hat trainline in Athens you mentioned that we contribute tocosts 500m Euros a year to run. But takes in 100m Euros in ticket sales. Europe.... You couldn't make it up!!
Until I see details, then I think you will have made it up.
It is not difficult - what is there to persuade these countries that they need to control their spending - if all they do when they spend too much they just hand out the begging bowl and we have to pick up the tab (having reduced our own spending and not without a degree of pain doing so).
Agree with the points, but they don't address the question, which was what are the arguments for not supporting poorer countries?
That's really an argument for reining in the begging bowl culture. Isn't the extension of what you say 'if they check themselves, then we'll help if they need it and we can afford it' rather than 'we shouldn't ever support'?
The greater good is not served by making wealthier countries poorer but by making poorer countries wealthier and part of that is spending only what you can and not being saddled with large debt repayments.
This.
But does that absolutely preclude foreign aid because it will be better for us in the long-term?
Does this means the regions will be become self financing or will they be expecting top-ups or bailouts from elsewhere? The scenario has some similarities with what happened in the EU and all those bailouts.
Ideally, I would like to see the regions (NI especially since I am from there) be self financing. We have a ways to go before that is viable looking at our current crop of politicians but I would like to think it will one day be possible.
Ideally, I would like to see the regions (NI especially since I am from there) be self financing. We have a ways to go before that is viable looking at our current crop of politicians but I would like to think it will one day be possible.
Well unless they are the devolution you suggest is unworkable.
Agree with the points, but they don't address the question, which was what are the arguments for not supporting poorer countries?
That's really an argument for reining in the begging bowl culture. Isn't the extension of what you say 'if they check themselves, then we'll help if they need it and we can afford it' rather than 'we shouldn't ever support'?
Yes, but in this instance we have the EU which is profligate with the money paid to it and fights tooth and nail to keep the money it gets. A good example is CAP which basically means we produce food we don't need (an abhorrent thing when so much of the planet goes without decent food and water). But just watch the scream of horror from French farmers if you talk of some kind of reform. At least Cameron has got some reduction on the budget.
.
But does that absolutely preclude foreign aid because it will be better for us in the long-term?
I've always supported International Aid as helping countries become richer creates customers for our goods - however even here, some of the countries that need the most help, also have some of the most despotic and corrupt governments on the planet - which demonstrates the point. No point in helping these countries if their people still starve and the governments get even better limos and bigger palaces.
Why do we have to pay for France not restructuring their labour market? Their inflexible labour market is the reason they are still in decline, because they are unable to be competitive. but the French voters and trade unions refuse..so why can't they deal with ramifications of their uncompetitiveness? They vote for this. Why do we pat them on the head and go its ok, we'll pick up the tab?
And why cant the EU put demands on France to restructure x,y,z in their labour market before getting the rebate?
The demands for extra cash results from an EU recalculation of national incomes dating back to 1995 and taking into account recent changes in the rules to include economic activities such as prostitution and illegal drugs.
In that case, people in England need to suck it up and stop whinging as NI, Scotland and Wales will continue to be funded from Westminster.
So far none of those have tax raising powers which is what you are suggesting. If and when they get them significant changes will have to made to how they are currently funded.
People in England, afaik, aren't whinging about regional devolution. The issue here currently is EVEL.
Anyway this is off topic and Cameron has now told the EU their demand won't be met on 1 December though Santa will want to know soon if what they asked for in the letter he got from the EU is to be delivered.
David Cameron has no easy options when plotting his response to the demand for an extra £1.7billion from Brussels.
Crucially, just nine of the 28 states face bills for more money - the rest are in line for a rebate and will be less willing to give that up.
1. SCRAP IT
The first option will be to try to secure agreement among all EU leaders that the demand is unacceptable, and have it torn up. But it means persuading influential countries like France and Germany to give up extra money.
2. PAY AND CLAW IT BACK
The UK could try to secure political agreement to allow the charges to go ahead, but then claw the money back from contributions in the coming years.
3. GO TO COURT
Britain could take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The Dutch government has already suggested this route. Would delay the outcome until beyond the 2015 general election in the UK.
4. JUST DON'T PAY
The nuclear option, favoured by many Tory MPs: Simply refuse to pay. It is likely to mean legal proceedings against the UK, but would mean months if not years of wrangling. And Britain could only be fined around £240million, much less than is being demanded.
The UK has been told it must pay an extra £1.7bn (2.1bn euros) towards the European Union’s budget because the economy has performed better than expected in recent years.
Replace ‘UK’ with ‘worker’, slot in a different extremely high number, change ‘EU budget’ to ‘UK budget,’ and the system starts to resemble something quite similar to tax law in the UK.
The worker has been told it must pay an extra £1.7bn (2.1bn euros) towards the UK budget because the economy has performed better than expected in recent years.
What I don't get is that they review the statistics on a regular basis and sometimes we win a little and other times we lose a little. Now they have reviewed all the statistics back to 1995, in short a review of countless reviews. Whose bright idea was this and will they go on reviewing them infinitum ?
I didn't watch the whole press conference but whilst I was watching the two questions that the PM didn't answer both related to the same thing......
The UK is represented in all these committees and agrees to the rules under which these annual rebates/bills are decided.........so why has it come as such a surprise. We know the rules, we've been in those committees, we are represented
The UK treasury is involved in all these EU things........after all, we are actually members of the EU............
