Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

Well, it sounds like you've already made up your mind, but I'll attempt a very brief explanation anyway. The what part is much easier than the why.

Put rather simplistically, European Union 'regional policy' basically describes a pooled trans-European grant funding system targeted towards investment proposals designed to stimulate economic growth and regeneration in comparatively deprived or otherwise economically-lagging areas of Europe. This is often called "cohesion" - the idea that the EU should work to lift-up the drag on the European economy and ameliorate internal disparities; to foster integration within economies, not just between them.

It's often pretty practical stuff - training workers, increasing industrial capacity, (literally) building bridges, and so on. Project approval generally has some (perhaps theoretical?) link to wider EU policy objectives; for example, you can find many examples of the EU funding scientific or industrial research, in line with the EU's stated aim of promoting European competitiveness on the global stage. Other times it's about providing coordinated financing for economic clusters that span national borders. Projects range from installing broadband infrastructure in rural Lithuania, to expanding the capacity of Italian port, to accelerating the construction of tram lines in Manchester.

I guess you could say it's vaguely like a prototype European tax-and-spend system, in that we're all paying into a pot that could potentially fund public works anywhere within the EU - except, of course, that it's member-state fees instead of individual taxes. You may feel that there's no reason for the EU to do this; that states could effectively carry out their own regional policies, as indeed many of them already do. But I see no harm in adding a supplementary European dimension; it is, at the least, an important experiment, given that regional disparities in some parts are actually increasing.

Yeah, that just sort of sounds like a bunch of helicopter drops with the intention of redistributing wealth. Which is nice if you're into that. It does seem like a limited number of people benefitting for something that every citizen in the EU is paying for, though.

As for the budget stuff re the UK, for ya'll who aren't fans of the Telegraph or what not, here's a Guardian link:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/23/uk-european-commission-eu-budget-contribution

Britain has been told it must pay an extra €2.1bn (£1.7bn) into the European Union budget by the end of next month because the UK economy is doing better relative to other European economies.

The demand is certain to be used against David Cameron by the growing camp who want the UK to quit the EU.

British and European commission officials confirmed that the Treasury had been told last week that budget contribution calculations based on gross national income (GNI) adjustments carried out by Eurostat, the EU statistics agency, had exposed a huge discrepancy between what Britain had been asked to contribute and what it should be paying, because of the UK’s recovery.

The bombshell, first reported by the Financial Times, was dropped into the middle of an EU summit in Brussels where Cameron and 27 other leaders were mired in tough negotiations over climate-change policy and attempts to agree big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

A Downing Street source said: “It’s not acceptable to just change the fees for previous years and demand them back at a moment’s notice. The European commission was not expecting this money and does not need this money and we will work with other countries similarly affected to do all we can to challenge this.”

The prime minister on Thursday evening conferred with Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, as the Netherlands has also been ordered to pay more than €600m extra into the budget, while other countries such as Germany and France are likely to have excess contributions returned.

The commission told the various countries of the revamped figures on 17 October, EU officials said. They said the British had until 1 December to provide €2.1bn, roughly a fifth of the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU.

Lol. Pay £1.7bn extra in 6 weeks for literally no return. That's some Wonga-level shit.

 

[DBT85]

They said the British had until 1 December to provide €2.1bn, roughly a fifth of the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU.

Or what, exactly?

 

[Kysen]

Lol. Pay £1.7bn extra in 6 weeks for literally no return. That's some Wonga-level shit.

Yep why bother with austerity when you can get paid to spend more just like France. It's complete bs, if Cameron pays this the Tories will lose the election. It's like Brussels is running a protection racket.

 

[Jezbollah]

This is mana from heaven for UKIP.

 

[Maledict]

See, this is why I wanted a more neutral opinion on the payments issue because so far even the left wing press in the UK is practically foaming at the mouth over this.

What I suspect happens is that the Commission sets a budget based on economic projections, and then allocates that budget through the agreed process and obviously with the agreement of every member state. Everyone signs up, and has an indicative contribution to make based on the projections.

