Do you have a way you can tot up the totals so that they are approximately equal? Because every source I've looked at today tells a consistent story: we pay a lot more per capita than Norway. This is true even from pro-EU sources.
Despite lacking voting rights and full participation in the EU institutions, Norway must still make a sizeable contribution to the EU budget. Looking at its recent contributions, Norway pays €656m to the EU but gets back around €100m in science and research grants, which makes a per capita net contribution of €107.4. In contrast, Britain’s net contribution of around €9bn works out as €139 per capita.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that that figure is correct and the CBI one isn't.
The numbers are wrong. Or at least rather misleading. The Norway contribution to the EU budget in 2013 was €290 million - about €51 a head. The rest of that money to make up the €656 million was from the EEA and Norway Grant - a voluntary scheme to try and reduce social inequality across the EU.
So they pay 656 million then?
For access to the single market they pay €290 million. That is after all what everyone seems to consider the important factor.
But overall they still pay €656m. Clearly they don't pay €366m out the goodness of their hearts.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
Mr. Cooke, hmm. Thanks for that detailed (as possible, without spoilers) response.
I may skip a year, so if season 6 gets well-received, and then buy 5 a year later than usual (for a lower cost, hopefully) or abandon the DVD-collecting altogether.
Season 5 was not quite to the same standard as the previous four seasons but it was still extremely good. Other than the one badly handled plotline mentioned, most of the criticisms are from book purists being grumpy about changes from the books, when they worked perfectly well on their own terms. Many of the storylines were fantastic, and one episode was truly outstanding, including Episode 9, which really upset book readers, even though the event may still happen in the books.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Should be in bold. Those who favour the EEA option, a perfectly valid choice, by implication , is also accepting the free movement of people.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
This is getting like the Corbynistas expanding the list of 'Red Tories'. The dishonest Cameroons rubbishing the EEA option include:
Douglas Carswell: "Norway's deal with the EU is terrible. Almost as bad as ours in fact"
John Redwood: "Eurosceptics don’t want the Norwegian model"
Dominic Cummings: Dominic Cummings, director of the Vote Leave campaign, said his group did not support the "Norway option" for the UK if the public backed severing ties with Brussels in the in/out referendum promised by Mr Cameron.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
Now that's an interesting point.
On the whole, it really does look like the EEA status would be more than palatable to most of the UK.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
This is getting like the Corbynistas expanding the list of 'Red Tories'. The dishonest Cameroons rubbishing the EEA option include:
Douglas Carswell: "Norway's deal with the EU is terrible. Almost as bad as ours in fact"
John Redwood: "Eurosceptics don’t want the Norwegian model"
Dominic Cummings: Dominic Cummings, director of the Vote Leave campaign, said his group did not support the "Norway option" for the UK if the public backed severing ties with Brussels in the in/out referendum promised by Mr Cameron.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
Now that's an interesting point.
On the whole, it really does look like the EEA status would be more than palatable to most of the UK.
Ironically, the most palatable option to most Brits is going to be the one that will be withheld by the politicians.
Neither VoteFarageLeave nor BetterInTheBin want EEA to be on the ballot.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
Now that's an interesting point.
On the whole, it really does look like the EEA status would be more than palatable to most of the UK.
Ironically, the most palatable option to most Brits is going to be the one that will be withheld by the politicians.
Neither VoteFarageLeave nor BetterInTheBin want EEA to be on the ballot.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
The freedom of movement directive applies to Norway in exactly the same way as to EU members. It's the same directive.
Really gutted to not be making what I had hoped to be my first appearance at a PB gathering tonight - the wheels of commerce meant that I had to skip up to Edinburgh for a couple of days unplanned earlier in the week, squeezing all deadlines.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
Now that's an interesting point.
On the whole, it really does look like the EEA status would be more than palatable to most of the UK.
Ironically, the most palatable option to most Brits is going to be the one that will be withheld by the politicians.
Neither VoteFarageLeave nor BetterInTheBin want EEA to be on the ballot.
Farage is involved in Leave.EU not VoteLeave.
I stand corrected. Mostly I was enjoying using the html strike tag.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Should be in bold. Those who favour the EEA option, a perfectly valid choice, by implication , is also accepting the free movement of people.
And that is why so many of the Leave people are trying to downplay it. It is just as dishonest a position to take as the Cameron position. If they don't like the EEA option because of the implications (or lack thereof) for immigration then they should be honest about it. But because they can't bring themselves to do that they try and pretend it is a bad option with the myths about lack of control or huge payments.
