The media storm about EdM is worrying me that he might end up resigning this side of the GE. Let us pray that it dies away soon. We need Labour to do a better job at tu*d polishing. Bring back Mandelson.
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!
I don't think I actually predicted that Cam and Ossy would be out on their ear by Tuesday, I was picking up on the predictions yesterday that EdM could be out by Monday and using that as a point of reference.
But today's obfuscation and presenting a defeat as some sort of victory is utterly devastating for the Tories. It's as damaging to their credibility as the ERM exit in 1992 was for them.
Farage and UKIP are going to soar in the polls as this sinks in. The dream scenario for Farage was the UK having to pay up the full amount demanded. He's got that, but with a cherry on the top of Osborne and Cameron trampling their own credibility into the dirt by hailing it as a great victory for themselves.
The sentence he received makes a mockery of British justice.
He was found guilty of murder. Something that carries a mandatory life sentence. The sentence was wholly appropriate for the crime he committed.
Not compared to the thousands of life long scrotes living it up in comfort at one of HMP's finest.
People charged with murder, convicted/plea bargained to manslaughter on average serve 3.5 years.
He received 8 minimum, will obviously never do it again, so no reoffending risk. Plus his service should have been taken into account and he should have copped for PTSD, and that's not a joke if you've ever been a soldier. That shit haunts you.
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.
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!
I do agree with Hannan on this, but I find him a hard figure to pin down. Unlike Carswell, who I think is with the passion of the converted being a bit too strident in damning those whom he was content to be amongst for so many years, if not without some discomfort, with Hannan my confusion arises from him seeming so confident and eloquent in his defence of the Uk and its systems, and he writes well, but then being so pessimistic about how well we will hold up against the EU. Maybe he is right, I feel like I'm getting closer to just giving up and wanting to vote Out every day, but that book of his on freedom felt like 90% patriotic and optimistic talk about how great the things the English made are, and then essentially saying the English actually must be really crap because we will of course fold at the slightest push. Right or wrong about that, it just felt weird he could simultaneously say we had been so strong, and yet we had no chance of doing anything good now (or at least he doesn't think we will)
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
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!
I don't think I actually predicted that Cam and Ossy would be out on their ear by Tuesday, I was picking up on the predictions yesterday that EdM could be out by Monday and using that as a point of reference.
But today's obfuscation and presenting a defeat as some sort of victory is utterly devastating for the Tories. It's as damaging to their credibility as the ERM exit in 1992 was for them.
It seems odd that they have made such a big deal of what even at first glance seems like a load of bull. I think everyone expected a 'victory' announcement like this at some point, but down the line, maybe even drag it out until after the election, but this? On the face of it it seems laughable.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Much of the support among the political class for the GI Bill after the Second World War was concern that if so many soldiers came back and didn't have a good life there could be a lot of violence from them.
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.
The point of course is that the soldier shot a muslim. Thats OK in the kipper book.
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!
I don't think I actually predicted that Cam and Ossy would be out on their ear by Tuesday, I was picking up on the predictions yesterday that EdM could be out by Monday and using that as a point of reference.
But today's obfuscation and presenting a defeat as some sort of victory is utterly devastating for the Tories. It's as damaging to their credibility as the ERM exit in 1992 was for them.
Farage and UKIP are going to soar in the polls as this sinks in. The dream scenario for Farage was the UK having to pay up the full amount demanded. He's got that, but with a cherry on the top of Osborne and Cameron trampling their own credibility into the dirt by hailing it as a great victory for themselves.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, it's what they're paid for and the ones you are talking about fought under the 'rules of war'.
What is your point again?
Edit. Civil war, seriously. I imagine a lot of the people in jail after the war were veterans considering all men of a certain age in certain areas would have been on one side or the other. Same probably applied to the UK after WWII.
So I guess we know who David Cameron's "boss" is, after all: Jean-Claude Juncker and the European Commission. The views of the British public have been, once and again, completely disregarded.
A lot of people guessing what the calculations mean, so I'll have a go.
If the UK gets a proportionate rebate on it's contributions, it must follow that the presentation of an increased, backdated bill will also be accompanied by an entitlement to a backdated increase in the rebate.
The £850m rebate being offset against the £1.7bn is the backdated rebate, and is nothing to do with current contributions/rebates.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, What is your point again?
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, it's what they're paid for and the ones you are talking about fought under the 'rules of war'.
What is your point again?
So your suggestion for a group that is already prone to responsibility for greatly increased crime rates (something that two posts ago you regarded as laughable but now tacitly have accepted you were being a complete cretin about) is to give them carte blanche to behave as they think fit in relation to enemy combatants that you disapprove of, because that surely won't cause any greater problems?
