France's economy minister tells Britain - 'We want our money back'

[tomacht8]

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

Because we were given the opportunity to decide whether we wanted to be part of the EU or not, the UK decided it would be better to leave this dysfunctional marriage, and a divorce was the only answer. We were hoping to divorce without still paying the mortgage or even leave without still having one foot in the door.

The other net payers must make their own decision, but the problem is their governments seem a little reluctant to offer their citizens a vote on it, I wonder why?

But I hope all goes well for both sides, I have spent many happy times in European countrys, Germany and France (and of course many more) they are amazing countrys to holiday in, I speak reasonable German and French, but I and many more don't want to be joined at the hip to them. 

Understand.

But why it is a dysfunctional marriage?

The UK has nevertheless profited very well in the standard of living. The uk is located at one of the top places of the EU with one of the highest income per inhabitant in the whole EU.

[sandrabbit]

7 minutes ago, Flustered said:

I will not bother you as you are beyond help. You simply do not have a clue how Government finances work.

 

Although there is notionally a separate fund for pensions paid for out of N.I contributions, there are years where the "fund" is insufficient to pay the pension bill and then this "fund" is topped up by money from general taxation. In the good years surplus money is invested in Gilts ( the Government actually borrowing the money for other uses),. So, and we come to the nub of it, While I have been paying N.I contributions all of my working life, some of my contributions have gone into these Gilts so that my pension is part paid for by myself and others of my age group as well as tax that we pay when the N.I contributions are insufficient.

 

Bottom line is that when there is not enough money in the pot, the Government use money from the general funds of the Exchequer.

 

In 2016/7 it is estimated that some  £125 billion was collected from N.I, and some £91.6 billion spent on pensions. As parts of the NHS are funded direct from N.I contributions this means that money has to be paid from the "fund" to top up the pension payments, money that I and others have paid in.

 

The crisis that we are heading towards is that with a growing population, there are more and more pensioners and not enough N.I money collected to pay them so money is drawn from the "fund".

 

The vicious circle is that if we allow more immigration, then there will be more pensioners down the line and even more immigration required to provide workers for new jobs that do not yet exist to pay for the pensions.

 

I know it is a hard subject to follow but please try.

 

You may want to read this document.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

 

 

 

The thing is NI doesn't contribute to anybodies pensions it's just a tax. It has been for years and successive governments have been looking for ways to combine the taxes without frightening the population so they've all backed off. Same as car tax doesn't pay for the roads infrastructure.

[observer90210]

1 hour ago, chezy86 said:

. And well before that the Romans (Italians) conquered Britain Emperor Claudius in AD48 and plundered her assets for hundreds of years and that's why I would never buy a Fiat or an Alfa Romeo not because their crap .
Sorry well into my bottle of JD now I'm drifting.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Agree...I would definately rather consider a nice  Aston Martin, that is once the pound reaches similar value as the dollar, which it most probably will

[Flustered]

 

5 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

The thing is NI doesn't contribute to anybodies pensions it's just a tax. It has been for years and successive governments have been looking for ways to combine the taxes without frightening the population so they've all backed off. Same as car tax doesn't pay for the roads infrastructure.

N.I contributions can only be spent on pensions and parts of the NHS. The various governments get round this by paying any surplus into an imaginary "fund" by buying gilts. In other words, they borrow the money for other purposes.

 

I know it is all creative accounting but they try to hide this fact.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Flustered

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

8 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Britain will pay a high price for the stupid ideas of some outdated elderly, who lost their way to the nursing home. The young unfortunately will pay because the elderly and old won't be alive.

Most of the young probably want to remain in the EU simply because it simplifies their travel arrangements. Some of course for perceived job opportunities, although the fact that there are three million EU nationals living in Britain and only one million Brits living in the EU tells a story .

 

Most of us fed it when we first joined this discussion. Then we wised up .

[vogie]

11 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Understand.

But why it is a dysfunctional marriage?

The UK has nevertheless profited very well in the standard of living. The uk is located at one of the top places of the EU with one of the highest income per inhabitant in the whole EU.

There are so many reasons, but what started off as trading partners was turning into been told what we could do in our own country, who we allowed in, who we could not eject. Britain was losing its identity, and dispite all the posters on here that lambast their own country, most Brits are a proud race. I feel ashamed when somebody disrespects their country of birth, would you ever do this?

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Maybe if they measured it by the amount of wooden clogs people own, the Dutch would come out top?

 

How about the average holiday spend per capita, or some such? After all, I'm sure the bottom line contribution figure for each country is of no interest to the EU .

[vogie]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

How about the average holiday spend per capita, or some such? After all, I'm sure the bottom line contribution figure for each country is of no interest to the EU .