At certain points, those estimates are reassessed and the contributions altered based on how accurate the projections were. This time around, because a lot of economists (including the IMF and the EU itself) projected higher growth for Europe and slower growth for the UK, the changes to the charges are much more substantial than normal. The EU isn't asking for more money in total - it's just dividing up the contributions pie based on the standard formula, so the better off counties contribute more than the poorer countries.

That's what I think is happening - I also suspect this happens repeatedly but this time the numbers are much, much bigger because of the economic background. I also suspect we don't have a leg to stand on - the money was spent across the EU inline with the treaties we have signed, which would have included the reassessment proviso.

Again though, would welcome a more informed opinion on the process and how accurate the above is.

(Am sidestepping the political aspect of this - this move is absolutely the dumbest thing the EU could do right now, and really will push us closer to the exit which is not what the majority of people in the UK want).

 

[anonymous_abc]

*raising flame shield*

What is wrong with the fact that a country contributes according to it's relative strength?
And if that strength was previously seriously undervalued it seems only fair to adjust the payments.

I'm probably just used to this because it works very similar to the German Federal state, where the rich states pay more into the pot than the poor states.

Yes it's wealth redistribution, and yes I think that is ok.
On the one hand you never know when you might end up on the other end of the scales and on the other hand I will directly profit if poorer regions can afford my exports.

[edit]
@Maledict that is exactly what I would expect is happening.

 

[CyclopsRock]

See, this is why I wanted a more neutral opinion on the payments issue because so far even the left wing press in the UK is practically foaming at the mouth over this.

What I suspect happens is that the Commission sets a budget based on economic projections, and then allocates that budget through the agreed process and obviously with the agreement of every member state. Everyone signs up, and has an indicative contribution to make based on the projections.

At certain points, those estimates are reassessed and the contributions altered based on how accurate the projections were. This time around, because a lot of economists (including the IMF and the EU itself) projected higher growth for Europe and slower growth for the UK, the changes to the charges are much more substantial than normal. The EU isn't asking for more money in total - it's just dividing up the contributions pie based on the standard formula, so the better off counties contribute more than the poorer countries.

That's what I think is happening - I also suspect this happens repeatedly but this time the numbers are much, much bigger because of the economic background. I also suspect we don't have a leg to stand on - the money was spent across the EU inline with the treaties we have signed, which would have included the reassessment proviso.

Again though, would welcome a more informed opinion on the process and how accurate the above is.

(Am sidestepping the political aspect of this - this move is absolutely the dumbest thing the EU could do right now, and really will push us closer to the exit which is not what the majority of people in the UK want).

This is literally exactly what the Guardian article above said, so I'm not sure where you're getting that they were foaming at the mouth.

 

[anonymous_abc]

This is literally exactly what the Guardian article above said, so I'm not sure where you're getting that they were foaming at the mouth.

Using militaristic language like 'Bombshell' will do that.

 

[OminoMichelin]

Yeah, that just sort of sounds like a bunch of helicopter drops with the intention of redistributing wealth. Which is nice if you're into that. It does seem like a limited number of people benefitting for something that every citizen in the EU is paying for, though.

This is because you don't know how they work on a bureaucratic level, and don't know what good came from it. Regions that were capable of using these funds saw enormous benefits.
The downside? You need somewhat capable managers to ask, and use such funds. That's because there are failsafes in place to ensure that the funds are well spent. For smaller projects you need precise timetables, intents and budgeting; bigger ones (such as those between various companies across europe) are incredibly complex to organize, but the whole of the EU sees the benefits. It because of such projects that we now have power ratings on TV and home appliances.
I actually did a master on this stuff.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Using militaristic language like 'Bombshell' will do that.