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, What is your point again?
You've never been in the military have you?
You haven't read the comments on this thread have you, you numpty?
I might defect to UKIP. I'm not intrinsically anti-EU, but I've had enough of Cameron and Osborne.
Cretins.
I'm becoming attracted to the "f..k the lot of 'em" party....
If they're going to deceive over this, and deceive over the Eurozone bailouts, and deceive over the EU budget cut, and deceive over the Treaty veto, how on Earth can we trust them on an In-Out referendum?
They'll probably come up with a referendum that says "Do you approve of David Cameron's repatriation of (minor) powers?" and then after they win it, claim that was an In-Out referendum, as we'd have left had it been a No. It wouldn't make any logical sense, but neither does the claim that this bill has been halved.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, What is your point again?
You've never been in the military have you?
Have you been in combat? If so, tell us something of your experiences.
A lot of people guessing what the calculations mean, so I'll have a go.
If the UK gets a proportionate rebate on it's contributions, it must follow that the presentation of an increased, backdated bill will also be accompanied by an entitlement to a backdated increase in the rebate.
The £850m rebate being offset against the £1.7bn is the backdated rebate, and is nothing to do with current contributions/rebates.
This means the only additional new cost is £850m.
Not so. It has already been made clear that the reduction is due to the rebate that we were already due on future contributions being brought forward. In the end the additional £1.7 billion over and above what we originally were supposed to pay will still be paid.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, it's what they're paid for and the ones you are talking about fought under the 'rules of war'.
What is your point again?
So your suggestion for a group that is already prone to responsibility for greatly increased crime rates (something that two posts ago you regarded as laughable but now tacitly have accepted you were being a complete cretin about) is to give them carte blanche to behave as they think fit in relation to enemy combatants that you disapprove of, because that surely won't cause any greater problems?
It's an interesting theory, I'll give you that.
You're making stuff up.
The argument was that not fighting under the rules of war would lead to violence at home.
You are disproving your theory with every post.
Soldiers are violent and prone to PTSD, it does make them angry and when provoked violent but that is the CURRENT state of affairs.
So I guess we know who David Cameron's "boss" is, after all: Jean-Claude Juncker and the European Commission. The views of the British public have been, once and again, completely disregarded.
A lot of people guessing what the calculations mean, so I'll have a go.
If the UK gets a proportionate rebate on it's contributions, it must follow that the presentation of an increased, backdated bill will also be accompanied by an entitlement to a backdated increase in the rebate.
The £850m rebate being offset against the £1.7bn is the backdated rebate, and is nothing to do with current contributions/rebates.
This means the only additional new cost is £850m.
Not so. It has already been made clear that the reduction is due to the rebate that we were already due on future contributions being brought forward. In the end the additional £1.7 billion over and above what we originally were supposed to pay will still be paid.
David "We won't be paying anything like £1.7bn" Cameron. What a liar.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, What is your point again?
You've never been in the military have you?
Have you been in combat? If so, tell us something of your experiences.
I spent just short of twelve years in the Army, five of which where in Ireland. While not remotely approaching the intensity of modern troops the same fundamentals applied. What's your experience?
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.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
All troops returning from Afghanistan have to undergo an indeterminate period of rehabilitation in Cyprus. This can be a few days if the psychologists and medics think they are okay or can be much longer - months in some cases - if there are concerns about their mental state and inability to 'come down' from active service.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, it's what they're paid for and the ones you are talking about fought under the 'rules of war'.
What is your point again?
So your suggestion for a group that is already prone to responsibility for greatly increased crime rates (something that two posts ago you regarded as laughable but now tacitly have accepted you were being a complete cretin about) is to give them carte blanche to behave as they think fit in relation to enemy combatants that you disapprove of, because that surely won't cause any greater problems?
It's an interesting theory, I'll give you that.
You're making stuff up.
The argument was that not fighting under the rules of war would lead to violence at home.
You are disproving your theory with every post.
Soldiers are violent and prone to PTSD, it does make them angry and when provoked violent but that is the CURRENT state of affairs.
So you empower them to behave still more violently? Are you always this daft, or is this a Friday afternoon special for you?
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
I'm guessing Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Spectator, the most famous Conservative MEP, the Budget Commissioner of the European Commission, the Finance Minister of Ireland and the Finance Minister of the Netherlands are all stark raving mad when they say the bill will be paid in full then?
Soldiers are generally violent, What is your point again?
You've never been in the military have you?