The argument was a non starter from the beginning, it's all about how much your country pays, or in a lot of cases how much your country receives. The EU are turning us all into communists, all people are equal, but some are just more equal than others.

[elliss]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

A deal is a deal.  If UK went in on an agreement, then it should honor that agreement.  Dragging up stuff from 70 yrs ago is not helpful.  

 

    Truth is  Britain is  bankrupt ,  we have a massive debt crisis .

    What  British owned ,  manufacturing companies , if any do  the  UK have ,

     GB is well and truely ,   fdk .

Edited July 20, 2017 by elliss

[tomacht8]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

There are so many reasons, but what started off as trading partners was turning into been told what we could do in our own country, who we allowed in, who we could not eject. Britain was losing its identity, and dispite all the posters on here that lambast their own country, most Brits are a proud race. I feel ashamed when somebody disrespects their country of birth, would you ever do this?

First Brits are not a race.

But I understand your argument.

Too much influx of foreign people.

This is a problem which affects all EU countries. It is therefore not an economic problem, but a problem of immigration that the eu as well as the individual states can not solve properly.

I have no problem with the free movement of people from the eu member states.  But the mass of economic refugees from Africa and non-functioning Muslim countries, the eu can not take definitiy unlimited in. 

Whether a brexit is the right answer, I have my doubts. Many europeans have the snout full of this unregulated invasion. 

[Lowryder]

3 hours ago, chezy86 said:

And you don't think Britain would do the same? They import more than they export to the EU a lot more bring it on .


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Of Course they import  more, but they are 27 countries so individually it's not that much.  At home I can't find much made in U.K. Have 6 Bowers&Wilkins speakers but 4 of them are made in China. 

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

First Brits are not a race.

But I understand your argument.

Too much influx of foreign people.

This is a problem which affects all EU countries. It is therefore not an economic problem, but a problem of immigration that the eu as well as the individual states can not solve properly.

I have no problem with the free movement of people from the eu member states.  But the mass of economic refugees from Africa and non-functioning Muslim countries, the eu can not take definitiy unlimited in. 

Whether a brexit is the right answer, I have my doubts. Many europeans have the snout full of this unregulated invasion. 

Good post, I fully agree. I did write more but realised we are going slightly off topic, good luck.

 

[Lowryder]

3 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Most of the young probably want to remain in the EU simply because it simplifies their travel arrangements. Some of course for perceived job opportunities, although the fact that there are three million EU nationals living in Britain and only one million Brits living in the EU tells a story .

It would maybe tell a story if it wasn't more than ten times the UK population living in the rest of EU. I believe most people coming to UK arrive from eastern Europe? Maybe it's even more bad in Poland/Lithuania/Latvia? They have bad teeth in eastern Europe as well so UK mig feel almost as home for them. 

[Caps]

44 minutes ago, Lowryder said:

It would maybe tell a story if it wasn't more than ten times the UK population living in the rest of EU. I believe most people coming to UK arrive from eastern Europe? Maybe it's even more bad in Poland/Lithuania/Latvia? They have bad teeth in eastern Europe as well so UK mig feel almost as home for them. 

Yes you are so correct, it does tell a story, what does teeth have to do with France wanting its money?  Especially when someone trying to Troll can not even string the sentence together correctly.  Thank you for your well defined input 

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, Lowryder said:

It would maybe tell a story if it wasn't more than ten times the UK population living in the rest of EU. I believe most people coming to UK arrive from eastern Europe? Maybe it's even more bad in Poland/Lithuania/Latvia? They have bad teeth in eastern Europe as well so UK mig feel almost as home for them. 

[chezy86]

 
    Truth is  Britain is  bankrupt ,  we have a massive debt crisis .
    What  British owned ,  manufacturing companies , if any do  the  UK have ,
     GB is well and truely ,   fdk .

If that's the case why is a third of Eastern Europe working there?. If there is no manufacturing what are they doing?. I've just retired from a UK manufacturer that's been in business for over 30 years and is thriving. Business has never been so good surely it can't just be one company in the U.K. or were we an anomaly?.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nontabury]

On July 20, 2017 at 10:06 AM, janclaes47 said:

That is because they were fed wrong information before the referendum lol

Would that be the 1975 referendum?

[nontabury]

23 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

I suggest you  study your own history. It is infuriating when  Americans carry on about how they saved Europe in WWII and it is just as infuriating when one must read similar claims from the English who are oblivious to the  fact that their victories were very much dependent upon the sacrifice of volunteers from its exploited colonies.

