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.
*snip* the overall cash position remains the same.
Eh? On 2nd December there will be £1,700,000,000 more cash in the treasury than there would have been under the original EU demand. That is in no way the same cash position. I think it's a pretty decent result given the rules we're bound by as an EU member.
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.
No - the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
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.
It would be practical.
"There are fall back extradition procedures – the European Convention on extradition"
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.
No but this is a standing arrangement going back to 2000. Its an annual event. Are the Treasury now incapable of doing calculations in advance? Are they now completely reactive and no longer in control of their function? The whole thing stinks of another failed Downing Street stunt . I'd be far more worried about the current Government and what the hell they were doing !
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.
Except that we have existing extradition arrangements with them. What you're saying is that you think the improvement of existing extradition arrangements is worth more than the ancient right of habeas corpus.
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.
*snip* the overall cash position remains the same.
Eh? On 2nd December there will be £1,700,000,000 more cash in the treasury than there would have been under the original EU demand. That is in no way the same cash position. I think it's a pretty decent result given the rules we're bound by as an EU member.
And on the 2nd December 2015, there will be exactly the same amount of cash in the treasury as there would have been otherwise. That is COMPLETELY THE SAME CASH POSITION. If you're having to cherry pick dates to claim otherwise, your argument has fallen apart.
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.
No - the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
Usual , big talk then they do u-turn and try to pretend it is not really a u-turn. They have given in as ever and Cameron looks even more stupid if that is possible.
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.
As it happens, we do have a strong vested interest in promoting stability in places that could generate mass migration of refugees if they disintegrate.
What's wrong is to insist that the international aid budget must increase by 40% in real terms, over the Parliament, when everything else is being cut.
Perhaps the overseas aid budget should be merged with the Defence or Foreign Office budgets so that it becomes an arm of British policy abroad.
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.
No - the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
We didn't mention the money we'd get back from it in terms of the CAP or anything else either. That's because the bill was for the gross amount. The very organisation on the other side of the deal are pointing out nothing has changed. This is a pathetic attempt of a defence by loyalist Tories. I admit when UKIP are wrong. You loyalist Tories would do yourself credit if you did the same.
“The U.K. will pay the whole amount without any penalties attached or interest rates,” Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan told reporters after the Brussels meeting. “The installments will be paid over a period of time.”
Survation and Populus both better for LAB lets hope this is maintained and shuts up the more self indulgent of your collleagues which just makes matters worse
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.
*snip* the overall cash position remains the same.
Eh? On 2nd December there will be £1,700,000,000 more cash in the treasury than there would have been under the original EU demand. That is in no way the same cash position. I think it's a pretty decent result given the rules we're bound by as an EU member.
And on the 2nd December 2015, there will be exactly the same amount of cash in the treasury as there would have been otherwise. That is COMPLETELY THE SAME CASH POSITION. If you're having to cherry pick dates to claim otherwise, your argument has fallen apart.
You don't seem to understand cash flow, which is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON DATES (since ALL CAPS seems to be in vogue). It's a better position than it was, unarguably. I'm not saying it's as good as I hoped, but it's more than I expected.
From yesterday's Guardian, that huge supporter of George Osborne, " if Britain holds out for a month it will owe the EU £3.5m in interest on top of the original £1.7bn surcharge – which takes in the rebate negotiated under Margaret Thatcher and amended under Tony Blair."
If Reckless is saying now that he did not support the redevelopment then he is lying - he clearly supported it in parliament. As Hansard says. Other people noted this at the time 'He railed against the notion that 84 nightingales had stopped the building of homes for 12000 people and jobs for 5000. He went on to mention other places in his constituency “Grain – where 6ooo jobs have been delayed for 3 years because of the habitat of a bug” and at Swanscombe where “27000 jobs are at risk due to a spider“. He then went way outside his constituency and lamented that “at Dungeness where vegetated shingle must be considered for power development.'' ' https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/mark-reckless-mp-for-lodge-hill-rails-against-natural-england-quangos-spiders-bugs-and-vegetated-shingle/
Now however when he has to put a UKIP badge on his website and is suddenly faced with re-election he changes his tune from a principled one to a self servingly populist one. Pretty pathetic. First we have Carswell refusing to comment on UKIP allying themselves with a Polish neo nazi - just so they can keep their noses in the EU trough and now we have blatant hypocrisy from Reckless.
