Cameron barks, caravan moves on

Until the AfD get's into the Bundestag that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Until the AfD get's into the Bundestag that is.

---

Don't you think merely getting into the Bundestag isn't enough? Also even that bunch has never said it's against the EU; they just hate the euro.

The are also against the free movement agreement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBW4o-cD_9A (55:10 onward)

Getting in will scare the CSU, and that means the pressure on CDU is getting higher as well to make compromises on the free movement stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

The are also against the free movement agreement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBW4o-cD_9A (55:10 onward)

Getting in will scare the CSU, and that means the pressure on CDU is getting higher as well to make compromises on the free movement stance.

---

I see you have some fantasy about what will happen about migration inside the EU but there is zero chance the topic will up for discussion as long as the EU exists.

I can even tell you that because of this the Swiss living in the EU will not loose their rights automatically after you lot mess up with the implementation of your quota.

People who think the EU will limit internal migration are simply pissing against the wind.

The EU will do shit, the countries will do it. And what will the EU do once UK, Germany and France do stuff. Nothing, as always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

The EU will do shit, the countries will do it. And what will the EU do once UK, Germany and France do stuff. Nothing, as always.

---

Which is saying exactly what I stated. Nothing will be negotiated as long as the EU exists.

Also; for all their posturing the governments of both UK and France are doing pretty much what the rules proscibe them.

You don't getting it. The EU does nothing when rules are broken. Countries have learned that now, and it will be hard in the future to change that fact.

The consequence of breaking rules should be to not get a say in the making of new rules and deals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The consequence of breaking rules should be to not get a say in the making of new rules and deals

---

So, expulsion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

As far as I know the 'black' economy hasn't been part of this re-calculation. The Dutch 'opposition' to the back bill is that we will pay if the numbers add up. I think we'll find out that Cameron has zero allies on this issue like on any other issue. This due to the fact that the man simply doesn't even bother to get informed about what the deal is.

---

Hmmm..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socialist British Broadcasting Commune

About a week ago the UK learned that it would have to pay a surcharge of £1.7bn (€2.1bn) to the EU by 1 December.

It was described as a technical adjustment based on the fact that in recent years Britain's wealth has increased more than others.

The extra payment will amount to about 20% of what the UK pays annually. As one official in Brussels conceded to me: "The politics are awful."

Under rules agreed by all member states, the European Commission assesses gross national income going back over a number of years.

Since 1995 Britain's economy has performed better than other countries, particularly in the service sector. The EU Commission also now includes a figure for what it estimates to be receipts from the black economy.

While the UK faces an extra payment, France will get a rebate of around £800m. Germany also gets a reduction.

And, in one of the more curious features of this affair, both Greece and Italy - two struggling eurozone economies - will have to pay more, largely because of the size of their black economies.

Downing Street says that this is "unacceptable"; it is wrong to have fees relating to previous years being changed at a moment's notice....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29752613

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Guardian Al Jihadi

Eurostat arrived at the €2.1bn figure on the basis of new methods of calculating member states’ GNI since 1995, taking account of previously unreported or under-reported black economy elements, such as drug dealing and consumption or the sex industry.

Eurostat concluded that the UK economy has been doing much better than previously assumed since 1995, relative to other European countries, and that British contributions needed to be upped.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...t-contribution

---

Curious what they are decided to include as the "black" economy. Seems like a very difficult thing to measure/speculate about across the whole EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The consequence of breaking rules should be to not get a say in the making of new rules and deals

---

That's what they said in the Amerikkkan South about Martin Luther King Jr. :downcast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

So, expulsion?

---

More like just not taking their opinions/wishes into consideration as much, going forward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

You don't getting it. The EU does nothing when rules are broken. Countries have learned that now, and it will be hard in the future to change that fact.

---

Tell that to the Greeks, Portuguese and Irish. And last time. I checked even the French shied away from breaking the rules.
Not to mention your own country being punished for announcing it wants to change the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

So, expulsion?

---

In the long run yes, but that would be a process so lengthy that it will never actually come about.

Seems that Merkel has explicitly told Cameron that there will be no re-negotiation of free movement even if that means the UK would leave the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Tell that to the Greeks, Portuguese and Irish.

---

They broke every rule they could and with exception of the Irish, the rest of the EU had to solve their problems. Way to go!

And you noticed how solving their problems effectively started with removing their budget rights? Or how France tacitly has admitted it's no longer a sovereign country last week?

You mean the couldn't decide what to do with the money that was shoved up their arses. Playing by the rules they shouldn't have that money in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Seems that Merkel has explicitly told Cameron that there will be no re-negotiation of free movement even if that means the UK would leave the EU.

---

Well, she is the leader after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

More like just not taking their opinions/wishes into consideration as much, going forward

---

Thus giving them even less incentive to follow the rules in the future, leading to a de facto if not de jure exit. And the eventual break up of the EU, given the number of nations that bend our outright break the rules on occasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Well, she is the leader after all.