I think, irrespective of the rules of EU budgetary process, demanding a country that's cutting public spending pay £1.7bn that they weren't expecting to spend in 6 weeks is a bit of a bombshell.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I think, irrespective of the rules of EU budgetary process, demanding a country that's cutting public spending pay £1.7bn that they weren't expecting to spend in 6 weeks is a bit of a bombshell.

Literally.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

First the statement that the UK couldn't introduce an immigration cap and now we're being forced to pay £1.7 billion.

Lovely. I wonder how long the EU is going to keep on shovelling fuel into the UKIP furnace. Or maybe they really just don't give a shit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This is because you don't know how they work on a bureaucratic level, and don't know what good came from it. Regions that were capable of using these funds saw enormous benefits.
The downside? You need somewhat capable managers to ask, and use such funds. That's because there are failsafes in place to ensure that the funds are well spent. For smaller projects you need precise timetables, intents and budgeting; bigger ones (such as those between various companies across europe) are incredibly complex to organize, but the whole of the EU sees the benefits. It because of such projects that we now have power ratings on TV and home appliances.
I actually did a master on this stuff.

Well I don't think anyone would dare deny the profound and lasting impact that power ratings for TV's has, and continues, to have on our lives every day. In my region we actually altered our calendar to be "Before Power Ratings for TVs" and "After Power Ratings for TVs". That said, my "region" consists primarily of me, "Spooky Joe" and Lord Ashcroft sitting in the flower beds in Regents Park trying to avoid the maintainence staff when they lock the gates so we can sleep there. We're actually awaiting an EU grant from the Regional Development Fund to help fund our region's high demand for housing. A house, specifically, for Joe, Ashcroft and myself. Any day now...

But other than this, what you say simply nuances my belief that the regional development fund appears to largely be a "anything" fund with the intent of benefiting a few at the expense of the many. Yeah, maybe building me, joe an Ashcroft a house will benefit the wider world, and maybe building a cutting edge research facility in the North West of England will benefit the whole EU, but it'll mainly benefit researchers in the North West. And maybe that's a good thing. It is, however, an idea that largely appeals to the Keynesian side of the EU that believes the best way to create growth is for the government to pay for it. The various merits of this idea go far beyond the scope of the EU, natch, but for me, as a largely economic right winger, it's one of the many aspects of the EU that makes it so hard for me to hold my nose over in support of the open market. Despite what it may seem like in this thread, I actually support the UK staying in the EU, but it's in spite of all this natty centrally-funded boondoggle wankery, rather than because of it.

As such, I whine.

 

[cartesian]

Yeah, that just sort of sounds like a bunch of helicopter drops with the intention of redistributing wealth. Which is nice if you're into that. It does seem like a limited number of people benefitting for something that every citizen in the EU is paying for, though.

Isn't this how every tax and spend system works? The majority funding stuff for a minority? Even in Britain, everyone pays into pots that only a few benefit from (ie railway subsidies, major infrastructure projects).

I assume you oppose regional policy (and sector subsidies) within nations for the same reason? Keynesianism, limited benefits, etc...

Comparatively speaking, Britain is pretty disgusting when it comes to regional policy - the London classes love to talk about subsidiarity abroad, but they don't practice it at home.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Isn't this how every tax and spend system works? The majority funding stuff for a minority? Even in Britain, everyone pays into pots that only a few benefit from (ie railway subsidies, major infrastructure projects).

I assume you oppose regional policy (and sector subsidies) within nations for the same reason? Keynesianism, limited benefits, etc...

Comparatively speaking, Britain is pretty disgusting when it comes to regional policy - the London classes love to talk about subsidiarity abroad, but they don't practice it at home.