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.
No - the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
.
Yes and anyone else in turn includes the TREASURY who said nothing whilst Cameron was having his hissy-fits. Now you expect UKIP to know about it but not HM Government? What sort of perverse upside down world do you live in? If the Treasury did not know why the hell should anyone else in the UK know? Its you who need to suck it up!
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
@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.
That's plausible.
But I'm still of the view that Ed Miliband would have rolled over and asked for his tummy to be tickled.
I wouldn't necessarily take any notice of this but given his earlier tweet.....
From GF:
Jack Ketch says: November 7, 2014 at 4:11 pm You are not a local and are therefore talking utter bollocks. Two months ago the story was that R&S is not Clacton and the Cons would retain it, then it was “going to be a hard fight and we will throw the Kitchen Sink at it”, then it was “a traditional labour seat”–now its “UKIP won’t retain it at a GE”–WHAT CRAP YOU TALK.
NB. A little Bird tells me that D****L H****N is about to change party.
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.
No - the EU asked for £1.7b without applying the rebate to it. There was no suggestion the rebate would be applied by you, UKIP, the EU or anyone else. Britain has won the argument on that one - suck it up.
The extra rebate was always in the background.
But Cameron and Osborne had decided to play to the europhobe gallery about the initial £1.7bn extra bill, which itself followed on from the one-off UK GDP accounting adjustment in Sept.
The net P&L position is utterly unchanged from a week ago on both sides. Only the timing of cashflows has changed.
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.
As it happens, we do have a strong vested interest in promoting stability in places that could generate mass migration of refugees if they disintegrate.
What's wrong is to insist that the international aid budget must increase by 40% in real terms, over the Parliament, when everything else is being cut.
Perhaps the overseas aid budget should be merged with the Defence or Foreign Office budgets so that it becomes an arm of British policy abroad.
Probably be easier and cheaper not go around desalinating regions by invading countries to remove leaders the Americans have suddenly taken a dislike to.
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.
Well, not quite true.
It looks like the EU made a mistake in calculating the figure: they should have used the historical rebate (before Labour gave it away) for the historical number.
So the Tories have successfully corrected a mathematical error. Plus deferred the payment, without interest.
So a win, albeit not as big a win as they are claiming.
"Christopher Howarth @CJCHowarth · 3h 3 hours ago Seems to me that Theresa May's motion for Monday's vote does not even include a vote on the European Arrest Warrant?
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.
(C) Had to deal with a vastly bloated public sector, but were conscious that slashing the deficit to zero in year 1 would have been a calamity.
Think of it as taking methodone vs. going cold turkey. Neither is appealing, but both are better than the original drug.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Armchair warriors.
Does anyone seriously think we should arrest the head-chopping members of ISIS in countries such as Syria and Iraq?
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.
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.
Well, not quite true.
It looks like the EU made a mistake in calculating the figure: they should have used the historical rebate (before Labour gave it away) for the historical number.
So the Tories have successfully corrected a mathematical error. Plus deferred the payment, without interest.
So a win, albeit not as big a win as they are claiming.
Show me a source that says the EU made an error. They have not. The EU were to take our money this year, and give back the rebate next year. All that has happened is this has been combined into one payment.
Tories on here seem to be arguing two different, contradictory things:
1) The EU made an error and didn't include the rebate. Osborne has successfully made them see the light and reduced out payment.
2) It was always obvious that the EU was going to include the rebate, and UKIP etc are idiots for not knowing this previously.
Mr. Me, the idiot Easton never presented the option of an English Parliament, only a Cornish Assembly, Devon-Cornwall grouping governed from Plymouth, and a south-western area including the West Country.
He's been in the European Parliament for 15 years. Surely, he should have been wise to Osborne's options?
He's been out-witted.
How has he been outwitted? This is no clear victory. All opposition parties are questioning the outcome and even Tory MEP's (who should understand as well as anyone) are questioning this outcome. Hannan (who's been all over the BBC about this) has called what Cameron and Osborne have done as an insult to the intelligence. Even Tory MEP'S think that Cameron and Osborne are trying to treat us like fools.
