Britain ordered to pay £1.7bn by Europe

[muz379]

But Greece is being shaken down in the same way that we are - i.e. in contributions to the EU budget, which is separate from the structural issues generated by the single currency and its trade imbalances, and the consequential bailouts.

Does Brussels not have control over its budget ?

Its not seperate though . Brussels wanted to give Greece a decent bailout but other countries wouldnt have it .

The simple fact is , if our economy hadn't have improved we would be getting a rebate or wouldnt owe any extra . That to me sounds reasonably fair and the EU taking account of the economic situation countries across Europe in the past 6-8 years.

Either way as I said earlier given that our economy has managed to increase public spending by £120bn since 2008 without collapsing the extra £1.7bn due to the eu is not exactly going to put us over the edge .

Given that countries like Ireland ended up a lot worse than us pay a lot less than us and in overall terms get more spent on them then they contribute shows that the EU does actually take what you are saying into account and is not "squeezing" countries apart from where the political will of countries within the union prevents Brussels from doing exactly what it wants .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't you believe it. Banks have an uncomfortable habit for firstly demanding outstanding monies in one fell swoop. It is part of their banking ethos, be it a small account or a multinational group.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The difference being of course in an international setting the parties can afford to stump up the money.

Mind you that being said given that £1.7bn is only 0.3% of the £560bn the government spends a year .
that would be like my bank asking me for £75 which is 0.3% of my salary . Something I could definitely accommodate .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Mind you that being said given that £1.7bn is only 0.3% of the £560bn the government spends a year .
that would be like my bank asking me for £75 which is 0.3% of my salary . Something I could definitely accommodate .

Yep, and that's a big thing about this: People keep assuming this is a really big amount because £1.7bn sounds big, but that's because most people aren't familiar with what numbers on the scale of the UK Government and the UK economy are like. This is really not a big sum. On the scale of the UK Government's annual spending, this amount is trivial. Not the kind of thing that is worth making any kind of big deal over. (Obviously, unless your main aim is not to deal with the facts, but to try and score political capital out of it)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What anyone - companies, governments, individuals - should be expected to do when confronted with an unexpectedly large bill with a demand for instant payment is eaxmine it in detail. As far as I can tell, this is what is happening.

Sort of. But look at David Cameron's main statement to MPs:

Britain will not be paying €2bn to anyone on 1 December, and we reject this scale of payment. We will be challenging this in every way possible. We want to check how the statistics were arrived at and the methodology that was used; we will crawl through this in exhaustive detail.”

That would all be very reasonable if you removed the first sentence. With the first sentence in, it's a bit like saying, we'll examine all the evidence, but it doesn't matter what the evidence shows because we've already decided what the verdict is going to be anyway.

Sorry, but none of them is "a party for the rich" - that is a cliche that is used when rational criticism is unavailable. Both Labour and Conservatives (and Lib Dems, really) genuinely wish to govern this country for the general good, not to benefit any particular group. They have different ideas about what is best, that is all. The sooner we can ignore this hogwash about Tories hating the poor and Labour crushing the rich, the sooner we can have a sensible debate about what needs doing. I am fed up with posturing and want thought and explanations. It is that posturing that has directly encouraged the "growth" of UKIP - none of the major parties are allowed to speak intellectually about their policies, so a party that has no sane policies can look as good as any other.

Well said! Totally agree!

 

[DarloRich]

There is some utter rot on this thread - particularly about the policies and positions of the Conservative party.

It is simply not possible to have a sensible debate on Europe in this country because of the swivel eyed loons of the Conservatives and their brothers in UKIP. They simply have to raise blow certain dog whistles, like EHRA, and all that frothing, rabid, foreigner hating muck comes out.

A mature, sensible debate IS needed about our relationship (financial and political) with Europe. We won’t get one though!

 

[Clip]

There is some utter rot on this thread - particularly about the policies and positions of the Conservative party.

It is simply not possible to have a sensible debate on Europe in this country because of the swivel eyed loons of the Conservatives and their brothers in UKIP. They simply have to raise blow certain dog whistles, like EHRA, and all that frothing, rabid, foreigner hating muck comes out.

A mature, sensible debate IS needed about our relationship (financial and political) with Europe. We won’t get one though!

Oh the irony :roll:

 

[ExRes]

There is some utter rot on this thread - particularly about the policies and positions of the Conservative party.

