politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Osborne’s “halving” of the EU budget payment and n
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Osborne’s “halving” of the EU budget payment and news about the next PB gathering
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Comments
-
Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'0 -
"... The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.
"As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April...
"But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head.
"For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all.
"Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain."0 -
Laurel and Hardy comes to mind with regard to Cameron and Osborne's performances in Europe.0
-
George is doing a Tesco 'saudreyanne said:Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'0 -
You can see who the most tribal of Tories are today, that's for sure.
Has a #rebateshambles started up on the twittersphere yet ?0 -
.0
-
Its spin. The money is still being paid. Do you and Gideon think we are all stupid?audreyanne said:Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/07/uk-pays-full-eu-rebate-despite-osborne-claim-he-halved-it
"The government has accepted a £1.7bn top-up bill to the EU budget despite repeatedly denouncing its size as unacceptable.
George Osborne, the chancellor, has won a respite, however – avoiding a 1 December deadline and deferring the payment interest-free until next September, well after the general election.
Britain’s automatic rebate on its contributions to the EU budget was expected to knock €1bn off the demand for €2.1bn, leading the chancellor to brag that he had halved the payment......
While insisting that the invoice had been reduced, Treasury aides conceded that Britain will pay the £850m while also returning the rebate cheque to Brussels, meaning that the full £1.7bn will still be paid."
Fargle and Reckless must think Christmas has come early.
0 -
Thank goodness you're here as PB's light relief then -your desperate attempts to defend Cameron and Osborne are enough to bring a chuckle to anyone's countenance.audreyanne said:Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'
0 -
If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.
Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?0 -
I'd like an encore of the 'facts' that made the Tories such a great 3/1 shot in RochesterLuckyguy1983 said:
Thank goodness you're here as PB's light relief then -your desperate attempts to defend Cameron and Osborne are enough to bring a chuckle to anyone's countenance.audreyanne said:Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'0 -
.0
-
It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy0
-
We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.OblitusSumMe said:If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.
Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?
0 -
I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will seeHYUFD said:It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy
0 -
ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?0 -
It is? Surely even tomorrow's papers and this evening's bulletins will have vaguely seen through the smoke and mirrors (such as they are), by the time of broadcast/print deadline? If anything surely people will be annoyed by it?HYUFD said:It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy
0 -
Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q0 -
I agree that we aren't paying less, but I'm just trying to find a way to prove this fact to the Tory loyalists who refuse to admit that Osborne is lying to them.Luckyguy1983 said:
We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.OblitusSumMe said:If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.
Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?0 -
Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson 24m24 minutes ago
EU budget row summed up - UK will pay half of £1.7 bn. That's due to rebate. Was always likely to apply tho exact figure unclear 'til today
0 -
I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will seeMoses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?0 -
No meanwhile Dan Hannan CONSERVATIVE MEP states Cameron and Osborne are treating us like fools!Moses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?0 -
-
Well if he is that bad why did they see fit to select him as Tory candidate in the same constituency in all but name in three consecative parliamentary elections. Between 2001 and 2010 they had nine years to judge his character before he was elected in 2010.MikeSmithson said:Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q
In 2010 Reckless was candidate for Rochester and Strood, and wasTory candidate for Medway in 2005 and 2001
Smacks of utter desperation.0 -
It sounds like the rebate is money that was already due to us. The BBC says £785m was:Moses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29956289
There's still a ~£100m to bridge the gap between £1.7bn - £785m and the £850m, so it's not quite clear where that's coming from.0 -
Theresa May backs creation of new grammar school in her seat, a satellite of an existing grammar, as new Education Secretary Nicky Morgan reverses Gove's position against grammar expansion http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824689/First-grammar-school-generation-Theresa-sends-strong-message-backing-plans-create-satellite-selective-school-constituency.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field0
-
bigjohnowls said:
I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will seeMoses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
Perhaps? Personally I would have preferred to pay nothing further. Odd though that at least one EU finance Minister while stamping his little feet into the cameras stated that if Cameron does not pay on the 1st December he will pay on the 2nd?
