U.K. is doing well in Europe

[ladylola]

Yes I know , point I'm making is why test an unknown if what we have is doing the job ? If your Ford or Vauxhall is driving and performing fine do you dump it just to test a Kia? If Cameron handles this well it could be detrimental to ukip , if he handles it badly then the chances of ukip needing to form a coalition are in all likelyhood reduced.

 

[JBR]

Can't say I'm a fan of Cameron but it does present him with an opertunatey . If he can come across strong and defeat Europe on this it could very well weaken ukip's position. Why would potential voters then want to vote for a largely untested party when the party in power does what they want? Better the devil you know and all that.

As I said, UKIP has already forced the Cameron's hand (and Miliband's). I call that a success, regardless of any MPs gained.

 

[JBR]

sheeple.

JBR In the main Iusually agree with you but the use of this word should get you banned!!!!

Please don't use it again else we'll have to beat you with a wet fish!!

Sheeple.

(I like fish.)

 

[ladylola]

Can't say I'm a fan of Cameron but it does present him with an opertunatey . If he can come across strong and defeat Europe on this it could very well weaken ukip's position. Why would potential voters then want to vote for a largely untested party when the party in power does what they want? Better the devil you know and all that.

As I said, UKIP has already forced the Cameron's hand (and Miliband's). I call that a success, regardless of any MPs gained.

Or is that pandering?

 

[JBR]

Can't say I'm a fan of Cameron but it does present him with an opertunatey . If he can come across strong and defeat Europe on this it could very well weaken ukip's position. Why would potential voters then want to vote for a largely untested party when the party in power does what they want? Better the devil you know and all that.

As I said, UKIP has already forced the Cameron's hand (and Miliband's). I call that a success, regardless of any MPs gained.

Or is that pandering?

I'm happy to call it 'pandering'. It doesn't really matter so long as we eventually regain the country we once had.

 

[jockscott]

The fact is that Cameron is a pest in Europe and they would like nothing more than see the back of him. Europe also knows that Cameron is the only possibility that we will get close to asking the British people the question - and they'd rather not risk that. It also knows that UKIP has zero chance of forming a government, (that is; absolutely zero) so it knows it is safe to feed them lines and, in effect, ensure a Labour government.

Ahh so you reckon, come election time next year, Milibland's going to say "Yes, folks we're going to pay the EU the £1.7 billion they asked for last year. The one Cameron refused to pay. ??

A vote winner for sure.

 

[JohnD]

I heard a person talking about the contribution on the radio.

He made the point that each country contributes an amount to the EU budget, and is entitled to claim from that budget, subject to certain rules and agreements that all the countries sign up to. He said that we have agreed to contribute 1% of our GNP* (except that we get a rebate) and that UK has had a more successful year than was anticipated, therefore our agreed 1% of the larger amount will be greater than was anticipated.

(*though I thought I had heard earlier that the contribution was based on VAT revenues)

He likened it to a person paying x% income tax. If he has a high-earning year, he pays more tax than if he has a low-earning year.

He also made the point that if C.A. Moron did not know how much UK had earned, and therefore what 1% of it would be, then he should have known.

I understand C.A. Moron has not denied that he will pay the amount due under the terms that UK has agreed to, only said that he intends UK to be a late payer.

I wonder if anyone can point out any inaccuracies here, or if it is just Daily Mail meaningless bile.

 

[Corgigrouch]

I believe that the EU decided to go back a few years (10 years) and included earnings from the black economy, Prostitution, drugs and the like.

I fail to see why you Brits should bust a gut and go without to turn the British economy around only to be hit with a bill for working harder and trying harder than the idle French and the Germans who have profited at the UKs cost and still cant make things work...

And why should Britain send money to the EU who haven't had their books signed off for many years due to huge irregularities?

 

[Corgigrouch]

Sheeple.

(I like fish.)

SLAP!!!! You spotty faced keyboard weasel...

 

[jockscott]

Now there's an idea..... Cameron tells them The UK will pay you £1.7bn once the EU accounts are signed off.