It is simply not possible to have a sensible debate on Europe in this country because of the swivel eyed loons of the Conservatives and their brothers in UKIP. They simply have to raise blow certain dog whistles, like EHRA, and all that frothing, rabid, foreigner hating muck comes out.

A mature, sensible debate IS needed about our relationship (financial and political) with Europe. We won’t get one though!

I don't remember this particular Monty Python sketch, odd as it's certainly worth a damn good laugh

 

[Deerfold]

A mature, sensible debate IS needed about our relationship (financial and political) with Europe. We won’t get one though!

I'd have to agree with that. Unfortuanately the argument gets reduced to a simple "in/out".

I think overall we benefit from out relationship with the EU, but don't agree with everything they do. And trying to negotiate with a "or we'll take our ball home" attitude behind it seems very immature.

 

[DarloRich]

Oh the irony :roll:

I don't remember this particular Monty Python sketch, odd as it's certainly worth a damn good laugh

But that is my point - the more "outlandish" Tories/Ukipers seem to attract the limelight and drive the substance of the debate rather than having a sensible discussion of the benefits/costs of membership of the EU.

I am no fan of the EU as it stands and operates today but am happy to acknowledge some benefits. I certainly think we should not pay anymore money over at this stage as we seem ot pay quite enougth!

However, we do need to consider very carefully, dispassionately and sensibly our ongoing relationship with Europe. That won’t happen when the debate is driven by the extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

[Oswyntail]

I'd have to agree with that. Unfortuanately the argument gets reduced to a simple "in/out".

I think overall we benefit from out relationship with the EU, but don't agree with everything they do. And trying to negotiate with a "or we'll take our ball home" attitude behind it seems very immature.

While I agree with most of this, I think that sensible negotiation can only take place if it is explicitly stated that leaving is an option that we would be willing to consider. It is massive leverage if used properly, and, if we do not use it, it is hard to see where we can apply any pressure in negotiation.

 

[DarloRich]

While I agree with most of this, I think that sensible negotiation can only take place if it is explicitly stated that leaving is an option that we would be willing to consider. It is massive leverage if used properly, and, if we do not use it, it is hard to see where we can apply any pressure in negotiation.

I agree entirely - leaving is an option we should consider and that consideration/threat should be used to force any deal IF we chose to stay.

 

[Chapeltom]

I've left the UK for work, I've gone 6000 miles and I'm doing a course (TEFL/TESOL) that will train me to do a job that will make me a key asset to my new country. A week away and I have absolutely no desire to the UK not now, and not for the considerable future. I'm out, I have a degree (which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard) seeing as previous administrations have meddled with the education system so much it means I don't stand out from the crowd (my degree is devalued by numbers), that saying 'everyone has a degree' may not be exactly true but it certainly feels like it to a graduate applying for jobs in the UK. I have never been so miserable, depressed in my life than I was in the 4 month period after finishing University. I have work experience, can handle an interview but it didn't matter. Now I'm out, I couldn't be happier. The subject of my degree doesn't matter here (probably in the UK too) but it shows I have been educated to a high level and that will open me up to higher wages here. I want to be asset here, and will do all I can to stay long term as I enjoy the lifestyle. I'll earn a 1/3rd of what I earn in the country with far lower living costs but a better qualify of life.

UK: Graduate - takes ages to get a job - earn e.g. £20k - higher living costs/quality of life lower - happiness factor lower.
Here: Graduate - I'm doing something that is in huge demand - earn around £7000 a year - living costs are lower percentage of wages/food, culture, weather - far superior.

I'm now living and will soon be working abroad in a country which doesn't exactly allow foreigners to get a foothold in the country. One example is no right to buy property is amongst the rules here and I think about it, why do people suddenly think the free movement of peoples/all those 'EU granted' privileges is a good thing in Europe? While ever the nation state exists, it should be up to the government of each country to decide who they let into a country to live, work or otherwise. What gives you the right to go live elsewhere and just apply for benefits that the native population get, and who've been putting money into the system? What gives you the right to live/work elsewhere without proper authority and permission from that respective country's government?

