Christmas comes early for UKIP

[Lucio]

The sub-text to this though is that they've included estimates off things like prostitution and drug dealing, and saying that means a country should pay more money. It sounds ludicrous that a country should owe more because it's not very good at getting crime under control.

I'm curious what UKIP's game is with this annoucement as well, making a statement that Cameron can't actually do anything to stop this seems to be acknowledging that he's in a bad position and can't get out of it directly. Best guess would be pushing for some form of UKIP/Tory coallition come the next election, particularly if UKIP look to be close to overtipping a Labour majority in certain seats and the Tory's agree not to contest them.

[HalloweenJack]

looks like the EU is campaigning for UKIP for the next election

[RobbieRoy]

The sub-text to this though is that they've included estimates off things like prostitution and drug dealing, and saying that means a country should pay more money. It sounds ludicrous that a country should owe more because it's not very good at getting crime under control.

Well, as the courts found some years ago, even if earnings are derived from an illegal activity (in that case it was living off the proceeds of prostitution) they are taxable. In other words, money is money, income is income and wealth is wealth no matter how it is generated and the state has a right to tax it on behalf of the people. It follows that it should be treated as such when you do the big sums of what the economic activity of a country is.

I don't understand why they're using 20 year old economic performance as a base line for calculating the money we contribute today - it seems completely bizarre. Surely the last fiscal year's figures would be a much better stick by which to gauge how much everyone contributes?

As far as I understand the 1995 base line is used because that is what the EU states wanted - in particular the UK government because they thought it reduce the amount to be paid. And anyway, as long as the same base line is used for everyone and is what everyone agreed, it can't really be quibbled with.

[Andy3536]

And anyway, as long as the same base line is used for everyone and is what everyone agreed, it can't really be quibbled with.

There was a conservative on the news this morning who said other states had ignored similar demands from the EU. Including Germany in 2003 who were handed a bill and didn't pay.
It does appear to be terrible timing for Cameron, i doubt Farrage and Wreckless will mind this bombshell one bit.

[RobbieRoy]

There was a conservative on the news this morning who said other states had ignored similar demands from the EU. Including Germany in 2003 who were handed a bill and didn't pay.
It does appear to be terrible timing for Cameron, i doubt Farrage and Wreckless will mind this bombshell one bit.

Again, too much noise and not enough fact. These sort of demands aren't exactly enforceable and have been ignored, sidestepped or delayed in the past - it underlines that this is a long established system which everyone in government will have known all. It says more about the Treasury than it does about the EU.

As for Cameron - his red faced press conference when he was trying to out-angry Farage clearly showed that he is fully willing and able to play to the UKIP/Tory gallery for party political reasons. Rather, he should act as a statesman on the international stage doing the right thing for his country, like calmly assess the situation and explain the approach he is going to take with it.

[MrComputerSaint]

God, I hate Nigel Farage, just when I see him on TV I can tell he's hiding / avoiding / or I just get the feeling he's really devious.

Although this bill of 1.7 Billion is only a suggestion, so it can be reduced. Plus, going off Wikipedia article the UKspending on defence was $57.9 Billion it doesn't seem *that much*

I too think that the press have reacted incorrectly here and giving Farage an opportunity of recent times.

[wasabi]

God, I hate Nigel Farage, just when I see him on TV I can tell he's hiding / avoiding / or I just get the feeling he's really devious.

Although this bill of 1.7 Billion is only a suggestion, so it can be reduced. Plus, going off Wikipedia article the UKspending on defence was $57.9 Billion it doesn't seem *that much*

.

Add it on top of the £8.6 billion we're already paying? What do WE in the UK get? Not much. Southern Europe get roads, the mafia get big road contracts, Guadeloupe gets a music festival, UK gets very little.

[Knoxville]

This worries me, not because of how much money we supposedly owe, but because it gives UKIP a way to get their foot a couple more inches into the door jam. They've already gone further towards being seen as viable candidates than I'd like. Flying the anti-Europe flag is just another way to garner more support from people that don't really understand the level of idiocy they're legitimising by even considering voting for them.

Throw in a generation of people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines, blaming immigrants for them not having jobs instead of their own poor work ethic and seem to be under the impression (based on the radio interviews I've heard today at any rate) that the EU is the reason we consistently undercut our own public services and all I see is an accident waiting to happen

[wasabi]

people that don't really understand the level of idiocy they're legitimising by even considering voting for them.

Throw in a generation of people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines, blaming immigrants for them not having jobs instead of their own poor work ethic and seem to be under the impression (based on the radio interviews I've heard today at any rate) that the EU is the reason we consistently undercut our own public services and all I see is an accident waiting to happen

Just a trashy ad hominem attack on those who are anti-EU. 'people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines'

If I said 'self-righteous trendy naive fools with a low IQ induced by headbanging who havn't paid any attention to political events beyond BBC brainwashing', that would be rude, but of a similar level of political debate. So please stop it.

