Britain ordered to pay £1.7bn by Europe

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since they wish to hark back to 1995 to establish a time period adjustment, perhaps the EU should also take into consideration what effects the 2008 global financial crisis had on the larger European nations and also the debt position that Britain had to face afterwards. Have the EU "no eyes to see" the austerity measures Britain had to introduce in order to face the financial impications therefrom.

 

[Metrailway]

Just as it was about to turn into a discussion on escorts and whoring, I suppose that is off-topic too:cry:

I must confess to being slightly surprised that a) income from illegal activity can be counted in any assessment like this b) the EU claim to have accurate figures c) somehow France and Germany either appear to be more upright than their reputations might suggest, or they have correctly been supplying the data all along.

Or this is a made-up story, designed to embarrass some and remind others of their place.

On point b - the figures are from each member state's statistical body - for the UK it is the ONS. On point c - I don't about France but certainly the Germans have for many years been including the figures for prostitution in their economic figures.

 

[muz379]

Since they wish to hark back to 1995 to establish a time period adjustment, perhaps the EU should also take into consideration what effects the 2008 global financial crisis had on the larger European nations and also the debt position that Britain had to face afterwards. Have the EU "no eyes to see" the austerity measures Britain had to introduce in order to face the financial impications therefrom.

I think they might just have taken into consideration what happened in 2008 , but given that government expenditure is higher now than it was in 2008 they have probably rightly arrived at the decision that if we can spend more money domestically then we should also contribute more to the EU .

 

[MidnightFlyer]

"We don't want to be in the EU" shouts that we do not care about standing up together with other countries most like our own to help solve the problems of the world. Are we going to tackle climate change by ourselves?

To you perhaps. I do not see why the EU specifically is of such salience to that point though - granted such a large body of countries in unity helps the matter in status, but what about other unions and bodies such as Nato, G7, United Nations, Commonwealth, trade agreements and the like. Don't they have similar influence and bearing? What about countries like Norway and Switzerland? What about countries outwith Europe, like Australia, Japan, Canada? I'm pretty sure they all care about the same things EU member states do. Just because they aren't in it (or people in the UK wish not to be) doesn't mean they want genocide, famine and economic hardship to prosper. It's rather obvious from these debates on here that I'm heavily anti-EU (and not for Ukip-style OMG immigrants reasons), but I still care about the environment and conflicts and working for a better future for the generation after me.

I think the younger generation now naturally mistrust people who smoke, for example. I know I do.

This is one of the most downright bizarre things I think I have ever seen in my life (and I'm not exaggerating). I mistrust people because they give me a legitimate reason to (fraud, hypocrisy, lying, deceit); not because they can work their way through Benson & Hedges. I can't think of anyone in my life my age who I know bases their judgement of belief in a person on whether they smoke... :?

 

[muz379]

To you perhaps. I do not see why the EU specifically is of such salience to that point though - granted such a large body of countries in unity helps the matter in status, but what about other unions and bodies such as Nato, G7, United Nations, Commonwealth, trade agreements and the like. Don't they have similar influence and bearing? What about countries like Norway and Switzerland? What about countries outwith Europe, like Australia, Japan, Canada? I'm pretty sure they all care about the same things EU member states do. Just because they aren't in it (or people in the UK wish not to be) doesn't mean they want genocide, famine and economic hardship to prosper.

I completely agree , even if the UK left the Eu we probably wouldnt withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECHR , and even if we made that bizzare move something would have to replace the Human rights act . our fundamental attitudes as a country would not change overnight though , there are many thing we believe in that have existed as long as the EU . I mean we fought the second world war before the EU was around

In the case of some of the former eastern block the fundamental rights granted to their citizens on joining the EU have ratified a change in government and society attitudes in those countries . But that is a completely seperate matter from our membership as a long term member .

One thing worth noting about your comments though is that Nato ,G7 and UN membership should be looked at through a seperate lens to the EU , even if we left the EU and where members of Nato both organisations exist for entirely seperate reasons and with entirely seperate purposes . Same with the UN . Both Nato and UN are important bodies for us to be members of . However they dont replicate thigngs that the EU does . You being a euroskeptic and me being pro european disagree on if those are good things or not . However there are things that the EU does that are separate to other international organisations we are part of , and things we might no longer be party to if we leave the EU .