Basically, yeah. I think the closer - geographically - the tax raising and the spending is, the better (not to mention the more well informed the decisions, typically). This was also an argument put forward quite a bit during the Scottish referendum, and one with which I agreed. It makes perfect sense that London gets far more spent on its transport infrastructure than other areas, because as population density increases, transport becomes exponentially more complex - but if I lived in Wales, I doubt I'd be happy about it, because I need transport too and it was my work that got taxed to pay for those nice new tube trains, etc. Furthermore, the greater the distance over which this "subsidy" of one area from another occurs, the less residual benefits eventually get felt. In other words, if you build a new research center in the North West of England, those in the North West are more likely to benefit than those in the North East. But those in the North East are more likely to benefit than those in London, who are more likely to benefit than those in the South West or Northern Ireland, who are more likely to benefit than those in Ireland or France, who are more likely to benefit than those in some far flung part of the EU where their football teams sound like Harry Potter spells. Ergo, the larger the scale upon which this subsidy from one person to another occurs, the less likely the benefits will be felt by all, or the more unevenly distributed the benefit will be.

 

[OminoMichelin]

But other than this, what you say simply nuances my belief that the regional development fund appears to largely be a "anything" fund with the intent of benefiting a few at the expense of the many. Yeah, maybe building me, joe an Ashcroft a house will benefit the wider world, and maybe building a cutting edge research facility in the North West of England will benefit the whole EU, but it'll mainly benefit researchers in the North West. And maybe that's a good thing. It is, however, an idea that largely appeals to the Keynesian side of the EU that believes the best way to create growth is for the government to pay for it. The various merits of this idea go far beyond the scope of the EU, natch, but for me, as a largely economic right winger, it's one of the many aspects of the EU that makes it so hard for me to hold my nose over in support of the open market. Despite what it may seem like in this thread, I actually support the UK staying in the EU, but it's in spite of all this natty centrally-funded boondoggle wankery, rather than because of it.

As such, I whine.

I'm sorry, I can't answer without taking into consideration your post history. I know you're anti-subsidies, but you're still ignoring simple facts.
1)My post above has nothing to do with the UK (or other EU members) paying more. I agree it's stupid, but it has nothing to do with the topic of EU-founded projects.

2)These funds are largely obtained through fines EU countries pay for contravening EU policies. As it happens, Italy is both one of the countries which pays the most fines (because our central gov sucks), but also one that gets the most money for under developed areas. The EU doesn't print money for these, in case you're wondering.

3)While these funds are by subsidies, they are more of a way for new businesses to fund themselves than handouts. I don't think I have to mention how hard is it for a new business to get a bank loan these days. Once you use these funds, the training wheels are off. Bigger projects with many agents only get founded if they can provide tangible and measurable benefits to the EU as a whole. This is not about building a house, and nobody will give you money to build a research centre if you have nothing to research.

4) These funds are available basically everywhere. The only difference is the amount of money available. And if a region is not able to distribute them because there's no demand or w/e, they return back to where they came from, so that they can be used in the next round one (or several) years later.

5) The power rating is the most mundane example I could have used, I admit. I could mention that the funds helped people in my region to buy fix ancient rural buildings so that they could be used for tourism. More significant results include: A new design for airplane engines capable of reducing significantly CO2 emissions, development for gene carriers, research on cancer cell replication inhibition, and a bunch more stuff here: http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/re...ations/categories/resultCategory/code='brief'


Now, you can be anti-keynesian all you want, but history teaches us that most important (and above all wide-spread) scientific discoveries tend to be government-founded. You how how cool the CERN is? who do you think founded it? If you think this stuff has no effect on you, you're just plain wrong.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

It is hard to believe that this is a serious demand. When you consider we have people relying on food banks in this country, where things are being cut back left right and centre to pay this huge budget deficit and where the standards of living for ordinary people are completely in the shitter. In comes Europe going "oh we fudged the figures and you should give us more money and do it in 6 weeks, pay up".

I have no doubt the UK government will pay the 1.7 billion (hard to see how they can get out of it since the dickheads agreed to this review) it will just be added to the debt that we already will never pay off. But it wouldn't surprise me if this basically makes the UK exiting Europe a foregone conclusion. Hell I think I would even vote to leave Europe at this point.