Have you been in combat? If so, tell us something of your experiences.
I spent just short of twelve years in the Army, five of which where in Ireland. While not remotely approaching the intensity of modern troops the same fundamentals applied. What's your experience?
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, What is your point again?
You've never been in the military have you?
Have you been in combat? If so, tell us something of your experiences.
I spent just short of twelve years in the Army, five of which where in Ireland. While not remotely approaching the intensity of modern troops the same fundamentals applied. What's your experience?
I've never served. Although I've family members and friends who have. I value their opinions.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
I imagine it will be revised again at some point, even if you are right, and yet apparently the government's account is being challenged by many many people, not all of them mad. What does any of it matter
The sentence he received makes a mockery of British justice.
He was found guilty of murder. Something that carries a mandatory life sentence. The sentence was wholly appropriate for the crime he committed.
Not compared to the thousands of life long scrotes living it up in comfort at one of HMP's finest.
People charged with murder, convicted/plea bargained to manslaughter on average serve 3.5 years.
He received 8 minimum, will obviously never do it again, so no reoffending risk. Plus his service should have been taken into account and he should have copped for PTSD, and that's not a joke if you've ever been a soldier. That shit haunts you.
The answer is in your own comment. He was found guilty of murder not manslaughter. As such there is a mandatory sentence and the 8 year minimum is the normal part of that.
@Number10press: PM on £1.7bn EU bill: It’s been halved, it’s been delayed, no interest is being paid & we’ve changed the rules so this can’t happen again.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Using the powers of creative accounting doesn't change the fact that Cameron promised not to pay and now he pays half of it now and half of it sometime later. Also according to the Spectator the maximum thought to be allowed without a major backbench rebellion was 400 million, even with creative accounting 850 million is more than double that.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
I'm guessing Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Spectator, the most famous Conservative MEP, the Budget Commissioner of the European Commission, the Finance Minister of Ireland and the Finance Minister of the Netherlands are all stark raving mad when they say the bill will be paid in full then?
The bill will be paid in full, all £850m of it.
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today.
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.
As you have so succinctly pointed out. Soldiers already behave badly, it's what they do.
What rules of war they fight under I really don't think makes much difference. I know it must come as a shock to you but war is a bloody, horrible, filthy business which makes animals of men. Rules of war or no.
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.
The triple backflips the Tories on here are trying to do to justify this shows how hopelessly they put party loyalty above logic or truth. I hadn't really doubted Cameron's commitment to a 2017 referendum before, but now I know we can't trust the Tories on whether black is black or white is white.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Using the powers of creative accounting doesn't change the fact that Cameron promised not to pay and now he pays half of it now and half of it sometime later.
Didn't he technically say we wouldn't pay it 'now', very carefully in essence promising we would without actually saying it out loud? I'm not surprised at this outcome, and the claiming of victory, it just seems a lot earlier than seems credible.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Using the powers of creative accounting doesn't change the fact that Cameron promised not to pay and now he pays half of it now and half of it sometime later.
Didn't he technically say we wouldn't pay it 'now', very carefully in essence promising we would without actually saying it out loud? I'm not surprised at this outcome, and the claiming of victory, it just seems a lot earlier than seems credible.
He said that at first and then later said he wouldn't pay the full amount at all.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Using the powers of creative accounting doesn't change the fact that Cameron promised not to pay and now he pays half of it now and half of it sometime later.
Didn't he technically say we wouldn't pay it 'now', very carefully in essence promising we would without actually saying it out loud? I'm not surprised at this outcome, and the claiming of victory, it just seems a lot earlier than seems credible.
Everyone knew that he will pay, just not making the announcement so soon.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
I'm guessing Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Spectator, the most famous Conservative MEP, the Budget Commissioner of the European Commission, the Finance Minister of Ireland and the Finance Minister of the Netherlands are all stark raving mad when they say the bill will be paid in full then?
The bill will be paid in full, all £850m of it.
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today.
The Guardian and I did, but Osborne used a magic word so that you can ignore that uncomfortable fact. Lame.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
I'm guessing Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Spectator, the most famous Conservative MEP, the Budget Commissioner of the European Commission, the Finance Minister of Ireland and the Finance Minister of the Netherlands are all stark raving mad when they say the bill will be paid in full then?
The bill will be paid in full, all £850m of it.
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today.
No, not the £850m, the £1.7bn (or €2.1bn):
EU finance ministers agreed in principle today to stretch out Britain’s payment of a 2.1 billion-euro ($2.6 billion) bill until September 2015. While the accounting arrangement includes an accelerated refund, it would leave the U.K.’s overall contributions to the EU untouched.