The end result is that Cameron and Osborne look devious and out to deceive the voters AGAIN over the EU. If you think that is out-witting Farage I'm sure he'll toast you with a pint on it!
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
He's been in the European Parliament for 15 years. Surely, he should have been wise to Osborne's options?
He's been out-witted.
If Dan Hannan is about to change party that is one hell of a scalp.
It would indeed, but it would also destroy Hannan's credibility. You may recall at the time Carswell joined UKIP Hannan wrote a powerful piece in the Telegraph stating exactly why he would not also be making the jump. As the reasons he gave in that piece are equally as valid today as they were then, how could Hannan now join UKIP and retain a shred of credibility?
I have a lot of time for Hannan. He is a genuine bon ouef and has principles. He is also, I think, a Conservative through and through.
The European Commission are saying we're paying the full amount. The Irish Finance Minister is saying we're paying the full amount. The Dutch Finance Minister is saying we're paying the full amount. Bloomberg is saying we're paying the full amount. The leading Conservative MEP is saying we're paying the full amount. The UK Chancellor is saying we're paying half the amount.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
"Britain’s automatic rebate on its contributions to the EU budget was expected to knock €1bn off the demand for €2.1bn, leading the chancellor to brag that he had halved the payment."
Except it wasn't expected.
No one said a word. Farage didn't see it. Carswell said nothing in Parliament. Miliband and Balls didn't see it. No one. Not a word.
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.
Well, not quite true.
It looks like the EU made a mistake in calculating the figure: they should have used the historical rebate (before Labour gave it away) for the historical number.
So the Tories have successfully corrected a mathematical error. Plus deferred the payment, without interest.
So a win, albeit not as big a win as they are claiming.
Show me a source that says the EU made an error. They have not. The EU were to take our money this year, and give back the rebate next year. All that has happened is this has been combined into one payment.
Tories on here seem to be arguing two different, contradictory things:
1) The EU made an error and didn't include the rebate. Osborne has successfully made them see the light and reduced out payment.
2) It was always obvious that the EU was going to include the rebate, and UKIP etc are idiots for not knowing this previously.
Different people say different things. We're not all one "herd" after all.
It seems to me pretty clear that the EU made a mistake. George Osborne corrected that mistake, deferred payments and got it interest free.
A modest victory, not the big one he is claiming, but a victory nonetheless.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
The European Commission are saying we're paying the full amount. The Irish Finance Minister is saying we're paying the full amount. The Dutch Finance Minister is saying we're paying the full amount. Bloomberg is saying we're paying the full amount. The leading Conservative MEP is saying we're paying the full amount. The UK Chancellor is saying we're paying half the amount.
Who to believe?
The EU budget commissioner says we're not paying the full amount
Anyone else read this uninspiring back of the envelope dross?
We have six months to go out and show the difference Labour’s plan will make. Together, that is what we will do. Join us in that fight:
Good job he hasn't stood up in a hall to deliver. God help Labour.
Uninspiring. It sounds positively desperate. This is a party that was 10 to 15 points ahead in the polls two years ago not a party that had to fight tooth and nail to get anything
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Survation and Populus both better for LAB lets hope this is maintained and shuts up the more self indulgent of your collleagues which just makes matters worse
Quite so. It's a bit odd that the speculation has had no visible effect, isn't it? - presumably people shrugging their shoulders over Westminster gossip. Possibly tomorrow's YG will show something.
As for Hannan, I know he's said he won't defect, but he's giving an awfully good impression of someone about to, indeed someone who would be inconsistent not to. I've never rated him myself, but I know he does have a following.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Shooting someone who had surrendered?
And I thought you were one of the good Kippers.
You are making stuff up. Pathetic.
No. I haven't paid much attention to the case, but that was my understanding - albeit he could have been wounded/incapacitated rather than having surrendered.
In any event, the Sergeant, at the time, thought that what he had done was wrong.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I would have no qualms about shooting people like that out of hand. They don't follow the Geneva Convention and I wouldn't endanger my safety or the safety of my men and women to salve your conscience.
As I said earlier. The Govt should raise the black flag against them. No quarter expected or given.
And all you smug gits going on about Farage, any of you that voted Labour or Tory in the paste has voted for people that quite happily extra judicially kill their own citizens in the UK.