Its absurd. I'm a foreigner here in my new country, I AM A GUEST and the authorities are going to allow me to do my job because they want people who can do what I want to do. I offer something the locals cannot as I am a native English speaker, and to teach English effectively to locals, you need a native speaker. I am grateful the authorities make it possible for me to get the paperwork to work here, but the authorities have every right to turn down visas/a work permit to me and indeed every other foreigner here in this country. I thought the free movement of peoples was a load of codswallop before I left the UK, here where I am now, I am a guest and I don't assume I can just click my fingers, walk in (well fly in), get a job and its all good. No, I had to get a Non Immigrant Visa and I will have to get a work-permit once I start work. I will probably have to do border runs, I will probably have to fight/have a fun with a bit of bureaucracy but its not a right, its a privilege to work in another country, another nation state with its own government. Transparent borders is beyond ridiculous, and now I've moved away, well away from Europe I will be glad not to return as I realise how utterly wrong government/the EU are getting it. Nation state = nation states control borders, abolish the nation state (either within a bloc/worldwide) = free for all within that area. One or the other, as a bit of one and a bit of the other doesn't work.

Some argue abolishing the free movement of peoples would put people's jobs at risk? For the most part I don't believe that, yes people would have to get paperwork and the government of the country they are looking to work in would have to approve them, so what? Those with something to offer would be fine, those without anything to offer would probably not. I look at the way the UK/Europe does things from the outside now, I look at it from the perspective that I'm going through a process of having moved/living/working abroad. I don't mind it because I'd expect a bit of hassle.

If my new country says in 5 years time, we don't need English teachers, we don't want your services, I would have to leave otherwise I'd be out-staying my welcome, its their right to control their own borders/work force.

 

[muz379]

Yep, and that's a big thing about this: People keep assuming this is a really big amount because £1.7bn sounds big, but that's because most people aren't familiar with what numbers on the scale of the UK Government and the UK economy are like. This is really not a big sum. On the scale of the UK Government's annual spending, this amount is trivial. Not the kind of thing that is worth making any kind of big deal over. (Obviously, unless your main aim is not to deal with the facts, but to try and score political capital out of it)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sort of. But look at David Cameron's main statement to MPs:



That would all be very reasonable if you removed the first sentence. With the first sentence in, it's a bit like saying, we'll examine all the evidence, but it doesn't matter what the evidence shows because we've already decided what the verdict is going to be anyway.

The thing is we waste well more than £1.7bn in inefficient operations in loads of areas so its not like we are desperately scrabbling round for the money .

I do agree though that if the government feels that the amount is not due they should tell the EU we are going to look into it and might have to delay payment until after the 1st dec whilst we investigate . I have no issue with that part of what we are doing .

I do have a problem with the knee jerk "we arent paying it " reaction of DC

But that is my point - the more "outlandish" Tories/Ukipers seem to attract the limelight and drive the substance of the debate rather than having a sensible discussion of the benefits/costs of membership of the EU.

I am no fan of the EU as it stands and operates today but am happy to acknowledge some benefits. I certainly think we should not pay anymore money over at this stage as we seem ot pay quite enougth!

However, we do need to consider very carefully, dispassionately and sensibly our ongoing relationship with Europe. That won’t happen when the debate is driven by the extreme ends of the spectrum.

The way I see the issue is that the "swivel eyed loons" get the most attention because they are the most vocal about leaving the EU . I have yet to see any politicians but a reasoned argument together for why we should stay in , and actually be vocal about it . Or maybe it is all the medias fault .

.

Some argue abolishing the free movement of peoples would put people's jobs at risk? For the most part I don't believe that, yes people would have to get paperwork and the government of the country they are looking to work in would have to approve them, so what? Those with something to offer would be fine, those without anything to offer would probably not. I look at the way the UK/Europe does things from the outside now, I look at it from the perspective that I'm going through a process of having moved/living/working abroad. I don't mind it because I'd expect a bit of hassle.

If my new country says in 5 years time, we don't need English teachers, we don't want your services, I would have to leave otherwise I'd be out-staying my welcome, its their right to control their own borders/work force.

The thing is even UKIP understand the benefits of free movement of persons . they would allow highly skilled workers into the country , otherwise who is going to build our nuclear power stations and high speed rail links .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

While I agree with most of this, I think that sensible negotiation can only take place if it is explicitly stated that leaving is an option that we would be willing to consider. It is massive leverage if used properly, and, if we do not use it, it is hard to see where we can apply any pressure in negotiation.

Surely a big part of sensible negotiation is that you convince others that what you are asking for is reasonable, ethical, and perhaps in their interests too. Another part of sensible negotiation is a trade off ('I give you X if you give me Y'). Neither of those tactics require a threat to withdraw from the EU.

After all if there is something fundamentally broken about the EU, then that's probably hurting other countries too, which should make those other countries amenable to changing it.

