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

On 02/11/13 19:05, John Williamson wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:01:30 +0000, charles wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to
the North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in
Spain would be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is
just an illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and
straightforward design changes is not a viable business.

It's not thedesign change - that's easy. It's setting up a new
production line is the expense.

Which makes _no_ difference whatsoever to the statement you just
replied to.

A business can be perfectly viable until the government brings in rule
changes, adding regulatory burdens which then make the business unviable.

As was pointed out, the design costs for a new product are minimal. What
costs the money is redesigning, rebuilding and debugging the production
process and testing the new product for compliance with the new rules,
especially as, when so often happens with British governments, the EU
rules are extended in their scope by the British implementation.

If you've got a dozen production lines, as the big manufacturers have,
then it's a small proportion of your output lost at any one time. At the
other extreme, if you only make one item, then it's *all* of your
production capacity that's out of commission, and very few companies can
survive that for any length of time..

If you are a large business you can afford to pay the lobbyists to make
sure your product is the one the regulations are designed to meet.

The EU and big manufacturing are a cartel.

EU emissions laws are framed by and for large European companies. As are
banking regulations.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:57:50 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

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

Careful, your bias is showing again.

Is it quite so simple? Harry's "drivel" (OK, that is personal perception,
but - when you take into account his posting across all subjects - it is
a fairly accurate and widely shared one) is undeniably and easily
provably factless. It is also, without doubt, bigotry. Just look at the
way he showed his true colours the other day in this very thread...

# From: harryagain
# Subject: EU to flush your money down your toilet?
# Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:36:49 -0000
# Message-ID:
#
# Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents
# had moved to the area from 50 miles away?
#
# Typical socialist drivel.
# These people are parasites on our system.
# All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
# Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
# peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
# They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
# school places.
#
# They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
# The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
# shifting the financial burden to us.

If that isn't "factless bigotry", how else would you describe it?

"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."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:36:49 +0000, harryagain wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all
our lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

Typical socialist drivel.
These people are parasites on our system.
All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
school places.

They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
shifting the financial burden to us.

Thank you for finally putting voice to your inner xenophobia, and
revealing the motives behind your veneer of economic concern.


Head up your arse as usual.
Ignore the facts and play the racist card.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

People coming to do crop picking live in accommodation on site
provided
by the farmer for the purpose (which stands empty the rest of the
year), and therefore has no impact on general housing. These folk,
AFAIK, come from Eastern Europe but it'd make no difference whether
they come Inverness or Kerry.

The problem is these people coming here, taking jobs and sending the
money back home.
And making use of all our services.
Many work on the QT, cash in hand and pay no tax.

As I could have said before, the farmer in question has had poor
experience of getting unemployed locals to do the work. The picking
season is not that long anyway; once they've finished they push off and
come back next year. And the question of tax is gonna depend on the
integrity of the farmer.

Drivel

Thanks for the warning.

The picking season moves round the country and from South to North.

So?

Many do other agricultural work too.
Only an idiot townie thinks stuff grows on it's own.

Only an idiot thinks that the picking people would be doing work on an
apple farm outside the picking season. That is mostly spraying and
working with the agriculturalist who comes to check for infestations on
a regular basis, and the bee people.


Do you not comprehend "other agricultural work"?
Other things grow besides apples you (don't) know.
Many require year round attention.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:39:53 +0000, harryagain wrote:

As I could have said before, the farmer in question has had poor
experience of getting unemployed locals to do the work. The picking
season is not that long anyway; once they've finished they push off and
come back next year. And the question of tax is gonna depend on the
integrity of the farmer.

Drivel

Thanks for the advance warning.

The picking season moves round the country and from South to North.

Within a week or three, yes. But across the full year? No. B'sides, I
thought you disliked people travelling to find work? Or is it only if
there's a national border crossed?

Many do other agricultural work too.

The vast majority of the year is FAR less labour intensive than harvest.

Well now then that just shows your ignorance.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:47:33 +0000, harryagain wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as
to why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

I rather suspect you've completely misunderstood the NHS's problems
with the cross-border healthcare directive.

If and when that actually takes effect, it'll resolve many of the
issues that people whinge about with the NHS - because it'll give the
NHS stronger rights to bill "EU health tourists" home health systems
for any treatment they get in the UK.

Trouble is, the NHS can't do that currently, because the NHS would have
to publish a price list. And the NHS can't do that currently, because
the NHS is such a dog's dinner that they don't actually know what they
should charge, because they don't actually know what anything costs. If
they could be bothered to work it out, and to track who receives what
treatment, they could ALREADY recharge.

The NHS does try to retrieve oney..
Once individuals have left the country it's almost impossible to
retreive the money either from them or their government. In spite of
various agreements.

