BBC: UK tables final EU budget offer
The UK has tabled revised proposals for the EU’s 2007-13 budget at a summit in Brussels which is continuing into the night after a day of negotiation.
The Times: Blair surrenders more rebate in search of EU deal
Tony Blair made a further concession tonight on the rebate that Britain receives from the European Union to help break the deadlock at an EU budget summit in Brussels.
No difference there then!
Note also the BBC’s picture of Blair – another good ‘un from the BBC’s ‘special’ pictures department…
Andrew
Wow what an interesting point. Sorry to have an opinion but could you tell me which part of that “utter crap” was historically or factualy inacurate. Please be aware that I know that a large number if not all of this sites contributors would agree with every word of it. My opinions are based on infomation from diverse sources and by a lot of traveling and real experience of how the world works. I have built a 2 million £ business from nothing and from a very poor comprehensive school education and employed over 200 people,and I did not do it by not knowing what I am talking about.”Or talking crap”
Gary Powell: “If it was it would organise protests on the street, or at least lobby parliament. This site just plays some kind of numbers game, designed to impress I dont know who.”
If anything it’s a campaign to improve or reform or if necessary abolish the BBC.
Personally I believe the pen is mightier than the sword – taking the Mick out of Beeboids and their beliefs is probably the most effective way of changing things – but it’s not going to happen quickly.
We are but one facet of the campaign against the BBC. There are plenty of others out there (Jonathan Miller etc.). If you want to organise street demonstrations against the BBC please feel free to do so – I’ll be happy to help publicise it for you, but let’s wait until the spring!
In the meantime, I’ll sit here in my pyjamas pricking the BBC’s balloons and, hopefully, impressing the 1000+ readers we get here every day.
Apologies for the dismissiveness of my comment above – I just can’t be bothered untangling and dissecting your little Englander rant just now 🙂
[P.S. I wrote this before seeing Gary’s subsequent response above. I guess I’m just in a tetchy mood. What riles me so much is the little Englander concept that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are their enemies. We Brits have plenty of other worries to concern ourselves with first.]
I have been “talking crap” for 46 years. Unfortuatly nearly all of it has now come to pass. Which compels me to give my sage advice,whether anyone chooses to pay attention or not. Forgive me for trying to leave this world with a clear consence.
Andrew
Thank you for being more clear in expressing your problem. I did not and never would say that the Scotish etc are our enemies. The biggest benificiaries and contributers of the British Empire was the Scotish etc. I think you miss the point. It is not the people of Scotland or in fact the PEOPLE of any country that is our enemy and never have been. If however you think that our country has not been theatened by other goverments and indeed our own I sugest you try reading a HISTORY BOOK.
Andrew
Ever heard of the Barnett formula.
Brought in under Harold Wilson’s period of Labour misrule and still with us nearly 40 years on.
The English taxpayer has been subsiding the rest of the UK with their own form of “rebate”. Can we renegotiate that with the Scots, Welsh and Ulster?
Andrew
The pen might be sometimes more effective than the sword. But in a democracy peacefull demostration and lobbying MPs is the standard way of showing the depth of your case and commitment. The former being very hard for the BBC to ignore. The impact of a visual pubic display of dissatisfaction on political debate can not be overstated. I understand that this is not your role or ambition and protest marches are not the SENSIBLE PEOPLE way of doing things,and its a bitt cold right now,but this does not change this fact. I may seem to use a little hyperboli to make a point but the British people nead a bit of a kick to do something before they end up having to go to war to protect themselves. This is our history and only a fool believes that mans bad habits change in only one or two generations. This is the stupipity of youth which is why we keep fighting the same wars for the same reasons again and again. GOVERMENTS MAKE WAR the PEOPLE JUST DIE in them.
NKOTB, yes, I have. It needs to be reformed, as does the situation re. Tam Dalyell’s famous West Lothian Question (i.e. the injustice of Scots MPs voting on English & Welsh matters where these matters are covered by the Scottish parliament for their own constituencies).
My point is that it is not the fault of the Scots or the Welsh or the Northern Irish that such anomalies exist – it is the fault of self-serving politicans who cobble such deals together for their own short-term convenience (just as with the hiring of so many extra civil servants – it’s not the fault of the individuals involved – it’s the fault of the government doing the hiring).
Same goes for the ‘takers’ from the EU – is that the fault of the the takers, or the fault of craven politicians who stitch things up?
To that end, whilst there is an injustice, it is wrong and dangerous for the LE’s to use or appear to use hateful language that drives apart the union of British peoples – such a break-up will serve none of us for the better.
Alternatively, if the pro-Union argument doesn’t do it for you, there’s always the SNP’s answer: North Sea Oil – billions of pounds of revenue over several decades from Scottish waters taxed and spent from London.