 

[Spaced Harrier]

The EU has done wonders for my sex life.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Not sure how anyone can defend the £1.7 billion. At a time of austerity, cutbacks and a UKIP anti EU surge it is lunacy to say the UK needs to cough up an extra £1.7 billion in six weeks. I understand the idea behind it with it being based on GDP performance etc but it is lunacy.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The EU has done wonders for my sex life.

H...how?

 

[Zaph]

Not sure how anyone can defend the £1.7 billion. At a time of austerity, cutbacks and a UKIP anti EU surge it is lunacy to say the UK needs to cough up an extra £1.7 billion in six weeks. I understand the idea behind it with it being based on GDP performance etc but it is lunacy.

I don't follow politics and the economy as closely as most of poliGAF, but even if the £1.7bn charge is completely legitimate, surely Brussels would demonstrate a bit of common sense and strategically put it on the back-burner for now considering the current sentiment in the UK?

As tin-foil hat as it sounds, sometimes I really do wonder if there's a faction within the European Parliament trying to bring about a collapse from the inside.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I don't follow politics and the economy as closely as most of poliGAF, but even if the £1.7bn charge is completely legitimate, surely Brussels would demonstrate a bit of common sense and strategically put it on the back-burner for now considering the current sentiment in the UK?

As tin-foil hat as it sounds, sometimes I really do wonder if there's a faction within the European Parliament trying to bring about a collapse from the inside.

There is speculation that this was leaked when it was to inflict embarrassment on David Cameron:

What did catch them by surprise was what it sees as a deliberate leak by EU officials of the news last night - which they see as an attempt to embarrass David Cameron, as he meets other EU leaders to discuss, among other things, his controversial hopes of being able to restrict migration of EU nationals to Britain.

If this is true, that EU officials actually leaked this to embarrass the Prime Minister of the UK because he wants to try to curb immigration, I am just lost for words.

 

[OminoMichelin]

I just want to point out that the UK is not the only nation who needs to pay. Everyone else is being asked to, due to the change in criteria on how to calculate GDPs.
I still think it's bloody stupid and that the EU should backpedal a bit.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I just want to point out that the UK is not the only nation who needs to pay. Everyone else is being asked to, due to the change in criteria on how to calculate GDPs.
I still think it's bloody stupid and that the EU should backpedal a bit.

Everyone else is not being asked to pay, some are to be given rebates such as Germany and France. France will get a billion back!

 

[Spaced Harrier]

H...how?

Free movement of people.

It's fantastic.

I spent a few weeks in Italy this summer with a polish girl. This wasn't something my dad's generation did.

 

[Jezbollah]

https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/525633082599424000

Quite right.

 

[Nicktendo86]

https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/525633082599424000

Quite right.

Is that 'on December 1st' a caveat, in other words we will pay it later?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Free movement of people.

It's fantastic.

I spent a few weeks in Italy this summer with a polish girl. This wasn't something my dad's generation did.

Fair enough

Is that 'on December 1st' a caveat, in other words we will pay it later?

I think it'll just be postponed until after next year's General Election. As unpalatable as it is, I don't think you can just not pay and stay a member of the club (without incurring more fines).

 

[Nicktendo86]

Fair enough



I think it'll just be postponed until after next year's General Election. As unpalatable as it is, I don't think you can just not pay and stay a member of the club (without incurring more fines).

I suspect you could be right.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

We should pay it, but over a longer period of time with no interest penalties.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

We should pay it, but over a longer period of time with no interest penalties.

Agree. I think the main complaint is the short notice. If we signed up to this payment scheme, then that's that. But no matter how well the UK economy is doing, we don't have 2 billion quid just lying around! We're good for it, just give us some time.

This whole 'rebate' thing for France and Germany seems daft to me. Why not just have them pay in less?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

There is speculation that this was leaked when it was to inflict embarrassment on David Cameron:



If this is true, that EU officials actually leaked this to embarrass the Prime Minister of the UK because he wants to try to curb immigration, I am just lost for words.

