Money- A reason to vote

From 'The Times'; don't let CLASS determine your vote........after all how many Jaguars do you get DRIVEN in (Mr Prescott has two).

Do you have FOUR HOMES to choose from maybe FIVE if you count the Discounted flat!! Your children go to the best schools of course? (not the Prime Minister)

and if that wasn't enough after they've wasted your money her on shite' they will pressure you to vote yes to wasting more of your money here!!,,2-1439885,00.html

and for those of you who can't be arrsed:

Britain told to give up its £2.5bn EU rebate
By Anthony Browne
The Budget Commissioner believes rich countries must pay more to save idea of Europe

THE European Commission warned Britain yesterday that it must pay billions of pounds more into its coffers each year or jeopardise the future of the Union.
Dalia Grybauskaite, the European Budget Commissioner, told The Times that unless Britain and other big EU countries increased their payments to Brussels over the next seven years, the EU would be unable to provide the skills, technology and infrastructure required to compete in the global market. That, she said, could kill the idea of Europe.

In a clear challenge to the British Government, the former Lithuanian Finance Minister also said that for the greater good of Europe Britain must give up the multibillion-pound annual budget rebate that Margaret Thatcher secured in 1984.

The Commission is increasing its pressure on Britain as part of its demands for just over €1 trillion (£700 billion) in member state contributions for the next seven-year budget period which starts in 2007. Time is running out for securing Britain’s agreement to a budget that could cost it dear and fuel the country’s euroscepticism. Britain takes over the rotating EU presidency in July, and holds its referendum on the new EU constitution next year.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, has steadfastly rejected a commission proposal to spread the British rebate, currently worth about £2.5 billion a year, around other countries, on the ground that Britain would lose out financially. In total, the demands for bigger contributions and a reduced rebate could cost British taxpayers as much as £5 billion a year.

But Ms Grybauskaite, who has a black belt in martial arts and a formidable reputation, gave warning in an interview: “If other member states started to negotiate just on physical amounts of money, you are forgetting solidarity, a core policy of the European Union. If you have bad times, you have been helped. If you have good times, you help others. Those are principles that most of us believe in. If one or another country start to revise it, it jeopardises the future of the EU.”

Mrs Thatcher won the rebate — famously demanding “I want my money back” — as compensation because Britain, then one of the poorest countries of the EU, contributed more than any other country.

Although each country pays in the same amount as a proportion of its economy, Britain gets less back from the Common Agricultural Policy than France and Italy because its farmers are more efficient.

Over the past 20 years, the rebate has brought back €64 billion to Britain, or about €1,000 per citizen. Without it, Britain would have paid 14 times as much as France or Italy to the EU.

However, the Commission now claims that Britain is the EU’s second-richest country, and that, with enlargement, far poorer countries such as Latvia, Estonia and Ms Grybauskaite’s own Lithuania will have to give money to Britain each year.

The Government is worried about public reaction if it caves in, but Ms Grybauskaite said that the unfairness of Britain’s rebate was beginning to rankle in other member states.

“It is a sensitive issue, and especially for the other 24 countries. We don’t want anybody to be jeopardised, we don’t want anybody to use it against the European idea, and use it against the constitution — and to become a tool for eurosceptics,” she said.

The British rebate is part of the wider budget talks, in which the EU has demanded that each country contribute 1.14 per cent of its GDP each year, amounting to €1,025 billion between 2007 and 2013.

Britain and five other countries have demanded that contributions be capped at 1 per cent of GDP, which would total €815 billion.

But Ms Grybauskaite said that capping the budget at 1 per cent would force the Commission to abandon plans to boost the competitiveness of the EU economy by increasing spending on research, development and education by up to 400 per cent.

That would leave the EU budget dominated by agriculture spending, which has proved politically impossible to significantly scale back because of the powerful French farming lobby.
“Are politicians ready to accept this political responsibility, to say that European priorities are still not competitiveness, research and development, not scientific-based knowledge economy, but priorities that were introduced 30 to 40 years ago?” she asked.

Mr Brown also wants to curb Brussels’ power by demanding that London take back control of EU development funds spent on British regions. At present Britain gives money to Brussels, which then spends some of it on Britain’s poorer regions such as Wales and Cornwall.

