Ship of Fools: Cameron, Osborne, and the EU

Thread: Cameron, Osborne, and the EU Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028048

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

So Cameron says "We will not pay this". Then Osborne claims a "major victory" by agreeing to, erm, pay all of the bill, but some of it a bit later.

I have explored this in more detail - but really, is this not more examples of blinding incompetence by a bumbling government who seem unable to understand basic economics.

Osborne is a manipulative liar. Cameron is an even more manipulative liar. Why are they still in power?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Because they were the largest party at the last General Elections and continue, with their coalition allies, to command a parliamentary majority.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SC - it's posturing. There's a somewhat iconic by-election coming up in 2 weeks. This sort of thing might reduce the amount of airtime that the nice Mr. Farrago gets on the BBC. There again, if they get it wrong, he gets even more airtime pointing out how silly they have been.

We'll see.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

We are going to see a huge amount of posturing on Europe in the run up to the G.E.

My prediction FWIW?
The Tories will let UKIP burn up all their emotion before May, then they go for the mammoth last minute assurance that a Conservative vote is right and reasoned. Come a tory victory we'll have the promised in/out referendum . And, like as last time, all the main political parties will persuade us to stay in. Any group still shouting "Leave the EU!" will be cast off as rabid nut-cases.

The End

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Groan. The promises made to Scotland the night before they got their own way and the morning after triumphant backtracking still rings in my ears. The electorate will as usual be treated as a not so hard to get bimbo, and will be disappointed yet again, wondering why it was taken in.

So yes, the posturing will continue, on all sides. That's why they gain power, and keep hold of power, until the next time.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

May I first recall recent election results.
Additionally some of the country's worst bloody newspapers' front pages. Reminder, those are some of the best selling newspapers in this country.

The additional payments are because of a change in GPD calculation mechanics. It means that the UK is wealthier than we thought before. Plus, there is no way in hell Cameron didn't know that months in advance. However he is a politician. His party just had a terrible election results fueled by anti-european press and Nigel. What does he do? Like an ingenious man he is, he puts his head under the sand and hopes the storm will go away. It doesn't and Dave shouts "I will not obey!". Are they really in power? Or maybe they're trying to stay afloat on a ship that is sinking? But seriously, with him being a coward and having a ton of UKIP-friendly backbenchers there was no other option than being a manipulative bastard.

In reality, I'm not really pissed about him lying and manipulating about the EU bill, I'm pissed about him adapting UKIP's rhetoric. For all good that it'll do him. Plus I'm pissed at Daily Mail and its partners in crime for creating the whole eu-phobia.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Because they were the largest party at the last General Elections and continue, with their coalition allies, to command a parliamentary majority.

I get excited when a Shipmate gets technical and legally accurate.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
In reality, I'm not really pissed about him lying and manipulating about the EU bill, I'm pissed about him adapting UKIP's rhetoric. For all good that it'll do him. Plus I'm pissed at Daily Mail and its partners in crime for creating the whole eu-phobia.

Precisely THIS!

I'm not surprised by Cameron and Osborne. It is abundantly clear that neither of them have any principles, other than "I am entitled to be in power". Say what you like about Maggie Thatcher (and goodness knows, I said a lot), at least she had clear principles and vision driving her on. I disagreed profoundly with her beliefs, but at least you knew that she HAD beliefs. C & O seem driven solely by the desire for power and they will say and do anything which - in their estimations - will increase the chances of them retaining power.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It is very comical watching Osborne keep insisting that it's a real cut in the bill, and the rebate is, well, a new one. Well, yes, that's because UK income had increased and so has the rebate.

He reminds me of the school-boy caught lying, who keeps insisting that it's not a lie, and he didn't really pull that little girl's pig-tails, they just hit his hand.

I don't see them as more corrupt than other politicians really; but then I have pretty much given up on them as a bunch.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The UK owing more to the EU because of increased economic growth is a bit like getting a pay rise and finding you pay more in tax. Well, d'oh. Of course you'll pay more, and it's only fair that you do so.

Let's see how Osborne would like it if we all tried to re-negotiate our tax payments every time we get a pay rise. Although, if that re-negotiation is as effective in changing the amount of tax we pay as Osborne's renegotiation of the UK contribution to the EU (ie: bugger all) I don't suppose it'll bother him too much.

[and, yes before the pedants step in I know that the UK contribution to the EU isn't technically a tax. It does have some common properties, being linked to income/economic growth for a start]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, my wife said, that the next big bill that we get, we're going to say (petulantly), well, we're not paying it. Well, we might negotiate. How lucky that we're not all manipulative twats.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

My wife also said that it was interesting, that just as Cameron's and Osborne's lies about the EU bill are being analyzed, the week-end press focused on Miliband. Hmm.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

Surely the safest thing to do is to work from the basis that they are all a bunch of misspelt Danish kings of England, until they prove themselves otherwise.