Really?
Oh, OK. Clearly all those many press reports - and the health minister -
are wrong.
Here's one for a start - written by somebody working within the NHS,
running a clinic, who can't get the NHS to figure out who to charge what
- and who thinks the cross-border healthcare directive is a bloody good
thing for the NHS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rupe...the-eu-reform-
the-nhs_b_4173052.html

And I used to work fro the NHS so why don't you shut the f**k up with
your drivel

What level of the finance department of which health authority?

So - from your position of expertise - what amount is already billed to
EU governments but never paid? Why isn't it paid? And how's the amount
calculated in the first place? Nobody else seems to agree on a figure.
Perhaps they should have asked you.

And how does that affect whether the NHS is a "UK decision" or not?


The NHS for years has had at least one person in every local finance
deprtment whose job it was to recover money for treatment to dwellers from
any countries that had no reciprocal health agreement with the UK.
ie Mostly Americans. Mostly it was about getting their medical insurance
details. This was exactly what would happen to them in the USA, so they were
entirely familiar with the idea.
However with the multitude of illegal immigrants/other undesireables the job
has got a lot tougher.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/...s-with-social/

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
I really think it's about time we renamed this ng to
uk.bigots.anonymous.

Have you forgotten to take your medication again today?


He is exactly correct.
It's you that is the dopey half wit that can't see it.

harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
People coming to do crop picking live in accommodation on site
provided
by the farmer for the purpose (which stands empty the rest of the
year), and therefore has no impact on general housing. These folk,
AFAIK, come from Eastern Europe but it'd make no difference whether
they come Inverness or Kerry.

The problem is these people coming here, taking jobs and sending the
money back home.
And making use of all our services.
Many work on the QT, cash in hand and pay no tax.
As I could have said before, the farmer in question has had poor
experience of getting unemployed locals to do the work. The picking
season is not that long anyway; once they've finished they push off and
come back next year. And the question of tax is gonna depend on the
integrity of the farmer.
Drivel
Thanks for the warning.

The picking season moves round the country and from South to North.
So?

Many do other agricultural work too.
Only an idiot townie thinks stuff grows on it's own.
Only an idiot thinks that the picking people would be doing work on an
apple farm outside the picking season. That is mostly spraying and
working with the agriculturalist who comes to check for infestations on
a regular basis, and the bee people.


Do you not comprehend "other agricultural work"?
Other things grow besides apples you (don't) know.
Many require year round attention.


But to nowhere near the same extent as they do at harvest time. Fruit
trees need looking after,but one worker can look after a much larger
orchard than he can harvest. Grain,again needs the occasional walk
through and spray if required except at harvest time, when it all needs
to be reaped within a few days. The peak labour needs for arable crops
are for ploughing, planting and harvest, and nowadays that's all
normally done by contractors who work as many hours as possible during
those periods and loaf around or do non-agricultural work for the rest
of the year.The only types of farming which have a fairly constant
labour requirement are dairy farming and growing animals for meat.
Another one I just remembered is tomato growing, and such farms often
have a permanent floating population of immigrant workers living in
caravans on site, as the locals won't (can't afford to) work for the
wages the farmer can afford to pay, as the supermarkets pass on the
British retail customers' dislike of paying a reasonabe price for anything.

People often knock the Archers, but the agricultural stories are well
researched and, even now, accurately portrayed.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/11/13 09:49, John Williamson wrote:
harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
People coming to do crop picking live in accommodation on site
provided
by the farmer for the purpose (which stands empty the rest of the
year), and therefore has no impact on general housing. These folk,
AFAIK, come from Eastern Europe but it'd make no difference whether
they come Inverness or Kerry.

The problem is these people coming here, taking jobs and sending
the money back home.
And making use of all our services.
Many work on the QT, cash in hand and pay no tax.
As I could have said before, the farmer in question has had poor
experience of getting unemployed locals to do the work. The picking
season is not that long anyway; once they've finished they push off
and
come back next year. And the question of tax is gonna depend on the
integrity of the farmer.
Drivel
Thanks for the warning.

The picking season moves round the country and from South to North.
So?

Many do other agricultural work too.
Only an idiot townie thinks stuff grows on it's own.
Only an idiot thinks that the picking people would be doing work on an
apple farm outside the picking season. That is mostly spraying and
working with the agriculturalist who comes to check for infestations on
a regular basis, and the bee people.


Do you not comprehend "other agricultural work"?
Other things grow besides apples you (don't) know.
Many require year round attention.

But to nowhere near the same extent as they do at harvest time. Fruit
trees need looking after,but one worker can look after a much larger
orchard than he can harvest.

so far a reasonably accurate picture..