But Ms Grybauskaite said that “nationalising” development policies in this way would undermine the Union. “The problem is that in Europe we need to work together to compete and survive in the globalised economy.

“The nationalisation of policies will divide us. This solidarity principle is one of the core ones. To abolish such principle will practically kill the idea of the European Union,” she said.

Now! doesn't matter who; you've fought for other peoples right for it; use it yourself.
unless Britain and other big EU countries increased their payments to Brussels over the next seven years, the EU would be unable to provide the skills, technology and infrastructure required to compete in the global market. That, she said, could kill the idea of Europe.
Well that is argument in itself to stop putting money in.

here's a radical idea. Instead of upping the money we put in, how about the EU cutting £2.5bn of it's waste, needless beurocracy, and corruption? For a start we could have 1 hQ for the EU, and not 2 at vast expense, one of which lies empty for 6 months of the year with all the associated costs of moving.

We could get rid of the hangers on and what about the MEP's who have their noses in the troughs claiming expenses for having their wives "work" for them. Or the commissioners and their £250K party to celebrate the Euro Constitution nobody wants.

It's a gravy train and the greed of these Eurocrats who have the nerve to want us to pay more so they can steal more is morally sickening. Get rid of the lot and lower the tax burden.
Or lets get rid of the immunity to prosecution enjoyed by EU Commissioners. Perhaps that's why 93% of the money paid to the Commission last year either is unaccounted for or is involved in one dispute or another. The EU's own accountants have refused to sign off the Commissions accounts for the last 10 years! 5 whistleblowers have been suspended or sacked and at least one journo has been arrested and detained without trial for obtaining leaked official documents.

The whole thing is corrupt and fraudulent, not to mention hampered by all of the national special interests (such as the French farmers).
I've been against the EC "Dream State" since Heath bent over & took it up the arrse so we could join.

Biggest mistake the UK ever made & now it's going to ruin the UK economy.

WHY THE HELL should we subsidise Eastern European States so that they can undercut our manufacturers & export their unwanted citizens to the UK?

Another few years of this & I'll take my business & money over the pond & become a septic :x
Found this a while back on <Magna Carta society>
It should be read in context and in its entirety, but nevertheless makes for disturbing reading imo...

As agents for a foreign power Parliament is engaged in the destruction of the nation state. Having complete control over both the law and the judiciary, Parliament can disregard the Treason Act which protects the people and administer foreign law in Her Majesty's courts of law.

This was made abundantly clear when Prime Minister John Major clearly stated that the Queen was now, in the eyes of Parliament, no more than a citizen of the European Union and therefore subservient to a foreign overlord. This position was later endorsed by Judge Morgan in his summing up of the Thoburn trial, in which he denounced the supremacy of Her Majesty's law and incited the British people to recognise the European Union as a superior overlord to Her Majesty; unquestionably an act of high treason against the state.

To appease those who question the present position of the Monarch, the Constitution, the Coronation Oath, and the Treason Act, Parliamentary Offices openly pretend and insist that all still stand. Yet Parliament acts in total contradiction and in dereliction of its official office, confident that it controls the Law, the Judiciary, the Police, and Her Majesty's Armed Forces.


There can be no doubt that a coup has taken place. The Queen as Sovereign Head of State has been bypassed and the British people have been disenfranchised.

A foreign style of dictatorship has been established in Parliament and is being consolidated by treasonous politicians. The plan is unfolding. The leading political parties have substantially reduced Party Memberships by abandoning individual political aspirations and identities and have colluded to discourage interest by the electorate in order to minimise participation in elections. Parliament is making every effort to destroy the nation state by dismantling and ignoring the Constitution, by devolution and regionalisation, by spurious measures of claimed Parliamentary reform, and by the destruction and abandonment of our leading industries.

It is now very nearly too late for the British people to decide whether they wish to retain their identity and independence, contained in their island fortress, or allow themselves to become a puppet region of a succession of blown-by-the-wind dictatorships.

If it be the former, they must insist on the upholding of the Constitution, the recognition of the supremacy of the Monarch and the Coronation Oath, and the full implementation of the law to bring to account those who have engaged in treasonous activities designed to overthrow the Queen, surrender the nation's sovereignty to a foreign overlord, and submit the British people to the dictates of a foreign power.

Anyone know Arthurs 'phone number?

Similar threads

Latest Threads