I'd like to hear more from VoteLeave, but overall it seems to be gradually grasping towards a positive direction: outside the EEA so we can control immigration, but equally a positive, business-friendly, open vision away from the Nigel Farages of the world. I look forward to them putting more concrete together (and I will be annoyed if they do not.)
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
It used to be 300 hours of Norwegian language and history/culture lessons but I believe it has now been doubled to 600 hours.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
It used to be 300 hours of Norwegian language and history/culture lessons but I believe it has now been doubled to 600 hours.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
It used to be 300 hours of Norwegian language and history/culture lessons but I believe it has now been doubled to 600 hours.
Have you done the full 300?
Yes (well almost, see below). I actually didn't have to as I was only a transient worker and didn't live in the country (unless you count occasional hotels or an oil rig). But since the courses were available and I love the country I chose to do them.
To be honest I got to about 265 hours - doing about 40 hours a year - but then stopped doing Norwegian contracts because I objected to losing 60% of my dayrate in tax. So I never completed the course.
I don't think I can make it this evening sadly. I have to go to hospital for some tests this afternoon. This is never good news I find. Fingers crossed.
I have been to so many hospitals as a patient that I could practically do a Good Hospital Guide all by myself....
Have fun all! Don't fight over the EU too much. She isn't worth it...............
Good post Andy. There's no question that the EEA option is being aggressively and dishonestly rubbished by the Cameron side precisely because it is actually rather an attractive one.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
Thanks. The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
Yes: but it is also perfectly possible for EEA members to discriminate against non-nationals, and withhold benefits. So, in Norway - as Richard_Tyndall will attest - you are required to register with the Police, to have visible means of support, and to (IIRC) attend Norwegian lessons.
It used to be 300 hours of Norwegian language and history/culture lessons but I believe it has now been doubled to 600 hours.
From a link in the comments in that Carswell article is an interesting snippet I didn't know:
"Exports to the EU now make up just 36 per cent of the UK’s overseas trade, barely more than we sell to the Commonwealth.
Analysis of Government statistics released in October shows the true size of the EU export market is far less than the 44 per cent official total.
That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
"That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
If the Netherlands put a tariff on goods from the UK, then the fact they were only going via the Netherlands would still be relevant. On the other hands, fewer goods would go via that route - so for comparison purposes the truth is probably between the two.
If they were being transshipped, wouldn't they go through a free port, and hence would be irrelevant to EU exports?
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
From a link in the comments in that Carswell article is an interesting snippet I didn't know:
"Exports to the EU now make up just 36 per cent of the UK’s overseas trade, barely more than we sell to the Commonwealth.
Analysis of Government statistics released in October shows the true size of the EU export market is far less than the 44 per cent official total.
That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
"That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
If the Netherlands put a tariff on goods from the UK, then the fact they were only going via the Netherlands would still be relevant. On the other hands, fewer goods would go via that route - so for comparison purposes the truth is probably between the two.
If they were being transshipped, wouldn't they go through a free port, and hence would be irrelevant to EU exports?
I'm not sure many goods are trans-shipped through Rotterdam; simply the cost of trucking it to Rotterdam would be pretty significant, and the UK has some of the most efficient container ports in the world.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
They are essentially identical to ours. You register once and that's it.
I'm not sure that's true. If you read through the detail, for example, they say that people that come over as self-employed can only spend six months in the country without having a job.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
They are essentially identical to ours. You register once and that's it.
I'm not sure that's true. If you read through the detail, for example, they say that people that come over as self-employed can only spend six months in the country without having a job.
That is just a statement of the EU Directive, which applies equally to EEA countries and EU countries. See a UK summary here:
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
From a link in the comments in that Carswell article is an interesting snippet I didn't know:
"Exports to the EU now make up just 36 per cent of the UK’s overseas trade, barely more than we sell to the Commonwealth.
Analysis of Government statistics released in October shows the true size of the EU export market is far less than the 44 per cent official total.
That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
"That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
If the Netherlands put a tariff on goods from the UK, then the fact they were only going via the Netherlands would still be relevant. On the other hands, fewer goods would go via that route - so for comparison purposes the truth is probably between the two.
If they were being transshipped, wouldn't they go through a free port, and hence would be irrelevant to EU exports?