Grain,again needs the occasional walk
through and spray if required except at harvest time, when it all needs
to be reaped within a few days. The peak labour needs for arable crops
are for ploughing, planting and harvest, and nowadays that's all
normally done by contractors who work as many hours as possible during
those periods and loaf around or do non-agricultural work for the rest
of the year.

that is not.

average grain crop needs ploughing or subsoil work first, then drilling,
then spraying with at last 4-5 sprays a year plus fertilizer, plus there
is a huge amount of work servicing machinery and getting it ready for
all the other jobs a modern farmer has to do, like hedge maintenance,
headland controls, filling in a small bible of regulatory paperwork,
monitoring spot and forward grain prices, running the driers and stores,
signing futures contracts, looking for buyers, shipping stored grain

The only types of farming which have a fairly constant
labour requirement are dairy farming and growing animals for meat.
Another one I just remembered is tomato growing, and such farms often
have a permanent floating population of immigrant workers living in
caravans on site, as the locals won't (can't afford to) work for the
wages the farmer can afford to pay, as the supermarkets pass on the
British retail customers' dislike of paying a reasonabe price for anything.

People often knock the Archers, but the agricultural stories are well
researched and, even now, accurately portrayed.

Total ********.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 03/11/2013 09:10, harryagain wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:36:49 +0000, harryagain wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all
our lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

Typical socialist drivel.
These people are parasites on our system.
All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
school places.

They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
shifting the financial burden to us.

Thank you for finally putting voice to your inner xenophobia, and
revealing the motives behind your veneer of economic concern.


Head up your arse as usual.
Ignore the facts and play the racist card.



The Poles around here run businesses, work in industry and contribute to
the economy by shopping and paying taxes.
they do the jobs the unemployed don't appear to want to do if they don't
run their own business.
Much like the immigrants did it the 50s and 60s.

On 03/11/2013 09:39, harryagain wrote:


The NHS for years has had at least one person in every local finance
deprtment whose job it was to recover money for treatment to dwellers from
any countries that had no reciprocal health agreement with the UK.
ie Mostly Americans. Mostly it was about getting their medical insurance
details. This was exactly what would happen to them in the USA, so they were
entirely familiar with the idea.
However with the multitude of illegal immigrants/other undesireables the job
has got a lot tougher.

I don't think anyone is supporting *illegal* immigrants sucking
resources out of the system, but who are the undesirables you speak of,
remember that in the eyes of many in this group you are an undesirable.

We already deport illegals BTW.

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:15:34 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The NHS for years has had at least one person in every local finance
deprtment whose job it was to recover money for treatment to dwellers
from any countries that had no reciprocal health agreement with the UK.
ie Mostly Americans. Mostly it was about getting their medical
insurance details. This was exactly what would happen to them in the
USA, so they were entirely familiar with the idea.
However with the multitude of illegal immigrants/other undesireables
the job has got a lot tougher.

I don't think anyone is supporting *illegal* immigrants sucking
resources out of the system, but who are the undesirables you speak of,
remember that in the eyes of many in this group you are an undesirable.

We already deport illegals BTW.

There ought to be a law against illegal migration!

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:15:34 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The NHS for years has had at least one person in every local finance
deprtment whose job it was to recover money for treatment to dwellers
from any countries that had no reciprocal health agreement with the UK.
ie Mostly Americans. Mostly it was about getting their medical
insurance details. This was exactly what would happen to them in the
USA, so they were entirely familiar with the idea.
However with the multitude of illegal immigrants/other undesireables
the job has got a lot tougher.

I don't think anyone is supporting *illegal* immigrants sucking
resources out of the system, but who are the undesirables you speak of,
remember that in the eyes of many in this group you are an undesirable.

We already deport illegals BTW.

There ought to be a law against illegal migration!

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:15:34 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The NHS for years has had at least one person in every local finance
deprtment whose job it was to recover money for treatment to dwellers
from any countries that had no reciprocal health agreement with the UK.
ie Mostly Americans. Mostly it was about getting their medical
insurance details. This was exactly what would happen to them in the
USA, so they were entirely familiar with the idea.
However with the multitude of illegal immigrants/other undesireables
the job has got a lot tougher.

I don't think anyone is supporting *illegal* immigrants sucking
resources out of the system, but who are the undesirables you speak of,
remember that in the eyes of many in this group you are an undesirable.

We already deport illegals BTW.

There ought to be a law against illegal migration!

On 03/11/2013 09:01, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:57:50 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

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

Careful, your bias is showing again.

Is it quite so simple? Harry's "drivel" (OK, that is personal perception,
but - when you take into account his posting across all subjects - it is
a fairly accurate and widely shared one) is undeniably and easily
provably factless. It is also, without doubt, bigotry. Just look at the
way he showed his true colours the other day in this very thread...

But in this particular instance Harry's 'factless bigotry' was in part
based on a fact which JJ dismissed out of hand purely because the source
was Harry. TFP often spouts absolute nonsense (as does JJ to a lesser
extent) but some of his postings (and JJ's) are perfectly sensible.

# From: harryagain
# Subject: EU to flush your money down your toilet?
# Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:36:49 -0000
# Message-ID:
#
# Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents
# had moved to the area from 50 miles away?
#
# Typical socialist drivel.
# These people are parasites on our system.
# All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
# Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
# peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
# They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
# school places.
#
# They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
# The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
# shifting the financial burden to us.