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.
Well, not quite true.
It looks like the EU made a mistake in calculating the figure: they should have used the historical rebate (before Labour gave it away) for the historical number.
So the Tories have successfully corrected a mathematical error. Plus deferred the payment, without interest.
So a win, albeit not as big a win as they are claiming.
Show me a source that says the EU made an error. They have not. The EU were to take our money this year, and give back the rebate next year. All that has happened is this has been combined into one payment.
Tories on here seem to be arguing two different, contradictory things:
1) The EU made an error and didn't include the rebate. Osborne has successfully made them see the light and reduced out payment.
2) It was always obvious that the EU was going to include the rebate, and UKIP etc are idiots for not knowing this previously.
Different people say different things. We're not all one "herd" after all.
It seems to me pretty clear that the EU made a mistake. George Osborne corrected that mistake, deferred payments and got it interest free.
A modest victory, not the big one he is claiming, but a victory nonetheless.
Only caught the tail end of the discussion, but that sounds about right - a lot of duff info being circulated by different sources, I don't think I've seen the same version more than 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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I have very little sympathy for the Taliban. They don't play by our rules, and wouldn't even understand them.
It seems to me pretty clear that the EU made a mistake. George Osborne corrected that mistake, deferred payments and got it interest free.
A modest victory, not the big one he is claiming, but a victory nonetheless.
So presumably you can provide a single press report showing that the EU made a mistake in the original demand.
How about you providing a single press report showing that the rebate was expected to be applied and that the bill was never £1.7bn
But British and EU officials acknowledged that will only be achieved by changing the timing of the normal “British rebate” the UK receives on all payments it makes to the EU.
Survation and Populus both better for LAB lets hope this is maintained and shuts up the more self indulgent of your collleagues which just makes matters worse
Quite so. It's a bit odd that the speculation has had no visible effect, isn't it? - presumably people shrugging their shoulders over Westminster gossip. Possibly tomorrow's YG will show something.
As for Hannan, I know he's said he won't defect, but he's giving an awfully good impression of someone about to, indeed someone who would be inconsistent not to. I've never rated him myself, but I know he does have a following.
I'm sure after what he did to Brown he's not Labour's favourite MEP
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Read up on the laws of land warfare then get back to me. Until then you'd be wise to keep clear of the subject.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I have very little sympathy for the Taliban. They don't play by our rules, and wouldn't even understand them.
You know better than that. You're embarrassing yourself. That's my last word on the subject.
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.
So wait, the last government had a massive bloated public sector yet somehow managed to run it for far, far less money than the current government? Why does this make the Conservatives fiscally competent?
The bottom line today is that no matter what the Tories might claim, overall in the next two years we will have paid the extra £1.7 billion we were asked for. Tinkering with the timing and bringing forward a rebate that we were already due does nothing to change that.
I do find it amusing that some Tories on here are still trying to defend the indefensible and pretend that somehow we will be paying less overall than we were being asked for two weeks ago.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I have very little sympathy for the Taliban. They don't play by our rules, and wouldn't even understand them.
The rules aren't there for the benefit of the Taliban. They're there for our benefit.
One key way to tell if this 'reduction' in the EU bill is spin or not - will GO put himself forward to be interviewed about it? (And on something like Newsnight, PM, or the Daily Politics, not the One Show...)
If he does, then fair play it may well be an actual reduction rather than slight of hand; if we see a minion on Newsnight tonight being skewered about it then we can probably assume it has all been a concocted piece of nonsense.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I would have no qualms about shooting people like that out of hand. They don't follow the Geneva Convention and I wouldn't endanger my safety or the safety of my men and women to salve your conscience.
As I said earlier. The Govt should raise the black flag against them. No quarter expected or given.
And all you smug gits going on about Farage, any of you that voted Labour or Tory in the paste has voted for people that quite happily extra judicially kill their own citizens in the UK.
Been there, seen it and got the T-shirt.
Sorry but Farage is wrong on this. Our troops operate under a strict set of agreed laws and guidelines. Now you may want to have those changed (and I would have some sympathy for that) but as it stands they are the law and this soldier broke them.
Personally I agree with a large minority of people that the drug laws in this country are wrong. But again they are the laws and if I broke them I would expect to be punished. This is no different.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I have very little sympathy for the Taliban. They don't play by our rules, and wouldn't even understand them.
