UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-recovery.html

UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to EU

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...88cf26333d.jpg
David Cameron is currently in Brussels meeting with other European leaders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC (state) News

The UK has been told it must pay an extra £1.7bn (2.1bn euros) towards the European Union's budget because of the country's relative economic health.

The additional payment is a result of new calculations by the EU, which determines how much each member state should contribute based on gross national incomes.

It would add about a fifth to the UK's annual net contribution of £8.6bn.

It comes at a time of increased pressure on David Cameron over Europe.

The recent success of the euro-sceptic UK Independence Party in by-elections has prompted renewed calls for the prime minister to renegotiate the terms of the UK's relationship with Europe.

The BBC's political correspondent Ben Wright in Brussels says the demand for more cash has infuriated the government and will rile many backbench Tory MPs.

Mr Cameron is currently meeting other EU leaders for a summit in Brussels.

A government source said: "It's not acceptable to just change the fees for previous years and demand them back at a moment's notice.

"The European Commission was not expecting this money and does not need this money and we will work with other countries similarly affected to do all we can to challenge this."

'Harms EU relationship'

The additional payment was requested after the European Commission's statistics agency, Eurostat, reviewed the economic performances of member states since 1995, and readjusted the contributions made by each state over the last four years - based on their pace of growth.

Under the new calculations, the UK and the Netherlands are both being asked to pay more, while France and Germany are both set to receive rebates.

The additional payment is due on 1 December.

Mr Cameron is meeting his Dutch counterpart, Mark Rutte, to discuss how they might challenge the surcharges.

---

Not surpising that the Brussels leech demands another pintful. Stand by for Cameron, Clegg and the useless Labour 'opposition' to make a lot of noise in public but to quietly fall over themselves in handing the money over to this greedy, wasteful organisation.

That said, the timing couldn't have been better just prior to the 20th November.

Thoughts?

Considering our relative economic health is derived from not being in the eurozone that's surely a case for us paying less.

If Cameron outright refuses this he will probably prevent UKIP from the Rochester seat. If he bails, he has just awarded seat number 2 to UKIP.

Big whoop. France and Italy both pay nearly double what we do whilst our GDP is pretty much the same as Frances, and above Italy's. This 1.7 Billion is also a total of a 0.07%, hardly anything. Oh wait, that's actually the percentage when the Billion is in £ and the GDP is in $. It's actually 0.04% of our GDP. Absolute pittance. Of course that doesn't stop the likes of Dan and all the other UKIP supporters from attempting to rile up the public with this 'huge' figure when in reality it's a tiny amount. I'm expecting a "it's not the size but the principle" comment from Dan, so i'll respond to that now. That's absolutely irrelevant, yes it's the principle of the matter to you and those that want out of the EU. The masses that you are attempting to trick with this figure don't actually care about us being in the EU unless it directly affects them and this 0.04% reduction will not, but they think it will of course because 1.7 billion sounds like a huge scary number when in reality it pales in size to our actually GDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

Big whoop. France and Italy both pay nearly double what we do whilst our GDP is pretty much the same as Frances, and above Italy. This 1.7 Billion is also a total of a 0.07%, hardly anything. Oh wait, that's actually the percentage when the Billion is in £ and the GDP is in $. It's actually 0.04% of our GDP. Absolute pittance. Of course that doesn't stop the likes of Dan and all the other UKIP supporters from attempting to rile up the public with this 'huge' figure when in reality it's a tiny amount. I'm expecting a "it's not the size but the principle" comment from Dan, so i'll respond to that now. That's absolutely irrelevant, yes it's the principle of the matter to you and those that want out of the EU. The masses that you are attempting to trick with this figure don't actually care about us being in the EU unless it directly affects them and this 0.04% reduction will not, but they think it will of course because 1.7 billion sounds like a huge scary number when in reality it pales in size to our actually GDP.

---

Well absolutely, why not pay more - we can afford it?

I knew you'd rollover like a dog in your comment with this, and rather than attempt to strengthen your position by backing the EU generally but criticising it over this issue for charging Britain more cash when Britain has performed better than the Eurozone - instead you've flunked it, you've gone with the absurd position and unpopular position that British taxpayers should just hand over cash to Brussels whenever it demands.