---

She was considered to be the strongest force keeping the UK inside the EU. The person with the will and the power to engage the notion there there was an opposite party at all for a UK government intent on re-negotiation.

So they will pay. In full. And they got caught lying about that.

So, to expand on Hazir's unhelpful post, what happened was that the UK won the following concessions:

1) That the payment will be deferred until next year, paid in two installments without interest
2) Osborne got the UK budget rebate brought forward to this year from 2016 and credited against this bill.

So, essentially, instead of paying 1.7 billion and then getting approximately half back later, the UK is just paying half but getting no money back later, i.e. the actual physical amount of money moving between HMG and the EU is exactly the same. The UK gains a bit on inflation, but that's about it.

Osborne is trying to spin this as getting the bill halved, but it's getting him absolutely nowhere because even a child can see that that's nonsense. I suspect that this was some kind of stratagem to manufacture a 'victory' in advance of the coming elections by suddenly deciding to make a huge fuss about this bill, which everyone agrees was known about for months, then negotiate some kind of compromise, then claim they 'won' something. Now their own silly game has blown up in their faces. Their own fault for trying to out UKIP UKIP.

Ironically, the deal is actually perfectly reasonable for all parties - most institutions when presenting someone with a large unexpected bill will usually be prepared to be flexible about when and how it gets paid. Doubly ironically, if the Cameron and Osborne hadn't tried the "WE'll NEVAH PAY! WE WILL FIGHT THEM ON THE BEACHES!!" routine, they would have come out of this looking pretty good. Instead, they now look like idiots to absolutely everyone: other EU govs as well as both the Euro-skeptics and pro-Europeans at home.

It is largely the deal we got too. Except that we don't want to use our rebate. No interest also isn't a big deal with the rates being where they are.

Steely summed it up nicely.

Am fed up to the back teeth of the Tory pandering to the UKIPnorant.

~

In other news, I was quite pleased to see the following study get quite a lot of coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Recent immigrants to UK 'make net contribution'

Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a report says.

The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.

The authors said rather than being a "drain", their contribution had been "remarkably strong".

The government said it was right to have strict rules in place to help protect the benefits system.

Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011, according to the report by Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini from UCL's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.

They were also 3% less likely to live in social housing.

"These differences are partly explainable by immigrants' more favourable age-gender composition. However, even when compared to natives with the same age, gender composition, and education, recent immigrants are still 21% less likely than natives to receive benefits," the authors say.

Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

Immigrants from outside the EEA contributed 2% more in taxes than they received in the same period, the report showed.

Over the same period, British people paid 11% less in tax than they received.

Despite the positive figures in the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.

The report also showed that in 2011, 32% of recent EEA immigrants and 43% of non-EEA immigrants had university degrees, compared with 21% of the British adult population.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...tion_464_1.gif

The research used data from the British Labour Force Survey and government reports. Prof Dustmann said it had shown that "in contrast with most other European countries, the UK attracts highly-educated and skilled immigrants from within the EEA as well as from outside".

He added: "Our study also suggests that over the last decade or so, the UK has benefited fiscally from immigrants from EEA countries, who have put in considerably more in taxes and contributions than they received in benefits and transfers.

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality."

Sir Andrew Green of the pressure group Migration Watch said the report had "been spun".

"We've had roughly four million immigrants under the previous government - two-thirds of those were from outside the European Union," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said the report found that, "since 1995, they have made a negative contribution overall".

He added: "So the verdict for non-EU is that the benefit to the exchequer is minimal or negative."

He accepted that "if you take the whole of the EU", the benefit was "clearly positive".

But Sir Andrew said this would be expected "because you are including German engineers, French fashion designers and - as it's the European Economic Area - even Swiss bankers [sic]".

"The real issue for the future is the very large numbers of low-paid immigrants from eastern Europe," he said.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...tion_464_2.gif

He added: "The report looks backwards but doesn't look forwards.

"The professor's report does not take into account - no doubt for good reason - future health costs as migrants get older nor the pension bill, which is huge."


It's absolutely right that we have strict rules in place to protect the integrity of the British benefits system to ensure it's not abused”

Prof Dustmann told Today: "It is true that recent immigrants are younger but they are also much better educated.

"So they will take more out of the benefit system but they will also contribute more in the future because they have not yet reached their career peak and their full income potential.

"Of course, the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes."

A spokesman for the government said: "We welcome those that want to come here to contribute to the economy, but it's absolutely right that we have strict rules in place to protect the integrity of the British benefits system to ensure it's not abused."

Graph
He added that this was why the government was strengthening measures to ensure that benefits are only paid to people who are "legally allowed to live in Britain".

Meanwhile, a separate UCL study released on Tuesday warns that the government's target to cut net migration to the UK to the tens of thousands is "neither a useful tool nor a measure of policy effectiveness".

That report argues that actions to cut work-related, student and family migration have damaged the UK's reputation as a good place to work and study.

The 2011 census showed that 13% of the population of England and Wales was born outside the UK.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Steely summed it up nicely.