The rules aren't there for the benefit of the Taliban. They're there for our benefit.
Are you subject to the rules of war, where do you live, Brixton?
If the Taliban don't observe 'the rules of land warfare' or the Geneva Convention then in what way are they 'for our benefit'?
I'm fascinated at the lack of interest on all sides in the amount that Britain actually should pay to the EU (as opposed to what is being paid and whether it is being reduced).
We've each of us had unexpected unwelcome bills in the past. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paid just because they've come at a bad time.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Armchair warriors.
Does anyone seriously think we should arrest the head-chopping members of ISIS in countries such as Syria and Iraq?
Yes, we should arrest, convict and throw them in jail for the rest of their natural lives, so that they can become sad, old, balding, overweight men with a lifetime of regret, instead of glorious martyrs.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Read up on the laws of land warfare then get back to me. Until then you'd be wise to keep clear of the subject.
Good old Bob Sykes, four and a half years on and you still never disappoint. Disaster and despair and defeat for the Tories. Whatever the issue, whatever the outcome. But Cameron and Osborne out by Tuesday: that has to be your best yet.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I would have no qualms about shooting people like that out of hand. They don't follow the Geneva Convention and I wouldn't endanger my safety or the safety of my men and women to salve your conscience.
As I said earlier. The Govt should raise the black flag against them. No quarter expected or given.
And all you smug gits going on about Farage, any of you that voted Labour or Tory in the paste has voted for people that quite happily extra judicially kill their own citizens in the UK.
Been there, seen it and got the T-shirt.
Sorry but Farage is wrong on this. Our troops operate under a strict set of agreed laws and guidelines. Now you may want to have those changed (and I would have some sympathy for that) but as it stands they are the law and this soldier broke them.
Personally I agree with a large minority of people that the drug laws in this country are wrong. But again they are the laws and if I broke them I would expect to be punished. This is no different.
The sentence he received makes a mockery of British justice.
Bill halved, payable in two instalments next year, rules permanently changed, no interest payable and rebate fully intact.
How can that be?
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.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Read up on the laws of land warfare then get back to me. Until then you'd be wise to keep clear of the subject.
Don't patronise me. I've read widely enough about warfare and what happens in warfare.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Armchair warriors.
Does anyone seriously think we should arrest the head-chopping members of ISIS in countries such as Syria and Iraq?
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Armchair warriors.
Does anyone seriously think we should arrest the head-chopping members of ISIS in countries such as Syria and Iraq?
I suppose the soldier could have just left the Taliban to die over an extended period from his wounds. That seems to be the concensus here.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I have very little sympathy for the Taliban. They don't play by our rules, and wouldn't even understand them.
The rules aren't there for the benefit of the Taliban. They're there for our benefit.
Are you subject to the rules of war, where do you live, Brixton?
If the Taliban don't observe 'the rules of land warfare' or the Geneva Convention then in what way are they 'for our benefit'?
Because the soldiers we send to fight in Afghanistan will return to Britain, and if we do not keep them within a legal framework of operation there, we can expect them on their return to behave just as shockingly here.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Read up on the laws of land warfare then get back to me. Until then you'd be wise to keep clear of the subject.
Good old Bob Sykes, four and a half years on and you still never disappoint. Disaster and despair and defeat for the Tories. Whatever the issue, whatever the outcome. But Cameron and Osborne out by Tuesday: that has to be your best yet.
Guessing that's a misuse of the quote button, or you've lost me.
The bottom line today is that no matter what the Tories might claim, overall in the next two years we will have paid the extra £1.7 billion we were asked for. Tinkering with the timing and bringing forward a rebate that we were already due does nothing to change that.
I do find it amusing that some Tories on here are still trying to defend the indefensible and pretend that somehow we will be paying less overall than we were being asked for two weeks ago.
It's a better situation than it was, but I admit it's hardly the victory touted by Osborne. He should have bloody well known better than to present this in the way he did.
I suppose, if one were clutching at straws, one could argue that by making this a debate about semantics and accountancy, he's obfuscated the fact that we're coughing up what was requested in the first place.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Read up on the laws of land warfare then get back to me. Until then you'd be wise to keep clear of the subject.