Oh, it'll be embarrassing alright, but for the EU officials when it strengthens anti-EU sentiment in the UK. They really don't give a flying fuck about the UK do they?

 

[Walshicus]

As tin-foil hat as it sounds, sometimes I really do wonder if there's a faction within the European Parliament trying to bring about a collapse from the inside.

There may well be a faction within the EU looking to push England out, perhaps to strengthen the single-track-integrationists. I don't doubt the EU would be more cohesive without us... but selfishly we shouldn't let that happen.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm sorry, I can't answer without taking into consideration your post history. I know you're anti-subsidies, but you're still ignoring simple facts.
1)My post above has nothing to do with the UK (or other EU members) paying more. I agree it's stupid, but it has nothing to do with the topic of EU-founded projects.

Why not? I mean, it's not specific to EU funded projects, that's certainly true.

2)These funds are largely obtained through fines EU countries pay for contravening EU policies. As it happens, Italy is both one of the countries which pays the most fines (because our central gov sucks), but also one that gets the most money for under developed areas. The EU doesn't print money for these, in case you're wondering.

I didn't think they did. How they obtain the money isn't really relevant to me, since it all comes from the taxpayers who have it taken from them.

3)While these funds are by subsidies, they are more of a way for new businesses to fund themselves than handouts. I don't think I have to mention how hard is it for a new business to get a bank loan these days. Once you use these funds, the training wheels are off. Bigger projects with many agents only get founded if they can provide tangible and measurable benefits to the EU as a whole. This is not about building a house, and nobody will give you money to build a research centre if you have nothing to research.

I'm not sure why you think it's not a handout just because it's not given in perpetuity. And I don't doubt for a moment that those giving the funds genuinely believe it'll be useful.

5) The power rating is the most mundane example I could have used, I admit. I could mention that the funds helped people in my region to buy fix ancient rural buildings so that they could be used for tourism. More significant results include: A new design for airplane engines capable of reducing significantly CO2 emissions, development for gene carriers, research on cancer cell replication inhibition, and a bunch more stuff here: http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/re...ations/categories/resultCategory/code='brief'

This looks like a great use of money, but it doesn't really deal with my issues with it. My problem isn't that the specific uses of money aren't good ones, it's that the EU is a poor venue from which to do it given the massive size of the area covered and the smaller the distance from the areas you take the money and the area that receives it, the better. There are certain things that often exist outside of the market - like primary research and maintaining old buildings - which have a cultural use but even then in the case of the latter the cultural use is a very localised one, which is why I think the funding should be gained locally too.

I'm also acutely aware that the money doesn't come from no where - there may well be virtue to renovating or making safe an old building so that its historical value can be maintained, but there's also virtue to people keeping the money they earned. This often seems to go ignored in discussions about the use of tax, because it's so much easier to point to the people that benefit than the people that lose out.

Now, you can be anti-keynesian all you want, but history teaches us that most important (and above all wide-spread) scientific discoveries tend to be government-founded. You how how cool the CERN is? who do you think founded it? If you think this stuff has no effect on you, you're just plain wrong.

CERN's quite different - it's not given to "a region". It's not giving a place a resource, it's a pooling of resources in one place. You yourself said up there that "Once you use these funds, the training wheels are off" - that's patently not the case with CERN, because it's not meant to be a commercial enterprise. I have no problems with the government funding science institutions like CERN, though obviously their virtues should be constantly checked against its cost. But that's clearly different to what happens in the regional development budget.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Lol. Pay £1.7bn extra in 6 weeks for literally no return. That's some Wonga-level shit.

The EU's appetite for tribute would make Genghis blush.

 

[cartesian]

Oh, it'll be embarrassing alright, but for the EU officials when it strengthens anti-EU sentiment in the UK. They really don't give a flying fuck about the UK do they?

Honestly, I think they do want to keep the UK in the EU, but they're not going to do it at the cost of sacrificing core EU policies (ie. freedom of movement) if that is the price tag we set. We're one member state among twenty-eight, and a notoriously uncooperative one at that; the tail isn't going to wag the dog.