[aidanjt]

This worries me, not because of how much money we supposedly owe, but because it gives UKIP a way to get their foot a couple more inches into the door jam. They've already gone further towards being seen as viable candidates than I'd like. Flying the anti-Europe flag is just another way to garner more support from people that don't really understand the level of idiocy they're legitimising by even considering voting for them.

Throw in a generation of people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines, blaming immigrants for them not having jobs instead of their own poor work ethic and seem to be under the impression (based on the radio interviews I've heard today at any rate) that the EU is the reason we consistently undercut our own public services and all I see is an accident waiting to happen

I'm sceptical of pretty much anything printed in the Daily Mail, and I'm also sceptical of the EU's competency, neoliberalism's efficacy for the common folk, and the long term health of the national and global economy with both of those imposed on any country. Care to generalise me?

[Saracen]

Just a trashy ad hominem attack .....

Or, perhaps, an assertoric judgement presented with a veneer of apodicticity.

[wasabi]

Or, perhaps, an assertoric judgement presented with a veneer of apodicticity.

True, but I did have to read some Aristotle before I had a clue what you were on about!

[Willzzz]

Otherwise known as making the rich pay more than the poor - there is no success/failure measure in here.

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

[kalniel]

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

That's up to the UK to decide. The EU doesn't tell member states how to raise their contributions.

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

I don't think the EU was set up to protect the poor. That's something the UK govt. should be able to do on it's own without assistance from the EU.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

So you would turn down an offer that's better for your own country, simply because another country would also benefit even more? That's cutting your nose off to spite your face. For starters, I don't think Germany is getting a better deal from the EU, but even if it were, so what? If there's a net benefit to the UK for being part of it then we shouldn't be so concerned about the other countries unless it's significantly affecting our benefit.

But that's a wider question of EU membership or not. This particular news story is about making sure the EU countries all measure their GDP in the same way, something we weren't doing before. Only then can you assess which countries are richer/poorer, and thus negotiate contributions.

[SeriousSam]

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

Crude it may be, but it still comes back to the Christian principle of giving according to your means in order to benefit the collective. That the collective in this case is really just a cabal of self interest masquerading as enlightened governance is just a fact of life.

[Saracen]

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

Agreed, but on the last sentence, there's another way of looking at this.

If all members of the EU are supposed to be treated by the same rules, and 'fairness' would suggest that they are, then those rules ought to be applied consistently, regardless of the wealth or poverty of the country. Other EU rules are supposed to deal with how EU funds are distributed, but we have rules on the expected contributions based on the state of the economy, and every country should be subject to an identical statistical basis for determining that. We all should be including the same things in the calculation, and assessing them in the same way.

But we haven't been.

And that's the issue.

It's like income tax, in this country. If your income tax included not just your wages from your primary job, but the income from the market stall you run on Saturday, but your next-door neighbour paid as you do on his main job, but wasn't taxed on his Saturday market stall income, you'd be .... irrirated. As hell. You'd expect that either he gets a back-dated tax bill to cover previous years he hadn't paid, or you got a refund of tax you'd overpaid. I'm sure nearly everyone would prefer the refund. But whatever else, you'd expect you both to be treated the same. So would I. How else is it 'fair'?

And that's essentially what this bill is. After a statistical reassessment, this is an attempt to measure all member state's economies in the same way, and to determine contributions or rebates consistently, and fairly.

And it just so happens that the UK gets a big bill. But why? Because, due to past inconsistencies, we've underpaid, by the rules we agreed to, in the past. If this recalculation had showed we'd overpaid in the past, I'll bet my left gonad that there'd be a huge clamour to get our overpayment back, and we'd be thoroughly annoyed if countries that had underpaid bitched about paying what they should have. Like Germany is.

If we were due money back, UKIP would be having a field day with it, and so would politicians from just about every other party from Lab/Tory, to Monster Raving Loony.

As many regulars will know, I'm no fan of the EU. At the very least, I'm grossly offended by our political elite signing us up to an EU we, the people, have never authorised. At an absolute minimum, I want a national debate, and a referendum. Either our membership has the mandate from the people, or it has NO democratic legitimacy. And, in such a debate, I believe a clear case can be made for exit, but while clear, whether it's better than the clear case for staying in remains to be seen. There are pro's and con's both ways, just like Scottish independence, and quite where the balance lies is far from a no-brainer.

But if we are in, and right now we are, the rules need to be fair and consistent to all, and we ought to abide by them. Even if others don't. And, by the way, the fact that some others regularly don't abide by the rules is one smallish point in the 'exit' column, come the referendum debate.

IMHO, the UK will end up paying this. Cameron has some justification in being angry about being ambushed with it, and about being given a bill and a due date in about 5 minutes, so can object to the timetable, but it's hard to see a coherent logic behind not paying our 'fair' share. We did, after all, sign up (apparently, though we, the people, weren't told) to the statistical review.