 

Australia and Canada: It's as if these  2 countries  didn't suffer 80,000+ military deaths. Or that  tiny New Zealand's 11,700 or India's  87,000 deaths served no purpose. The 400,000 US deaths were what, a misadventure?

By the time June 6, 1944 arrived,  Great Britain was being supported by the blood and sacrifice of Commonwealth forces, tens of thousands who died in the air keeping Great Britain safe. Are you even aware that  bomber command  existed because of the presence of Australian, New Zealand, South African and Canadian air crews?  17,000 Canadians died in the air, the vast majority of whom were in bomber command or stationed in England defending England. Maybe Canada and Australia should demand compensation from Great Britain for the successive cock ups in Hong Kong and Singapore?

 

No you didn't. You can thank the volunteers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other "Dominions" for that. The two decisive  battles that  changed the course of the war were Amiens and the 2nd  Battle of the Somme. At Amiens, the Australian Corps and Canadian Corps delivered decisive thrusts against the Germans. Combined with British and French attacks and supported by  the  Americans, the Germans were  decimated. 

At the 2nd battle of the Somme the heroic Australian Corps crossed the Somme and pushed the Germans back to the Hindenburg line. The New Zealand units  made decisive  captures. The Australian victory terrified  German's remaining allies and they started  suing for peace.

 

 Yes,  great Britain played a key role and the world owes heroes  Sir Winston and   Sir Arthur Harris an infinite debt of gratitude, and must never forget the suffering and damage incurred by Great Britain   but this does not  justify the two above awful claims.

 

Very true. Now let's depart this corrupt so called Union,and embrace the whole world,especially our commonwealth brothers.

[bert bloggs]

20 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Britain will pay a high price for the stupid ideas of some outdated elderly, who lost their way to the nursing home. The young unfortunately will pay because the elderly and old won't be alive.

The outdated elderly as you call us ,paid in all our lives ,unlike todays snowflakes that have contributed nothing , so those who PAID the piper call the tune , when you have paid in for 44 years then you can call it .

[Golgota]

Am I the only 1 who actually read the article?

 

"We can always debate on the amount but on the fact that the United Kingdom must pay what it owes to the budget of the European Union, it is a non-negotiable prerequisite at the start of the (Brexit) discussions," 

 

I know the citizen of UK like to hate the french and hate to like them, but I think the french minister spoke in the name of the whole EU, not only France...but as it came from a french guy it may have tickled some UK nerves 

[sandrabbit]

49 minutes ago, Golgota said:

Am I the only 1 who actually read the article?

 

"We can always debate on the amount but on the fact that the United Kingdom must pay what it owes to the budget of the European Union, it is a non-negotiable prerequisite at the start of the (Brexit) discussions," 

 

I know the citizen of UK like to hate the french and hate to like them, but I think the french minister spoke in the name of the whole EU, not only France...but as it came from a french guy it may have tickled some UK nerves 

The problem is all these 'faces' coming out and saying things and they're not representing the EU, they're just stirring the pot and will make things worse. Another example from yesterday. I think he should worry more about Finland's problems than the UK's.

 

'UK will be at the back of the queue for a trade deal, warns top EU commissioner'

 

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-back-queue-trade-deal-055300843.html

[Dave67]

10 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

The problem is all these 'faces' coming out and saying things and they're not representing the EU, they're just stirring the pot and will make things worse. Another example from yesterday. I think he should worry more about Finland's problems than the UK's.

 

'UK will be at the back of the queue for a trade deal, warns top EU commissioner'

 

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-back-queue-trade-deal-055300843.html

Interesting article cheers

[richard10365]

This is definitely an indication of how Brexit talks will proceed once they do start. The UK is going to get royally screwed. There are some things citizens should not be allowed to vote on. Brain surgery is one and international trade is another. The UK will become the getto of Europe.

Sent from my SM-P601 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

The problem is all these 'faces' coming out and saying things and they're not representing the EU, they're just stirring the pot and will make things worse. Another example from yesterday. I think he should worry more about Finland's problems than the UK's.

 

'UK will be at the back of the queue for a trade deal, warns top EU commissioner'

 

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-back-queue-trade-deal-055300843.html

 

I think it's a mixture. Some are saying what they think their own electorate want to hear. Others being told to say things to try and increase the pressure on the British.

 

At some point, EU leaders like Merkel, who does want a solution that is realistic and politically acceptable are going to crack down on the loose canons.

[chrissables]

4 hours ago, Golgota said:

Am I the only 1 who actually read the article?

 

"We can always debate on the amount but on the fact that the United Kingdom must pay what it owes to the budget of the European Union, it is a non-negotiable prerequisite at the start of the (Brexit) discussions," 

 

I know the citizen of UK like to hate the french and hate to like them, but I think the french minister spoke in the name of the whole EU, not only France...but as it came from a french guy it may have tickled some UK nerves 

You are wrong, we are not legally bound to pay anything after the day we leave.