Good old Bob Sykes, four and a half years on and you still never disappoint. Disaster and despair and defeat for the Tories. Whatever the issue, whatever the outcome. But Cameron and Osborne out by Tuesday: that has to be your best yet.
Guessing that's a misuse of the quote button, or you've lost me.
The former - I agree with you, rather less with Bob on the matter of the EU outcome, not the rules of war!
Aside the bacon butty and beggar-gate incidents, there are actually much more serious and telling gaffes e.g. No idea about how much it costs for the weekly shop. He was really quite lucky that didn't get picked up wider, as it totally kills his I know all about the cost of living crisis meme.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
A wounded terrorist, who'd never offered to surrender?
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
Read up on the laws of land warfare then get back to me. Until then you'd be wise to keep clear of the subject.
Don't patronise me. I've read widely enough about warfare and what happens in warfare.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
I really don't see very much wrong with what Sergeant Blackman did, from a moral point of view.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I have very little sympathy for the Taliban. They don't play by our rules, and wouldn't even understand them.
The rules aren't there for the benefit of the Taliban. They're there for our benefit.
Are you subject to the rules of war, where do you live, Brixton?
If the Taliban don't observe 'the rules of land warfare' or the Geneva Convention then in what way are they 'for our benefit'?
Because the soldiers we send to fight in Afghanistan will return to Britain, and if we do not keep them within a legal framework of operation there, we can expect them on their return to behave just as shockingly here.
Laughable.
Did WWII troops come back and start slaughtering their fellow countrymen and women?
The bottom line today is that no matter what the Tories might claim, overall in the next two years we will have paid the extra £1.7 billion we were asked for. Tinkering with the timing and bringing forward a rebate that we were already due does nothing to change that.
I do find it amusing that some Tories on here are still trying to defend the indefensible and pretend that somehow we will be paying less overall than we were being asked for two weeks ago.
It's a better situation than it was, but I admit it's hardly the victory touted by Osborne. He should have bloody well known better than to present this in the way he did.
I suppose, if one were clutching at straws, one could argue that by making this a debate about semantics and accountancy, he's obfuscated the fact that we're coughing up what was requested in the first place.
Only superficially. The end result will be that Cameron and Osborne look even more devious over EU matters than previously
The noisy arguments over Britain’s £1.7bn bill for extra EU budget contributions covering a 12-year period have obscured the fact that the UK’s net payments to Brussels have almost doubled over the past five years to more than £8bn a year.
David Cameron has described the one-off extra EU bill as an “unprecedented” amount. But in relation to the period it covers, the top-up payment works out at just £150m a year. The extra net contribution Britain is making every year, however, is nearer to £4bn.
If the rebate was always, obviously going to be applied to the repayment anyway, why did the Guardian print a story (as quoted by me earlier) only yesterday claiming that the £1.7bn had already had the rebate taken into account?
Seriously? You have no issues with a British serviceman killing a prisoner in cold blood?
He didn't shoot a prisoner. He shot a dangerous wounded combatant. A head-chopping loon who would have had Sgt Blackman roasted over a slow fire given half the chance.
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
He shot a prisoner. You know that. You know he is guilty as your, frankly, stupid open his mouth comment shows.
I would have no qualms about shooting people like that out of hand. They don't follow the Geneva Convention and I wouldn't endanger my safety or the safety of my men and women to salve your conscience.
As I said earlier. The Govt should raise the black flag against them. No quarter expected or given.
And all you smug gits going on about Farage, any of you that voted Labour or Tory in the paste has voted for people that quite happily extra judicially kill their own citizens in the UK.
Been there, seen it and got the T-shirt.
Sorry but Farage is wrong on this. Our troops operate under a strict set of agreed laws and guidelines. Now you may want to have those changed (and I would have some sympathy for that) but as it stands they are the law and this soldier broke them.
Personally I agree with a large minority of people that the drug laws in this country are wrong. But again they are the laws and if I broke them I would expect to be punished. This is no different.
That's a reasonable position. Sgt. Blackman broke the law. My original post, however, was that I did not consider that Sgt Blackman had done much that was *morally* wrong. This wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in WWII.