I've actually become pro-European in recent months, but I'm seriously contemplating voting to leave the EU in the upcoming referendum because this is becoming a bitter and dysfunctional marriage, and I'm starting to think both sides would benefit from a clean break.

 

[anonymous_abc]

At a news conference in Brussels, Mr Dominik said Mr Cameron's reaction had "surprised", because "up to this moment there was no single signal from the UK administration that they had a problem with this figure".

He added that there had been "two formal possibilities to react" and that "at none of those meetings" did the UK "express any concern".

Mr Dominik said: "We all agree on the methodology and the elements that are included in the contributions and we simply apply them. Never in the past was there a situation that such a decision was changed and implementation regulations have been changed because one of the member states has contested and… it would be extremely difficult to do it."

BBC


Doesn't look as if the EU is going to take this lying down.

 

[s_mirage]

Oh, it'll be embarrassing alright, but for the EU officials when it strengthens anti-EU sentiment in the UK. They really don't give a flying fuck about the UK do they?

I don't think they give a damn about anything to be honest, not just the UK. Too much of the EU machinery seems to be made up of petty bureaucrats who don't seem to consider the larger consequences of their actions, and too many political leaders seem to view the status quo as being eternal. It is obvious from recent election results that anti-EU sentiment is growing throughout Europe, but what does the EU do about it? Nothing; they're too wrapped up in their own little bubble to care.

 

[Walshicus]

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/oct/uk-waved-through-eu-budget-arrangements-may

UK waved through EU budget arrangements in May
Mon, 27/10/2014 - 16:55


The Scottish National Party revealed that the UK government knew about and agreed to the EU’s new budget arrangements at a meeting in May this year. Far from the Prime Minister’s claims that increased payments had been "landed on him by surprise", it is now clear that the Government knew about these changes months ago – and waved them through.

The increased payments from the UK arose from a meeting of the European Council on May 26th this year – where the updated budget arrangements were agreed to, including by the UK, "without discussion", as recorded by the official EU press release.

It is also clear that the Treasury were aware in May that the decision to revise upwards the Gross National Income (GNI) figures - to massage the UK's economic figures - would have the consequence of increasing the UK’s payments. As the Financial Times reported last week: ‘It was not as if no one in the British government had been warned. As far back as May, the Treasury was aware of big upward revisions to Britain’s national income by the Office for National Statistics. The consequences of this were laid out by the ONS in the very first paragraph of its report: "Gross National Income (GNI) is an important statistic within the National Accounts. It is used in the calculation of a Member State’s contribution to the EU budget".'

Mike Weir SNP MP for Angus commented:
"This exposes the total incompetence of the UK government. They agreed to these funding arrangements as far back as 26 May - when they could have challenged and stopped them, but chose not to. David Cameron really was asleep at the wheel - and it is the UK taxpayer who is being hit for his shambles. The truth is the Treasury wanted the economic statistics massaged upwards to make them look better, they ignored the warnings about the consequences, waved these budget arrangements through in May, and now UK taxpayers have ended up with a huge bill because of this Tory incompetence."

Ian Hudghton SNP MEP and party President, commented:
"It was the Prime Minister's government which signed up to these budget arrangements on 26 May 'without discussion'. The upward revision in the figures was even warned about at the time by the Office of National Statistics - who highlighted the effect it would have on the UK's contributions to the EU. If David Cameron was in charge of a local authority, he would be getting surcharged for his incompetence."

In an exchange in the House of Commons today Mr Weir asked:
“It is clear that the Treasury knew about this back in May – will he also confirm that the government let the rules relating to the own resources package go through the European council – as the official press release says ’without discussion’ on the 26th of May -- what happened – was he asleep at the wheel ?’’

