[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 2.0

[Fatal Exception]

I like that no one mentioned the now outdated UK rebate from the EU budget that we probably shouldn't get, currently worth £3.8Billion....

[Cal]

So after you completely ignore the majority of posts the other day, you are now back demanding an answer? Are you actually going to follow the rules of the thread or do your normal gooseberry fool and run posting?

Right, but does any of this sit well with you, Moggy? For instance, it's been calculated that our membership of the EU costs us £24 million a day at present (this is before the additional £1.7bn that's now been demanded). We are already paying £8.6bn a year, after rebates (again, before the new sum is added). In total, we will now be required to shell out, as a nation, £10.3bn pa to the EU. These are the most reliable and independent figures I could find - if you can find better, then by all means...

Interesting that in that link it shows up the deceitful way that Farage describes our contribution. I have no dispute on the figures themselves so no need for me to add anything else here.

So, £10.3bn a year - a truly staggering sum - courtesy of UK taxpayers to remain in the EU (remember, that's after rebates). Is this is a good use of such a vast figure at a time when we are told the NHS is facing a huge deficit, when schools, infrastructure, social provision, etc, etc are all facing huge cuts due to the national debt?

It's a vast sum to an individual, but peanuts compared to UK spending as a whole.

Total Spending £731.4 billion
Pensions £149.7 billion
Health Care £133.0 billion
Education £90.1 billion
Defence £45.6 billion
Welfare £109.8 billion

£10billion spent on the EU would be roughly 1.5% of total expenditure? Not exactly such a staggering figure when you look at it like that.

The point remains that it's at least £10.3bn we could usefully repatriate here and use at our own discretion to help fund cash-strapped services we badly need.

It was recently reported that despite the 'healthy economy' for which we are being punished by the EU, the UK is now staring at an even bigger deficit, going forward.

We signed up to the rules and it is not exactly a punishment but the way that our contribution is calculated. If you sign up to a pension scheme, your contribution will go up as your wages go up. You can't moan about being punished for having a pay rise as those were the rules you signed up to.

Okay, but Cameron is taking issue with the payment, even going so far as to publicly refuse to pay it. He obviously believes there is a problem. He's not alone.

It's a simple question, really.

It probably is a simple question but that's a patronising way to put it.

No, it really isn't.

Is our continued membership of the EU really the best use of £10.3bn of taxpayer's money every single year?

1.5% of total expenditure to be part of one of the biggest trading blocs in the world? I would imagine it is worth it or else Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron would probably have pulled us out of it. Do you think all those Governments over the last 30 years just thought "ahh screw it, let's just hand loads of money over to Europe with no benefit to us!"?

Yes, that's a well-rehearsed argument, but plenty take issue with it. And plenty do.

Of course there are other things we could spend that money on. There are always other things we can spend money on.

So let's just get out of the EU and stop paying them...for what? When we need every penny to maintain our own infrastructure here. The misconception put about is that somehow we need the EU more than they need us. Because we were sensible enough to stay out of monetary union (thank god), and because our economy is therefore the most successful of the entire EU trading bloc, we are to be milked like a cash cow?

No thanks.

[Fatal Exception]

Cal, as a net importer, you do realise it's in our best interests to be part of this trading union? Leaving it would not allow us to negotiate better rates. In fact it would probably piss everyone off to the point where they destroy us.

If parties like UKIP wanted to put sovereignty and trading rules to the UK public they wouldn't have voted in favour TTIP, which goes against what they allegedly stand for....

[Moggy]

The point remains that it's at least £10.3bn we could usefully repatriate here and use at our own discretion to help fund cash-strapped services we badly need.

But that is not an answer Cal. We could scrap all sorts of things to pay for other things.

Okay, but Cameron is taking issue with the payment, even going so far as to publicly refuse to pay it. He obviously believes there is a problem. He's not alone.

Maybe Cameron will refuse to pay it, but he knew full well that the bill was coming. I would imagine most of his outrage about it is based on his fear of UKIP taking Tory seats.

As FE said, we are happy to receive rebates when they are due, why shouldn't we pay our fair share when the rules that we signed up say we should pay?

No, it really isn't.

It really was.

Yes, that's a well-rehearsed argument, but plenty take issue with it. And plenty do.

It is not that well rehearsed as I have never made it before. Plenty might take issue with it and plenty do not take issue with it. So?

So let's just get out of the EU and stop paying them...for what?

Are you saying that you see no benefits at all to EU membership? Or that our Governments over the last 30 or so years see/saw no benefits? We did not join up and continue with membership just to pay out cash, we are in it for the benefits it brings.

When we need every penny to maintain our own infrastructure here. The misconception put about is that somehow we need the EU more than they need us. Because we were sensible enough to stay out of monetary union (thank god), and because our economy is therefore the most successful of the entire EU trading bloc, we are to be milked like a cash cow?

