intelligence services is being considered by the Independent Tribunal. I have no view on the matter for the very good reason that neither I, nor you, nor the Guardian, know the facts.
a) Misrepresenting the figure of £1.7 billion to deceive Parliament and the British public?
b) Totally unaware of it just as you accuse UKIP of being?
There are serious questions to be asked of the Tory leadership and the Treasury here!
The voters know that a country with a 100bn pound deficit annual deficit pays 8 billion to the EU and 10 billion to overseas aid, including countries that have space programmes.
As part of this they have cut and are continuing to cut the public sector workforce and wage buill by massive proportions.
I genuinely struggle to understand how you can be so superficial in your observations in the face of the facts.
It has been a set-up from the start.
No, that doesn't count. Those amending budgets were not, as far as I know, about the application of the rebate to the sum demanded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29934867
An English parliament is needed.
Magician !
Now they are getting the blame for being the only people who were correct!
"...by rescheduling the payments to next July and September and netting out an automatic rebate of 1 billion euros that Britain was set to receive in 2016. The accounting maneuver cuts the one-time payment in half without altering Britain’s EU bill for the two-year period."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-07/u-k-fails-to-win-budget-payment-cut-as-eu-defies-cameron.html
However, if you call the refunds that Britain receives from the other amending budgets a "rebate" then you can present it in that way, and avoid awkward questions over the fact that we were always going to get that money anyway. Language can be a slippery thing like that sometimes.
The only way it can fall to him to pay it is if he is re-elected.
If he is, we'll have a referendum.
"Critics immediately pointed out that Britain was already due to be paid the rebate and insisted that the Government is effectively still paying £1.7billion.
Downing Street denied these claims and said that there was no "legal certainty" from the EU that the rebate would apply to the budget bill.
Downing Street said the bill had been halved because Britain’s rebate from Brussels is now being applied to the bill."
This seems a fair point. The EU asked for £1.7 billion due to the recalculation of the GDP figures going back over 10 years and more. They very pointedly did not say that rebates applied to this retrospectively, they could have done so easily. They did not because they did not want and did not believe that rebates applied to this. In comparison with Holland and others we probably get rebates and they do not, so we can see why. But now unlike the original intention the rebate is to be applied .
The deal we have now got is a fair deal.
People like Hannan and Farage could have brought it up if they had wanted before, but did not. They did not because they too did not believe that rebates applied. If they had not investigated this properly at the time before spouting off then they are merely shown up as being stupid.
Look, it's a mess. The responsibility for this mess is Labour's; they should have got it right in the first place. Cameron is doing an excellent job in mitigating the damage,as far as is practical. For example, the law has been changed so that warrants will not apply for minor offences, or if the matter is not a crime in the UK. It's still not perfect, but it is better than it was.
'Farage defending the traditional British right to commit murder'
What a truly vile human being he is,are there any depths he won't sink to ?
There were always questions about how this "£1.7 billion' bill exploded onto the Parliamentary scene without the Government being aware and now it looks in large part that the reason for that is that yet again we have PR stunt involving a hysterical response from the Prime Minister pre-fabricated in Downing Street followed by a less than satisfactory (we've still got to pay it) outcome.
The reason they get the blame is that few people now trust the motives of Cameron and Osborne on this and frankly on the basis of this latest episode little wonder!.
F1: Marussia folds:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29954250
Surprised, particularly at the timing. I doubt we'll see Caterham on the grid either in 2015.
"So what’s the verdict? Who’s right, Farage, Osborne and Georgieva? Well, Farage is wrong, Osborne right on the amount but he has exaggerated the extent of the concession. The most right is probably Georgieva."