I'm not sure many goods are trans-shipped through Rotterdam; simply the cost of trucking it to Rotterdam would be pretty significant, and the UK has some of the most efficient container ports in the world.
The ONS estimates it accounts for about 10% of total exports to the EU.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
I'm not sure many goods are trans-shipped through Rotterdam; simply the cost of trucking it to Rotterdam would be pretty significant, and the UK has some of the most efficient container ports in the world.
Why would they trans-ship via truck? The container ship that stops at Felixstowe (for example) would next stop at Rotterdam and may well off load the container for another ship to carry and leave the EU or it may stay on the same ship which then leaves for non-EU port. Either way because container went via Rotterdam means it was exported from the EU there according to some box ticker.
I'm on him for £10 at 16/1. £10 is the maximum I could get.
I backed him last year at 25/1. He was shortlisted but didn't win. With his grandmaster moves regarding Syria, Iran and Ukraine, running rings round Western leaders, I think he has a good chance. Better than 16/1.
Can't make it to the Shooting Star tonight, unfortunately. Would have much preferred a Friday meet to be honest, as I travel back from the Midlands to east London on Fridays. IIRC, the meet roughly 12 months ago was on a Friday (last one ever at Dirty Dick's).
He is completely correct. Osborne is in trouble over tax credits because of the damage it might do to his leadership hopes, not because it provides an opportunity for Labour. The Tories are currently in a situation where there is almost nothing they can do which will lead them to lose power in 2020.
This will get Tories behind Dave. Farage is trying to make the referendum about Dave
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
Bloody stupid. But no more than I have come to expect from him.
It's clear Farage has been surrounded by yes men who hang on his every opinion for too long.
Is there a parallel between Corbyn and Farage? Both appear to have strong views, both say what they think regardless, What you see is what you get, and that’s “sort of” Marmite; love it or hate it.
This is a piece from the Calais camps which was written by someone who I know and trust to be honest - he's idealistic but frank about problems and worrying aspects. Whatever your views on migrants, I think you'll find it an interesting read:
Afraid I'm also a non-runner this evening but I hope everyone who attends has a most pleasant evening and if there are any tips for the Melbourne Cup flying round, well, it's the only interesting thing that happens on a first Tuesday in November.
I'm not sure many goods are trans-shipped through Rotterdam; simply the cost of trucking it to Rotterdam would be pretty significant, and the UK has some of the most efficient container ports in the world.
Why would they trans-ship via truck? The container ship that stops at Felixstowe (for example) would next stop at Rotterdam and may well off load the container for another ship to carry and leave the EU or it may stay on the same ship which then leaves for non-EU port. Either way because container went via Rotterdam means it was exported from the EU there according to some box ticker.
No, it does not work like that if it stays on the ship.
The argument about whether the UK pays more or less per capita than Norway is indicative of the larger problem: pretty much everything to do with the EU is too damn complicated. There are so many ways of looking the figures that you can prove or disprove pretty much anything you like.
The cynic in me says why Norway? Norway is per capita one of the richest counties in the world. It gets no grants from the EU (other than some research stuff ) but pays a significant "voluntary" contribution to poorer EU areas. The U.K. Per capita income is much lower than Norway and it is very likely that choosing them as a comparator has understated how much money the UK would save by leaving the EU.
On the other hand those who claim that Norway really has any choice about accepting directives are kidding themselves. They have the same sort of choice that Rumsfeld once gave to Pakistan: comply or be bombed back to the Stone Age. In this case it is comply or lose access to the single market. Given the importance of the single market to Norway they have no choice at all, a point demonstrated by the fact that they have never rejected a single piece of EU nonsense.
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
The BBC gave some figures for a few years ago which squinting at the graph looked to be close to €60 per head. So you might be right. Will people appologise to Cameron? Norway may have (or had) a nice little earner from north sea oil, but it has a tiny population. But again there are other ways of looking at it and our net contribution as a percent of income puts us bottom, the lowest contributor to the EU. Not sure how that compares with Norway, they are allegedly wealthy, high income. So on that meausre they might be below us.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
People are shocked that disloyalty has consequences?
While the tax credits row is the focus of attention, the grinding wheels of Government will today get round to exacting their revenge for a previous defeat – namely on Conservative MPs who rebelled against the proposal to restrict the purdah period in the EU referendum.