So I guess the answer to questions as to who changed the rules, who came up with this procedure, who worked out the figures.........the answer is 'we did'
I didn't watch the whole press conference but whilst I was watching the two questions that the PM didn't answer both related to the same thing......
The UK is represented in all these committees and agrees to the rules under which these annual rebates/bills are decided.........so why has it come as such a surprise. We know the rules, we've been in those committees, we are represented
The UK treasury is involved in all these EU things........after all, we are actually members of the EU............
So I guess the answer to questions as to who changed the rules, who came up with this procedure, who worked out the figures.........the answer is 'we did'
Well until you ascertain it is within the rules and was agreed to the answer is who knows.
I didn't watch the whole press conference but whilst I was watching the two questions that the PM didn't answer both related to the same thing......
The UK is represented in all these committees and agrees to the rules under which these annual rebates/bills are decided.........so why has it come as such a surprise. We know the rules, we've been in those committees, we are represented
The UK treasury is involved in all these EU things........after all, we are actually members of the EU............
So I guess the answer to questions as to who changed the rules, who came up with this procedure, who worked out the figures.........the answer is 'we did'
No...that will get blamed on Labour because they were in power for 13 of the years since 1995...but the performance of the UK economy triggering this will all be down to the Tories being in charge for 2 of them. ;-)
I agree, and unless the government actually gets stuck into this and ask for a root and branch audit of all the accounts of the EU, and not budge from that , we may just make it.
Cant they just sell the Strasbourg building to raise the money instead. How much is that worth? How much does trekking back an forth cost? Why are we pandering to French pride, it's such a waste of money.
Comments
Until I see details, then I think you will have made it up.
That's really an argument for reining in the begging bowl culture. Isn't the extension of what you say 'if they check themselves, then we'll help if they need it and we can afford it' rather than 'we shouldn't ever support'?
This.
But does that absolutely preclude foreign aid because it will be better for us in the long-term?
Ideally, I would like to see the regions (NI especially since I am from there) be self financing. We have a ways to go before that is viable looking at our current crop of politicians but I would like to think it will one day be possible.
Well unless they are the devolution you suggest is unworkable.
Yes, but in this instance we have the EU which is profligate with the money paid to it and fights tooth and nail to keep the money it gets. A good example is CAP which basically means we produce food we don't need (an abhorrent thing when so much of the planet goes without decent food and water). But just watch the scream of horror from French farmers if you talk of some kind of reform. At least Cameron has got some reduction on the budget.
I've always supported International Aid as helping countries become richer creates customers for our goods - however even here, some of the countries that need the most help, also have some of the most despotic and corrupt governments on the planet - which demonstrates the point. No point in helping these countries if their people still starve and the governments get even better limos and bigger palaces.
And why cant the EU put demands on France to restructure x,y,z in their labour market before getting the rebate?
It's the biggest nonsense ever.
In that case, people in England need to suck it up and stop whinging as NI, Scotland and Wales will continue to be funded from Westminster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18032721
So who decided to change these rules then?
So far none of those have tax raising powers which is what you are suggesting. If and when they get them significant changes will have to made to how they are currently funded.
People in England, afaik, aren't whinging about regional devolution. The issue here currently is EVEL.
Anyway this is off topic and Cameron has now told the EU their demand won't be met on 1 December though Santa will want to know soon if what they asked for in the letter he got from the EU is to be delivered.
Option 4 definitely.
It really is quite a joke that they come up with that.
The worker has been told it must pay an extra £1.7bn (2.1bn euros) towards the UK budget because the economy has performed better than expected in recent years.
It does bear a striking similarity to UK tax law
I didn't watch the whole press conference but whilst I was watching the two questions that the PM didn't answer both related to the same thing......
The UK is represented in all these committees and agrees to the rules under which these annual rebates/bills are decided.........so why has it come as such a surprise. We know the rules, we've been in those committees, we are represented
The UK treasury is involved in all these EU things........after all, we are actually members of the EU............
So I guess the answer to questions as to who changed the rules, who came up with this procedure, who worked out the figures.........the answer is 'we did'
Though qualified accounts tend not to be worth te paper they are written on
Yep, it turns into option 3 anyway if the EU then take legal proceedings.
Well until you ascertain it is within the rules and was agreed to the answer is who knows.
No...that will get blamed on Labour because they were in power for 13 of the years since 1995...but the performance of the UK economy triggering this will all be down to the Tories being in charge for 2 of them. ;-)
Bit of a cop out if he does that. Anything other than telling them where To go will not play well with voters.
Yep, meant option 4 which is p*** off.
I agree, and unless the government actually gets stuck into this and ask for a root and branch audit of all the accounts of the EU, and not budge from that , we may just make it.
In 2013 these pensions cost €1, 522,000,000 (€1.522 Billion)
From 2014 - 2020, the seven years currently budgetted, these pensions will cost €12,520,000,000 (€12.52 Billion)
Admin for 2014-2020, which includes the salaries, pensions and buildings, is €62,629,000,000 (€62.629 Billion)
The EU Budget for 2014-2020 is €1,025,000,000,000 (€1.025 Trillion)
I like the way it's rounded off to the nearest € Billion. No opportunity for fraud there....
From: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d0e5c248-4e35-450f-8e30-3472afbc7a7e.0011.02/DOC_3&format=PDF