Not going to happen though is it? As you say we will see ?
0 -
Defection please Dan -cheers in advance.manofkent2014 said:
No meanwhile Dan Hannan CONSERVATIVE MEP states Cameron and Osborne are treating us like fools!Moses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
0 -
This has gone round and round. I'm not sure local voters will be fooled by Reckless's reckless opportunistic 180 deg swing in position.MikeSmithson said:Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q
IMHO he'd have a lot better to keep his gob shut on the matter during the by-election campaign.
Who was it who could believe two contrary things at the same time?0 -
Personally, I think it's better for it to be reported as a cut one night, and then the "cut was a lie" narrative can be the second night. It would increase the sense of being deceived. The fact Osborne announced this on a Friday night shows they wanted to bury the story.Luckyguy1983 said:
It is? Surely even tomorrow's papers and this evening's bulletins will have vaguely seen through the smoke and mirrors (such as they are), by the time of broadcast/print deadline? If anything surely people will be annoyed by it?HYUFD said:It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy
0 -
Are you the 2.5k laying 1.05 mike??MikeSmithson said:Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q0 -
I think it's got to the point where any talk of giving the EU even a single cent feeds into the UKIP narrative.HYUFD said:It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy
0 -
You reposted this from the previous thread, seriously?audreyanne said:Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'
Shakes head.0 -
Socrates said:
Personally, I think it's better for it to be reported as a cut one night, and then the "cut was a lie" narrative can be the second night. It would increase the sense of being deceived. The fact Osborne announced this on a Friday night shows they wanted to bury the story.Luckyguy1983 said:
It is? Surely even tomorrow's papers and this evening's bulletins will have vaguely seen through the smoke and mirrors (such as they are), by the time of broadcast/print deadline? If anything surely people will be annoyed by it?HYUFD said:It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy
From the news reports I've seen its generally being reported as a win for George.
0 -
Mr. Isam, if, as many think, Reckless stands a very good chance of winning, the Conservatives may be seeing this as a no-lose test run for the approach. If it works, they may win, and if not, they wouldn't've anyway.0
-
Ugh Crosby's backisam said:
Are you the 2.5k laying 1.05 mike??MikeSmithson said:Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q
I can see the election campaign now - it is going to be vile.0 -
As i said earlier have managed to defer payment but have tried to oversell the achievement by the lie about halving the bill when it hasn't been reduced at all Will pay £850m and not receive £850m of our rebate. ie we pay £1.7bnMoses_ said:bigjohnowls said:
I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will seeMoses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
Perhaps? Personally I would have preferred to pay nothing further. Odd though that at least one EU finance Minister while stamping his little feet into the cameras stated that if Cameron does not pay on the 1st December he will pay on the 2nd?
Not going to happen though is it? As you say we will see ?0 -
0
-
All of the bills and rebates are worked out and paid in €, so it might be that the £785m is the same amount of Euros as the £850m but worked out with a different exchange rate by someone at some point in the analysis.Socrates said:
It sounds like the rebate is money that was already due to us. The BBC says £785m was:Moses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29956289
There's still a ~£100m to bridge the gap between £1.7bn - £785m and the £850m, so it's not quite clear where that's coming from.0 -
BBC including a clip of the Dutch Finance Minister saying there's been no discount. That's game over for George and Dave.0
-
Well knock me down with a feather. Politician accused of saying anything to get electedisam said:
Are you the 2.5k laying 1.05 mike??MikeSmithson said:Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q
'I'll Give You a Cast iron Guarantee'
'No Plans to raise VAT'
'Paying Down The Debt'
'No I didn't ride Rebekah's Horse'
'We've reduced the bill by half'
0 -
Totally O/t. Two men, (neither of them Asian), have been been found guilty of sexually exploiting "vulnerable" girls in Essex, making them engage in sexual acts in return for drugs and alcohol.
Quote from current BBC Essex page.