ConservativeHome can reveal that today three of the rebels – Cheryl Gillan, Sir Edward Leigh and Chris Chope – will be sacked from their posts on the Council of Europe. Their roles as members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly are decided by the Prime Minister, so it appears to be a personal punishment for their disloyalty.
It was not disloyalty. If anyone is being disloyal it is Cameron to his own party and its principles.
I am sure they expected this however. They will be well aware how petty minded and vindictive Cameron can be.
That is in no way disputing they were disloyal. It is arguing that their personal loyalty to their party leader is trumped by a higher loyalty or integrity. That may indeed be reasonable, but that doesn't mean they were not disloyal to their leader.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
People are shocked that disloyalty has consequences?
While the tax credits row is the focus of attention, the grinding wheels of Government will today get round to exacting their revenge for a previous defeat – namely on Conservative MPs who rebelled against the proposal to restrict the purdah period in the EU referendum.
ConservativeHome can reveal that today three of the rebels – Cheryl Gillan, Sir Edward Leigh and Chris Chope – will be sacked from their posts on the Council of Europe. Their roles as members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly are decided by the Prime Minister, so it appears to be a personal punishment for their disloyalty.
It was not disloyalty. If anyone is being disloyal it is Cameron to his own party and its principles.
I am sure they expected this however. They will be well aware how petty minded and vindictive Cameron can be.
That is in no way disputing they were disloyal. It is arguing that their personal loyalty to their party leader is trumped by a higher loyalty or integrity. That may indeed be reasonable, but that doesn't mean they were not disloyal to their leader.
It's a strange sort of loyalty that's being demanded if it goes to the point you are forced for elections to be tilted with taxpayer money on one side. That's the stuff of tinpot African republics. It was egregious that David Cameron ever tried such a thing in the first place, but downright appalling that he's punishing people who actually stood up for democracy. The man should be ashamed of himself and thanked the rebels for keeping him honest on this.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
That's rather good but I can't help thinking I am going to always be dependent on others having even opened that book, let alone subject it to textual analysis.
This is a piece from the Calais camps which was written by someone who I know and trust to be honest - he's idealistic but frank about problems and worrying aspects. Whatever your views on migrants, I think you'll find it an interesting read:
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
No, it is not gross. That's a net figure. In sterling we pay 11bn net and 19bn gross. If you divide those numbers by our population, you get about 174 pounds net and 300 gross.
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
The BBC gave some figures for a few years ago which squinting at the graph looked to be close to €60 per head. So you might be right. Will people appologise to Cameron? Norway may have (or had) a nice little earner from north sea oil, but it has a tiny population. But again there are other ways of looking at it and our net contribution as a percent of income puts us bottom, the lowest contributor to the EU. Not sure how that compares with Norway, they are allegedly wealthy, high income. So on that meausre they might be below us.
People should apologise to Cameron based on your squinting of an unnamed graph from a few years ago?
That's rather good but I can't help thinking I am going to always be dependent on others having even opened that book, let alone subject it to textual analysis.
Reading the account of the party in the newspaper extracts was when I lost any confidence in the value of the book. It seethes with so much innuendo and the suggestion about Samantha Cameron is so transparent. But it obviously is unable to make good on what it would clearly dearly love to claim.
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
No, it is not gross. That's a net figure. In sterling we pay 11bn net and 19bn gross. If you divide those numbers by our population, you get about 174 pounds net and 300 gross.
19 bn gross would be enough DFID for more than SIX Indias!
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
That's rather good but I can't help thinking I am going to always be dependent on others having even opened that book, let alone subject it to textual analysis.
The dirt i really want dished is why Cameron ratted on Ashcroft in the first place, if indeed he really did so.
We know when asked Cameron said, "how long have you got?"
This is a piece from the Calais camps which was written by someone who I know and trust to be honest - he's idealistic but frank about problems and worrying aspects. Whatever your views on migrants, I think you'll find it an interesting read:
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
The BBC gave some figures for a few years ago which squinting at the graph looked to be close to €60 per head. So you might be right. Will people appologise to Cameron? Norway may have (or had) a nice little earner from north sea oil, but it has a tiny population. But again there are other ways of looking at it and our net contribution as a percent of income puts us bottom, the lowest contributor to the EU. Not sure how that compares with Norway, they are allegedly wealthy, high income. So on that meausre they might be below us.
People should apologise to Cameron based on your squinting of an unnamed graph from a few years ago?