Anyway for Cameron and Co to get a positive spin on this? Given most people no longer trust them on the EU, and in any case all people will focus on is 'We're paying X extra', not 'Well the shakedown could have been a lot worse; at least we still have all our fingers, so be grateful'.
And I'm sure I saw plenty of people and pundits talk about how we would pay less in the end, so 'achieving' that was factored in, hence no gratitude. It's still a buttload more.
Dutch Minister confirms Britain entitled to bigger rebate as a result of bigger bill;
""They initially presented the figures in a worse light than they were, because they've had the rebate since the 70s, I believe. The rebate is also applicable to additional payments ," Dijsselbloem told reporters after a meeting of EU finance ministers.
Luckily the internet makes it incredibly easy to catch people out when they try to rewrite history.
Here we go, from 24th October:
The commission told the various countries of the revamped figures on 17 October, EU officials said. They said Britain had until 1 December to provide €2.1bn (£1.7bn), roughly a fifth of the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU.
On an LBC radio phone-in on Friday morning, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said Cameron would have little option but to go along with the demand. “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.” ... Cameron signalled he could be prepared to compromise on the bill, as he only ruled out paying as much as the £1.7bn demanded.
Asked if the UK would eventually cough up, he suggested that a lower sum could be acceptable.
“If it is €2bn, no we are not. That is not acceptable. We do have these changes where they look at how economies have grown. Sometimes you pay a little bit more, sometimes you pay a little bit less. But it has never happened like this before, with a €2bn bill.”
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
Why is £850m net an appalling and unacceptable number?
No one seems interested in engaging with the question of what we actually should pay. It's as though the whole country has become deranged.
If Labour do start a three month period leader election period, it would be the perfect time to engineer a motion that "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would override the Fixed Term Parliament act and force a general election in the middle of the Labour civil war with Hattie at the helm....
It does occur that in one respect the fixed term parliament act is not worth the paper it is written on as any prime minister with a majority who wants an election can just whip his members into voting his government down in a no confidence motion, although it would probably be less contraversial to just repeal the fixed term parliament act on a whipped vote.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
This thing has play out as thus: Last week "EU demands money, Cameron says No" Early in the week "EU demands money, Cameron says maybe but not now" Today "EU demands money, Cameron says OK I give up"
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
Soldiers are generally violent, it's what they're paid for and the ones you are talking about fought under the 'rules of war'.
What is your point again?
So your suggestion for a group that is already prone to responsibility for greatly increased crime rates (something that two posts ago you regarded as laughable but now tacitly have accepted you were being a complete cretin about) is to give them carte blanche to behave as they think fit in relation to enemy combatants that you disapprove of, because that surely won't cause any greater problems?
It's an interesting theory, I'll give you that.
You're making stuff up.
The argument was that not fighting under the rules of war would lead to violence at home.
You are disproving your theory with every post.
Soldiers are violent and prone to PTSD, it does make them angry and when provoked violent but that is the CURRENT state of affairs.
So you empower them to behave still more violently? Are you always this daft, or is this a Friday afternoon special for you?
You are the one saying it would make them more violent and then you proceeded to show me that returning soldiers are violent, ones that fought under 'the rule of war' and the Geneva convention. We're both winners because I'm also laughing at you.
Not forgetting the stupid bloody rules of engagement, mostly written by twats in Whitehall.
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
You can prove anything with facts.
Oh shush, Swiss Bob wants to let our soldiers run through Afghanistan like Rambo on crack. It can't do any longterm harm, can it?
I think the major problem is that basically we owed £850 million in the first place, yet the Gov't was happy for the 1.7 Bn number to be widely reported (Journos not doing their homework... quell surprise) and now is spinning it that we pay "half"
The result is that it makes Osborne in particular look "too clever by half". Something he is quite good at.
Luckily the internet makes it incredibly easy to catch people out when they try to rewrite history.
Here we go, from 24th October:
The commission told the various countries of the revamped figures on 17 October, EU officials said. They said Britain had until 1 December to provide €2.1bn (£1.7bn), roughly a fifth of the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU.
On an LBC radio phone-in on Friday morning, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said Cameron would have little option but to go along with the demand. “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.” ... Cameron signalled he could be prepared to compromise on the bill, as he only ruled out paying as much as the £1.7bn demanded.
Asked if the UK would eventually cough up, he suggested that a lower sum could be acceptable.
“If it is €2bn, no we are not. That is not acceptable. We do have these changes where they look at how economies have grown. Sometimes you pay a little bit more, sometimes you pay a little bit less. But it has never happened like this before, with a €2bn bill.”
