Jump to content

Cameron: UK won't pay £1.7bn EU bill


Recommended Posts

Posted

Cameron: UK won't pay £1.7bn EU bill

LONDON: -- David Cameron has angrily insisted the UK will not pay £1.7bn being demanded by the European Union.

"If people think I am paying that bill on 1 December, they have another think coming," the prime minister said in Brussels. "It is not going to happen."

But Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the demand should "not have come as a surprise" to the UK.

He said it was made under a system agreed by all the member states and based on data provided by them.

EU finance ministers have agreed to the UK's request for emergency talks about the top-up payment, which would add about a fifth to the UK's net EU contribution of £8.6bn for this year.

'Not acceptable'
Mr Cameron said he was "downright angry" and said the British public would find the "vast" sum "totally unacceptable".

"It is an unacceptable way for this organisation to work - to suddenly present a bill like this for such a vast sum of money with so little time to pay it," he said.

"It is an unacceptable way to treat a country which is one of the biggest contributors to the EU."

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29754168

bbclogo.jpg
-- BBC 2014-10-25

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

more bull it will be paid as always (maybe indirect but it will be paid)...the British Q gave up soverenty to the eu In the 70"s it is all over

  • Like 1
Posted

A ridiculous position, aimed at garnering support from the UKIP fraternaty.

He knows he has to pay it, I suppose its a bit like asking someone to pay a utility bill within a fixed time. But in order to really get this entitled ass to understand the point, its like having to pay your club membership fees.

Of course one rule for tory elites another for the plebs.

The bottom line is that the UK get more out of the EU than they put in. Right now the UK couldn't drop out even if they wanted to. There is a recession going on and they simply can't afford it.

coffee1.gif

  • Like 2
Posted

No countries in the world need any extra government it just adds to costs , ask the EU ministers to cut expenses we all know that will never happen, they just spend then tax, I hope UKip get in power .

I think your position in this matter is illinformed.

Economic Unions are interested in reducing trade barriers and elimating customs and excise costs to manufacturers and buyers of commerce, for imports and exports.

Sure there are inherent risks and costs associated with these cooperatives.

They need administration though and agreements to negotiate the different constitutions of various members.

Posted

A ridiculous position, aimed at garnering support from the UKIP fraternaty.

He knows he has to pay it, I suppose its a bit like asking someone to pay a utility bill within a fixed time. But in order to really get this entitled ass to understand the point, its like having to pay your club membership fees.

Of course one rule for tory elites another for the plebs.

The bottom line is that the UK get more out of the EU than they put in. Right now the UK couldn't drop out even if they wanted to. There is a recession going on and they simply can't afford it.

coffee1.gif

Right - Cameron's just a gasbag PR man.

None of what he says he will do is going to happen.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Nope won't pay on the 1st because it's a Saturday and he can't get to the bank. Will have to wait until Monday 3rd !

Not really but he will pay unfortunately.

Edited by MDS
Posted

No countries in the world need any extra government it just adds to costs , ask the EU ministers to cut expenses we all know that will never happen, they just spend then tax, I hope UKip get in power .

Exactly! That is why Scotland should have left the UK, get rid of that extra layer of government admin tongue.png

If Scotland had declared independence it would have lost the pound and therefore almost forced to adopt the EU - they would have added another layer and more of gov admin. You should study the EU structure to fully understand just how the EU has managed to bankrupt itself by uncontrolled spending and allowing certain member states, such as Spain and Greece to continue spending without any fiscal policy.

Maybe, but if Scotland was FORCED to use the EU right away - it would harm England almost as much as anything that would happen to Scotland - therefore rational minds would likely have worked out a transition period. Suddenly all that oil and gas that you would import would be the outflow of GBP into a foreign currency which would cause a dramatic change in the balance of inflow vs outflow.... so it would not be in the interest of England to force the premature move of Scotland to the EU as punishment. It would of course mean that an independent Scotland would still have to abide by strict monetary budget requirements while they were using the GBP. The colonies such as Canada and Australia really became independent in stages and although Canada was officially independent in 1867 it was not until just before 1939 that we were for all intents and purposes independent (which is why lobbying was required to make sure Canada entered WWII at the same time Britian did).

Posted

No countries in the world need any extra government it just adds to costs , ask the EU ministers to cut expenses we all know that will never happen, they just spend then tax, I hope UKip get in power .