Having said that, I also agree with you that leaving should be an option - but I'd say, an option without any sense of being a threat. If we see leaving as a threat than that's basically back to being childish. If we see it as a possible option if it turns out leaving is better on balance (for everyone) than staying, then that's sensible (and may as a side effect impact how negotiations go).

 

[ExRes]

Surely a big part of sensible negotiation is that you convince others that what you are asking for is reasonable, ethical, and perhaps in their interests too. Another part of sensible negotiation is a trade off ('I give you X if you give me Y'). Neither of those tactics require a threat to withdraw from the EU.

After all if there is something fundamentally broken about the EU, then that's probably hurting other countries too, which should make those other countries amenable to changing it.

Having said that, I also agree with you that leaving should be an option - but I'd say, an option without any sense of being a threat. If we see leaving as a threat than that's basically back to being childish. If we see it as a possible option if it turns out leaving is better on balance (for everyone) than staying, then that's sensible (and may as a side effect impact how negotiations go).

If convincing and trade offs are part of sensible negotiations then why shouldn't threat be a part as well ?

If threat is 'basically back to being childish' then how do you see union negotiations when the whole point of the "negotiation" is to leave/walk out if you don't get your own way, that's not an option it's a threat

 

[Amberley54]

Is that the same team of auditors who have refused to sign off the accounts of the EU for 14-odd years?

....or audited Tesco's accounts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If convincing and trade offs are part of sensible negotiations then why shouldn't threat be a part as well ?

If threat is 'basically back to being childish' then how do you see union negotiations when the whole point of the "negotiation" is to leave/walk out if you don't get your own way, that's not an option it's a threat

As a lifelong trade unionist that is an approach that I have all too often seen adopted by young 'macho' management teams. Usually older and wiser heads then prevail and we nearly always manage to find a solution acceptable to both sides.

Hopefully, the EU money issue will be similarly sorted without further resort to facile posturing for the benefit of the media and grandstanding/hand bag swinging.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If convincing and trade offs are part of sensible negotiations then why shouldn't threat be a part as well ?

Because when you convince people and do trade-offs you're basically working within the spirit of, being a community working together in the interests of everyone. When you say 'give me X or I leave' you're basically saying 'I don't care about anyone else, I'm taking what I want or else...' The moral difference between the two approaches should be obvious, and on a practical level, if you take the latter approach, you just put everyone else's back up (and make it more likely that the next time you need to negotiate, no one will be interested in giving you what you want).

If threat is 'basically back to being childish' then how do you see union negotiations when the whole point of the "negotiation" is to leave/walk out if you don't get your own way, that's not an option it's a threat

As in 'if we don't get our way we go on strike' or on the management side, 'if we don't get our way we just sack the lot of you'? That sounds exactly like what was wrong with much of UK industrial relations during the 1970s - and look where that got us! Cooperation is almost always so much better than confrontation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thing is even UKIP understand the benefits of free movement of persons . they would allow highly skilled workers into the country , otherwise who is going to build our nuclear power stations and high speed rail links .

That's only the economic benefits, not the social benefits, and it's treating people as commodities, not as human beings.

 

[ExRes]

....or audited Tesco's accounts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As a lifelong trade unionist that is an approach that I have all too often seen adopted by young 'macho' management teams. Usually older and wiser heads then prevail and we nearly always manage to find a solution acceptable to both sides.

Hopefully, the EU money issue will be similarly sorted without further resort to facile posturing for the benefit of the media and grandstanding/hand bag swinging.

I agree that wiser heads have usually prevailed in recent years, but after two20 year careers with the Post Office and the Railway I know that 'give us or else' has come from the Union on many occasions and to blame "young 'macho' management teams" is not really very fair or honest

Both sides have and always will share the macho stance at the outset of any negotiation and I see no reason that the government should be any different in this particular situation

 

[Amberley54]

Because when you convince people and do trade-offs you're basically working within the spirit of, being a community working together in the interests of everyone. When you say 'give me X or I leave' you're basically saying 'I don't care about anyone else, I'm taking what I want or else...' The moral difference between the two approaches should be obvious, and on a practical level, if you take the latter approach, you just put everyone else's back up (and make it more likely that the next time you need to negotiate, no one will be interested in giving you what you want).



As in 'if we don't get our way we go on strike' or on the management side, 'if we don't get our way we just sack the lot of you'? That sounds exactly like what was wrong with much of UK industrial relations during the 1970s - and look where that got us! Cooperation is almost always so much better than confrontation.

