UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to the EU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Firstly, wat.

---

I realised it was terrible after I had finished writing it but felt like I was committed to posting it at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Secondly I think he should go to prison for messing with gas without being properly trained.

---

That was his job! He just wasn't very good at it.

All jokes aside, it makes sense for the stronger nations of a union to help out the weaker ones. It's not as if we haven't had rebates or support from other countries due to the EU before, something about a 3 billion rebate rings a bell.

I find it odd you say it's a UKIP fan mentality to disagree with this amount when even Labour and the Liberal Democrats have condemned it too (not forgetting this is a Conservative government so why you're mentioning UKIP is beyond me). Labour and Lib Dems are either citing how hasty the demands are or how there are better things to spend £1.7bn and waste time talking about in Parliament. The Dutch have to pay more too and they're not happy either. The success of bailing themselves out is being overturned on the basis that it is only successful because of the EU when it's done well under its own steam, when extreme policy changes that are outside the EU ambit are mostly the reason.

Using UKIP as a means of argument is cheap, since you appear to be one versus the others. Not everyone votes UKIP :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I find it odd you say it's a UKIP fan mentality to disagree with this amount when even Labour and the Liberal Democrats have condemned it too (not forgetting this is a Conservative government so why you're mentioning UKIP is beyond me). Labour and Lib Dems are either citing how hasty the demands are or how there are better things to spend £1.7bn and waste time talking about in Parliament. The Dutch have to pay more too and they're not happy either. The success of bailing themselves out is being overturned on the basis that it is only successful because of the EU when it's done well under its own steam, when extreme policy changes that are outside the EU ambit are mostly the reason.

Using UKIP as a means of argument is cheap, since you appear to be one versus the others. Not everyone votes UKIP :/

---

Pardon? I never said it was an exclusive fan mentality of UKIP to disagree with this figure, I said it in regards to sharing and exaggerating this news to fit their agenda. Unless you're implying these two are identical then you are very much mistaken. Being 'cheap' doesn't make what I said any less true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

Your neighbour gets made redundant and buys an expensive sports car with the money he receives meanwhile you're some hotshot lawyer who happens to have just had a raise at work putting you into a higher tax bracket. A few weeks later a gas leak blows up your neighbours house taking the brand new sports car with it. The insurance is void because he fitted some of the pipes himself thus causing this disaster. Your neighbour tries to claim benefits so that he can feed himself meaning some of the money you earn will be given to this man from the taxes you pay. Now, you had tried warning him multiple times in the past saying that its silly to invest all of your money into depreciating assets, but he shrugged it off. So you think he shouldn't receive any of your tax money in his benefits due to his mistake?

Ah, but you think there should be a flat tax for citizens anyway so you don't really believe the prosperous should pay a higher percentage of their earnings. So there's clearly no point in us discussing this point. However I will say that this 'average british taxpayer' you keep bringing up will agree with me that the wealthy should pay more than the poor and it makes sense for this to function in the same way, Which is exactly the same in America. The Tax % States pay is reflective of their economic health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...venue_by_state

---

There's a difference between subsidies within a political state or nation and between a people than there are between nations themselves. I keep saying this, and it's true as you can see from the national reactions to the Euro crisis: people of a state with a demos (aka a people) generally don't mind paying subsidies to other poorer parts of their country because they feel one in the same, much like how a family operates. But they do mind being asked or told to pay for reckless strangers. Look at subsidies from West Germany to East Germany: accepted because Germany has a demos. Southern shires to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: accepted because there's such a thing as the British people. But wealth redistribution between EU nations? Not accepted because we feel are are separate. And as I say time and time again, that's why the EU cannot be democratic, cannot form into a political state and is doomed to fail.

In terms of taxation itself, I reckon success should be rewarded as much as possible and people should be allowed to keep as much as it possible and that failure shouldn't be rewarded. Correct. I mean if you really believed in subsidies between EU nations, the clever position for your hypothetical government to adopt would be to bargain: that Britain will bail these countries out provided they exit the Euro which is the monkey on their back. But again, nothing like that common sense from you or our political class: just a zombie-like attitude of handing it over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

No, Nowhere in my post did I say that I agree the EU should be able to demand money whenever they want?

---

So why not oppose this increase which punishes success and rewards failure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

The point of it was to show to you how bigger sums of money are being wasted elsewhere. Although I don't expect to see you making threads complaining about Oil Subsidies or tax breaks to huge corporations because **** the EU, right?

---

I oppose all subsidies to other nations/corporations as you very well know, although if we are going to pay subsidies I would much rather it be spent on the likes of oil (which has a use, aka keeping the lights on and keeping us warm) rather than hand it over to Brussels to spend on Czech sewers or French agricultural subsidies - or pissing it up the wall on renewables.

Interesting you linked the Guardian though, a newspaper which avoids tax itself yet which can't stop demanding higher taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

It's illogical and stupid to cut oil subsidies and use nearly a billion pounds of that money to fund the NHS or elsewhere? Pipe down Dan.

---

Uh, where has the NHS come into this from? I said cut foreign aid and useless renewables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

If we wish to remain in the EU then obviously we need to contribute to it like how any organisation works.

---

Indeed, and this simple truth is what will hopefully lead to our exit... the sooner the better. Because we will eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

I said it in regards to sharing and exaggerating this news to fit their agenda. Unless you're implying these two are identical then you are very much mistaken. Being 'cheap' doesn't make what I said any less true.

---

Telling the public a fact (that they want an extra 1.7bn by Dec 1st) is exaggerating the news? No, that is the news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So why not oppose this increase which punishes success and rewards failure?

---

Because the UK government agreed to this years ago /end of thread