 

For one year following the leave date there will still some bills due to be paid on projects already started. But we can decide to pay or not, we are not bound to do so.

 

Morally you can argue we should, but the EU needs to come up with a realistic figure and a breakdown of how they arrived at the amount they request. At the moment they are throwing numbers around without any breakdown on an amount we actually don't have to pay by law.  

[7by7]

17 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

First Brits are not a race.

But I understand your argument.

Too much influx of foreign people.

This is a problem which affects all EU countries. It is therefore not an economic problem, but a problem of immigration that the eu as well as the individual states can not solve properly.

I have no problem with the free movement of people from the eu member states.  But the mass of economic refugees from Africa and non-functioning Muslim countries, the eu can not take definitiy unlimited in. 

Whether a brexit is the right answer, I have my doubts. Many europeans have the snout full of this unregulated invasion. 

Brexit will have no effect on immigration to the UK by the vast majority of non EEA nationals, whether they be refugees, economic migrants or some other category.

 

The Freedom of Movement Directive only applies to EEA nationals and, if they have any, their qualifying non EEA national family members.

 

For all others, each member state's own immigration law is applicable. 

 

It is true that once inside the border free Schengen area one can move freely from one member state to another; but the UK is not a member of the Schengen area.

 

So, whilst it is true that the refugee/migrant crisis is a major problem for the EU, it effects the UK far less. They cannot legally enter the UK because any visa issued by another EU member state is not valid for the UK.

 

There is, of course, a problem with people attempting to enter illegally, but they cannot simply walk in; first they have to cross the physical barrier, the Channel and North Sea.

 

Before anyone says they could walk across the border with the RoI; the RoI is also not part of mainland Europe and also not in the Schengen area, so the same difficulties apply.

 

[Golgota]

46 minutes ago, chrissables said:

You are wrong, we are not legally bound to pay anything after the day we leave.

 

For one year following the leave date there will still some bills due to be paid on projects already started. But we can decide to pay or not, we are not bound to do so.

 

Morally you can argue we should, but the EU needs to come up with a realistic figure and a breakdown of how they arrived at the amount they request. At the moment they are throwing numbers around without any breakdown on an amount we actually don't have to pay by law.  

I never said it was wrong or right, I just pointed that it turned into a UK Vs France discussion while the article is not about France alone...

I agree that having people from each European government (as well as UK) talking about all this may do more harm than good...

[chrissables]

Just now, Golgota said:

I never said it was wrong or right, I just pointed that it turned into a UK Vs France discussion while the article is not about France alone...

I agree that having people from each European government (as well as UK) talking about all this may do more harm than good...

You wrote......

 

"We can always debate on the amount but on the fact that the United Kingdom must pay what it owes to the budget of the European Union, it is a non-negotiable prerequisite at the start of the (Brexit) discussions," 

 

I am stating that "fact" is actually wrong.

 

I understand the EU are demanding that as a prerequisite, which is foolish as it's unenforceable. You negotiate from strength, not unenforceable bluster. 

[nontabury]

23 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

??? Seriously???? You are still discounting the role of the  Dominion forces  in both wars? Have you no idea of the sacrifice those   countries made to keep the UK safe? Are you even aware that after the   catastrophe  at Dunkirk, the only fully equipped  & trained military standing between full invasion and defeat at the hands of the Germans were the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand  units.   The freedom of the UK  was made possible  because of the presence of the combined 40,000 personnel from the Australian 18th & 25th Infantry Brigades, New Zealand Expeditionary Force, Canadian 1st Infantry Division  and 2nd & 3rd Infantry Brigades.

The UK's  military was in a shambles: Untrained, no equipment  and of the equipment  available, much was obsolete or in bad shape.The UK  could only put 250,000 equipped quasi trained personnel in the field, which was not enough to defend the island.

Ever hear of  December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan)?Japan attacked the  UK by invading Hong Kong and Malaya and the USA naval base at Pearl Harbor. The USA entered the war after that.

 

I can understand now why so many Australians and Canadians have such a dislike for the UK. Before criticizing the French, deal own lack of appreciation for the sacrifice of the Dominions.

I've never met any true Australians and Canadians ( French excerpted) that dislike the British. In London alone there are 250,000 Aussies,very much liked by the British, even though we usually beat them at rugby and cricket. Probably something to do with having the same culture.

[nontabury]

On July 20, 2017 at 11:54 AM, sawadee1947 said:

oh, and now the Nazis are in UK?

 

Let's keep the IRA out of this, shall we.