If that isn't "factless bigotry", how else would you describe it?

By and large it is but just occasionally there is some evidence for his
ranting.

"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."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

It might be if % of GNI was the whole of the payment but it seems to me
to be moot since it really has nothing to do with JJ's bogus argument
that Harry was wrong to suggest that the east European countries get
some financial support from the UK via the EU. His later point, just
above, that "Harry's original claim was even more wrong than I
originally proved" because of the rebate is a catalogue of confused
thinking.



--
Roger Chapman

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:29:30 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

"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."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

It might be if % of GNI was the whole of the payment

ITYM if %age of GNI was basis for the calculation of the payment. It
isn't, that's true. But it's also irrelevant when you consider the
"affordability" of any payment. It's the exact same logic as looking at a
£100 parking ticket - pennies to a premier-league footballer, but a
fortune to a pensioner.

but it seems to me to be moot since it really has nothing to do with
JJ's bogus argument that Harry was wrong to suggest that the east
European countries get some financial support from the UK via the EU.

I don't think JJ suggested they didn't. Of course they do. One of the
whole points of an international economic community is to help narrow the
gap between richest and poorest. Generally, that's considered a good
thing, whether it's within a country or within a group of countries. It's
the situation now - just as it was, before 2003, when other EU states got
similar support. The reversal in Ireland's position from net recipient to
net contributor is largely why the Celtic Tiger choked on a furball,
since they were no longer one of the poorer EU nations.

JJ's objection, as I recall (but without trawling back), was to the claim
that the UK was being squeezed hardest. Quite simply, we aren't. Because
of the rebate (which IIRC was ignored at first), we contribute far less
than any other nation of our wealth would. Considering "affordability",
our position in the contribution table is much, much lower than Harry's
misrepresentation was alleging.

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:29:30 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

"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."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

It might be if % of GNI was the whole of the payment

ITYM if %age of GNI was basis for the calculation of the payment. It
isn't, that's true. But it's also irrelevant when you consider the
"affordability" of any payment. It's the exact same logic as looking at a
£100 parking ticket - pennies to a premier-league footballer, but a
fortune to a pensioner.

but it seems to me to be moot since it really has nothing to do with
JJ's bogus argument that Harry was wrong to suggest that the east
European countries get some financial support from the UK via the EU.

I don't think JJ suggested they didn't. Of course they do. One of the
whole points of an international economic community is to help narrow the
gap between richest and poorest. Generally, that's considered a good
thing, whether it's within a country or within a group of countries. It's
the situation now - just as it was, before 2003, when other EU states got
similar support. The reversal in Ireland's position from net recipient to
net contributor is largely why the Celtic Tiger choked on a furball,
since they were no longer one of the poorer EU nations.

JJ's objection, as I recall (but without trawling back), was to the claim
that the UK was being squeezed hardest. Quite simply, we aren't. Because
of the rebate (which IIRC was ignored at first), we contribute far less
than any other nation of our wealth would. Considering "affordability",
our position in the contribution table is much, much lower than Harry's
misrepresentation was alleging.

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:29:30 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

"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."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

It might be if % of GNI was the whole of the payment

ITYM if %age of GNI was basis for the calculation of the payment. It
isn't, that's true. But it's also irrelevant when you consider the
"affordability" of any payment. It's the exact same logic as looking at a
£100 parking ticket - pennies to a premier-league footballer, but a
fortune to a pensioner.

but it seems to me to be moot since it really has nothing to do with
JJ's bogus argument that Harry was wrong to suggest that the east
European countries get some financial support from the UK via the EU.

I don't think JJ suggested they didn't. Of course they do. One of the
whole points of an international economic community is to help narrow the
gap between richest and poorest. Generally, that's considered a good
thing, whether it's within a country or within a group of countries. It's
the situation now - just as it was, before 2003, when other EU states got
similar support. The reversal in Ireland's position from net recipient to
net contributor is largely why the Celtic Tiger choked on a furball,
since they were no longer one of the poorer EU nations.

JJ's objection, as I recall (but without trawling back), was to the claim
that the UK was being squeezed hardest. Quite simply, we aren't. Because
of the rebate (which IIRC was ignored at first), we contribute far less
than any other nation of our wealth would. Considering "affordability",
our position in the contribution table is much, much lower than Harry's
misrepresentation was alleging.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 03/11/2013 09:10, harryagain wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:36:49 +0000, harryagain wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all
our lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents
had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

Typical socialist drivel.
These people are parasites on our system.
All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
school places.

They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
shifting the financial burden to us.

Thank you for finally putting voice to your inner xenophobia, and
revealing the motives behind your veneer of economic concern.


Head up your arse as usual.
Ignore the facts and play the racist card.



The Poles around here run businesses, work in industry and contribute to
the economy by shopping and paying taxes.
they do the jobs the unemployed don't appear to want to do if they don't
run their own business.
Much like the immigrants did it the 50s and 60s.