They're being sentenced "later".
Just saying.0 -
The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.
Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.0 -
Mr. Socrates, perhaps, perhaps not.
If someone's a sceptic they may view a foreign finance minister's words with suspicion.0 -
The PM has done a massive U turn in record time and he tries to cover it by a most stupid way.
0 -
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.OldKingCole said:
This has gone round and round. I'm not sure local voters will be fooled by Reckless's reckless opportunistic 180 deg swing in position.MikeSmithson said:Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q
IMHO he'd have a lot better to keep his gob shut on the matter during the by-election campaign.
Who was it who could believe two contrary things at the same time?
F. Scott Fitzgerald
0 -
The point never was that this behaviour is unique to Asian men, certainly I never said that. It was that the councils covered it up because it was Asian menOldKingCole said:Totally O/t. Two men, (neither of them Asian), have been been found guilty of sexually exploiting "vulnerable" girls in Essex, making them engage in sexual acts in return for drugs and alcohol.
Quote from current BBC Essex page.
They're being sentenced "later".
Just saying.0 -
No credible voice left that is saying we have halved the bill.
According to Sky0 -
Maybe another misjudgment from the Tories.antifrank said:The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.
Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.0 -
Sky quotes George ought to work for Tesco tweets0
-
Disgusting, hope they are put away for a long time.OldKingCole said:Totally O/t. Two men, (neither of them Asian), have been been found guilty of sexually exploiting "vulnerable" girls in Essex, making them engage in sexual acts in return for drugs and alcohol.
Quote from current BBC Essex page.
They're being sentenced "later".
Just saying.0 -
When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.0
-
Another torpedo to Richard Nabavi.Socrates said:BBC including a clip of the Dutch Finance Minister saying there's been no discount. That's game over for George and Dave.
3 EU finance ministers have now challenged Cameron's and Osborne's silly smoke and mirrors U turn:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2824783/Cameron-defiant-1-7bn-Euro-bill.html
"Irish finance minister Michael Noonan said he did not know the basis on which Mr Osborne made his calcuation, adding: "The instalments will be paid over a period of time. My understanding is that the UK will pay the whole amount, but there will be no penalties attached."
Dutch finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem said: "The UK has ... a rebate, which they have had for a very long time and of course this mechanism of rebate will also apply on the new contribution.
"So it's not as if the British have been given a discount today. The old mechanism of the rebate will also apply on the UK contribution, which will increase."
And Austria's Hans Joerg Schelling said: "Whether the money is to be paid in instalments or as a lump sum is a discussion we can have. But the amount cannot be put in question." "
0 -
Probably not. They're the only ones who can afford to do this. Given the known timetable of the general election, I expect that a lot of these will be released just before the dissolution of Parliament. That's how I'd do it anyway, if I were using these types of ads.AndyJS said:
Maybe another misjudgment from the Tories.antifrank said:The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.
Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.
0 -
Peter Bone claiming the Chancellor's got £850m "back for the British people". That's just an outright lie.0
-
Didn't you post this exact comment about 17 days ago?FrankBooth said:When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.
0 -
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 2h2 hours agobigjohnowls said:Sky quotes George ought to work for Tesco tweets
“@Number10gov: PM on £1.7bn EU bill: It’s been halved, it’s been delayed" <- Tesco accounting0 -
KentRising Indeed, yougov had it 41-40% for In before this row, 43-37% for Out after0
-
About 3 or 4 days ago actually. It wasn't exactly the same, but I just read Ganesh's column in the FT and Dan Hodges too, so I was minded to repeat the point.OblitusSumMe said:
Didn't you post this exact comment about 17 days ago?FrankBooth said:When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.
0 -
@ToryTreasury tweeted (someone posted it on the last thread) that it was totally separate from the normal rebate.Luckyguy1983 said:
We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.OblitusSumMe said:If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.
Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?
My best guess is that the EU with the £1.7bn number either (a) quoted the gross number or (b) applied the current rebate rather than the historical rebate.