The interesting thing about Norway is they have to comply with a lot of EU directives and regulations because of their involvement in trade with the EU . But they are not party to the democratic process that sets the rules they have to comply with .

This is one of the most downright bizarre things I think I have ever seen in my life (and I'm not exaggerating). I mistrust people because they give me a legitimate reason to (fraud, hypocrisy, lying, deceit); not because they can work their way through Benson & Hedges. I can't think of anyone in my life my age who I know bases their judgement of belief in a person on whether they smoke... :?

I certainly cant agree with Kofieyes comment . I too am young however I dont judge who I do and dont trust based off smoking . I have never and hope never to engage in the addictive habit . And I think it is a foolish habit to take up . However I dont think those that smoke are any less trustworthy than those that dont , same with drinking . I dont drink all that much (maybe a beer or a glass of wine with a meal every now and then ) however I dont think those that do drink are any less trustworthy .

 

[Oswyntail]

On point b - the figures are from each member state's statistical body - for the UK it is the ONS. On point c - I don't about France but certainly the Germans have for many years been including the figures for prostitution in their economic figures.

And how do the ONS have accurate figures? In Germany, of course, prostitution is legal and regulated (sensible folk!) so the figures must be available.

 

[radamfi]

Window prostitution is famously legal in Germany (where they have huge brothels), the Netherlands (but only in towns that allow it, for example not in Rotterdam) and in Belgium and probably elsewhere. But prostitution from your own house is legal and probably more prevalent almost everywhere in Europe. Where window prostitution is not allowed it is clearly the main way of escorting. Street prostitution is not so common now you can escort from your own home and advertise on the internet.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Window prostitution is famously legal in Germany (where they have huge brothels), the Netherlands (but only in towns that allow it, for example not in Rotterdam) and in Belgium and probably elsewhere. But prostitution from your own house is legal and probably more prevalent almost everywhere in Europe. Where window prostitution is not allowed it is clearly the main way of escorting. Street prostitution is not so common now you can escort from your own home and advertise on the internet.

The understanding of the word escort", for those with a good lexicological knowledge, is one indeed to ponder upon.

 

[radamfi]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/escort

has several meanings including

7. A sex worker who does not operate in a brothel, but with whom clients make appointments; a call girl or male equivalent.

 

[Amberley54]

And how do the ONS have accurate figures? In Germany, of course, prostitution is legal and regulated (sensible folk!) so the figures must be available.

A relative in the HMRC at one point had responsibility for the tax returns of sole traders that described themselves as 'escorts' and liaised with a colleague that worked on VAT returns for saunas and massage parlours in the region.

Therefore, the state does have info on the LEGAL areas of the sex trade - it is the streetwlker prostitues that we only have anecdotal information on. Street prostitution is also to a greater degree unlawful in all EU member countries outside designated areas.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/escort

has several meanings

The use of number 5 is often recognised by the higher-class of such women, giving a nationally known scenario that was the Profumo scandal, in which two such examples were Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies...."An accompanying person in a social group"

 

[starrymarkb]

Not all prostitutes are escorts, though.....so I am informed.

And not all escorts....

Best term to use is Sex Worker

 

[Starmill]

This is one of the most downright bizarre things I think I have ever seen in my life (and I'm not exaggerating). I mistrust people because they give me a legitimate reason to (fraud, hypocrisy, lying, deceit); not because they can work their way through Benson & Hedges. I can't think of anyone in my life my age who I know bases their judgement of belief in a person on whether they smoke... :?

I think you might have taken that a little bit further than intended! I didn't say I judged people whom I knew smoked, but I certainly think that if there were two people I'd never met before one of whom I knew was a smoker and the other wasn't, ceteris paribus, I would definitely 'prefer' the person who didn't. Everyone makes subconscious, unavoidable observations and reacts to them even if they think they do not anyway. This is simply one of them that I think people in my generation have grown up with - that smoking is bad. I wouldn't make judgement or take action on anyone just because I knew they smoked, but it is without doubt a factor that makes up an initial impression.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However I dont think those that smoke are any less trustworthy than those that dont , same with drinking . I dont drink all that much (maybe a beer or a glass of wine with a meal every now and then ) however I dont think those that do drink are any less trustworthy .

I certainly agree with that, because one can drink responsibly. I've never heard of the idea of smoking responsibly though - isn't all smoking ultimately irresponsible?