Any money they make, they send home.

The unemployed shou;d be made to work.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:57:50 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

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

Careful, your bias is showing again.

Is it quite so simple? Harry's "drivel" (OK, that is personal perception,
but - when you take into account his posting across all subjects - it is
a fairly accurate and widely shared one) is undeniably and easily
provably factless. It is also, without doubt, bigotry. Just look at the
way he showed his true colours the other day in this very thread...

# From: harryagain
# Subject: EU to flush your money down your toilet?
# Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:36:49 -0000
# Message-ID:
#
# Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents
# had moved to the area from 50 miles away?
#
# Typical socialist drivel.
# These people are parasites on our system.
# All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
# Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
# peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
# They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
# school places.
#
# They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
# The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
# shifting the financial burden to us.

If that isn't "factless bigotry", how else would you describe it?

So it's not true that we will get a new horde of Eastern Eurpeans next year?
Among them crimnals and beggers from Romania?

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 17:32:53 +0000, harryagain wrote:

So it's not true that we will get a new horde of Eastern Eurpeans next
year?

Since Romanians and Bulgarians have had free access to work in all the
Schengen countries for the last seven years - unlike in 2004, where the
Schengen countries took the delay but the UK didn't - then, no, it's very
unlikely.

Among them crimnals and beggers from Romania?

I don't think these criminals and "beggers" sic have been waiting for
the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 17:32:53 +0000, harryagain wrote:

So it's not true that we will get a new horde of Eastern Eurpeans next
year?

Since Romanians and Bulgarians have had free access to work in all the
Schengen countries for the last seven years - unlike in 2004, where the
Schengen countries took the delay but the UK didn't - then, no, it's very
unlikely.

Among them crimnals and beggers from Romania?

I don't think these criminals and "beggers" sic have been waiting for
the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 17:32:53 +0000, harryagain wrote:

So it's not true that we will get a new horde of Eastern Eurpeans next
year?

Since Romanians and Bulgarians have had free access to work in all the
Schengen countries for the last seven years - unlike in 2004, where the
Schengen countries took the delay but the UK didn't - then, no, it's very
unlikely.

Among them crimnals and beggers from Romania?

I don't think these criminals and "beggers" sic have been waiting for
the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

I don't think these criminals and "beggers" sic have been waiting
for the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.

OTOH, what *we* are waiting for, George, is for you to stop posting the
same post several times.

He's explained that elsewhere. His newsreader is getting confused by a
very slow server response tonight, so is assuming the post has timed out
and retries until is *does* get a response..

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/11/2013 16:50, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:29:30 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

"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."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

It might be if % of GNI was the whole of the payment

ITYM if %age of GNI was basis for the calculation of the payment. It
isn't, that's true. But it's also irrelevant when you consider the
"affordability" of any payment. It's the exact same logic as looking at a
£100 parking ticket - pennies to a premier-league footballer, but a
fortune to a pensioner.

So how do you intend to prove that we are all premier-league
footballers. If you look at the previously cited net contributions table
you will see we are second only to Germany in the total we contribute.
The net by population puts 4 countries, Luxembourg (1), Netherlands
(12), Sweden (13) and Denmark (15) above Germany and a further two,
Germany (17) and Belgium (18) above the UK (21). And that is as it
should be since this countries all have GDP per capita above that of the
UK. The figures in brackets are the World Bank rankings by GDP per
capita. Of the other net contributors Austria (10) and Finland (19) are
too low, particularly Austria, but the freeloader in chief is Ireland,
ranked 11 with a GDP per capita 18% above that of the UK but positioned
well down the negative tail sandwiched between Poland and Hungary who
have little more than half Ireland's GDP per capita.

but it seems to me to be moot since it really has nothing to do with
JJ's bogus argument that Harry was wrong to suggest that the east
European countries get some financial support from the UK via the EU.

I don't think JJ suggested they didn't. Of course they do. One of the
whole points of an international economic community is to help narrow the
gap between richest and poorest. Generally, that's considered a good
thing, whether it's within a country or within a group of countries. It's
the situation now - just as it was, before 2003, when other EU states got
similar support. The reversal in Ireland's position from net recipient to
net contributor is largely why the Celtic Tiger choked on a furball,
since they were no longer one of the poorer EU nations.

Unfortunately the BBC reports quoted show the position in 2007. I can't
find a figure for 2012 but
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/ suggests that only for
2009 did Ireland become a net contributor.

JJ's objection, as I recall (but without trawling back), was to the claim
that the UK was being squeezed hardest. Quite simply, we aren't. Because
of the rebate (which IIRC was ignored at first), we contribute far less
than any other nation of our wealth would. Considering "affordability",
our position in the contribution table is much, much lower than Harry's
misrepresentation was alleging.

Harry didn't make such a claim. The point I took JJ up on was his
response to Harry's essentially vague rant: "We wouldn't have the
expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie countries to support."