"Nigel Farage, said Cameron would have little option but to go along with the demand. “Of course he will pay up."
Guess what? Cameron payed up.
Everyone knew that he will do a U turn, it's the speed of it that is more damaging, people haven't forgotten yet Cameron's initial position before the completion of the U turn.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
Why is £850m net an appalling and unacceptable number?
No one seems interested in engaging with the question of what we actually should pay. It's as though the whole country has become deranged.
Most people are only just feeling some glimmers of recovery now, I do not think most people mentally accept the idea we have done so much better than everyone else, particularly given the ingrained dislike of giving the EU anything in the first place.
For me I felt close to snapping when the bill came because the news was bundled with the EU parliament still after more money. The EU will get what it wants in the end, what's the point of fighting it.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
Why is £850m net an appalling and unacceptable number?
No one seems interested in engaging with the question of what we actually should pay. It's as though the whole country has become deranged.
We never had any wriggle room on paying this. It was dumb of Cameron to suggest that we did (although he could credibly claim he was incensed by the demand to cough up by December). It the same system we've been part of - and compliant with - for decades.
Without understanding the calculation in full, I can't really comment on it's appalling-ness or unacceptability with the confidence of some other posters.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
Why is £850m net an appalling and unacceptable number?
No one seems interested in engaging with the question of what we actually should pay. It's as though the whole country has become deranged.
Most people are only just feeling some glimmers of recovery now, I do not think most people mentally accept the idea we have done so much better than everyone else, particularly given the ingrained dislike of giving the EU anything in the first place.
For me I felt close to snapping when the bill came because the news was bundled with the EU parliament still after more money. The EU will get what it wants in the end, what's the point of fighting it.
I can understand the emotional response - no one likes getting an unexpected bill. And the Commission handled it with the tact and diplomacy of the later stages of a Bernard Manning show.
But why should it be unacceptable, given that it does seem to be what we are due to pay?
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
You can prove anything with facts.
Oh shush, Swiss Bob wants to let our soldiers run through Afghanistan like Rambo on crack. It can't do any longterm harm, can it?
Actually, right from the start I said it was stupid and they never should have gone.
I also wrote a piece which the Tele stole and put on their front page highlighting how our soldiers were dying by going through all the MoD press releases and doing the stats. It had quite a big impact because it showed the vast majority dying from IEDs.
They didn't even bother changing the colours on the Excel.
Any moron who'd read Flashman would know it was a mugs game and for my Corps training I wrote a paper on the Russians in Afghanistan so I doubly knew what would happen.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
With respect Richard, and I do respect you and think you talk sense, I fear you are in a minority of two on this - you and Osborne.
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
Why is £850m net an appalling and unacceptable number?
No one seems interested in engaging with the question of what we actually should pay. It's as though the whole country has become deranged.
Most people are only just feeling some glimmers of recovery now, I do not think most people mentally accept the idea we have done so much better than everyone else, particularly given the ingrained dislike of giving the EU anything in the first place.
For me I felt close to snapping when the bill came because the news was bundled with the EU parliament still after more money. The EU will get what it wants in the end, what's the point of fighting it.
I can understand the emotional response - no one likes getting an unexpected bill. And the Commission handled it with the tact and diplomacy of the later stages of a Bernard Manning show.
But why should it be unacceptable, given that it does seem to be what we are due to pay?
Maybe it's acceptable, but not worth it anymore? Straw that broke the camel's back and all that.
But then again apparently support for leaving the EU is stable to falling, so I guess people don't care really. Or not enough anyway - like me, they'll bitch and moan, but step back from leaving. Not a pleasant recipe for us or the EU - a continually surly, bitter UK causing arguments at every little thing, and the EU arrogant at knowing the members are going nowhere, and irritated and resentful at the disruption being caused.
When you read the contortions Tories are going through to justify Osborne's lie one has to question whether the economy is safe with this bunch of innumerate con men?
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Let's review the timeline.
EU says give us 1.7bn
Nobody, not the EU, not Farage, not Balls, says and you will get a refund
Osborne says to EU, are we not due a refund?
Everyone else says Oh well yes, of course
And this makes Osborne look bad how exactly?
The refund is one we were due on future payments and has been brought forward. Osborne looks bad because he is pretending this is a reduction when in fact it is nothing of the sort. Overall we will still end paying the extra £1.7 billion.They have simply tinkered with where they assign the rebate.
When you read the contortions Tories are going through to justify Osborne's lie one has to question whether the economy is safe with this bunch of innumerate con men?