A poor decision on your part, although I do wish more of our politicians would be honest and advocate exactly what you just have: that we should throw billions more at the EU because it'd make the process of getting out of it much much easier. So keep this up, it's a blessing for my side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

but they think it will of course because 1.7 billion sounds like a huge scary number when in reality it pales in size to our actually GDP.

---

£1.7bn is a big number when essential services are being cut and people are struggling.

I'd cut the entire EU budget and foreign aid budget, and that'd be £20bn+ saved right there on day one. Imagine the tax cuts we could enact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

The masses that you are attempting to trick with this figure

---

We're not tricking anyone - I don't think the EU should get an extra 1.7bn, you do. Crying to me that it's not fair that it's being portrayed as greedy Brussels (when that's exactly what they're doing) isn't my fault as I want out. It's your job to defend & justify it... and good luck with that.

Let the masses make up their minds on that one... can't see them siding with you though, can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Well absolutely, why not pay more - we can afford it?

I knew you'd rollover like a dog in your comment with this, and rather than attempt to strengthen your position by backing the EU generally but criticising it over this issue for charging Britain more cash when Britain has performed better than the Eurozone

---

That tends to be how taxes work... Those that earn more put more into the kitty.

Quote:

---

instead you've flunked it, you've gone with the absurd position and unpopular position that British taxpayers should just hand over cash to Brussels whenever it demands.

---

Nope. You really do have a terrible reading comprehension.

Quote:

---

A poor decision on your part, although I do wish more of our politicians would be honest and advocate exactly what you just have: that we should throw billions more at the EU because it'd make the process of getting out of it much much easier. So keep this up, it's a blessing for my side.

---

^

Quote:

---

£1.7bn is a big number when essential services are being cut and people are struggling.

I'd cut the entire EU budget and foreign aid budget, and that'd be £20bn+ saved right there on day one. Imagine the tax cuts we could enact.

---

No, 0.04% of our GDP is not a big number in context. Removing oil subsidies would cover this increase and leave us with just under another billion to play with.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...s-green-energy

It would make far more sense to represent the cost as a percentage of deficit than GDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

That tends to be how taxes work... Those that earn more put more into the kitty.

---

So because France, Germany and the rest of the EU all signed up to the disasterous Euro which my side said would be a disaster all along and which Britain luckily - thanks to Business for Sterling, the Tory and Labour backbenchers & Ukip - didn't join, Britain should therefore pay and subsidise the stupid mistakes they all made and continue to make? Again, please try and justify this to the British taxpayer I dare you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

Nope. You really do have a terrible reading comprehension.

---

That's exactly what you've done. You can't even bring yourself to criticise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

No, 0.04% of our GDP is not a big number in context. Removing oil subsidies would cover this increase and leave us with just under another billion to play with.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...s-green-energy

---

Uh, why would we remove subsidies to our own country/our own industry to subsidise France, Germany and the EU?

Do you know how illogical and stupid that is? As it happens though now that you mention subsidies as another area to cut, absolutely right I would cut oil subsidies too on top of foreign aid & the EU budget.. as well as green subsidies, quango budgets and useless government departments.

A lot of savings to be made all over the house.. but you don't start making those savings by coughing up even more to Brussels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So because France, Germany and the rest of the EU all signed up to the disasterous Euro which my side said would be a disaster all along and which Britain luckily - thanks to Business for Sterling, the Tory and Labour backbenchers & Ukip - didn't join, Britain should therefore pay and subsidise the stupid mistakes they all made and continue to make? Again, please try and justify this to the British taxpayer I dare you.

---

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

Quote:

---

That's exactly what you've done. You can't even bring yourself to criticise it.

---

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

Quote:

---

Uh, why would we remove subsidies to our own country/our own industry to subsidise France, Germany and the EU?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Do you know how illogical and stupid that is? As it happens though now that you mention subsidies as another area to cut, absolutely right I would cut oil subsidies too on top of foreign aid & the EU budget.. as well as green subsidies, quango budgets and useless government departments.

---

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.

Quote:

---

A lot of savings to be made all over the house.. but you don't start making those savings by coughing up even more to Brussels.

---

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

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?

---

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

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