Indeed. The far left gave up on trying to take over the Labour Party ( outside Merseyside and parts of Greater London) after the early 80s so focused on the trade union movement. However, they were largely thwarted except when their candidates were able to tap into members concerns and thrived on the unremitting scrutiny of the UKs largely right leaning press - Bob Crow v the Standard and Daily Express for example.

Our modern trade unions are a million miles from those caricatured by the 'winter of Discontent' fables.

On entryism - I wonder how many NF/BM/BNP fellow travellers are finding a new home in UKIP though?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that wiser heads have usually prevailed in recent years, but after two20 year careers with the Post Office and the Railway I know that 'give us or else' has come from the Union on many occasions and to blame "young 'macho' management teams" is not really very fair or honest

Both sides have and always will share the macho stance at the outset of any negotiation and I see no reason that the government should be any different in this particular situation

I spoke from personal experience of over 30 years as a union negotiator and anecdotal evidence from colleagues in ACAS.

Perhaps the worst management i came across over three decades was in the Royal Mail and some of the US-owned car manufacturers. German and afar eastern car manufacturers were light years ahead and would never walk away from the table.

 

[ExRes]

Our modern trade unions are a million miles from those caricatured by the 'winter of Discontent' fables.

On entryism - I wonder how many NF/BM/BNP fellow travellers are finding a new home in UKIP though?

Quite so, thankfully, but after having worked through it I find it difficult to accept that all of the 'Winter of Discontent' reports were 'fables'

No doubt some NF/BM/BNF supporters will vote UKIP, they certainly won't vote Labour after the appallingly lax attitude shown towards immigration by Blair

 

[455driver]

I've left the UK for work, I've gone 6000 miles and I'm doing a course (TEFL/TESOL) that will train me to do a job that will make me a key asset to my new country. A week away and I have absolutely no desire to the UK not now, and not for the considerable future.

I wish you well in your new Country and career, it certainly sounds as if you are happy.

PS, any (passenger) train driving jobs going?
Only joking about the last bit, the other half wont move.

 

[radamfi]

why do people suddenly think the free movement of peoples/all those 'EU granted' privileges is a good thing in Europe? While ever the nation state exists, it should be up to the government of each country to decide who they let into a country to live, work or otherwise. What gives you the right to go live elsewhere and just apply for benefits that the native population get, and who've been putting money into the system? What gives you the right to live/work elsewhere without proper authority and permission from that respective country's government?

It is sheer luck where you happen to be born. The UK has let me down badly regarding cycling and public transport so that is why I am emigrating to the Netherlands. I'm educated and financially independent so I could probably get in anyway, but what if I wasn't? The UK policy on cycling and public transport has effectively alienated me, but I would be effectively imprisoned in this country.

 

[Oswyntail]

... When you say 'give me X or I leave' you're basically saying 'I don't care about anyone else, I'm taking what I want or else...' ....

I agree, but there is a more nuanced approach. "I shall negotiate, hoping for a result that is in everyone's interest, but if you are not equally flexible then we may have to leave, which would damage your interests". Don't forget there are two sides to the negotiation, and the current EU approach (as reported) is as stubborn as the British (as reported).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Our modern trade unions are a million miles from those caricatured by the 'winter of Discontent' fables.

It certainly did not give that impression when a recent and newly-installed leader of a certain transport union decided to speak in 1970's-style socialist language in his first week's announcement....

 

[yorksrob]

Its not seperate though . Brussels wanted to give Greece a decent bailout but other countries wouldnt have it .

The simple fact is , if our economy hadn't have improved we would be getting a rebate or wouldnt owe any extra . That to me sounds reasonably fair and the EU taking account of the economic situation countries across Europe in the past 6-8 years.

Either way as I said earlier given that our economy has managed to increase public spending by £120bn since 2008 without collapsing the extra £1.7bn due to the eu is not exactly going to put us over the edge .

Given that countries like Ireland ended up a lot worse than us pay a lot less than us and in overall terms get more spent on them then they contribute shows that the EU does actually take what you are saying into account and is not "squeezing" countries apart from where the political will of countries within the union prevents Brussels from doing exactly what it wants .

Although the bailout fund might be backed by the EU budget, it had to be agreed by the member states for that specific purpose. To that end, I have some sympathy with countries deciding to use some of the funds in this way (albeit to correct the EU's own folly of the single currency which was a stupid idea in the first place).