Which is why I find it a strange thing to base your public image for an election campaign on!

 

[radamfi]

I certainly agree with that, because one can drink responsibly. I've never heard of the idea of smoking responsibly though - isn't all smoking ultimately irresponsible?

I hate smoking and I have never tried a cigarette in my life. However, at least heavy smoking doesn't impair your ability to control heavy machinery, and doesn't make people behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise, unlike heavy drinking.

 

[Butts]

This is one of the most downright bizarre things I think I have ever seen in my life (and I'm not exaggerating). I mistrust people because they give me a legitimate reason to (fraud, hypocrisy, lying, deceit); not because they can work their way through Benson & Hedges. I can't think of anyone in my life my age who I know bases their judgement of belief in a person on whether they smoke... :?

Anyone who smokes Benson & Hedges is displaying impeccable taste and can be considered an unimpeachable individual of both refinement and great knowledge on a veritable cornucopia of subject matter. - (if they are anything like me )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hate smoking and I have never tried a cigarette in my life. However, at least heavy smoking doesn't impair your ability to control heavy machinery, and doesn't make people behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise, unlike heavy drinking.

Well said sir

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I hate smoking and I have never tried a cigarette in my life. However, at least heavy smoking doesn't impair your ability to control heavy machinery, and doesn't make people behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise, unlike heavy drinking.

Assuming of course that 'dieing' isn't considered as something that impairs your ability to control heavy machinery
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I certainly agree with that, because one can drink responsibly. I've never heard of the idea of smoking responsibly though - isn't all smoking ultimately irresponsible?

Which is why I find it a strange thing to base your public image for an election campaign on!

Right now, Nigel Farage doesn't need to convince the majority of people he's responsible. To make a massive splash this time round, he simply needs to convince maybe 15% of registered electorate to vote for him.

And realistically, there are probably more than enough people who are angry/don't understand economics/don't-believe-what-scientists-say-about-anything-including-smoking/etc. to make up that number of votes. An image of being in a pub and smoking is probably helpful for securing that section of the electorate. Even if the entire other 85% were convinced that he's irresponsible/silly/whatever, then that's still lets him get him the votes he wants.

 

[Amberley54]

Since DC started his postering on this in the past few days, It has slipped out that the Govt was aware of the exact amount that was due to be paid into the EU kitty on 1st December some time before it was admitted.

Indeed, given the economic data published over recent months, the Treasury knew that a significant payment was inevitable weeks ago.

Naughty boys

 

[ExRes]

So what is the relevance of whoring?

What is one of the main reasons for this EU demand ?, the black economy, whoring - the black economy - yes ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What is one of the main reasons for this EU demand ?, the black economy, whoring - the black economy - yes ?

Not really. The reason for the EU demand is that, in the light of improved methodology for working out the size of the economy, it's apparent that the size of the UK economy has been underestimated slightly in previous years, leading to an accumulated underpayment of £1.7bn. The article I quoted (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=107486) indicates that including an estimate of the black economy is one example from the methodological improvements. I don't think you can conclude from that that the black economy is the main factor, still less that the sex industry is by itself the main factor in the amount.

 

[starrymarkb]

Since DC started his postering on this in the past few days, It has slipped out that the Govt was aware of the exact amount that was due to be paid into the EU kitty on 1st December some time before it was admitted.

Indeed, given the economic data published over recent months, the Treasury knew that a significant payment was inevitable weeks ago.

Naughty boys

Afraid of the Clacton By-Election I wonder?

 

[daikilo]

This is absolutely nuts as the UK is not part of the Euro hence can do what it likes. Indeed, one can even argue that the decline of the UK say 3 years ago did not worry Europe, but its rise in recent months does.

There are times when Brussels doesn't fit too clearly with how they expect the UK to be part of Europe.

 

[Amberley54]

This is absolutely nuts as the UK is not part of the Euro hence can do what it likes. Indeed, one can even argue that the decline of the UK say 3 years ago did not worry Europe, but its rise in recent months does.

There are times when Brussels doesn't fit too clearly with how they expect the UK to be part of Europe.

Absolutely bugger all to do with the Euro currency, but calculated on the relative strength of the member state's economies and thus how much each one contributes/gets to/from the kitty.