1) How is the money (paid by Britain) used?

2) I would assume that different member nations of the EU contribute different amounts...how is that decided?

Posted

No countries in the world need any extra government it just adds to costs , ask the EU ministers to cut expenses we all know that will never happen, they just spend then tax, I hope UKip get in power .

Exactly! That is why Scotland should have left the UK, get rid of that extra layer of government admin tongue.png

Thankfully, the majority of Scots are intelligent enough to realize the benefits of the Union, and helping keep it strong, far outweigh the benefits of leaving.

How many layers of government exist in Canada? Maybe Quebec should consider another referendum based on your simple criteria?

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

He obviously has a temporary loan of someones balls............... tnere is no way he has grown a set of his own

Sadly, only the appearance of having some balls. Look at the specific words he has chosen:

"If people think I am paying that bill on 1 December, they have another think coming," the prime minister said in Brussels. "It is not going to happen".

"It is an unacceptable way for this organisation to work - to suddenly present a bill like this for such a vast sum of money with so little time to pay it,"

Not going to be paid on December 1st and unacceptable to have a big bill with little time to pay.

He will posture and stamp his feet for a while and then give in.

The good news is, by giving in and paying, he's limited chances of being PM again are screwed. And a massive bonus for UKIP, the sort of promotion that money couldn't buy.

The sad thing about that last sentence is that money did buy it. The UK taxpayer gets shafted again.

And Germany gets a rebate? <deleted>!

Edited by metisdead
  • Like 1
Posted

A ridiculous position, aimed at garnering support from the UKIP fraternaty.

He knows he has to pay it, I suppose its a bit like asking someone to pay a utility bill within a fixed time. But in order to really get this entitled ass to understand the point, its like having to pay your club membership fees.

Of course one rule for tory elites another for the plebs.

The bottom line is that the UK get more out of the EU than they put in. Right now the UK couldn't drop out even if they wanted to. There is a recession going on and they simply can't afford it.

coffee1.gif

You are talking complete crud.

The UK can cancel membership any time they want to, it is as simple as that, because we have a sovereign right to leave.

The UK does NOT get more out of the EU than they put in, they probably get the least compared with everyone else. The British have paid in probably hundreds of billions over the years.

France is the country that does the best from the EU... The EU has been pretty much run by France and Germany since the eighties.

Stay away from politics because your post basically screams that you know nothing about European politics, so you should not really be commenting on something you know nowt about.

That is why I don't comment on the motoring forums, I know nothing about it.

  • Like 2
Posted

No countries in the world need any extra government it just adds to costs , ask the EU ministers to cut expenses we all know that will never happen, they just spend then tax, I hope UKip get in power .

Exactly! That is why Scotland should have left the UK, get rid of that extra layer of government admin tongue.png

Thankfully, the majority of Scots are intelligent enough to realize the benefits of the Union, and helping keep it strong, far outweigh the benefits of leaving.

How many layers of government exist in Canada? Maybe Quebec should consider another referendum based on your simple criteria?

You seem to think I am afraid of the inevitable. Everytime they hold a referendum it gets closer to that threshold, in and the politics of fear of separation becomes less and less. Quebec wants to govern itself with powers closer to the people, the English speaking (majority) provinces meanwhile don't want to go as far - and they don't want other provinces getting what they don't want anyways -- every province to be treated the same. So yes, there is an inevitability (IMHO) that eventually they will vote for separation and then the rest of Canada will have to come back to the table and negotiate some middle ground for the sake of the economy (to minimize the economic risks). If the majority of Quebecois want to leave - then that is what the future holds. The majority of Scots want "max devolution" which is basically full country powers without the risks of economic dislocation. It is what the balance have more or less stated on exit polls, it is what they believe was promised to them and failure there will eventually bring them back to the polls again ... maybe in 15 years or so. I find it sort of ironic that English are stating two completely different things - separation is wrong when it is Scotland - but right if it is the UK visa vie the EU.

Posted

Clearly you are spoiling for an arguement.

1. It's not my system.

2. I have made no comments about the rest of the union

3. I have no interest in whether the UK remains a member.

This is a simple explaination of how it works.

The UK manufacture sweet FA.

It's reliant on imports for most of its consumption

The majority of the working public earn considerably less than they used to, to buy what they need and want.

The government pays their membership levies and offset these costs via taxes passed on to consumers.