Prime Minister David Cameron – who in answering did not deny the information Mike Weir had in the question:
“I am afraid to say then honourable gentleman is simply wrong. It wasn’t until the meeting in Brussels on Friday night that it was clear about the scale of the payments that were required. Until you know what every country is required to pay – you cannot know what you are meant to pay. Those are the facts they may be inconvenient for the story he wants to put across but I am afraid those are the facts.”

Hmmm... GNI massaging coming back to bite Cameron on the arse?

 

[CyclopsRock]

What does this have to do with the SNP? What are they "revealing", here? It's just a press release, isn't it?

At any rate, the bottom line seems pretty sincere - knowing your contribution is going to be affected, likely going up, is different to know the sheer scale by which it's going to increase. Like he said, this is a bit of information that one cannot garner by looking only at their own statistics.

Edit: Which isn't to say that a lot of this isn't manufactured - Cam having something to rant and rave about re: the EU isn't exactly the worst thing for him, politically. But I'm not sure this is exactly proof of that.

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

Oh Dave. It doesn't matter how many times you pretend to get angry, bang on the table, we know you are helpless/useless to do anything about it.

Why aren't you getting angry about what is going to happen on November 1st instead?

 

[El Topo]

Oettinger already with his first joke, thinks about an internet copyright levy. That man is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[CyclopsRock]

""If Google uses and processes intellectual property from the EU, the EU can protect this property and can demand a charge," Oettinger was quoted as saying by the paper."

Jesus christ. What a cunt. It's not the EU's intellectual property, is it? Why are they getting the levy?!

 

[El Topo]

I assume the levy would be handled the way similar concepts are handled in Germany. It's still a bad idea.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I assume the levy would be handled the way similar concepts are handled in Germany. It's still a bad idea.

Can you explain how that works?

 

[El Topo]

Can you explain how that works?

I'd have to read up on that, but from what I remember there's organizations where you can register yourself/your works. These organizations get the money from the levy (e.g. there's a levy on certain products, such as 12,50€ for a scanner) and then - based on gathered data - compute the money each registered person gets. It's not exactly a great system.

 

[Frankfurter]

Agree. I think the main complaint is the short notice. If we signed up to this payment scheme, then that's that. [b}But no matter how well the UK economy is doing, we don't have 2 billion quid just lying around![/b] We're good for it, just give us some time.

This whole 'rebate' thing for France and Germany seems daft to me. Why not just have them pay in less?

Umm... what kind of argument is that? Of course you don't have money lying around, considering that Britain is deep in debt, just like any other country. But you could easily raise 2 billion within 24 hours.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd have to read up on that, but from what I remember there's organizations where you can register yourself/your works. These organizations get the money from the levy (e.g. there's a levy on certain products, such as 12,50€ for a scanner) and then - based on gathered data - compute the money each registered person gets. It's not exactly a great system.

But surely every country already has a method (like that) to deal with copyright and intellectual property?

 

[cartesian]

Oettinger already with his first joke, thinks about an internet copyright levy. That man is the gift that keeps on giving.

I don't even get what he's talking about - I can only guess it's about Google search results ducking under paywalls, maybe? God only knows how'd you'd "levy" anything on Google anyway.

 

[El Topo]

This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone know if Hungary has actually introduced the tax on internet traffic yet/passed the law yet?

But surely every country already has a method (like that) to deal with copyright and intellectual property?

The German articles explain it a bit better. Among other things it seems he wants to harmonize European copyright, I assume this plan might include integrating the local systems. Some of that stuff sounds fairly reasonable actually (in theory), although it's pretty vague. In addition to that, it seems he's toying with the idea of a levy for companies like Google, not sure if it would also affect the users (as e.g. the German levy on scanners or DVDs).

I don't even get what he's talking about - I can only guess it's about Google search results ducking under paywalls, maybe? God only knows how'd you'd "levy" anything on Google anyway.

I think it's more about how Google (and other companies) make profit (directly/indirectly) off intellectual property (e.g. Youtube). There's been a lot of debate about Google in the German media, e.g. about showing snippets of articles.