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.
By and large it is but just occasionally there is some evidence for his ranting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think these criminals and "beggers" have been waiting for the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.
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.
I don't think these criminals and "beggers" have been waiting for the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.
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.
I don't think these criminals and "beggers" have been waiting for the legal restrictions on them working to be relaxed, dear.
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..
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.
Unfortunately the BBC reports quoted show the position in 2007. I can't find a figure for 2012 but
formatting link
suggests that only for
2009 did Ireland become a net contributor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As below, this point stands.
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.
Not so. Harry was directing his ire at the east Europeans but nowhere has he excused the others in the negative tail.
But for once there was an element of fact in his argument which you have consistently ignored.
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.
As of now you are still trying to defend an absolutely indefensible position.
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.
Bigotry but informed bigotry in this instance.
Yes you are a humbug but why advertise?
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.
To single out a minority for particular abuse is an example of bigotry.
I haven't ignored any facts, on the contrary I was the one who demonstrated his bigotry by giving them.
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.
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.
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.
Strange as it may seem, I was actually referring to your own ad hominem attack upon myself.
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.
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 >
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.