IMV, this is a modest, but real, victory for Osborne, but he's overspun it as an Austerlitz-like triumph
The reality, however, is that the rabid Kippers won't believe anything that he or Cameron say. Most people will read the headlines and think that he's done a decent job in getting the bill halved.
And nothing will change in the end.0 -
Luckyguy1983/bigjohnowls Cameron and Osborne did the best they could, if some in the EU want to continue to put British voters' backs up that is their affair, the fastest growing nations in the EU are the UK and Sweden, both outside the euro, the EU needs the UK0
-
0
-
MikeSmithson said:
Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
Is it an 'attack' when it is pointed out that Mark Reckless was previously supporting building on the site and apparently is now against building on the site? He has the opportunity to say that when the facts change he changes his mind. But have the facts changed - are the nightingales no longer on the site?0 -
The BBC make it quite clear what smoke and mirrors it is in the content of their story, but they're being extraordinarily generous to the government in the headline and conclusion, saying "it depends on your point of view" whether paying exactly the same amount at a different time is a reduction or not. They're showing their Europhilia I think: trying to calm the growing euroscepticism of the country.
Sky, the FT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Times are not being so generous.0 -
Not true, according to the Treasury. Unlikely they would lie about an easily verifiable fact.bigjohnowls said:
As i said earlier have managed to defer payment but have tried to oversell the achievement by the lie about halving the bill when it hasn't been reduced at all Will pay £850m and not receive £850m of our rebate. ie we pay £1.7bnMoses_ said:bigjohnowls said:
I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will seeMoses_ said:ITV News
If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.
Indeed....
Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
Perhaps? Personally I would have preferred to pay nothing further. Odd though that at least one EU finance Minister while stamping his little feet into the cameras stated that if Cameron does not pay on the 1st December he will pay on the 2nd?
Not going to happen though is it? As you say we will see ?
@ToryTreasury: The rebate we have secured on the £1.7bn, reducing it to £850m, is totally separate from the normal rebate and will not reduce it in future0 -
I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.
1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.
2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.
3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.
So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.
However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.
Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.
It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.0 -
Disgraceful of the BBC. What a bunch of cowards they are. It's about time people on the left started calling them out on it.Socrates said:The BBC make it quite clear what smoke and mirrors it is in the content of their story, but they're being extraordinarily generous to the government in the headline and conclusion, saying "it depends on your point of view" whether paying exactly the same amount at a different time is a reduction or not. They're showing their Europhilia I think: trying to calm the growing euroscepticism of the country.
Sky, the FT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Times are not being so generous.0 -
Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.Charles said:
@ToryTreasury tweeted (someone posted it on the last thread) that it was totally separate from the normal rebate.Luckyguy1983 said:
We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.OblitusSumMe said:If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.
Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?
My best guess is that the EU with the £1.7bn number either (a) quoted the gross number or (b) applied the current rebate rather than the historical rebate.
IMV, this is a modest, but real, victory for Osborne, but he's overspun it as an Austerlitz-like triumph
The reality, however, is that the rabid Kippers won't believe anything that he or Cameron say. Most people will read the headlines and think that he's done a decent job in getting the bill halved.
And nothing will change in the end.0 -
More likely they are doing "before" and "after" private polling around it so use it as a test case for the campaignAndyJS said:
Maybe another misjudgment from the Tories.antifrank said:The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.
Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.0 -
No - it's the 29% they got last time plus the Red Liberals, allowing for some backwash. Or seepage if you prefer.FrankBooth said:When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.
Every policy seems to have been positioned to appeal to the Red Liberals rather than to reach out to a broader group, hence the issue he now has with UKIP0 -
But significant that a leading Conservative eurosceptic is happy with the arrangement even though little has changed apart from the delay in payment.Socrates said:Peter Bone claiming the Chancellor's got £850m "back for the British people". That's just an outright lie.