I also in theory, don't have a problem with some redistribution of wealth between member states. However, as I have mentioned, every country in the EU has been through the mangle since 2008 and the overall EU budget should have been shrinking since then. Infact it should still be shrinking as the public sector of all EU countries is still shrinking and is likely to remain so for some time.

 

[muz379]

Although the bailout fund might be backed by the EU budget, it had to be agreed by the member states for that specific purpose. To that end, I have some sympathy with countries deciding to use some of the funds in this way (albeit to correct the EU's own folly of the single currency which was a stupid idea in the first place).

I also in theory, don't have a problem with some redistribution of wealth between member states. However, as I have mentioned, every country in the EU has been through the mangle since 2008 and the overall EU budget should have been shrinking since then. Infact it should still be shrinking as the public sector of all EU countries is still shrinking and is likely to remain so for some time.

Basically Brussels couldnt have redistributed that wealth without the tacit consent of the likes of France , Germany and Italy .Either way I can kind of sympathise with the argument about the bailouts because the idea supposedly emerged from Brussels . Although what leading economists would have said would have been the prevailing wisdom .

You keep repeating this point that every country has been in the Mangle , however it is simply not true . If the public sector has been and still is shrinking why is spending in this country on the rise . Have you got some figures to show that the eu budget did in fact rise rather than fall during these years ? . Or that some of that spending was indeed discretionary spending rather than essential spending to make sure the economies of countries like Ireland , Spain and Greece didnt collapse .

I wish you well in your new Country and career, it certainly sounds as if you are happy.

PS, any (passenger) train driving jobs going?
Only joking about the last bit, the other half wont move.

Thats probably all the more reason to move
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It certainly did not give that impression when a recent and newly-installed leader of a certain transport union decided to speak in 1970's-style socialist language in his first week's announcement....

Are we anywhere near a general strike ?

Is the red light on your socialist threat warning board in the third reception room flashing ?

 

[Amberley54]

Basically Brussels couldnt have redistributed that wealth without the tacit consent of the likes of France , Germany and Italy .Either way I can kind of sympathise with the argument about the bailouts because the idea supposedly emerged from Brussels . Although what leading economists would have said would have been the prevailing wisdom .

You keep repeating this point that every country has been in the Mangle , however it is simply not true . If the public sector has been and still is shrinking why is spending in this country on the rise . Have you got some figures to show that the eu budget did in fact rise rather than fall during these years ? . Or that some of that spending was indeed discretionary spending rather than essential spending to make sure the economies of countries like Ireland , Spain and Greece didnt collapse .



Thats probably all the more reason to move
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are we anywhere near a general strike ?

Is the red light on your socialist threat warning board in the third reception room flashing ?

There are plenty of labour voters in Prestbury - about 38 at the last count.

 

[yorksrob]

You keep repeating this point that every country has been in the Mangle , however it is simply not true . If the public sector has been and still is shrinking why is spending in this country on the rise . Have you got some figures to show that the eu budget did in fact rise rather than fall during these years ? . Or that some of that spending was indeed discretionary spending rather than essential spending to make sure the economies of countries like Ireland , Spain and Greece didnt collapse .

I could only find this up until 2012 unfortunately. Happy for anyone to add later updates:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11645975

The budget largely keeps the CAP and the structural funds going, both of which could have been trimmed, frankly.

 

[muz379]

I could only find this up until 2012 unfortunately. Happy for anyone to add later updates:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11645975

The budget largely keeps the CAP and the structural funds going, both of which could have been trimmed, frankly.

Interestingly the graph shows nominal increases in 07,08 and 09 . The Uk was technically in economy from Q2 2008 to Q3 2009

I dont have time to trawl stats for every UK country .

But it actually seems that the EU did indeed reduce its spending in line with the economic situation in Member states . As I was saying all along

 

[yorksrob]

Interestingly the graph shows nominal increases in 07,08 and 09 . The Uk was technically in economy from Q2 2008 to Q3 2009

I dont have time to trawl stats for every UK country .

But it actually seems that the EU did indeed reduce its spending in line with the economic situation in Member states . As I was saying all along

You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

 

[muz379]

You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

Sorry ,the UK economy was technically in recession .

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry ,the UK economy was technically in recession .

Thanks, I see.

However, I don't think that the UK would have been alone in feeling the effects of the economic slow down for rather longer than Q3 2009 though.