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

[C0ckney]

well they, labour, and the lib dems all promised one in their 2005 manifestos on the european constitution and it never happened, so i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.

[kentonio]

It doesn't matter as much to Labour and the Lib Dems as it does to the Conservatives. You need to remember that the Tories have been engaged in a vicious civil war over Europe for over 20 years, which is why UKIP was actually an inevitability. In a way it's been positive that UKIP took away the more rabid eurosceptics from the Tory party because they were largely a bunch of *******s who also believe a lot of other obnoxious ****. The problem that remains however is that there's still a sizeable chunk of the party who are eurosceptic but don't see UKIP as a viable alternative due to other policy positions and because they're still a very new party. If those people get completely disenchanted with the Conservative party and feel they've been lied to one to many times then there's a very real risk that they could make the jump and that would be completely devastating. You could be talking about a situation where the only way the Tories could enter government again is in coalition.

[Sir Og]

....But also Portugal (or was it Ireland) where they put their foot down and made sure that the social state would suffer minimal casualties from the reforms.
...

If Greece had left the Euro you would still become poorer and loose a big chunk of the benefits you had before the crisis. What would have been different is that there would be significantly less unemployment and also that this process of getting poorer will be a lot more natural. Greeks will get more competitive through currency depreciation instead of through reduction in nominal wages, which is a very hard thing for people to accept.

[Bereta_Eder]

That's true.
My interpretation of what happened is that we really didn't have a choice, at least at the beggining.
When papandreou offered the referendum, everyone, and I mean everyone got in the way in order to prevent it. The whole EU.
At that time, as the rhetoric goes, in retrospect, the necessairy safeguards for the (mainly german and french) banks were not in place which would mean big losses for them and a shakedown of the common currency to the point that it would collapse.

My opinion is that this is still the case, however the fallout would now be somewhat more mitigated.

A very educational subject to learn about is the case of Iceland (non euro, small population). It faced almost an identical crisis but the way it was handled (basically giving the finger to mainly british and dutch) banks did wonders for the people. A stance that was later vindicated in the european court.
It still has troubles but the amount of suffering is nowhere near.
The role of the president there was crucial. Basically he threw the memorandum back to their faces, banksters were convicted the gov indited and then replaced, in part by the people that got out on the streets.

[Colonâ„¢]

Your logic is rather baffling. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Huh? The EU didn't do anything wrong...

The prime minister suffered a setback in his attempts to blame the European commission for having clubbed him “with the lead piping in the library” when the ONS said it had been consulting “in a very public way” on the changes to the UK’s GNI figure for more than six months.

Joe Grice, the chief economist at the ONS, told The World at One on BBC Radio 4: “We in a very public way, with a lot of consultation and a lot of explanation, over the last six months, longer, have actually been putting out the changes, the methodological changes, the new data and the implications for the UK figures. So in that sense we have known about our figures for quite a considerable time. The final figures we transmitted to Eusostat, the statistical office of the EU, at the end of September.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/27/david-cameron-uk-eu-rebate

[Dauphin]

How this one-off payment was calculated, the context of the payment request, and why it appears so large has been poorly explained by the European Commission to the people who ultimately have to pay it. i.e., the public. I'm sure it is well understood by statisticians with only technical details in mind, but the issue has caused a political mess that the EU could have staved off with a more considered approach than "the rules say". The UK government could have done some prep work too, but their failure to do so does not absolve the EU from applying some common sense.

[C0ckney]

It doesn't matter as much to Labour and the Lib Dems as it does to the Conservatives. You need to remember that the Tories have been engaged in a vicious civil war over Europe for over 20 years, which is why UKIP was actually an inevitability. In a way it's been positive that UKIP took away the more rabid eurosceptics from the Tory party because they were largely a bunch of *******s who also believe a lot of other obnoxious ****. The problem that remains however is that there's still a sizeable chunk of the party who are eurosceptic but don't see UKIP as a viable alternative due to other policy positions and because they're still a very new party. If those people get completely disenchanted with the Conservative party and feel they've been lied to one to many times then there's a very real risk that they could make the jump and that would be completely devastating. You could be talking about a situation where the only way the Tories could enter government again is in coalition.

perhaps, but it's not really about the internal politics of the tory party. the tories have promised a referendum in 2017, if they win the election (unlikely), if the vague caveats about renegotiation are not fulfilled (who sets the conditions, who decides if they've been fulfilled), and if it isn't precluded by some coalition agreement or other pressing circumstance (a lot can change in 3 years). as i said, i wouldn't hold my breath.

[kentonio]

perhaps, but it's not really about the internal politics of the tory party. the tories have promised a referendum in 2017, if they win the election (unlikely), if the vague caveats about renegotiation are not fulfilled (who sets the conditions, who decides if they've been fulfilled), and if it isn't precluded by some coalition agreement or other pressing circumstance (a lot can change in 3 years). as i said, i wouldn't hold my breath.

The test is whether they win a majority at the next election. If they do then they are going to find themselves backed into a corner they can't escape from. You say its not about the inner politics of the party, but it absolutely is. You can lie to the public and wriggle out of it, but lying to half your own party brings a whole host of issues that can cause a government to fall.

[Dinner]

After the arabs, the southern Europeans... does it ever stop?

Personally I feel very special that 28 countries went in the EU so just to take care of us. I know we're the sh!t but so much altruism is moving.

I wonder what does it take to pass the Dinner test?
One must not be an arab, he's screwed from the beggining, so that's out.
Also muslims are inferior due to religion, so if you're one TOO BAD!
South Europeans in the Dinner Scale are somewhat more passable but darn lazy too, so maybe ok for a beer or two but that's it.

And to top all of it, you shouldn't be a republican!
(that's somewhat discordonant with the rest but ok)

That was good humor and worth a thanks.

[C0ckney]

The test is whether they win a majority at the next election. If they do then they are going to find themselves backed into a corner they can't escape from. You say its not about the inner politics of the party, but it absolutely is. You can lie to the public and wriggle out of it, but lying to half your own party brings a whole host of issues that can cause a government to fall.

that of course assumes that the tories will be the next government, which with labour's inbuilt electoral advantage and UKIP attacking them from the right, is unlikely to happen. in a way the tories may well benefit from losing the next election; it will certainly make keeping the party together easier.

[kentonio]

Absolutely, and for the record I neither expect nor want them to win, and not just for reasons of party unity.

[Dry]

Farage meanwhile has fired his first of presumably many salvoes.
'The EU is like a thirsty vampire feasting on UK taxpayers' blood. We need to protect the innocent victims, who are us.'
That last sentence amuses me greatly.

Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

Germany: 21b
France: 19b
Italy: 14.5b
UK: 13b

So, in total contribution, UK is 4th, after Italy.
Now, add 2b to UK and substract 1 from Germany and Fance, and yeah, how outrageous that UK contribution matches Italy.
To have to contribute as much as Italy is what I guess pisses off Mr. Farage

When you look at the 'per capita' table,
Danemark: 211
Finland: 114
Germany: 107
Italy: 101
France: 100
...
UK: 63.
Poor poor UK, victim of this thirsty vampire that is the EU.

[Dauphin]

Net contributions is interesting. Why is Belgium a net recipient? Or Luxembourg?

[Bereta_Eder]

It's the Leonidas chocolates.
Good things must be payed for.
I'm more intrigued about Luxembourg.

[Dauphin]

Over €2k a person. Indeed. Aren't they über rich.