What lie?
Imagine you are in a Supermarket and at the till you are presented with a bill for £10
Ah, but, you say, I have a coupon for £5 off
Did you pay the full amount, or did you pay half?
Answers on a postcard to Ed Balls and Nigel Farage...
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Because they are lying. The amount we will pay overall has not decreased one penny as a result of this deal. They have simply shifted when we get a rebate. You Tories are either very stupid or very desperate to believe the lie that this has in any way reduced what we owe.
Because they are lying. The amount we will pay overall has not decreased one penny as a result of this deal. They have simply shifted when we get a rebate.
Who said we were due a rebate, and when did they say it?
Except nobody said we were due it until after Osborne secured it
I think you and Richard are looking increasingly desperate on this.
1. Cameron shouldn't have spouted off that he'd "never pay" (I paraphrase) 2. Osborne did actually gain a reasonble concession in payment terms 3. He then stupidly claimed a huge victory, purely by shuffling dates 4. He was called out on it PDQ 5. Osborne and Cameron look shifty. Every other party piles on.
It was the mismatch between 2 and 3, combined with the atmosphere of expectation created by 1 that has led to point 5. It's a classic Tory-EU clusterfuck, and it wont be the last.
Because they are lying. The amount we will pay overall has not decreased one penny as a result of this deal. They have simply shifted when we get a rebate.
Who said we were due a rebate, and when did they say it?
I think you and Richard are looking increasingly desperate on this.
It may well turn out that this is deemed bad news in the long run, but the desperation to me looks like it is coming from all the commentators now aftertiming madly that the rebate they never mentioned was always part of the deal.
It wasn't. Now it is. That's a win however you spin it.
When you read the contortions Tories are going through to justify Osborne's lie one has to question whether the economy is safe with this bunch of innumerate con men?
What lie?
Imagine you are in a Supermarket and at the till you are presented with a bill for £10
Ah, but, you say, I have a coupon for £5 off
Did you pay the full amount, or did you pay half?
Answers on a postcard to Ed Balls and Nigel Farage...
That somehow the bill has been halved. As a result of this bill the UK has £1.7 billion less . unallocated funding between now and the end of 2015 and presumably another £1.7 billion borrowings and associated interest payments. End of story and procastinating about it only makes you look even more desperate than clearly Osborne and Cameron are to demonstrate their faux Eurosceptic credentials that no self respecting Eurosceptic believes anyway!
Under the deal hammered out yesterday, Britain will settle the full £1.7billion surcharge with EU but actual cash transfers from London to Brussels will only be made for half that amount. The £850million will be paid from the Treasury in two instalments, to be made in July and September 2015. The outstanding £850 million will be covered by a European Commission payment, money that would have been due to Britain from its annual rebate in 2016. The rebate on the surcharge is at a higher rate of 50 per cent under a special 1998 agreement between Britain and EU that covers budget revisions and surcharges. Senior EU officials quickly cast doubt on Mr Osborne’s claim that he had “halved the bill” by insisting that the rebate of £850million would always have been paid.
I think you and Richard are looking increasingly desperate on this.
It may well turn out that this is deemed bad news in the long run, but the desperation to me looks like it is coming from all the commentators now aftertiming madly that the rebate they never mentioned was always part of the deal.
It wasn't. Now it is. That's a win however you spin it.
Can you not read simple English.
Senior EU officials quickly cast doubt on Mr Osborne’s claim that he had “halved the bill” by insisting that the rebate of £850million would always have been paid.
You are making yourself look stupid.
The only concession is the delay to July and September 2015 instead of December.
Comments
But today's obfuscation and presenting a defeat as some sort of victory is utterly devastating for the Tories. It's as damaging to their credibility as the ERM exit in 1992 was for them.
Farage and UKIP are going to soar in the polls as this sinks in. The dream scenario for Farage was the UK having to pay up the full amount demanded. He's got that, but with a cherry on the top of Osborne and Cameron trampling their own credibility into the dirt by hailing it as a great victory for themselves.
People charged with murder, convicted/plea bargained to manslaughter on average serve 3.5 years.
He received 8 minimum, will obviously never do it again, so no reoffending risk. Plus his service should have been taken into account and he should have copped for PTSD, and that's not a joke if you've ever been a soldier. That shit haunts you.
What George Osborne didn’t say – the EU still wants the full £1.7 billion
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/about-that-eu-bill-heres-what-george-osborne-didnt-mention/
Ed Balls sticking the boot in on the Beeb now.......