I think bookies will now stop taking money on a UKIP win in the forthcoming Rochester by-election. hock:

 

[455driver]

Assuming of course that 'dieing' isn't considered as something that impairs your ability to control heavy machinery
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Right now, Nigel Farage doesn't need to convince the majority of people he's responsible. To make a massive splash this time round, he simply needs to convince maybe 15% of registered electorate to vote for him.

And realistically, there are probably more than enough people who are angry/don't understand economics/don't-believe-what-scientists-say-about-anything-including-smoking/etc. to make up that number of votes. An image of being in a pub and smoking is probably helpful for securing that section of the electorate. Even if the entire other 85% were convinced that he's irresponsible/silly/whatever, then that's still lets him get him the votes he wants.

Nigel Farage doesnt need to say or do anything, the other party leaders are saying enough to convince people not to vote for their party, so by default a lot of those voters will vote for UKIP!

 

[Amberley54]

Nigel Farage doesnt need to say or do anything, the other party leaders are saying enough to convince people not to vote for their party, so by default a lot of those voters will vote for UKIP!

Indeed, the Failure of the mainstream parties to address the issue of economic migration and set out how positive the impact of the EU has been for the majority of citizens and business is crass incompetence/cowardice.

Flange just takes the lowest common denominator and knows he and his swivel-eyed fellow travellers will never be called upon to deliver on his 'pledges' to be be all things to all people.

 

[yorksrob]

Flange just takes the lowest common denominator and knows he and his swivel-eyed fellow travellers will never be called upon to deliver on his 'pledges' to be be all things to all people.

Or just has to wait for the next pronouncement from the European Commission to do his work for him.

 

[Amberley54]

Or just has to wait for the next pronouncement from the European Commission to do his work for him.

However, when asked to Give a specific example where the EU has directly affected them in a negative way, very few people can come up with anything better than a vague ' they let migrants steal all our jobs and houses and put up taxes.' Both of which are untrue - yet as Sir Tim Bell ( Mrs Thatchers one-time rabidly anti-EU PR advisor) repeatedly says about the EU ' why make do with admitting the truth, when a good lie will do better.'

 

[yorksrob]

However, when asked to Give a specific example where the EU has directly affected them in a negative way, very few people can come up with anything better than a vague ' they let migrants steal all our jobs and houses and put up taxes.' Both of which are untrue - yet as Sir Tim Bell ( Mrs Thatchers one-time rabidly anti-EU PR advisor) repeatedly says about the EU ' why make do with admitting the truth, when a good lie will do better.'

Well, they know that the country has just been told to stump up an extra £1.7 billion. That's not a lie.

 

[Amberley54]

Well, they know that the country has just been told to stump up an extra £1.7 billion. That's not a lie.

And how will that directly affect individuals on 1st December (the day it is due). Today the Treasury admitted that as well as knowing it was coming for months, it has already factored it into its budgeting process so there will be no emergency VAT increases etc. required.

As an aside;the figure of £1.7 billion happens to be about the same amount of tax Google and Vodaphone have EACH 'avoided' by routing income via Tax havens over the past ten years. Vodaphone uses Luxembourg, a country in which it has NO network, no customers and only two employees - yet ALL it's UK income is remitted to a brass plate company there. eBay also use the same tactics but I can't find the figures, although likely to be a few bob in 'avoided' UK taxation.

 

[yorksrob]

And how will that directly affect individuals on 1st December (the day it is due). Today the Treasury admitted that as well as knowing it was coming for months, it has already factored it into its budgeting process so there will be no emergency VAT increases etc. required.

As an aside;the figure of £1.7 billion happens to be about the same amount of tax Google and Vodaphone have EACH 'avoided' by routing income via Ireland and Luxembourg over the past ten years.

I can't speak for the rest of the population but personally I couldn't care less whether the treasury has already budgeted for it or not. I can think of better things to spend £1.7 billion on.

And don't imagine that I'm feeling relaxed about Google or Vodaphone either. Still, I suppose you could say that's free movement of capital for you.

 

[Amberley54]

I can't speak for the rest of the population but personally I couldn't care less whether the treasury has already budgeted for it or not. I can think of better things to spend £1.7 billion on.

And don't imagine that I'm feeling relaxed about Google or Vodaphone either. Still, I suppose you could say that's free movement of capital for you.

So can I - sure most northern local authorities would appreciate it to replace the cuts in funding since 2010 as would the NHS.