It is still available if you want to search, i cannot work out how to link it from my phone. I've pointed to it in the past. Allowing for inflation and even Blairs give away it probably still works out less than Norway. Both as per capita and per income we do not come out too badly in relation to other nations.
That's rather good but I can't help thinking I am going to always be dependent on others having even opened that book, let alone subject it to textual analysis.
The dirt i really want dished is why Cameron ratted on Ashcroft in the first place, if indeed he really did so.
We know when asked Cameron said, "how long have you got?"
What did Ashcroft do?
His late disclosure on his tax status and who was to blame over the Tories not winning a majority in 2010
Ashcroft blames Dave for agreeing to the debates, Dave blames Ashcroft for faulty polling and strategy/tactics.
For example Ashcroft said Hamsptead and Kilburn wasn't winnable and threw all resources at Westminster North.
Dr. Prasannan, last ever? Has Dirty Dicks been demolished?
Mr. Royale, it takes a special sort of intellectually vacant clown to see a man and his colleagues almost get stoned to death by a mob because of a number plate, and then decide jail time may be an appropriate response. For the crime of having stones flung at him.
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
No, it is not gross. That's a net figure. In sterling we pay 11bn net and 19bn gross. If you divide those numbers by our population, you get about 174 pounds net and 300 gross.
Click on subnote 28 to get the EU budget. Go to sheet year 2014.
Line 84 gives the EU expenditure on the UK i.e. what we get back. It is €7.0b. Line 92 gives the UK National Contribution i.e. gross. That is €11.3b.
That leaves €4.3b as our net contribution. At €1.37 to £, that is roughly £3.2b. UK population of 64m means our net contribtuion is £50/head.
These are EU original sources. I don't know what sources you are using but I am about to leave for The Shooting Star so I will probably never find out (unless you are planning to be there).
People are shocked that disloyalty has consequences?
While the tax credits row is the focus of attention, the grinding wheels of Government will today get round to exacting their revenge for a previous defeat – namely on Conservative MPs who rebelled against the proposal to restrict the purdah period in the EU referendum.
ConservativeHome can reveal that today three of the rebels – Cheryl Gillan, Sir Edward Leigh and Chris Chope – will be sacked from their posts on the Council of Europe. Their roles as members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly are decided by the Prime Minister, so it appears to be a personal punishment for their disloyalty.
It was not disloyalty. If anyone is being disloyal it is Cameron to his own party and its principles.
I am sure they expected this however. They will be well aware how petty minded and vindictive Cameron can be.
That is in no way disputing they were disloyal. It is arguing that their personal loyalty to their party leader is trumped by a higher loyalty or integrity. That may indeed be reasonable, but that doesn't mean they were not disloyal to their leader.
It's a strange sort of loyalty that's being demanded if it goes to the point you are forced for elections to be tilted with taxpayer money on one side. That's the stuff of tinpot African republics. It was egregious that David Cameron ever tried such a thing in the first place, but downright appalling that he's punishing people who actually stood up for democracy. The man should be ashamed of himself and thanked the rebels for keeping him honest on this.
I'm in favour of leaving, but if that's the worst thing Cameron has asked his party members to do, I suspect he's mid table at best in the 'most unreasonable party leader' stakes.
Don't know if any of this article stands up to scrutiny (probably not) but it seems to imply that the introduction of universal credit will result in a big increase in benefit claims. Because the different benefits are being rolled in to one the result will be that every benefit that a recipient is entitled to claim will be automatically paid, whereas now many go unclaimed because the recipient doesn't know they can claim them
The next debate is in 12 days of Fox Business, so I don't think they will ditch that, the one after though doesn't come until December 15th on CNN, a network which they hate, so they might ditch that one in favour of something else.
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
That UK figure of €180 per capita is gross. The net figure is nearer €80 per capita. (£60)
No, it is not gross. That's a net figure. In sterling we pay 11bn net and 19bn gross. If you divide those numbers by our population, you get about 174 pounds net and 300 gross.
Click on subnote 28 to get the EU budget. Go to sheet year 2014.
Line 84 gives the EU expenditure on the UK i.e. what we get back. It is €7.0b. Line 92 gives the UK National Contribution i.e. gross. That is €11.3b.
That leaves €4.3b as our net contribution. At €1.37 to £, that is roughly £3.2b. UK population of 64m means our net contribtuion is £50/head.
These are EU original sources. I don't know what sources you are using but I am about to leave for The Shooting Star so I will probably never find out (unless you are planning to be there).