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/04/ptsd_and_violence_by_veterans_increased_murder_rates_related_to_war_experience.html
"After the Civil War, in the victorious North fully two-thirds of all men sentenced to prison were veterans."
"The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” "
I think you will be comprehensively disproved.
What is your point again?
Edit. Civil war, seriously. I imagine a lot of the people in jail after the war were veterans considering all men of a certain age in certain areas would have been on one side or the other. Same probably applied to the UK after WWII.
If the UK gets a proportionate rebate on it's contributions, it must follow that the presentation of an increased, backdated bill will also be accompanied by an entitlement to a backdated increase in the rebate.
The £850m rebate being offset against the £1.7bn is the backdated rebate, and is nothing to do with current contributions/rebates.
This means the only additional new cost is £850m.
‘pay first and then get the rebate’
So they might not even be able to net them into one payment? That's another line out the window: the £1.7 billion will actually be given.
Cretins.
I'm becoming attracted to the "f..k the lot of 'em" party....
It's an interesting theory, I'll give you that.
Fill yer boots, Nigel. You'll never have an opportunity like you've got now...
They'll probably come up with a referendum that says "Do you approve of David Cameron's repatriation of (minor) powers?" and then after they win it, claim that was an In-Out referendum, as we'd have left had it been a No. It wouldn't make any logical sense, but neither does the claim that this bill has been halved.
The argument was that not fighting under the rules of war would lead to violence at home.
You are disproving your theory with every post.
Soldiers are violent and prone to PTSD, it does make them angry and when provoked violent but that is the CURRENT state of affairs.
£1.7bn becomes £850m, and you still accuse the government of lying.
It really is the most bizarre phenomenon, like the rewriting of history over the 'cast-iron' guarantee.
Real smoke and mirrors worthy of Gordon at his best.
And Balls' solution to the bill? Open your wallet to the nice EU people and hope they won't take too much.
Farce upon farce.
This is almost comical.
EU says give us 1.7bn
Nobody, not the EU, not Farage, not Balls, says and you will get a refund
Osborne says to EU, are we not due a refund?
Everyone else says Oh well yes, of course
And this makes Osborne look bad how exactly?
Also according to the Spectator the maximum thought to be allowed without a major backbench rebellion was 400 million, even with creative accounting 850 million is more than double that.
On reflection, I may have overstated the difficulties.
What will not be paid is the original demand for £1.7bn.
Faced with that simple fact, the usual suspects are now saying 'Ah yes, but it wasn't going to be £1.7bn in the first place.'
But, as we have shown, they didn't say that before today.
As you have so succinctly pointed out. Soldiers already behave badly, it's what they do.
What rules of war they fight under I really don't think makes much difference. I know it must come as a shock to you but war is a bloody, horrible, filthy business which makes animals of men. Rules of war or no.
The Guardian claimed yesterday that the rebate had already been taken into account when calculating the £1.7bn
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/britain-european-union-surcharge-bill-q-and-a
Everyone else, all the media, the public, everyone has rumbled it.
We've won nothing - other than a concession on timing, interest and instalments. We're still paying exactly what we would have been paying anyway. And £850m net is still an appalling and unacceptable number. To have achieved nothing other than a longer period to pay it is an abject failure, which is an absolute dream of a gift to UKIP.
And this is bad because..?
EU finance ministers agreed in principle today to stretch out Britain’s payment of a 2.1 billion-euro ($2.6 billion) bill until September 2015. While the accounting arrangement includes an accelerated refund, it would leave the U.K.’s overall contributions to the EU untouched.
And I'm sure I saw plenty of people and pundits talk about how we would pay less in the end, so 'achieving' that was factored in, hence no gratitude. It's still a buttload more.
""They initially presented the figures in a worse light than they were, because they've had the rebate since the 70s, I believe. The rebate is also applicable to additional payments ," Dijsselbloem told reporters after a meeting of EU finance ministers.
Here we go, from 24th October:
The commission told the various countries of the revamped figures on 17 October, EU officials said. They said Britain had until 1 December to provide €2.1bn (£1.7bn), roughly a fifth of the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU.
On an LBC radio phone-in on Friday morning, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said Cameron would have little option but to go along with the demand. “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.”
...
Cameron signalled he could be prepared to compromise on the bill, as he only ruled out paying as much as the £1.7bn demanded.
Asked if the UK would eventually cough up, he suggested that a lower sum could be acceptable.
“If it is €2bn, no we are not. That is not acceptable. We do have these changes where they look at how economies have grown. Sometimes you pay a little bit more, sometimes you pay a little bit less. But it has never happened like this before, with a €2bn bill.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/24/david-cameron-eu-budget-demand-europe
No one seems interested in engaging with the question of what we actually should pay. It's as though the whole country has become deranged.