0 -
It looks more like Ed is pursuing a 28% strategy and doing well at getting there. The 35% strategy was communicated by Dan Hodges very early in Ed's Leadership and Dan has been very consistent about the future of Labour under Ed.FrankBooth said:When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.
0 -
This is the first time tonight that you have accepted that Cameron will pay the full amount and he's trying to mask it behind the rebate, which was Thatcher's victory not Osborne's.Richard_Nabavi said:I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.
1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.
2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.
3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.
So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.
However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.
Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.
It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.0 -
Is that Ed train tickets Conway ?bigjohnowls said:No credible voice left that is saying we have halved the bill.
According to Sky0 -
@Richard_Nabavi
The rebate being deducted off isn't the rebate off just this payment: it's obviously too high for that because the rebate is a lot less than half of our gross contribution. The rebate is €4 billion off a gross contribution of €17 billion. The rebate payment being deducted off it is part of the UK's general rebate payment off our overall contribution.0 -
Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.Speedy said:
Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.Charles said:
@ToryTreasury tweeted (someone posted it on the last thread) that it was totally separate from the normal rebate.Luckyguy1983 said:
We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.OblitusSumMe said:If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.
Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?
My best guess is that the EU with the £1.7bn number either (a) quoted the gross number or (b) applied the current rebate rather than the historical rebate.
IMV, this is a modest, but real, victory for Osborne, but he's overspun it as an Austerlitz-like triumph
The reality, however, is that the rabid Kippers won't believe anything that he or Cameron say. Most people will read the headlines and think that he's done a decent job in getting the bill halved.
And nothing will change in the end.
I think they are paying £850m too much.
But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.0 -
Consistently negative that is. Hodges is no Miliband insider, so who cares whether he has been coming up with some 35% theory. He's just another blogger in the right wing press.TCPoliticalBetting said:
It looks more like Ed is pursuing a 28% strategy and doing well at getting there. The 35% strategy was communicated by Dan Hodges very early in Ed's Leadership and Dan has been very consistent about the future of Labour under Ed.FrankBooth said:When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.
0 -
Are you working for Sainsbury's.bigjohnowls said:Sky quotes George ought to work for Tesco tweets
Osborne isn't fit to stack shelves.0 -
Reckless does have a history of doing the opposite what he promised the day before. Now most people can be a bit economical with the truth, but Reckless is more brazen than most. Or maybe he just forgets what he said a few days earlier? It could be a new disability?David_Evershed said:MikeSmithson said:
Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
Is it an 'attack' when it is pointed out that Mark Reckless was previously supporting building on the site and apparently is now against building on the site? He has the opportunity to say that when the facts change he changes his mind. But have the facts changed - are the nightingales no longer on the site?0 -
So in short, not a great victory for George after all.Richard_Nabavi said:I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.
1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.
2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.
3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.
So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.
However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.
Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.
It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.0 -
He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.Speedy said:This is the first time tonight that you have accepted that Cameron will pay the full amount and he's trying to mask it behind the rebate, which was Thatcher's victory not Osborne's.
0 -
I can quote @ToryTreasury again if you want. Are you saying that they are bare faced liars?Socrates said:@Richard_Nabavi
The rebate being deducted off isn't the rebate off this payment: it's obviously too high for that because the rebate is a lot less than half of our gross contribution. The rebate is €4 billion off a gross contribution of €17 billion. The rebate payment being deducted off it is part of the UK's general rebate payment off our overall contribution.
@ToryTreasury: The rebate we have secured on the £1.7bn, reducing it to £850m, is totally separate from the normal rebate and will not reduce it in future0 -
Ch4 seemed fairly even-handed but it's hard to see the rebate as anything other than an offset against the bill.Socrates said:The BBC make it quite clear what smoke and mirrors it is in the content of their story, but they're being extraordinarily generous to the government in the headline and conclusion, saying "it depends on your point of view" whether paying exactly the same amount at a different time is a reduction or not. They're showing their Europhilia I think: trying to calm the growing euroscepticism of the country.
Sky, the FT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Times are not being so generous.