As I show above our position in the table appears to be a couple of
places too high and that after the rebate.

--
Roger Chapman

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:57:50 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

Take another look at the net contributions pages.

You are forgetting that Harry was implying that the people who take
most out of the EU are "basket case ex commie countries", whereas if
you look at the very page you suggest, with the exception of Poland
the ex-communist countries take out much less than 'western' european
countries, such as Portugal, Spain, and Greece.

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.

I have merely shown that Harry was, as usual, arguing from a position
of uninformed bigotry rather than informed opinion. Nothing that has
been said since by either of you has altered that.

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

Try adding up the various components and see if you can make sense of
them. In 2007, from the graphs approximately or as actually stated in
the text, the UK:

Paid*: 13.5bn
Rec'd: 7.5bn
Rebate: 5.2bn

Therefore the net contribution should either be ...
13.5 - 7.5 - 5.2 = 0.8bn (with rebate)
.... or ...
13.5 - 7.5 = 6bn (without rebate)
.... whereas according to the Net Contributions it was actually 3.5bn.

* Although the legend on this graph states "including UK rebate", it
is not clear whether this means other countries' payments towards the
UK rebate and/or the UK receipt of said rebate.

"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.

As below, this point stands.

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."

It gets less back than it pays in, but not 'much less', particularly
when population is taken into account. On the net contributions by
population page, the only contributing countries who contribute
significantly less than us per head are France and Italy, who pay half
the UK rebate between them, and Finland. And as you yourself have
pointed out, the UK's contributions in terms of its GNI are the
smallest in the entire EU.

Harry's claims were bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.

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?

Bah! Humbug!

"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."

I still await it from you.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

There is no truth in the rantings from either of you. I invite either
or both of you to give examples by some creditable links that the EU
is comprised of: "a corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove
with European big business bent on European domination at any price."

On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 09:46:02 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

He is exactly correct.
It's you that is the dopey half wit that can't see it.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:10:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The EU and big manufacturing are a cartel.

Proof?

EU emissions laws are framed by and for large European companies. As are
banking regulations.

Proof?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 03/11/2013 22:06, Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:57:50 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

Take another look at the net contributions pages.

You are forgetting that Harry was implying that the people who take
most out of the EU are "basket case ex commie countries", whereas if
you look at the very page you suggest, with the exception of Poland
the ex-communist countries take out much less than 'western' european
countries, such as Portugal, Spain, and Greece.

Not so. Harry was directing his ire at the east Europeans but nowhere
has he excused the others in the negative tail.

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.

I have merely shown that Harry was, as usual, arguing from a position
of uninformed bigotry rather than informed opinion. Nothing that has
been said since by either of you has altered that.

But for once there was an element of fact in his argument which you have
consistently ignored.

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

Try adding up the various components and see if you can make sense of
them. In 2007, from the graphs approximately or as actually stated in
the text, the UK:

Paid*: 13.5bn
Rec'd: 7.5bn
Rebate: 5.2bn

Therefore the net contribution should either be ...
13.5 - 7.5 - 5.2 = 0.8bn (with rebate)
... or ...
13.5 - 7.5 = 6bn (without rebate)
... whereas according to the Net Contributions it was actually 3.5bn.

If the figures do not add up then the figures must be wrong. In this
case you have been led astray by an ambiguous part of the BBC report.
According to Wikipedia the rebate isn't two thirds of the UK's
contribution (which is so huge as to be unbelievable) but:

"The rebate is calculated as approximately two-thirds of the amount by
which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.
Currently the rebate is worth £5 billion (GBP) a year and the UK remains
one of the largest net contributors."

The page itself is out of date but the principle will not have changed.

* Although the legend on this graph states "including UK rebate", it
is not clear whether this means other countries' payments towards the
UK rebate and/or the UK receipt of said rebate.

"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.

As below, this point stands.

As of now you are still trying to defend an absolutely indefensible
position.

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."

It gets less back than it pays in, but not 'much less', particularly
when population is taken into account. On the net contributions by
population page, the only contributing countries who contribute
significantly less than us per head are France and Italy, who pay half
the UK rebate between them, and Finland. And as you yourself have
pointed out, the UK's contributions in terms of its GNI are the
smallest in the entire EU.

As I pointed out the position of the UK in the net contribution stakes
is fair in respect of GDP per capita except for the privileged position
of Austria, Finland and Ireland who are favoured by the system.

Harry's claims were bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.

Bigotry but informed bigotry in this instance.

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?

Bah! Humbug!

Yes you are a humbug but why advertise?

"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."

I still await it from you.

You have had it. Since you are absolutely committed to arguing that
black is white and I have more than enough diy to do before I go into
hospital for another hernia operation shortly I will not be responding
further unless you crank up the insults and behave even more like TFP in
which case expect a return in kind. You two really do deserve each other.