Comments
"There are fall back extradition procedures – the European Convention on extradition"
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/11/christopher-howarth-the-eaw-we-should-cooperate-with-our-eu-neighbours-but-why-should-we-join-a-eu-criminal-justice-system.html
They have given in as ever and Cameron looks even more stupid if that is possible.
What's wrong is to insist that the international aid budget must increase by 40% in real terms, over the Parliament, when everything else is being cut.
Perhaps the overseas aid budget should be merged with the Defence or Foreign Office budgets so that it becomes an arm of British policy abroad.
You might be right, I don't know.
He's been in the European Parliament for 15 years. Surely, he should have been wise to Osborne's options?
He's been out-witted.
Other people noted this at the time
'He railed against the notion that 84 nightingales had stopped the building of homes for 12000 people and jobs for 5000. He went on to mention other places in his constituency “Grain – where 6ooo jobs have been delayed for 3 years because of the habitat of a bug” and at Swanscombe where “27000 jobs are at risk due to a spider“. He then went way outside his constituency and lamented that “at Dungeness where vegetated shingle must be considered for power development.'' '
https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/mark-reckless-mp-for-lodge-hill-rails-against-natural-england-quangos-spiders-bugs-and-vegetated-shingle/
Now however when he has to put a UKIP badge on his website and is suddenly faced with re-election he changes his tune from a principled one to a self servingly populist one. Pretty pathetic.
First we have Carswell refusing to comment on UKIP allying themselves with a Polish neo nazi - just so they can keep their noses in the EU trough and now we have blatant hypocrisy from Reckless.
Yes and anyone else in turn includes the TREASURY who said nothing whilst Cameron was having his hissy-fits. Now you expect UKIP to know about it but not HM Government? What sort of perverse upside down world do you live in? If the Treasury did not know why the hell should anyone else in the UK know? Its you who need to suck it up!
But I'm still of the view that Ed Miliband would have rolled over and asked for his tummy to be tickled.
From GF:
Jack Ketch says:
November 7, 2014 at 4:11 pm
You are not a local and are therefore talking utter bollocks.
Two months ago the story was that R&S is not Clacton and the Cons would retain it, then it was “going to be a hard fight and we will throw the
Kitchen Sink at it”, then it was “a traditional labour seat”–now its “UKIP won’t retain it at a GE”–WHAT CRAP YOU TALK.
NB. A little Bird tells me that D****L H****N is about to change party.
But Cameron and Osborne had decided to play to the europhobe gallery about the initial £1.7bn extra bill, which itself followed on from the one-off UK GDP accounting adjustment in Sept.
The net P&L position is utterly unchanged from a week ago on both sides. Only the timing of cashflows has changed.
It looks like the EU made a mistake in calculating the figure: they should have used the historical rebate (before Labour gave it away) for the historical number.
So the Tories have successfully corrected a mathematical error. Plus deferred the payment, without interest.
So a win, albeit not as big a win as they are claiming.
Seems to me that Theresa May's motion for Monday's vote does not even include a vote on the European Arrest Warrant?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmagenda/fb141107.htm
"
twitter.com/CJCHowarth/status/530715757244858368
EU Justice and Home Affairs opt-in delayed?
'The extra rebate was always in the background.'
Can you show us where & when Labour indicated that that would be the case?
Think of it as taking methodone vs. going cold turkey. Neither is appealing, but both are better than the original drug.
Really, it's pathetic to use this as a stick with which to beat Farage.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/07/uk-pays-full-eu-rebate-despite-osborne-claim-he-halved-it
Osborne got nothing.
Tory MEP Daniel Hannan on @BBCNews also says George Osborne is trying to take people for fools"
https://twitter.com/abelardinelli
"Bonnie Greer @Bonn1eGreer · 23m 23 minutes ago
The last word on the #BrusselsBamboozle from Conservative @DanHannanMEP : "#Osborne is taking us for fools. He insults our intelligence.."
https://twitter.com/Bonn1eGreer
Does anyone seriously think we should arrest the head-chopping members of ISIS in countries such as Syria and Iraq?
Tories on here seem to be arguing two different, contradictory things:
1) The EU made an error and didn't include the rebate. Osborne has successfully made them see the light and reduced out payment.
2) It was always obvious that the EU was going to include the rebate, and UKIP etc are idiots for not knowing this previously.