Of course, the trouble with that is it doesn't take into account that sooner or later you have to vote for one of the nauseating scrotes...

AG

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You have to vote for someone. There are times when I miss Lord Sutch.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'm still trying to get to the bottom of how this whole shambles arose in the first place. Anyone got any explanations?

Just looking at the figures, it seems like the problem figures have been the calculations around GNI (Gross National Income). Which is derived from GDP.

But if so, has our GNI really increased more than Germany's since 1995? Actually, the figures I have the hardest time with are those relating to Greece and Italy. How the hell did their GNI's increase more than Germany's? [Eek!]

There must be something else going on here.

[ 09. November 2014, 21:39: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

German politicians are actually competent?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
How the hell did their GNI's increase more than Germany's?

Because the calculations now include an estimate of the black economy.

Bluntly put, we have more whoring and illegal drugs than they do.

[edited to add a word. BECAUSE I CAN.]

[ 09. November 2014, 22:29: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
German politicians are actually competent?

No, but Germans are.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
How the hell did their GNI's increase more than Germany's?
Because the calculations now include an estimate of the black economy.

Bluntly put, we have more whoring and illegal drugs than they do.

[edited to add a word. BECAUSE I CAN.]

Going to your head already? Sigh.

We need something to take our minds off the money-grabbing leaders we stupidly elected.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We need something to take our minds off the money-grabbing leaders we stupidly elected.

There's a royal baby on the way... when's the due date?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Said Alan : You have to vote for someone. There are times when I miss Lord Sutch.

What about None of the Above?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Lord have mercy but political hell threads are boring. There seems to be a surfeit of them at the moment.

[Snore]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I hate to say "I told you so", but the outcome of this silliness is exactly what I predicted when it first hit the headlines a couple of weeks ago. I thought, "Aha. The main players will get together for a couple of hours of drinking good coffee and talking about the weather, then they'll do some sums on the back of an envelope that offset the 1.7bn against our rebate, emerge as if from a long and bloody battle and announce that everyone's a winner - probably a couple of weeks before the Rochester by-election."

And I was right.

I can't believe our news media really are so stupid that they collude with this sort of political game-playing, but they do, over and over again. It's usually a safe bet to assume that by the time a political crisis hits the headlines, the solution has already been worked out. The rest is posturing.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Sign of the times Evensong. There's just too much Hellish material on offer as those who form and oppose a government*, who are far more concerned about getting elected and re-elected than what they do between elections.

*as distinct from the everyday work by constituency representatives, which is petty good.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Lord have mercy but political hell threads are boring. There seems to be a surfeit of them at the moment.

Sorry, shall I start an Evensong bashing thread again? More to your liking?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

38 degrees have tried very hard to include a none of the above option since their questionnaire showed their members wanted it. So far the Government is not keen. Somewhere there is a recording of the debate, that I might try linking if I wasn't posting from a phone.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

These days the definition of a good politician is one who gets re-elected. And they get re-elected by misleading the voters with the collusion of the press.

In other news, the Titanic has sunk.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Lord have mercy but political hell threads are boring. There seems to be a surfeit of them at the moment.

Well, you could always, I don't know, fuck off and read something else instead of just being a tedious cunt on this one.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
38 degrees have tried very hard to include a none of the above option since their questionnaire showed their members wanted it. So far the Government is not keen. Somewhere there is a recording of the debate, that I might try linking if I wasn't posting from a phone.

I'm a fan of "none of the above". But there is a snag: you've got to have somebody running the country, and with the desperate bunch of slimy, self-serving creeps we have now, I fear "none of the above" would win a landslide victory.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The UK owing more to the EU because of increased economic growth is a bit like getting a pay rise and finding you pay more in tax. Well, d'oh. Of course you'll pay more, and it's only fair that you do so.

Let's see how Osborne would like it if we all tried to re-negotiate our tax payments every time we get a pay rise. Although, if that re-negotiation is as effective in changing the amount of tax we pay as Osborne's renegotiation of the UK contribution to the EU (ie: bugger all) I don't suppose it'll bother him too much.

[and, yes before the pedants step in I know that the UK contribution to the EU isn't technically a tax. It does have some common properties, being linked to income/economic growth for a start]

I'd say it's more like finding you've been paying too little tax for several years due to an honest miscalculation. In those circumstances HMRC would generally give you about a year to repay via your tax code, rather than demanding it all within a month.

My suspicion is the EU deliberately gave the UK hardly any time to pay up specifically so that Mr Cameron would have something to renegotiate.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
38 degrees have tried very hard to include a none of the above option since their questionnaire showed their members wanted it. So far the Government is not keen. Somewhere there is a recording of the debate, that I might try linking if I wasn't posting from a phone.
I'm a fan of "none of the above". But there is a snag: you've got to have somebody running the country, and with the desperate bunch of slimy, self-serving creeps we have now, I fear "none of the above" would win a landslide victory.