Am fed up to the back teeth of the Tory pandering to the UKIPnorant.

~

In other news, I was quite pleased to see the following study get quite a lot of coverage.

---

You know, that whole theater that the tories have been playing over the last decade, especially since they got into the coalition is definately absurdist seen from the outside. The nonsense proclaimed about what they can achieve by threathening to leave has no relationship to reality any longer.

Indeed, I shudder to think how Cameron's posturing is viewed from the mainland. What's more worrying however is how so many in this country lap up it. Such a large proportion of Brits still have an isolationist view of the UK, and see Cameron's 'standing up to the EU' as strength.

Milliband on the other hand (ooh, alliterative ...) this morning has, for the first time I can recollect, said something sensible, and warned of the danger to the UK of an exit from the EU:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Ed Miliband warns threats to leave EU a 'danger' to UK

Ed Miliband is to warn that threats to leave the EU are a "clear and present danger" to the UK's future prosperity.

The Labour leader will tell the CBI on Monday that an EU exit would "close us off from the world" and risk jobs.

[more...]

---

That's not alliteration though, is it? :p

Don't journalists and political opponents jump on the fact he's telling bs about the deal? Or is everyone too concerned about being pro Europe if they do?

Yes it is. :mad:

Well, you're aware I'm sure of the reputation of the press in this country; the idiot papers shout the loudest and have by far the widest readership, and the headlines those same organs like to print, in huge capitalised font, are horrifyingly xenophobic.

A quick google gives the following typical examples:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/u...xpress-ban.jpg http://www.thepaperboy.com/frontpage...l_4_7_2013.jpg http://maryportagainstracism.files.w...lyexpress2.jpg http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/u...statistics.jpg http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/u...3/12/home-.png

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1521502/th...T-PAGE-570.jpg

When your typical Brit is pummelled with this shit every day, it's not such a surprise that UKIP is winning seats, and that people want out of the EU. :|

Sure, the 'sensible' press provides balanced journalism, and indicates that immigration is a net benefit to the UK, and that UK prosperity is higher with EU membership, not to mention a swathe of non-economic benefits, but such press seems utterly drowned out by the mass of xenophobia.

As for political opponents? Well, there are none to speak of really. Labour has Milliband at the top (who as I mentioned has spoken sensibly on immigration today) who aside from being about as vote-worthy as a tub of butter, is also facing a no-confidence leadership crisis. The Lib-Dems are mocked for their anonymity. Which leaves UKIP. :rolleyes:

It's not just the press; it's also the politicians who consistently portray EU business as a zero sum game in which one side wins and the other loses. I've been following British politics ever since Thatcher came to power and every single PM has been working from the 'us vs them' narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

It's not just the press; it's also the politicians who consistently portray EU business as a zero sum game in which one side wins and the other loses. I've been following British politics ever since Thatcher came to power and every single PM has been working from the 'us vs them' narrative.

---

Which you of course have never done. ;)

Pardon my absence from the forum in recent weeks so I haven't had a chance to respond. Teething baby, plus just started a new job combine to not much time online.

I am amused to see so many comments here sparked from the EU saying that the UK has done so well, even better than thought in recent years so we need to pay more money. The UK is already a massive net contributor and its worth at times like this remembering the old saying "he who pays the piper calls the tunes".

It is not just true at present that Cameron's UK is the world's fastest growing major economy, but in the term of Cameron's government that Hazir respects so very much the UK has put on more jobs than the entire Eurozone combined. Due to demographic changes it was already the case that long-term forecasts show that the UK could displace Germany as Europe's largest economy within 30 years, but with news in recent weeks of Germany sliding back into recession due to sclerosis from the Eurozone disaster while the UK is growing from strength to strength that could happen even sooner. Which of course means that the UK will even more become the paymaster general of Europe.

I've skimmed through the discussions in recent posts and seen some discussion of "those that failed to play by the rules being told what to do", that's not true of course. Its that those who couldn't afford to pay their way are being told what to do by those who can. Germany in particular have been funding the Eurozone but now it too is getting sick as a result. Well if the UK continues to pay more and more and everyone else less and less then we should quite rightly expect to have more say with what our money is funding. That is the right of being the one who is growing and footing the bill.

-------

Brief aside but Tim your newspaper selection is entirely imbalanced. The Mail, Express and Sun are despicable rags that I wouldn't even line my hamster's cage with but what about the Guardian, Independent or Mirror as their polar opposites? Or even sensible magazines like The Economist that portray an excellent open-minded and welcoming view to migrants? And even the fourth example from the Daily Fail doesn't fit your story because to be fair the quote is in quotation marks with the text above saying "shocking video ... racist rant" etc - it is racist UKIP that are the story, not the Mail supporting said racism. Even the Mail seems to think that was too far. The other Mail stat depending upon the date likely was correct, until this government started reforming welfare the vast majority of net new jobs were going to migrants while dole bludgers stayed at home. That says more about the need for welfare reform than it does about migration.