Leaving the EU will mean an increase in various trade costs, which would be passed onto the consumer. The costs of imports would rise.

They will buy less as they have less money to spend as costs rise.

Buying less means companies in the UK selling less, leading to unemployment and failing businesses. So the EU remains an important and I agree heavily flawed system essential to the UKs interests.

Sure it's a simple explaination but none the less true.

BTW I don't give a tinkers doodle whether this happens or not. I am Australian.

  • Like 2
Posted

Things you know nothing about seems to be a large range of topics. In case you missed the story it's related to economics not politics. I work for a respected economics research department in Thailand. I think that gives me something of a legitimate platform from which to comment.

As I said earlier, benefits through reduced trade tariffs are larger than costs of membership.

If it was in the interests of the UK to leave, and it was so easy to leave, why remain?

No one is holding a gun to their heads.

"...respected economics research department in Thailand."

Respected by who? Thailand isn't exactly famous for garnering respect.

"If it was in the interests of the UK to leave, and it was so easy to leave, why remain?"

Ask the average man/woman on the street and you'll probably find the majority want to leave. Politicians? Not a chance. They have too many friends suckling on the fat beast that is the EU.

Money dictates the motives and actions of those in power. They usually only bend to the will of the people if it suits their needs or the repercussions of disobedience threatens their livelihood.

  • Like 1
Posted

A ridiculous position, aimed at garnering support from the UKIP fraternaty.

He knows he has to pay it, I suppose its a bit like asking someone to pay a utility bill within a fixed time. But in order to really get this entitled ass to understand the point, its like having to pay your club membership fees.

Of course one rule for tory elites another for the plebs.

The bottom line is that the UK get more out of the EU than they put in. Right now the UK couldn't drop out even if they wanted to. There is a recession going on and they simply can't afford it.

coffee1.gif

You are talking complete crud.

The UK can cancel membership any time they want to, it is as simple as that, because we have a sovereign right to leave.

The UK does NOT get more out of the EU than they put in, they probably get the least compared with everyone else. The British have paid in probably hundreds of billions over the years.

France is the country that does the best from the EU... The EU has been pretty much run by France and Germany since the eighties.

Stay away from politics because your post basically screams that you know nothing about European politics, so you should not really be commenting on something you know nowt about.

That is why I don't comment on the motoring forums, I know nothing about it.

Things you know nothing about seems to be a large range of topics. In case you missed the story it's related to economics not politics. I work for a respected economics research department in Thailand. I think that gives me something of a legitimate platform from which to comment.

As I said earlier, benefits through reduced trade tariffs are larger than costs of membership.

If it was in the interests of the UK to leave, and it was so easy to leave, why remain?

No one is holding a gun to their heads.

Stick to commenting on the Daily Mail stories it's clearly more your cup of tea.

OK Mr 'supposedly' economic expert.

Which EU country is the biggest market for imported EU products and then explain the ramifications of being that country under your 'trade tariff' system.

But that aside.... It is not only about tariffs, it is about immigration open door policy, it is about 75% of Britain's laws being made in Brussels by an unelected commission, it is about the EU trying to pull the UK into a federal superstate, it is about the antidemocratic stance of the EU over failed states they have been forced to bail out.

No democracy in Greece any more, and they even told Ireland to suspend its democracy.

I don't want the EUand the sooner we get out the better.... All trade agreements can still stand between the UK and the EU. We won't be frozen out, we are too valuable as a market.

If the rest of your post is as ignorant as 'they even told Ireland to suspend its democracy.', then you don't know what you're writing about.

Manbing is completely right about the economic benefits for trade of being in the EU and I applaud the EU for having an upper house that can challenge any stupid laws passed by individual country's politicians.

I'll go further, Instead of constant complaining about the EU, if only the UK had stood up to be counted and not allowed Germany & France to be the real power in the EU, the UK would have had a lot more influence on decision making. It's nothing but sour grapes with the previously defeated Germans now the top dog.

  • Like 1
Posted

I thought the issue was that Britain has had to restate it's GDP figures because the treasury can't count.

Those figures fed into the calculation of the UK's payments into the EU.

All that's happened is the EU recalculated the UK payment for the last 11 years in line with the new figures and worked out the amount owed.

The UK government might have a point in relation to the deadline, but it's the Treasury that couldn't get it's sums right, so shouldn't there be some civil servant somewhere getting sacked for this.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...