--
Roger Chapman

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
There is no truth in the rantings from either of you. I invite either
or both of you to give examples by some creditable links that the EU
is comprised of: "a corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove
with European big business bent on European domination at any price."

On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 09:46:02 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

He is exactly correct.
It's you that is the dopey half wit that can't see it.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Why don't you give up top posting you dopey turd?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-year-row.html

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:00:36 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

Not so. Harry was directing his ire at the east Europeans but nowhere
has he excused the others in the negative tail.

To single out a minority for particular abuse is an example of
bigotry.

I have merely shown that Harry was, as usual, arguing from a position
of uninformed bigotry rather than informed opinion. Nothing that has
been said since by either of you has altered that.

But for once there was an element of fact in his argument which you have
consistently ignored.

I haven't ignored any facts, on the contrary I was the one who
demonstrated his bigotry by giving them.

If the figures do not add up then the figures must be wrong. In this
case you have been led astray by an ambiguous part of the BBC report.
According to Wikipedia the rebate isn't two thirds of the UK's
contribution (which is so huge as to be unbelievable) but:

"The rebate is calculated as approximately two-thirds of the amount by
which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.
Currently the rebate is worth £5 billion (GBP) a year and the UK remains
one of the largest net contributors."

The figure for the rebate was stated in black and white as being 5.2bn
euros in the text of the page that covered it. As demonstrated, the
figures taken together don't add up.

"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.

As below, this point stands.

As of now you are still trying to defend an absolutely indefensible
position.

Harry's original claim was that we are supporting "basket case ex
commie countries" - he didn't make any qualifications such as "among
others", not even "etc", but singled out "basket case ex commie
countries" in particular while not mentioning that the majority of EU
funds actually go european nations with no communism in their history
and traditionally regarded as having 'western' style democracies. To
single out one particular minority subset and to ignore a bigger
majority is bigotry, and neither you, much less Harry, have proved
otherwise.

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."

It gets less back than it pays in, but not 'much less', particularly
when population is taken into account. On the net contributions by
population page, the only contributing countries who contribute
significantly less than us per head are France and Italy, who pay half
the UK rebate between them, and Finland. And as you yourself have
pointed out, the UK's contributions in terms of its GNI are the
smallest in the entire EU.

As I pointed out the position of the UK in the net contribution stakes
is fair in respect of GDP per capita except for the privileged position
of Austria, Finland and Ireland who are favoured by the system.

So why are we arguing?

Harry's claims were bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.

Bigotry but informed bigotry in this instance.

Bigotry is just bigotry. If Harry had actually bothered to inform
himself of the facts before shooting off his mouth and foot, he
wouldn't have used a misleading characterisation that he would have
known would be easily demolished. It is interesting that since our
revelations of the true facts and figures he has been strangely quiet,
which suggests that he knows he can not win this particular argument.

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?

Bah! Humbug!

Yes you are a humbug but why advertise?

Strange as it may seem, I was actually referring to your own ad
hominem attack upon myself.

"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."

I still await it from you.

You have had it. Since you are absolutely committed to arguing that
black is white and I have more than enough diy to do before I go into
hospital for another hernia operation shortly I will not be responding
further unless you crank up the insults and behave even more like TFP in
which case expect a return in kind. You two really do deserve each other.

As above, you haven't disproved my original demonstration of Harry's
bigotry.

As for the rest, it seems that, in failing on that, you first tried to
widen the scope of the argument and to shift the goalposts, and are
now resorting to abuse.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

That is about financial mismanagement, and is very reminiscent of the
MPs' expenses scandal, so, to apply the same logic, surely we should
all be trying to secede from the UK?

And, even though it's the Daily Fail, nowhere does it identify "a
corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove with European big
business bent on European domination at any price."

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:20:24 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-year-row.html
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:33:56 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 30/10/2013 22:15, Java Jive wrote:

Harry, just for once, disengage bigotry, engage brain. There is no
evidence at all for this pathetic assertion. For example in 2007, the
only "basket case ex commie country" to receive more EU funding than
the UK was Poland; each of the rest received less than half of what we
did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm

Talk about being economical with the truth. JJ conveniently ignores that
part of the BBC report which shows the way in which the EU is funded.

I didn't ignore anything. That, not the one linked by you, happened
to be the page that come up in response to a search.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm

'Spending' will take you to the report cited by JJ.

'Payments' 'Net contribution' (or net by population) shows that for
once Harry has a point although he ignores the fact that the biggest
pain in the wallet are not the East Europeans but Greece and Portugal
and also the biggest free loaders of all who are the Irish who have a
gdp per capita higher than that of the UK.

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-18-5bn.html

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

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...t-in-one-year/

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
That is about financial mismanagement, and is very reminiscent of the
MPs' expenses scandal, so, to apply the same logic, surely we should
all be trying to secede from the UK?

And, even though it's the Daily Fail, nowhere does it identify "a
corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove with European big
business bent on European domination at any price."