The net figures – which take into account the UK’s rebate – show the UK’s contribution to the EU was £2.7bn in 2008, rising to £3.8bn in 2009, £7.2bn in 2010, £7.5bn in 2011, £8.5bn in 2012 and £11.3bn in 2013.
That's rather good but I can't help thinking I am going to always be dependent on others having even opened that book, let alone subject it to textual analysis.
The dirt i really want dished is why Cameron ratted on Ashcroft in the first place, if indeed he really did so.
We know when asked Cameron said, "how long have you got?"
What did Ashcroft do?
His late disclosure on his tax status and who was to blame over the Tories not winning a majority in 2010
Ashcroft blames Dave for agreeing to the debates, Dave blames Ashcroft for faulty polling and strategy/tactics.
For example Ashcroft said Hamsptead and Kilburn wasn't winnable and threw all resources at Westminster North.
That's rather good but I can't help thinking I am going to always be dependent on others having even opened that book, let alone subject it to textual analysis.
The dirt i really want dished is why Cameron ratted on Ashcroft in the first place, if indeed he really did so.
We know when asked Cameron said, "how long have you got?"
What did Ashcroft do?
His late disclosure on his tax status and who was to blame over the Tories not winning a majority in 2010
Ashcroft blames Dave for agreeing to the debates, Dave blames Ashcroft for faulty polling and strategy/tactics.
For example Ashcroft said Hamsptead and Kilburn wasn't winnable and threw all resources at Westminster North.
Interesting. Thanks.
We all make mistakes. It feels a bit like there's almost something very personal going on here as well.
CNN is reporting the overnights show that 15 million people saw last night's Republican debate. It was on an obscure channel most Americans have never watched and was competing against the World Series game 2. The first 2 debates got about 25 million.
For the record KC leads the Mets 2-0.
One of the moderators - Harwood - was caught in two outright lies during the debate. Firstly he denied having to correct his NY Times article on Rubio's tax plan when Rubio challenged him. After the debate he tweeted a 'correction'. Secondly he claimed the CNBC debate was always going to be 2 hours, when the fact that Trump and Carson initially refused to appear unless it was reduced from 3 to 2 hours was widely reported.
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
Comments
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/df533qk76i/YG-Trackers-Eurotrack.pdf
Mr. Surbiton, perhaps they do. Our overseas aid budget is pretty damned large.
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, and thanks for that info.
Douglas Carswell: "Norway's deal with the EU is terrible. Almost as bad as ours in fact"
John Redwood: "Eurosceptics don’t want the Norwegian model"
Dominic Cummings: Dominic Cummings, director of the Vote Leave campaign, said his group did not support the "Norway option" for the UK if the public backed severing ties with Brussels in the in/out referendum promised by Mr Cameron.
Ruth Lea: "Norway is not the way."
On the whole, it really does look like the EEA status would be more than palatable to most of the UK.
Neither VoteFarageLeave nor BetterInTheBin want EEA to be on the ballot.
Will there be another before Xmas?
The population of Britain is to increase by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, with net migration accounting for more than half that number.
Projections released by the Office for National Statistics showed the UK population is expected to reach 74.3 million by 2039, up from an estimated 64.6 million in imd-2014.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-population-to-rise-by-10-million-in-next-25-years-with-net-migration-accounting-for-50-a6713106.html
The Netherlands already has an Islamist Party. Mildly surprised we don't already have one.
Edited extra bit: and that's without considering implications for the NHS, education, welfare and so forth.
http://www.udi.no/en/want-to-apply/the-registration-scheme-for-eueea-nationals/?nav-veiviser=12896
They are essentially identical to ours. You register once and that's it.
To be honest I got to about 265 hours - doing about 40 hours a year - but then stopped doing Norwegian contracts because I objected to losing 60% of my dayrate in tax. So I never completed the course.
Perhaps we could have a fines system for mentions of Norway?
A Leave vote will spell the merciful end of the UK’s EU membership – and the end of a Prime Minister obsessed with putting the EU’s interests ahead of our own.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11961604/Britain-will-be-flattened-if-it-stays-in-the-EU.html
I think the most popular leader of a British party has a point
;-)
Nearly as much as you.
Haven't seen much progress so far on the issue !
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05972.pdf
Leave needs less Farage and more the likes of you and Casino Royale.
Voters have never liked him enough to make him an MP though. I'm not really sure what is behind that.