Andrew
I think we’re singing from the same hymn sheet. I just happen to think that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas (sorry – Winterval), neither are the electorate of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland going to vote for any politician who declares that the Barnett formula should be scrapped.
With regard to Scotland being a separate country, if that were so then the internation boundaries at sea would be redrawn. Scottish waters would’nt be as big as some think.
And if Scotland were to secede from the Union, don’t think that the Shetland and Orkney Islanders would want to be tied to Scotland. They’d get the lions share of what’s left.
For those who still wish to engage in debate on the subject of British/Irish citizenship etc., here are a couple of links to be going on with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_and_the_Republic_of_Ireland
http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/Treaties/citizenship.htm
A Lurker
Oh do put a sock in it.
Who elected you to be the person who decides what at least a million and a half people from NI call themselves?
There’s a difference between being pedantic and being either obdurate or obtuse. Try looking up those words in in a dictionary. Oh that’s right, you don’t think much of those people who devote their lives to explaining what words actually mean – as opposed what you decide they mean.
I ACCEPT your obscure and tangental “passport” definition.
That makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that by common usage, tradition, or whatever other “test” you want to apply: people from the UK are British. And as it’s the “United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland,” anyone from that entity is entitled to be recognized as, and can call themselves British.
But do carry on being obdurate if it rocks your boat.
More on the Barnett Formula and why Scotland love Labour – and who can blame them. Top Stories
Scottish subsidy up to £11.3bn a year
By : Fraser Nelson, Political Editor December 18, 2005
SCOTLAND’s annual subsidy from England has doubled since Labour came to power and state spending lifted to Scandinavian levels after its sluggish economy was deluged by the UK public spending boom.
Official figures from the devolved Scottish Executive have shown £45.3bn (E67bn, $80bn) was spent in Scotland in 2003-04 but only £34bn recovered in taxation. The £11.3bn difference works out at £2,200 per head of population in Scotland. On current trends, Scotland’s state spending as a share of its national economy will next year rise to 52.2%, overtaking the average for Scandinavia and becoming the fourth-highest in the OECD.
In its annual survey of Scotland’s public finances, the devolved Scottish Executive showed the gap between spending and taxation at its largest since records began. The figures exclude North Sea oil tax, but for the year in question, only £4.3bn was collected from North Sea revenue. If every penny had gone to Scotland, it would still have left a £7bn gap that equates to a £281 surcharge on every English taxpayer.
.
Andrew,
Re comments on little englanders. “My point is that it is not the fault of the Scots or the Welsh or the Northern Irish that such anomalies exist”
Unfortunately, it is precisely the fault of the Scots and Welsh that the opinions of people like Gary Powell are gaining increasing acceptance. When they voted for their Parliament and Assembly they should have realised that the inevitable consequence would be that they would start hearing the same vitriol directed across their borders as they were content to send the other way for a generation or two.
Remind me; How many MSP’s or Assembly Members are there of English extraction? It’s a valid point because there’s no shortage of vociforously Scots and Welsh representing English constituancies at Westminster.
The English were content to tolerate or more accurately ignore the existance of Stormont as the product of a messy partition the details of which they understood or cared little. The devolution votes have awakened a mood for English nationalism and a real questioning of what the largest partner gets out of the Union, particularly as the revenue stream from “Scottish” oil starts to dry up. The government’s counterbalance to devolution was supposed to be “regionalisation” but Prescott’s referendum debacle has killed that. There is no mood for the break-up of England but the wider Union is on shaky ground and ignoring that is not going to help.
The BBC’s description of the “British” agent is disingenuous because he was operating in a geographical area in which the Westminster government, usually called “British”, holds writ. However as the Corporation prefers to exonerate our devolved cousins from any blame arising from the Palace of Varieties by the Thames perhaps they should of called him an “English agent”.
Iman asole
Agree with all that. But please dont confuse my factual history lecture with “vitriol”. What matters is that this countries curent constitution is a very bad joke that is stopping the propper funtioning of democracy for all British people. For all the reasons you state. Which is also precisly why there is not an English parliament already. It helps keep Labour in power. Which of cause is the reason why the BBC does not consider an English parliament anything, other than a BNP football hoolagan thug would talkabout. Also an independant England would leave the EU. An independant England would be relative to Scotland and the other states or state of Europe so prosperous that. We would make European politicians look pathetic and show up their 50years of lies. Lotts of European politians will loose their expense accounts,and will have to stay at home where their wives can keep a better eye on them. How many reasons why we dont have independance do you need? I could go on for hours. But non of them would be good for ANY BRITISH or EUROPEAN people in the long run.
Just for the record
The EU is supposed to foster FREETRADE.
The current rebate is paid back to us from extra money we pay in fines on trade we do with non EU countries.
So much for freetrade.
Believe it or not we do still make and sell things. The British people are very hard working organised tolerant and smart. Pity our political leaders/BBC think we need them. Perhaps it is why they will never do a good job for long, as we would not need them at all. A lot like being a good parent.
