On 02/11/2013 18:53, Java Jive wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:40:49 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

As I said you were looking for support for your (biased) opinion.

I was looking for some relevant facts to counteract Harry's usual
drivel of factless bigotry.

Careful, your bias is showing again.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie
countries to support

No? You didn't see all those east European countries filling out the
negative tail of the net contributions list? Of course you did. You just
don't want to lose face by acknowledging you were (and are) wrong.

I stand by my demonstration that his claims were based on prejudice
rather than fact.

Of course Harry is prejudiced

Then why are we arguing?

We are arguing because you can't see through the fog of your prejudice
to the fact that the eastern European countries get much more out of the
EU than they contribute. It doesn't matter whether or not they deserve
the largesse from the positive contributors to the EU. The fact is they
get it.

but that doesn't alter the fact that he
has a valid point about the amount of money the eastern Europeans in
particular get out of the EU.

They are mostly both among the bottom contributors and the bottom
receivers, so his point was invalid, and you have done nothing to
prove otherwise.

Take another look at the net contributions pages. They are all in the
negative tail. It is there in black and white and nothing you can say
will alter the facts how ever hard you try.

Oh, now you are a mind reader and an unsuccessful one at that.

It's got nothing to do with mind reading. You made a claim that I was
being biased, and cited as 'evidence' a page which not only did not
invalidate what I had shown, but even contained a section which
supported my argument more strongly. That suggests to me that your
reading of the page you linked was itself biased.

There is no support for your position. The net contributions page must
take into account the rebate otherwise the contributions wouldn't be net.

"There are some variations however. Thanks to its rebate, the UK pays a
smaller proportion of its GNI than other countries."

Exactly, so Harry's original claim was even more wrong than I
originally proved.

The UK pays less than it otherwise would but it is still a major
contributor and gets much less back than it pays in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036802.stm

"Even taking into account the rebate, the UK is one of the largest net
contributors to the EU budget. Had it not been for the rebate, its net
contribution would have been even bigger than Germany's in 2007."

You have proved nothing other than you are as good as TFP in arguing
that black is really white when it suits your purpose and ignoring
anything that doesn't. You even have another of his traits - ignoring
and editing out particular points you don't have an answer to. Recognise
this bit you silently snipped?

"How about a little bit of that logic you are so keen on. It is
nonsensical to draw up a table for net contributions if the rebate is
not included."



Roger Chapman