I backed him last year at 25/1. He was shortlisted but didn't win. With his grandmaster moves regarding Syria, Iran and Ukraine, running rings round Western leaders, I think he has a good chance. Better than 16/1.
Still hard to justify the 'toxic' meme when he tops the leader ratings... Maybe some peeps are in a bubble
Anyway, hope those going have a great evening!
He is completely correct. Osborne is in trouble over tax credits because of the damage it might do to his leadership hopes, not because it provides an opportunity for Labour. The Tories are currently in a situation where there is almost nothing they can do which will lead them to lose power in 2020.
https://beestonia.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/guest-post-from-peter-bone-merci-mission/#comment-5790
Afraid I'm also a non-runner this evening but I hope everyone who attends has a most pleasant evening and if there are any tips for the Melbourne Cup flying round, well, it's the only interesting thing that happens on a first Tuesday in November.
The cynic in me says why Norway? Norway is per capita one of the richest counties in the world. It gets no grants from the EU (other than some research stuff ) but pays a significant "voluntary" contribution to poorer EU areas. The U.K. Per capita income is much lower than Norway and it is very likely that choosing them as a comparator has understated how much money the UK would save by leaving the EU.
On the other hand those who claim that Norway really has any choice about accepting directives are kidding themselves. They have the same sort of choice that Rumsfeld once gave to Pakistan: comply or be bombed back to the Stone Age. In this case it is comply or lose access to the single market. Given the importance of the single market to Norway they have no choice at all, a point demonstrated by the fact that they have never rejected a single piece of EU nonsense.
But again there are other ways of looking at it and our net contribution as a percent of income puts us bottom, the lowest contributor to the EU. Not sure how that compares with Norway, they are allegedly wealthy, high income. So on that meausre they might be below us.
http://popbitch.com/home/2015/10/29/smear-tactics/
Indeed. The real strength of support for UKIP in terms of crosses on ballot papers is very difficult to gauge right now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11962681/Jeremy-Clarkson-faces-three-years-in-jail-as-Argentina-reopens-Falklands-row-probe.html
We know when asked Cameron said, "how long have you got?"
What did Ashcroft do?
'and besides, they’re not here because they are poor, they’re here because their lives were in danger,
Some of them probably, but many are economic migrants.
Ashcroft blames Dave for agreeing to the debates, Dave blames Ashcroft for faulty polling and strategy/tactics.
For example Ashcroft said Hamsptead and Kilburn wasn't winnable and threw all resources at Westminster North.
Dr. Prasannan, last ever? Has Dirty Dicks been demolished?
Mr. Royale, it takes a special sort of intellectually vacant clown to see a man and his colleagues almost get stoned to death by a mob because of a number plate, and then decide jail time may be an appropriate response. For the crime of having stones flung at him.
Glad the Aussies stuffed the Argies.
Click on subnote 28 to get the EU budget.
Go to sheet year 2014.
Line 84 gives the EU expenditure on the UK i.e. what we get back. It is €7.0b.
Line 92 gives the UK National Contribution i.e. gross. That is €11.3b.
That leaves €4.3b as our net contribution.
At €1.37 to £, that is roughly £3.2b.
UK population of 64m means our net contribtuion is £50/head.
These are EU original sources. I don't know what sources you are using but I am about to leave for The Shooting Star so I will probably never find out (unless you are planning to be there).
https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/tax-credit-cuts-will-increase-welfare-bill/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-cnbc-debacle-carson-camp-vows-revolt-over-debates/article/2575209
The next debate is in 12 days of Fox Business, so I don't think they will ditch that, the one after though doesn't come until December 15th on CNN, a network which they hate, so they might ditch that one in favour of something else.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/britain-eu-contribution-rise-quadruple-cameron
We all make mistakes. It feels a bit like there's almost something very personal going on here as well.
For the record KC leads the Mets 2-0.
One of the moderators - Harwood - was caught in two outright lies during the debate. Firstly he denied having to correct his NY Times article on Rubio's tax plan when Rubio challenged him. After the debate he tweeted a 'correction'. Secondly he claimed the CNBC debate was always going to be 2 hours, when the fact that Trump and Carson initially refused to appear unless it was reduced from 3 to 2 hours was widely reported.
"Cameron’s revenge on purdah rebels – he sacks them from the Council of Europe"
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/10/camerons-revenge-on-purdah-rebels-he-sacks-them-from-the-council-of-europe.html