That's how other EU Leaders evidently see it. No other Country is being asked for more, which would of course be the case if there was a genuine reduction in the UK bill. The rebate has always been there, available for us to use as we see fit. 'There's no question of the UK getting a discount', one said.
Well done George for getting the delay. That's worth having. Not sure though that there is any reduction other than in the most abstract sense.
0 -
Carswell on AQs tonight.0
-
Interesting spin
@hendopolis: MORNING STAR: Burnham foils Blairites coup #tomorrowspapersyoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/GkZE5JOxtQ0 -
Unusual change in allegiance — from SNP to LD:
"A FORMER SNP defence spokesman is to stand for the Liberal Democrats in a key city seat at next year’s Westminster elections.
Stuart Crawford, who spent nearly 20 years in the army, has been chosen as the candidate for Edinburgh South, one of the Lib Dems’ top target seats in the UK.
The 59-year-old former lieutenant colonel said he had quit the SNP after becoming less convinced of the case for independence."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/ex-snp-man-stuart-crawford-to-stand-for-lib-dems-1-34696680 -
Dunno about a 'great victory', but a distinct improvement on the £1.7bn previously said to be due in three weeks time, with punitive interest penalties if we didn't cough up.Jonathan said:So in short, not a great victory for George after all.
0 -
0
-
But isn't the rebate on the total net payments we make after all other subsidies we receive back have been deducted? Therefore the idea that any individual bill receives a specific rebate is false.Richard_Nabavi said:I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.
1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.
2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.
3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.
So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.
However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.
Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.
It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.
The rebate is calculated as approximately two-thirds of the amount by which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
Furthermore, I realise it has only once happened in our 41 years but what would happen if we didn't actually pay in more than we received out and there was no rebate? Where would the saving be then?0 -
He will pay the full amount 1.7 billion, he's trying to mask it with the rebate but doesn't fool anyone.Richard_Nabavi said:
He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.Speedy said:This is the first time tonight that you have accepted that Cameron will pay the full amount and he's trying to mask it behind the rebate, which was Thatcher's victory not Osborne's.
0 -
@Charles
The deal is due to be finalised later this month or next. On the phone from Brussels, a commission aide told me that Osborne will
‘pay first and then get the rebate.’
This implies that Osborne will, despite his protestations, pay the full £1.7 billion – albeit with a refund to follow shortly, which Britain was always likely to receive.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/about-that-eu-bill-heres-what-george-osborne-didnt-mention/0 -
I dont disagree that Cameron and Osborne did the best they could with deferring payment but the lie about halving the bill has unravelled, completely.HYUFD said:Luckyguy1983/bigjohnowls Cameron and Osborne did the best they could, if some in the EU want to continue to put British voters' backs up that is their affair, the fastest growing nations in the EU are the UK and Sweden, both outside the euro, the EU needs the UK
The electorate will not be fooled IMO0 -
I forgot to put a "just" in that post, which I now corrected.Charles said:
I can quote @ToryTreasury again if you want. Are you saying that they are bare faced liars?Socrates said:@Richard_Nabavi
The rebate being deducted off isn't the rebate off this payment: it's obviously too high for that because the rebate is a lot less than half of our gross contribution. The rebate is €4 billion off a gross contribution of €17 billion. The rebate payment being deducted off it is part of the UK's general rebate payment off our overall contribution.
@ToryTreasury: The rebate we have secured on the £1.7bn, reducing it to £850m, is totally separate from the normal rebate and will not reduce it in future0 -
There are cheerleaders of all parties on this site who claim victory for their side whatever happens.
There are also people here of no fixed political view who call things as they see them.
The second group of people have called this as a defeat for Osborne.
0 -
The ONLY posters who are siding with Osborne on this are the arch-Tory loyalists.another_richard said:There are cheerleaders of all parties on this site who claim victory for their side whatever happens.
There are also people here of no fixed political view who call things as they see them.
The second group of people have called this as a defeat for Osborne.0
? 