Easy to find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen
http://www.economist.com/node/1722297
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...corruption.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...corruption.svg

You're not very smart are you?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:09:37 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

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

Already discussed elsewhere in thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-18-5bn.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...t-in-one-year/

You are being disingenuous:

- "There is a jaw-dropping statistic in the new Balance of Payments
figures. As usual, Britain ran a massive trade deficit with the rest
of the EU, only partially offset by its surplus with the rest of the
world. Our current account deficit with the EU in 2010 was £46.6
billion; our surplus with the rest of the world was £10.3 billion.
These figures shouldn't surprise anyone: since 1973, the United
Kingdom has tended to be in surplus with every continent except
Europe."

That is unlikely to change whether or not we are in the EU.

- "Britain’s gross contributions increased partly because of the
decline in the value of the pound against the euro."

Nor necessarily that - in fact it could be construed as an argument
for joining the Euro.

- "The dramatic decline in receipts from the EU results mainly from
a controversial deal struck by Tony Blair to hand back part of the
annual rebate famously secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984."

That was our own unwise choice presumably made at a time when things
were economically better and we felt we could afford it, you can
hardly blame the EU for biting our hands off in agreement.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:20:43 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

And, even though it's the Daily Fail, nowhere does it identify "a
corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove with European big
business bent on European domination at any price."

Easy to find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen

Nowhere does that article identify "a corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies
hand in glove with European big business bent on European domination
at any price."

http://www.economist.com/node/1722297

Ten years out of date, and "Both men deny any wrongdoing and no
compelling evidence has been brought against them. Nonetheless, the
inquiry is exposing murky ties between politicians, media bosses and
regulatory officials. As a result, ordinary Poles are increasingly
disgusted with, and cynical about, the post-communist establishment."

and much of the rest sounds rather like the UK in the middle of the
MPs' Expenses scandal.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...corruption.htm

"Transparency International (TI) is active in Hungary and its 2010
Corruption Perceptions Index rates Hungary 50th out of 102 countries
(1st being best), more favorably than most other countries in the
region, but worse than Hungary’s 2009 ranking of 46th."

Can't read much more because the cr*p designer of the page won't allow
me a vertical scroll bar, but 50th out of 102 is about average, so
what are you complaining about?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...corruption.svg

9-10 2 Denmark, Finland
8-8.9 3 Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden
7-7.9 4 Belgium, France, Germany, UK
6-6.9 6 Austria, Eire, Estonia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain
5-5.9 5 Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
4-4.9 7 Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia
3-3.9 1 Greece

So the worst "corrupt bent bunch" is in fact Greece who have no
communist background, and in amongst the next bunch is Italy, while of
the ex-communist countries, including Germany, 6 are above world
average, 3 comfortably so, and 6 just below, their combined average
(by counting countries) being around 5.3, just above world average.

And note, the map is of perceived, not proven, corruption.

So the allegation that the EU is "a corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies
hand in glove with European big business bent on European domination
at any price" remains the unproven bigotry that it always was.

You're not very smart are you?

Apparently comfortably smarter than you, but then that doesn't seem to
be at all difficult.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 02/11/2013 08:52, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 23:37:18 +0000, SteveW wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all
our lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

It's not where they are from it is that a large influx has massively
increased the local population.

So that's a "No".

OK, fine. So you'd restrict access to local services to people from other
areas _within_ the UK, in the same way as to people from other EU
countries? If so, then the EU is an irrelevance to your argument. Your
argument is against population mobility, full stop.

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility of
a population that found our lavish public services and benefits system
particularly attractive?




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/10/2013 21:46, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:42:34 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

Employers in the country should be prepared to pay legal minimum wages
to native residents

To all _legal_ employees, regardless of origin.

If migrant workers here on temporary work permits become unemployed,
AIUI there is no reason they shouldn't immediately be repatriated, even
if from within the EU, and if I'm wrong about that, then that is
something that needs to be changed, but it's not a reason to leave the
EU.

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU is
freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the exact
same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common market", a
single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery of the whole
concept.

Although the free movement of goods was championed[1], the free movement
of people was very much played down at the time.

[1] and the implied requirements of "harmonisation" of standards for
goods etc also not discussed.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 05:16:14 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

So that's a "No".

OK, fine. So you'd restrict access to local services to people from
other areas _within_ the UK, in the same way as to people from other EU
countries? If so, then the EU is an irrelevance to your argument. Your
argument is against population mobility, full stop.

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility of
a population

Because, of course, people from Ireland, Scotland, the North of England,
the South West haven't been heading to the South East (or wherever else's
been perceived as lucrative) to seek their fortunes for FAR FAR longer
than the UK's been an EU member, have they?

Turn again, Dick Whittington.

that found our lavish public services and benefits system particularly
attractive?

So you're suggesting that the government should make hefty cutbacks to
public services and benefits?