UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to the EU

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

David Cameron is currently in Brussels meeting with other European leaders

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?

[Chippiewill]

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

[AgnesIO]

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.

[The Don]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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?

[The Don]

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.

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.

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.

^

£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

[Chippiewill]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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.

[The Don]

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Chippiewill]

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.