That would leave us with the Senior Civil Service running the country with no particular political direction.

On the basis that most ministers are desperate to change things, would that be a bad idea. I haven't seen the country suffer during a parliamentary recess or the period between an election being called and the new parliament forming.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My suspicion is the EU deliberately gave the UK hardly any time to pay up specifically so that Mr Cameron would have something to renegotiate.

The six months notice being "hardly any time at all".

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That would leave us with the Senior Civil Service running the country with no particular political direction.

On the basis that most ministers are desperate to change things, would that be a bad idea. I haven't seen the country suffer during a parliamentary recess or the period between an election being called and the new parliament forming.

While it might happen for certain, brief periods, I'd generally quite like someone to be accountable for the way my money is spent.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A week is a long time in politics. Six months is no time at all. It makes perfect sense.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Let's face facts though: Osborne is only doing what commercial companies do, that is, bringing forward payments from others, which is sometimes known as 'accelerated recognition of commercial income'. If you like, you can combine this with 'delayed accrual of costs'.

These measures can be used either to reduce a deficit, or boost profits. It was recently used by Tesco, for example, who have been widely praised for their sophisticated accounting.

If Tesco can do it, why not HMG?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I don't think Tesco accounting should really be a model for others, given that they are being investigated by the SFO.

It is not the fact that the rebate is being counted against the bill that is the issue. It is the fact that this is being hailed as a major victory, in halving the bill. It isn't, and that is deceptive.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, I was being sarcastic; but I need a sarcasm smilie, I guess.

<here be sarcasm>

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I was being sarcastic; but I need a sarcasm smilie, I guess.

<here be sarcasm>

Missed the sarcasm. The point is, these practices are used commercially, and that is not necessarily a problem. It is only a problem when they are used - like Tesco have - to deceive people about the true situation.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose also the point about HMG is that they have not, as far as I can see, actually explained how the future rebate has been used to discount the future bill. This has been done by various financial journalists, and others, who are used to this kind of accounting.

But Cameron and Osborne have presented it as the bill being cut, whereas in fact, it's creative accounting.

Of course, Labour would do exactly the same thing.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Doc Tor wrote:-

quote:
Because the calculations now include an estimate of the black economy.

Bluntly put, we have more whoring and illegal drugs than they do.

Pah! I'm aware of that. But are you aware of what a load of unsubstantiated pseudo-scientific twaddle these "calculations of the size of the black economy" entail?

Actually, however you calculate it, the size of our black economy has been going down since some time around the 1980's. Current estimate is about 10.3% of GNP. Similar calculations suggest that the black economy has been larger in both Nordic countries* and Mediterranean countries, and still is in the latter. Similar calculations suggest the size of the black economy in Germany is around 13.3%, i.e. larger relatively as well as in total.

So I call bullshit on the entire underlying calculation. And a specially hellish call on the economists involved. I hope their fundaments freeze to the cheap tin trays they floated in on.

(* though the evidence also suggests the Nordic countries have been successfully getting the size of their black economies down to around the same relative to ours.)

Oh yeah - data from IEA report on shadow economies, 2013.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So I call bullshit on the entire underlying calculation.

For a brief moment, we're better at something than the rest of Europe. Can't you just let us have a moment of celebration (presumably, further adding to GDP while we celebrate)?

[ 10. November 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely, British whoring and drugs have a certain je ne sais quoi, which our government should be celebrating and extolling to the world, and even exporting. Britain waives the rules!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Actually, prostitution - not being illegal - is only partially in the black economy. Some people do declare their earnings apparently - and HMRC does go after suspected non-declarations of earnings.

There's a whole fiscal world out there where we could monetise what we rather primitively refer to as "crime".

Just think how much more comfortably off we could all be.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm amazed no one has pointed ou the bleedin' obvious:

1. That its auditors have not been able to sign-off the EU's accounts in total for the past 19 years.

2. That the last audit report (November 2013) found more than 7.5 billion Euros had been 'spent in error' - take your pick whether that means unaccounted for or out-and-out fraud.

3. That the UK's share of the above 'spending errors' alone is c£840 million.

4. That the remainder of the bill for £1.6 billion cannot be properly accounted for either, even though some of the figures go back more than 5 years.

5. That the figure of £1.6 billion is, in any case, still based on EU figures predicting an EU growth figure for the financial year 2012-13 of 0.7% when in fact in 2012-13 the Eurozone was the only economic area in the world showing a contraction, all the others showed growth, including the UK.

In fact the figures for 2013-14 are likely to be even worse with the French and Italian economies reporting worse figures than the year before.