The end result is that Cameron and Osborne look devious and out to deceive the voters AGAIN over the EU. If you think that is out-witting Farage I'm sure he'll toast you with a pint on it!
PS I note you don't actually contest anything he says only that he has banged on about it......
And I thought you were one of the good Kippers.
I have a lot of time for Hannan. He is a genuine bon ouef and has principles. He is also, I think, a Conservative through and through.
Who to believe?
Silly bugger shouldn't have opened his mouth, then he would have been guilty of Sweet FA.
It's six months until the election. Labour will fight street-by-street
so we can change the country for the better: https://www.facebook.com/edmiliband/posts/857880350897594 …
Anyone else read this uninspiring back of the envelope dross?
We have six months to go out and show the difference Labour’s plan will make.
Together, that is what we will do. Join us in that fight:
Good job he hasn't stood up in a hall to deliver. God help Labour.
Chancellor says bill was cut to £850m but Treasury aides admit Britain is also returning its automatic rebate, making up the rest"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/07/uk-pays-full-eu-rebate-despite-osborne-claim-he-halved-it?CMP=twt_gu
Except it wasn't expected.
No one said a word. Farage didn't see it. Carswell said nothing in Parliament. Miliband and Balls didn't see it. No one. Not a word.
It seems to me pretty clear that the EU made a mistake. George Osborne corrected that mistake, deferred payments and got it interest free.
A modest victory, not the big one he is claiming, but a victory nonetheless.
Not really. I'd have more sympathy for the terrorist's victims.
As for Hannan, I know he's said he won't defect, but he's giving an awfully good impression of someone about to, indeed someone who would be inconsistent not to. I've never rated him myself, but I know he does have a following.
In any event, the Sergeant, at the time, thought that what he had done was wrong.
As I said earlier. The Govt should raise the black flag against them. No quarter expected or given.
And all you smug gits going on about Farage, any of you that voted Labour or Tory in the paste has voted for people that quite happily extra judicially kill their own citizens in the UK.
Been there, seen it and got the T-shirt.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5cf6594-667d-11e4-9c0c-00144feabdc0.html
Your turn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs&list=UUGfOBN9aNBrhIC_Lklf6Vdw
Result!
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/530740796723822592
Oh dear part 5.....
A truly calamitous Black Friday for the Tories.
“The rebate was never, ever in doubt,” said one Commission official.
I do find it amusing that some Tories on here are still trying to defend the indefensible and pretend that somehow we will be paying less overall than we were being asked for two weeks ago.
If he does, then fair play it may well be an actual reduction rather than slight of hand; if we see a minion on Newsnight tonight being skewered about it then we can probably assume it has all been a concocted piece of nonsense.
She's just received a letter and leaflet from Mr Cameron telling her that the Labour Party intends to put up taxes.
Personally I agree with a large minority of people that the drug laws in this country are wrong. But again they are the laws and if I broke them I would expect to be punished. This is no different.
If the Taliban don't observe 'the rules of land warfare' or the Geneva Convention then in what way are they 'for our benefit'?
We've each of us had unexpected unwelcome bills in the past. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paid just because they've come at a bad time.
I suppose, if one were clutching at straws, one could argue that by making this a debate about semantics and accountancy, he's obfuscated the fact that we're coughing up what was requested in the first place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11216870/Ed-Miliband-and-his-awkward-Labour-leadership-gaffes-in-105-seconds.html
Aside the bacon butty and beggar-gate incidents, there are actually much more serious and telling gaffes e.g. No idea about how much it costs for the weekly shop. He was really quite lucky that didn't get picked up wider, as it totally kills his I know all about the cost of living crisis meme.
Did WWII troops come back and start slaughtering their fellow countrymen and women?
Laughable and also weak.
The noisy arguments over Britain’s £1.7bn bill for extra EU budget contributions covering a 12-year period have obscured the fact that the UK’s net payments to Brussels have almost doubled over the past five years to more than £8bn a year.
David Cameron has described the one-off extra EU bill as an “unprecedented” amount. But in relation to the period it covers, the top-up payment works out at just £150m a year. The extra net contribution Britain is making every year, however, is nearer to £4bn.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eab9ede2-5f5e-11e4-986c-00144feabdc0.html