France and Germany want their cut of UK drug and pimp money

[regexcellent]

The thing is, though, that this should increase euroskeptic feeling everywhere because it is ridiculous. If the EU does **** like this it's evidence itself that there's a problem.

The smart thing for the EU to do at this point would be to move into damage control mode, withdraw the request and apologize.

[C0ckney]

that won't happen. the EU will (correctly) argue that all countries agreed to this and will have to abide by it. they'll then be some huffing and puffing, followed by horse trading and various countries will agree a reduction or extended payment terms.

there's not that much point in back tracking now; the damage has already been done. as well as the effects on crisis hit greece and cyprus (the sums are trivial, but the symbolism matters), there's the political impact in counties with real and serious eurosceptic movements, like italy (the 5 stars movement got 25% of the vote in the last national election and 21% in the last european one), and potentially serious ones, like the UK (UKIP won the last european elections and this news probably guarantees that it will get its second MP in a few weeks).

[Colonâ„¢]

The thing is, though, that this should increase euroskeptic feeling everywhere because it is ridiculous. If the EU does **** like this it's evidence itself that there's a problem.

The smart thing for the EU to do at this point would be to move into damage control mode, withdraw the request and apologize.

Don't talk crap. The rules are simple, clear and despite all the opt-outs something the UK never disagreed with. Look at it from another perspective, countries like Germany and France overpaid for over a decade. Should they renounce what is properly theirs because it delivers a bad headline on the Daily Mail? Should they be punished because they were earlier at the present approach of calculating GDP?

[Colonâ„¢]

The thing is, though, that this should increase euroskeptic feeling everywhere because it is ridiculous. If the EU does **** like this it's evidence itself that there's a problem.

The smart thing for the EU to do at this point would be to move into damage control mode, withdraw the request and apologize.

Don't talk crap. The rules are simple, clear and despite all the opt-outs something the UK never disagreed with. Look at it from another perspective, countries like Germany and France overpaid for over a decade. Should they renounce what is properly theirs because it delivers a bad headline on the Daily Mail? Should they be punished because they were earlier at the present approach of calculating GDP?

[DinoDoc]

I'm just curious how the EU measures the contribution criminal activity might make to GDP in any verifiable and comprehensible way. Would you care to enlighten us?

[Colonâ„¢]

The EU doesn't measure those things. The member states do.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/24/britains-two-billion-euro-bill-explained

[DinoDoc]

The EU doesn't measure those things. The member states do.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...bill-explained

I'm just curious how the UK measures the contribution criminal activity might make to GDP in any verifiable and comprehensible way. Would you care to enlighten us?

I fixed the post for you to make it easier to answer then.

[Colonâ„¢]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/index.html

[Colonâ„¢]

Lazy ass.

[Dr Strangelove]

I thought that Cameron said he wasn't going to pay it?

[Dauphin]

Don't talk crap. The rules are simple, clear and despite all the opt-outs something the UK never disagreed with. Look at it from another perspective, countries like Germany and France overpaid for over a decade. Should they renounce what is properly theirs because it delivers a bad headline on the Daily Mail? Should they be punished because they were earlier at the present approach of calculating GDP?

The problem is not the bill, per se, but the manner in which the whole thing has been presented. Demand notices for immediate payment of large unanticipated amounts are generally not considered fair by the public and the approach adopted was not in the best interests of an organisation with a reputation issue (including never having had their accounts signed off* for the period of recalculation). Spread payments over x years (and lose interest calculations in that wash), manage expectations earlier (note when the revision of GDP was being done that it would lead to a reassessment of taxes), etc and you avoid the unnecessary pissing off of large groups of people.

* technically, they are signed off, but with qualification of material errors every year.

[Colonâ„¢]

The problem is not the bill, per se, but the manner in which the whole thing has been presented.

Manner schmanner. I haven't looked it up and I'm not certain yet certain that the date the dough is supposed to be paidd is just the date dues are paid every year. These kind of revisions apparently are also a regular thing, just not of this size. The real scandal here is that Cameron bloody well knew what was coming and kept silent. No, it isn't politically opportune, but you guys have an annual rebate several the sum you're due and I think you're underestmating how ill that sits with the rest of the EU, so don't expect any sympathy.

[Colonâ„¢]

And spreading out payment, why? So you can pay interest on it? Don't tell me a 2.5 trillion economy doesn't have an extra 2 billion in its vaults.

[Dauphin]

And spreading out payment, why? So you can pay interest on it? Don't tell me a 2.5 trillion economy doesn't have an extra 2 billion in its vaults.

Softens the psychological blow.

[Dauphin]

No, it isn't politically opportune, but you guys have an annual rebate several the sum you're due and I think you're underestmating how ill that sits with the rest of the EU, so don't expect any sympathy.

Unless you are saying the €2bn is a retribution tariff, the rebate is irrelevant to the discussion.