No thanks.

How are we the most successful economy of the EU? You do realise that France and Germany are bigger than us (by GDP)?

I cannot find figures later than 2007, but we pay less than Germany, France and Italy so we are hardly being milked like cash cows.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm

[Rex Kramer]

Cameron is really making hay while the sun shines with this, that blustery speech must have gone down great guns with those drifting towards UKIP.

[Stugene]

I'm also struggling to believe that any organisation would drop a bill on your doorstep for several billion euros with only 5 weeks to pay.

This. Our Government know full well how the EU funding works and they should know how our economy is doing. They might try and save face by pretending this is the evil EU demanding payment, but they knew it was coming and our Government would have signed up to this.

I doubt there would be much moaning if Germany's economy had done better than expected and they were faced with an extra bill.

Right, but does any of this sit well with you, Moggy? For instance, it's been calculated that our membership of the EU costs us £24 million a day at present (this is before the additional £1.7bn that's now been demanded). We are already paying £8.6bn a year, after rebates (again, before the new sum is added). In total, we will now be required to shell out, as a nation, £10.3bn pa to the EU. These are the most reliable and independent figures I could find - if you can find better, then by all means...

So, £10.3bn a year - a truly staggering sum - courtesy of UK taxpayers to remain in the EU (remember, that's after rebates). Is this is a good use of such a vast figure at a time when we are told the NHS is facing a huge deficit, when schools, infrastructure, social provision, etc, etc are all facing huge cuts due to the national debt?

It was recently reported that despite the 'healthy economy' for which we are being punished by the EU, the UK is now staring at an even bigger deficit, going forward.

It's a simple question, really. Is our continued membership of the EU really the best use of £10.3bn of taxpayer's money every single year?

Since you have access to the figures, how much does the EU subsidise our agriculture industry?

[captain red dog]

Cameron is really making hay while the sun shines with this, that blustery speech must have gone down great guns with those drifting towards UKIP.

I doubt it, anyone drifting to UKIP will likely be fuming at this additional bill, and I can't see a speech from Cameron quelling that rage.

I don't know where I stand to be honest. Politicians have done an appalling job of explaining the benefits of the modern EU. However, I can't help but feel that the EU has grown to such a size that nobody really knows anymore if it really is value for money.

[Moggy]

I have been reading this and I still don't get the outrage over this. We revised our figures, the EU redid their sums and we have to pay money that we owed (as part of our agreements).

I can see why people hate the EU and want to leave, but I don't see why there is outrage over this.

[7256930752]

You could spin this multiple ways to be honest. I can't imagine our media would show much sympathy if another member state refuse to pay their bill.

[Meep]

The size of the UK economy changed, so the calculation regarding our payments to the EU changed, thus we pay more. I'm not seeing the issue here. The same formula is applied to every other country in the EU. If you want to argue that it has been misapplied that is one thing but I don't see how the UK should be exempt from the same system other countries are assessed through.

[Rex Kramer]

It was also based on figures supplied by the ONS. Either they believe our economy is a s strong as suggested (and therefore we have to pay) or they've been cooking the books.

[7256930752]

I guess you could argue that if our economic success is down to making tough economic decisions that other member states haven't then we are being punished.

I just can't believe that the government wouldn't know that this was coming. Surely they could have found a way to manipulate the figures to negate the tax?

[Moggy]

In response to Read's request to withdraw the song from sale, a UKIP spokesman said: "This is Mike's song and it is obviously his decision what to do with it. "We do think it is a shame that he has been treated so harshly by many in the 'right on' media, but we respect his decision. We thought it was just a bit of fun, as did thousands of people, evidenced by how well it has been selling.

He added: "Were it not for the synthetic outrage, the song would have generated a lot of money for charity, as profits were to be split with the Red Cross for their Ebola Outreach programme.

Yeah! Good job, Team Progressive!

Going back to this (apologies everyone!), the Red Cross refused any donation from UKIP.

Ukip attacked critics of the song – and revealed that half of the proceeds were going to go to the Red Cross.
But the Red Cross said it would 'not be able to accept any money from the proceeds of this single'. It said: 'The Red Cross has a proud history of helping refugees and asylum seekers who are negatively referred to in the lyrics.'

Of course we should all remember the real victim here is UKIP.

Ukip chairman Steve Crowther says he was 'staggered' by British Red Cross rejection of Ukip Calypso cash
He said: 'We regret that the British Red Cross think it's their place to put politics over saving peoples' lives. We will seek to donate all the money to another charity working to help tackle the tragic ebola crisis.'

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... ately.html

Of course, how were UKIP supposed to know that? It's not like the British Red Cross have any statements about neutrality on their website is it?

The Red Cross Movement is not a political or religious organisation. This neutrality means that we can reach and offer unconditional help to people in need whoever and wherever they are.