It does occur that in one respect the fixed term parliament act is not worth the paper it is written on as any prime minister with a majority who wants an election can just whip his members into voting his government down in a no confidence motion, although it would probably be less contraversial to just repeal the fixed term parliament act on a whipped vote.
Last week "EU demands money, Cameron says No"
Early in the week "EU demands money, Cameron says maybe but not now"
Today "EU demands money, Cameron says OK I give up"
Not forgetting the stupid bloody rules of engagement, mostly written by twats in Whitehall.
The result is that it makes Osborne in particular look "too clever by half". Something he is quite good at.
@joncraig: Lab MP who's no fan of Ed M tells me: "The trouble is our rules are so ridiculous that if Ed goes we'd have Harriet running things again."
Guess what? Cameron payed up.
Everyone knew that he will do a U turn, it's the speed of it that is more damaging, people haven't forgotten yet Cameron's initial position before the completion of the U turn.
The entire indignation was about the bill for £1.7bn.
2) Threats of interest charges dropped:
3) Payment deferred and to be made in instalments:
4) System to be changed to prevent anything similar happening again;
5) People who have spent 15 years in the European Parliament don't seem to know how it all works.
For me I felt close to snapping when the bill came because the news was bundled with the EU parliament still after more money. The EU will get what it wants in the end, what's the point of fighting it.
Without understanding the calculation in full, I can't really comment on it's appalling-ness or unacceptability with the confidence of some other posters.
But why should it be unacceptable, given that it does seem to be what we are due to pay?
You've got a big news story then.
If you can show the receipt from the EU for £1.7bn then you've got the scoop of the decade.
They did want the full amount, and they didn't get it.
How that is being spun as failure for Cameron is bizarre
I also wrote a piece which the Tele stole and put on their front page highlighting how our soldiers were dying by going through all the MoD press releases and doing the stats. It had quite a big impact because it showed the vast majority dying from IEDs.
They didn't even bother changing the colours on the Excel.
Any moron who'd read Flashman would know it was a mugs game and for my Corps training I wrote a paper on the Russians in Afghanistan so I doubly knew what would happen.
But then again apparently support for leaving the EU is stable to falling, so I guess people don't care really. Or not enough anyway - like me, they'll bitch and moan, but step back from leaving. Not a pleasant recipe for us or the EU - a continually surly, bitter UK causing arguments at every little thing, and the EU arrogant at knowing the members are going nowhere, and irritated and resentful at the disruption being caused.
The fact that he is paying anything at all is deemed to be a "failure".
The only acceptable solution to many would have been a £0 bill (or €0 in Euros).
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/107882/hain_pain.html
Imagine you are in a Supermarket and at the till you are presented with a bill for £10
Ah, but, you say, I have a coupon for £5 off
Did you pay the full amount, or did you pay half?
Answers on a postcard to Ed Balls and Nigel Farage...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/07/vladimir-putin-says-love-is-the-meaning-of-life/?tid=collaborative_1.0_strip_3
1. Cameron shouldn't have spouted off that he'd "never pay" (I paraphrase)
2. Osborne did actually gain a reasonble concession in payment terms
3. He then stupidly claimed a huge victory, purely by shuffling dates
4. He was called out on it PDQ
5. Osborne and Cameron look shifty. Every other party piles on.
It was the mismatch between 2 and 3, combined with the atmosphere of expectation created by 1 that has led to point 5. It's a classic Tory-EU clusterfuck, and it wont be the last.
new thread
It wasn't. Now it is. That's a win however you spin it.
According to Guardian
Under the deal hammered out yesterday, Britain will settle the full £1.7billion surcharge with EU but actual cash transfers from London to Brussels will only be made for half that amount.
The £850million will be paid from the Treasury in two instalments, to be made in July and September 2015.
The outstanding £850 million will be covered by a European Commission payment, money that would have been due to Britain from its annual rebate in 2016.
The rebate on the surcharge is at a higher rate of 50 per cent under a special 1998 agreement between Britain and EU that covers budget revisions and surcharges.
Senior EU officials quickly cast doubt on Mr Osborne’s claim that he had “halved the bill” by insisting that the rebate of £850million would always have been paid.
Senior EU officials quickly cast doubt on Mr Osborne’s claim that he had “halved the bill” by insisting that the rebate of £850million would always have been paid.
You are making yourself look stupid.
The only concession is the delay to July and September 2015 instead of December.