Whatever spin George Osborne put on his meeting, there is precious little chance that anyone can prove him either right or wrong since no one in the EU can give any reliable figures, or a reliable interpretation of whether or not our rebate (the bit that Tony Blair didn't give away) will be applicable.

As for Ed Balls' manufactured outrage and much-reported statement that the figure was known in early October - he should go to work for the EU finance commission, because they certainly didn't have a clue who owed what then. And the chances are that the current figures are being handed out to the various countries much like a utility company sends a bill they know to be wrong, just so that they are seen to be doing something.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My suspicion is the EU deliberately gave the UK hardly any time to pay up specifically so that Mr Cameron would have something to renegotiate.
The six months notice being "hardly any time at all".

17 October to 1 December is not six months' notice, unless you have a George Osborne grasp of maths.

(Source for that date here, about half way down.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My suspicion is the EU deliberately gave the UK hardly any time to pay up specifically so that Mr Cameron would have something to renegotiate.
The six months notice being "hardly any time at all".
17 October to 1 December is not six months' notice, unless you have a George Osborne grasp of maths.

Well, it's funny that everyone in government (except Cameron and Osborne) knew that the UK - along with every other EU nation - was being reassessed back in the summer, that the bill was due sometime in October, that it was likely to be an upwards adjustment... oh God's teeth, I don't need to spell it out, do I?

We elected these monkeys-in-suits to look after the interests of the country, and to find them scrabbling down the back of the sofa for enough change to cover an 'unexpected bill' is a national embarrassment. Even more so when the outrage is entirely manufactured to play on anti-EU fears.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Nah, monkeys have tails. Can't be apes, because apes are more intelligent and have empathy. I'm left to conclude Orc, to be honest.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, it's funny that everyone in government (except Cameron and Osborne) knew that the UK - along with every other EU nation - was being reassessed back in the summer, that the bill was due sometime in October, that it was likely to be an upwards adjustment... oh God's teeth, I don't need to spell it out, do I?

Well yes, and if I know I have underpaid tax and inform HMRC of the fact, then I know in advance of their letter that I will have more to pay but HMRC still give me time from the date of their letter, not from the date when I have my underpayment revelation.

The issue in the this case AIUI is that the recalculation is based on the size of everyone's economies, so the Treasury could not predict the size of the bill without knowing how much other countries were restating their economies by. It wasn't just a case of 'oh look our economy is 5% bigger, we'll have to pay 5% more'.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Said Alan : You have to vote for someone. There are times when I miss Lord Sutch.

What about None of the Above?

No need for Sutch, The Looneys always get in.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

For quite a while idea of recalculating previous payments using the new method seemed strange to me so I looked at what economists think about this issue.

The surcharge was based on last 12 years of EU contributions. EU contributions are based mostly on gross national income. There is a small tax of 1% on GNI for most countries. The UK is privileged because of Margaret Thatcher (it made sense in her times when UK was relatively poor, not so much now). UK's treasury is calculating the GNI and they review their estimates periodically. Recently there was a review which was conducted by local statistical offices. UK's office declared that they underestimated GNI by about 350 billions. All was estimated using European system of accounts (ESA) '95 - the old one, the one we've been using for a while.

Why did we learn this on 17th of October? Because on that date the EU automatically sends to member states formal bill (which needs to be paid like all EU bills on 1st of December of every year). The bill that is based on calculations prepared by the member country itself. Apparently from an administrative point of view there was no reason to communicate it to the PM (the surcharge being obvious matter). The method of paying member states' contribution is heavily reliant on Excel and basically depoliticized. Obviously everything changes when we have David Cameron involved.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Of course it is why I vote for the Greens, not because they are the equivalent of Lord Sutch, but because they are the only party who are not part of the establishment.

I might not agree with them on everything, but I think they are at least honest. They want to do what is right. The others want power for its own sake.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I agree with that - about voting for the Greens. More's the pity, that our stupid voting system does not give them the amount of MPs that their vote merits.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Actually, prostitution - not being illegal - is only partially in the black economy. Some people do declare their earnings apparently - and HMRC does go after suspected non-declarations of earnings.

I used to work with a woman who had been a tax inspector who told me once of an inspection she did of another woman whose business was that of a "Masseuse and Complementary Therapist".

Inspector: I see here you've claimed a waterbed against tax. That's not a legitimate working expensse.
Masseuse: Trust me, it is, darling.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Actually, prostitution - not being illegal - is only partially in the black economy. Some people do declare their earnings apparently - and HMRC does go after suspected non-declarations of earnings.
I used to work with a woman who had been a tax inspector who told me once of an inspection she did of another woman whose business was that of a "Masseuse and Complementary Therapist".

Inspector: I see here you've claimed a waterbed against tax. That's not a legitimate working expensse.
Masseuse: Trust me, it is, darling.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Alistair gets everywhere.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0