Often we work in countries where other organisations cannot or will not work. We cross front-lines in times of war to help conflict victims and visit prisoners of war on both sides. We can only do this life-saving work if we are understood to be a completely neutral, independent organisation. Put simply, our neutrality saves lives.
We can’t let down people in need by compromising our neutrality. That is why we do not align ourselves with any particular political cause or religious creed anywhere in the world.
And that is why we do not generally sell or display religious items, of any faith, in our shops. As an organisation, the Red Cross cannot be seen to be religious or political because to do so might jeopardise the access we have to people in need.

http://www.redcross.org.uk/en/About-us/ ... neutrality

[Meep]

The thing is, the real economy is actually in a terrible state. The fact that treasury revenue is in rapid decline, and thus the ability of the government to pay these kind of increases, is pretty indicative of this state (if the economy was really improving the treasury would be getting richer). IMO, the illusion of a recovering situation created by a proliferation of poorly paid jobs and personal debt (debt counts as growth, BTW) is probably going to do more harm than good in the long run and in that light these increases are probably not justified. As soon as interest rates make significant increases things are not going to look so rosy. The idea that we are somehow outpacing Germany is ridiculous.

Given that living standards are still declining, I can understand why the large majority of people will be pissed off at this increase. However, I think the fact that our government is failing to ensure long term prosperity and misrepresenting our economic fortune (they are the ones who handed over the data on which this increase was calculated), means that they are equally to blame.

[Cal]

UKIP has launched a hard-hitting poster that criticises Labour for the Rotherham child abuse scandal in which 1,400 children were abused between 1997 and 2013.

The poster, which forms part of the campaign for Jack Clarkson, UKIP's candidate in the forthcoming South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner election, depicts a distraught girl and reads "There are 1,400 reasons why you should not trust Labour again." The Rotherham scandal was revealed in a report in August, with the town's Labour-run administration largely blamed for ignoring that scale of the abuse for years. The subsequent public outcry eventually led to South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright resigning, thus forcing a by-election to replace him on 30 October.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... ham-Poster

Bad taste or hard-hitting truth?

[Fatal Exception]

Extremely bad taste really. UKIP are strawberry floating disgusting human beings. Here's farage calling "lefties" child abuse sympathisers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... laims.html

Apart from being as untrue, it's a strawberry floating disgusting thing to say.

[Cal]

Extremely bad taste really. UKIP are strawberry floating disgusting human beings. Here's farage calling "lefties" child abuse sympathisers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... laims.html

Apart from being as untrue, it's a strawberry floating disgusting thing to say.

At this point, it's worth remembering that:

The Rotherham scandal was revealed in a report in August, with the town's Labour-run administration largely blamed for ignoring that scale of the abuse for years.

And here's what Nigel farage actually says in that link you refer to:

"And I tell you what gets me. We've had more condemnation and outrage from Left-wing commentators about Mike Read's Calypso than we've had over the grooming and rape of thousands of young girls in the north of England."

Where does he accuse 'lefties' of being 'child abuse sympathisers'..? He doesn't, does he?

[Skarjo]

UKIP has launched a hard-hitting poster that criticises Labour for the Rotherham child abuse scandal in which 1,400 children were abused between 1997 and 2013.

The poster, which forms part of the campaign for Jack Clarkson, UKIP's candidate in the forthcoming South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner election, depicts a distraught girl and reads "There are 1,400 reasons why you should not trust Labour again." The Rotherham scandal was revealed in a report in August, with the town's Labour-run administration largely blamed for ignoring that scale of the abuse for years. The subsequent public outcry eventually led to South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright resigning, thus forcing a by-election to replace him on 30 October.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... ham-Poster

Bad taste or hard-hitting truth?

That's in appallingly bad taste. I think to even consider framing the abuse scandal as a 'Labour' issue in order to score cheap political points is morally bankrupt.

[Fatal Exception]

Extremely bad taste really. UKIP are strawberry floating disgusting human beings. Here's farage calling "lefties" child abuse sympathisers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... laims.html

Apart from being as untrue, it's a strawberry floating disgusting thing to say.

At this point, it's worth remembering that:

The Rotherham scandal was revealed in a report in August, with the town's Labour-run administration largely blamed for ignoring that scale of the abuse for years.

And here's what Nigel farage actually says in that link you refer to:

"And I tell you what gets me. We've had more condemnation and outrage from Left-wing commentators about Mike Read's Calypso than we've had over the grooming and rape of thousands of young girls in the north of England."

Where does he accuse 'lefties' of being 'child abuse sympathisers'..? He doesn't, does he?

That bit I just bolded for you. I'm pretty sure if you actually looked at left wing papers you'll find a lot more lines dedicated to the Rotherham abuse scandal than this shitty slightly racist song.

[Fatal Exception]