UK ordered to pay £1.7bn more to EU

Status
Not open for further replies.


BIG BAZ said:
So hold on here..this revised estimate is now based on our economy which includes the black market of prostitution and drugs ??:lol:
Click to expand...
That's the way some analysts are interpreting it and the UK have introduced this accounting method two years ahead of time. Result, 65bn was added to our booming economy figures prior to next years election. Hence Cameron's diversionary anger at the EU.
 
FortyTwoFoot said:
That's the way some analysts are interpreting it and the UK have introduced this accounting method two years ahead of time. Result, 65bn was added to our booming economy figures prior to next years election. Hence Cameron's diversionary anger at the EU.
Click to expand...

Included in that his i will not pay (on time) tub thumping speech. He has to pay he knows it, but hell claim a great victory for not paying on time.
 
Narraback said:
I'll be shocked if it's paid before a referendum. Also, if UKIP do well at the GE they could be kingmakers, and that'll change the whole game.
Click to expand...

They'll need to knock Calypsos and that Winston Mackenzie's public appearances on the head if they want to do well. It's all gone a bit scattergun for them which was always going to be a danger with such rapid expansion. It is good for everyone if they can sort themselves out and keep the others on the hook.
 
FortyTwoFoot said:
That's the way some analysts are interpreting it and the UK have introduced this accounting method two years ahead of time. Result, 65bn was added to our booming economy figures prior to next years election. Hence Cameron's diversionary anger at the EU.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that if we'd introduced it two years later, on time, we'd be facing an even bigger bill?
 
Roger Senseless said:
Because of its economic performance. Same to Holland if I heard right.

France and Germany to receive rebates.

So effectively the UK is paying France and Germany, because its economy is doing better than theirs.

Farage will have friction burns by the time he's inevitably on the telly later today.

Thats an extra 20% of the annual contribution. Dutch and British governments talking about joining forces for a legal challenge.

Payment due on 1st December.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
Click to expand...
Notice Nick Clegg has gone silent on this one.
 
Wierd Valley Mackem said:
Included in that his i will not pay (on time) tub thumping speech. He has to pay he knows it, but hell claim a great victory for not paying on time.
Click to expand...

And no doubt if he does delay payment long enough by dragging this through the euro courts, we will lose and be hit with late payment interest charges and massive penalty charges.

udgment in Case C-304/02 Commission v France of 12 July 2005: For non-compliance with a 1991 judgment, the ECJ ordered France to pay both a penalty payment of EUR 57 761 250 for each period of six months, from the 12 July 2005 onwards and a lump sum of EUR 20 000 000 (see above).
Click to expand...

no idea what the case was about, but 5.7 million euro penalty for eacch six month of non compliance is a hefy amount, on top of 20 million euro fixed penalty fee.
I would imagine for a case involving 1.7 billion euro, the penalties could be massive.
 
Roger Senseless said:
So what you're saying is that if we'd introduced it two years later, on time, we'd be facing an even bigger bill?
Click to expand...
Situation of others could improve with inclusion of black economy in their figures thereby reducing our comparative advantage? I think it would have been prudent to wait until 2016 when all are required to change accounting methods rather than going early (boosting our figures prior to the election purely coincidence of course). Vanity, oversight, calculated decision....only our leaders know for sure.
 
The EU has demanded rapid payment of £1.7 billion from the UK because our economy has done better than predicted, and some of this is due to the prostitution market now being considered as part of our National Accounts and contributing an extra £5.3 billion to GDP at 2009 prices, which is 0.35% of GDP, half that of agriculture. But is this a reasonable estimate?

This £5.3 billion figure was assessed by the Office of National Statistics in May 2014based on the following assumptions, derived from this analysis. To quote the ONS:
  • Number of prostitutes in UK: 61,000
  • Average cost per visit: £67
  • Clients per prostitute per week: 25
  • Number of weeks worked per year: 52
Multiply these up and you get £5.3 billion at 2009 prices, around £5.7 billion now.

This assessment has been severely questioned. Dr Brooke Magnanti, aka Belle de Jour, reckoned it might be ten times too high. In contrast others have said it should be £9 billion as it ignores male prostitution. Jolyon on Tax Relief 4 Escorts, who claims a maths degree from Cambridge, has done a detailed critique. He points out the flaws in the survey on which the 61,000 is based, and claims the assumed workload is too high and that the cost per visit (which the ONS based on PunterNet) seems too low: it is somewhat ironic that the ONS use an information source that a previous minister, Harriet Harman, tried to shut down.

My feeling is that the assumption that has the most problems is the workload. ONS are suggesting that the average person who works in prostitution has around 1,000 clients a year. This is based on Dutch experience, whereas the pattern of working in the UK is likely to be very different, with a complex industry comprising street-walkers, escorts, the informal market and those who work from fixed premises. Many are part-time.

As always, it's best to do a simple reality check. The ONS assumptions come to around 61,000,000 visits a year. Let's say 50,000,000 are from locals rather than foreign visitors. There are around 27,000,000 men between 18 and 50 in the UK (taking an arbitrary upper limit), so this would mean that on average each of them buys sex twice a year. In fact the latest Natsal survey found that 3.6% of men reported paying for sex in the last 5 years - let's say that means that considerably less than 1,000,000 men a year pay for sex, maybe 500,000. So the ONS assumptions mean that men who pay for sex do so on average twice a week. This seems high.

The assumptions also mean that the average person working in prostitution is turning over nearly £100,000 a year, which Jolyon from Tax Relief 4 Escorts says is completely implausible, and he should know.

Although this is a big statistical challenge, such an important contribution to the economy deserves a more robust analysis. When better figures come out I predict the UK will be due a substantial rebate. But that won't help David Cameron now.
Click to expand...

http://understandinguncertainty.org/prostitution-really-worth-£57-billion-year
 
Narraback said:
I'll be shocked if it's paid before a referendum. Also, if UKIP do well at the GE they could be kingmakers, and that'll change the whole game.
Click to expand...

This is why this country is fucked. Politicians aren't interested in whats right or wrong or what benefits this country long term. Just that they look good for 4 years, and have a job at the end of it. Same with in or out of the EU, no one can make it clear and list the advantages and dissadvantages and conclude if we'd honestly be better off or not. Because everyone with a voice has an agender that will benefit them personally if we're in or out. Practically the same with any issue, MP's with massive shares in companies and sit on the boards with clear conflicts of interests in every sector. Huge businesses bank rolling all political parties, if you really think David Cameron is really in charge of this country you're retarded. All the deals done behind closed doors between parties, the great big billderberg (sp) meeting they have when they choose the next prime minister or president for every country for you. Do your own research not a single tin foil hat worn its all there to see.
 
Last edited:
A tedious slew of contradictory figures that only confuse everyone. Really, the reality of our situation tends to be in front of your eyes, it just depends where you're standing. I was in a meeting last week where I really couldn't believe what was being said. Pretty sure I'd slipped under the radar and shouldn't have been there.

Don't ask. I'm a Civil Servant and it was really Official Secrets Act stuff. Maybe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top