 

[JBR]

Sheeple.

(I like fish.)

SLAP!!!! You spotty faced keyboard weasel...

The last time I had a spotty face was nearly 50 years ago.

I find that fish keeps my skin healthy and attractive.

 

[Corgigrouch]

But folk keep away from you 'cos of the smell of fish!!

 

[HawkEye244]

I think it's a conspiracy to make Cameron look tough for the anti-EU brigade, trying to win votes from UKIP me thinks .. nothing like this would happen by chance, come on now ..

 

[pred]

Yes I know , point I'm making is why test an unknown if what we have is doing the job ? If your Ford or Vauxhall is driving and performing fine do you dump it just to test a Kia? If Cameron handles this well it could be detrimental to ukip , if he handles it badly then the chances of ukip needing to form a coalition are in all likelyhood reduced.

Or worse still, would you dump your Ford for a Skoda?? Remember how in the eighties they were the butt of many a joke BUT!! look at them now!!

 

[empip]

...The budget of the EU is financed wholly from own resources in order to ensure the orderly development of the Union's policies. There are three categories of own resources: "traditional own resources", the own resource based on value added tax (VAT) and the own resource based on gross national income (GNI). Other revenue sources include taxes paid by officials, fines imposed on firms by the Community and interest on late payments...

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-601_en.htm

Brussels, 24 October 2014

REVISION OF MEMBER STATES' GNI CONTRIBUTION – Q&A

1. Who decides to increase Member states' GNI contribution to the EU budget and why?

The different types of own resources of the EU budget and the method for calculating them are set out in a Council Decision on own resources and its implementing regulation. Thus the rules relating to the calculation of Member states' contribution based on their respective Gross National Income are established in the own resources legislation.

In May of each year the Commission and representatives of each Member state meet to establish the estimated GNI of every member state for the year to come. That specific source of income for the EU budget is then adopted in agreement with the Member states.

Each autumn, the Commission and representatives of each Member state meet a second time, this time to check whether there are differences between the original GNI estimates and the "real" GNI for the previous year, and whether there any further adjustment to older GNI data, still based on the figures provided by each Member state.

Member states' individual GNI contribution is then adjusted upwards or downwards to compensate for the adjustments. This is a purely mathematical, technical process. So much so, that member states agreed that the Commission can implement the adjusted figures by 1 December every year without any need to submit a proposal to the Council and/or to the European Parliament.

2. Does this year's technical adjustment take into account the new method to calculate member states' GDP (ESA 2010)?

No. This new method to calculate member states' GDP will have no impact on their GNI contribution to the EU budget until the new own resources decision comes into effect, which is probably 2016.

3. Why does this year's technical adjustment see such big increases of contributions to the EU budget for some member states?

This year's adjustment includes GNI re-calculation dating back to 2002 for most member states and to 1995 for one, as there were a number of unresolved issues that had accumulated over the last years. The decision to resolve these historic issues now results from a joint effort of member states in cooperation with Eurostat. With all these issues now cleared, future such corrections will again be rather minor, as they were in recent years.

Some member states have consistently reported too low values for their GNI over the last years, this obviously explain the size of some adjustments upwards.

4. Why has the Commission decided to act just now?

As explained earlier, the adjusted GNI contributions must come into force by 1 December at the latest. However, the earlier in the year you calculate the real GNI for that given year the less accurate you are. The Commission must therefore find a compromise between announcing the revised GNI figures as late as possible in order to be as accurate as possible, and as early as possible in order to give member states enough time to adapt to the new figures. This year, member States were informed of the budgetary impact of the new data on 17 October.

5. Do those adjustments always increase member states' GNI contributions?

Not at all; it mostly depends on member states themselves as the basis for such revision is the figures provided by the member states. If your recorded GNI for any given year is lower than what was estimated at the beginning of the year, your GNI contribution will go down.

-------------------------------------

Looks like the final para. suggests we must know what is coming given we supply our figures.

I guess para. 3 may allow Cameroon to blame Labour

There goes half the gold sale receipts and the Gov. didn't see it coming !!