To return from this slightly bizarre exchange to the original post, this time I can’t see the problem with the original BBC article which sets out the facts in a pretty non-commital way. The Times (prop. the anti-EU Murdoch) uses more emotive langauage as it’s perfectly entitled to do.
Just as the BBC isn’t there to propagandise the EU (and I personally think it has improved since the recent review), it’s not there to follow the Eurosceptic press line either.
Where’s the problem?
The problem, Cockney, is that a massive climbdown by Blair is presented in their top story, at the time, as Blair clinching a deal after a few revisions.
I don’t expect the BBC to be partisan at all (unlike The Times is entitled to be), but nor do I expect them to whitewash the big picture of this story – i.e.:
– I’m going to be strong, I’m not going to give away the rebate;
to
– Well I might renegotiate the rebate IF the CAP is reformed;
to
– Oh, okay then, have what you want, don;t give me anything worth a damn.
It’s a big u-turn from Blair – but not if you read the BBC Views Online main story at the time…
Andrew,
To be honest I think your perception of the ‘big picture’ is pretty wayward if you perceive it entirely as a British climbdown, and it doesn’t read to me like Blair ‘clinching a deal’ – just a factual run down of the revised offer. Positives are that we retain 80% of the rebate, for the first time ever Italy and France(!) make contributions proportionate to their wealth and the new entrants haven’t been completely shafted. Huge negative is obviously that the miserable fiasco that is the CAP has been fudged yet again and the overall funding requirements remain uneccessarily high.
Having said that I’d probably agree with you that Blair’s previous bullsh*t statements deserve to e highlighted, ludicrous though they were at the time in the context of international negotiations.
Cockney:“Just as the BBC isn’t there to propagandise the EU…”
I hope you haven’t forgotten the BBC’s current £25m loan from the European Investment Bank, which appeared in their 2004/5 accounts.
From their website, the EIB is:
“an autonomous body set up to finance capital investment furthering European integration by promoting EU policies”
Cockney – it’s difficult to find a poster here (BBC HYS) who doesn’t get the ‘big picture’ on the EU budget deal as suggested by Andrew above.
Budget rebate: Your reaction
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=502&edition=1&ttl=20051219095503&#paginator
It is heartening to see that the vast majority of opinions posted and ‘recommended’ by others reflect a commonly held view that this was a piss-poor ‘negotiation’ by Blair.
The posters aren’t getting their info from the BBC though, as the BBC far too uncritical, as it is of most state/publicly run bodies. By definition, the BBC can’t carry out it’s ‘critical journalism’ role into funding of the EU as it would be inviting us to criticise the very model of state funded television we have here in the UK.
The fact that the BBC is a state funded body enables left wing ‘stupid-think’ to permeate their every output.
On R4 Today this morning, Naughtie was spitting blood over Hazel Blears suggestion that Police authorities would put
together a ‘business case’ examining the sosts and benefits of delivering policing in their area from a larger force.
Like something out of “Yes, minister”, Naughtie cannot see the value of a ‘business case’ in the public sector and says “Why do you need a business case, you don’t make (horror) profits do we?”
As we know, a business case is de rigeur in any organisation for analysing the cost/benefits of various options.
How depressing and pathetic to hear Naughtie talk as if we are still in the 70s. Protected in his BBC world, he has no idea what goes on in the real world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_police_20051219.ram
JoB – good point and indeed a disgraceful compromise of the Beebs integrity.
Ritter – sure I’m far from convinced myself that no deal might not have been a better option than the deal agreed, however for all the hysteria of the right win press on this one there were some positive aspects of the agreement that one would expect impartial media to report. Simply saying ‘Blair surrenders…disgraceful see out…didn’t fight two world wars etc etc etc’ might be one interpretation of the headline issue but it sure as hell isn’t the big picture.
Cockney
What were the “positive aspects of the deal agreed” by Blair? He didn’t need to put the rebate on the table at all, but chose to do so, alledgedly to open a position on CAP. Chirac didn’t fancy upsetting the French hobby farmers, and Blair then gave away a lump of the rebate anyway.
Negative aspects:
1/. Third world farmers can’t compete with food produced by French civil servants, so they remain dependent on aid.
2/. I pay taxes to support French hobby farming civil servants because Blair has given away 20% of the rebate unnecessarily
3/. The food I buy is over priced, because there is no incentive for farmers to act like the businesses they should be.
4/. Blair has shown the EU that the UK is not willing to fight to protect its own interests, which will make it harder if we ever get a leader who wants to even try.
5/. The funds that should have been used to help the new entrants will almost certainly be subject to the corruption and incompetence of the EU (Is anyone running a book on whether the court of auditors will ever be able to sign off on an EU budget?).
Please Cockney, tell me where to find the positive, because I want to know, and I want to believe there is still hope.