| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:02 - Oct 24 with 1144 views | Jigsore |
it isn't a bill it's a request ergo not compulsory |  |
| “The thing about football - the important thing about football - is that it is not just about football.†|
|  |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:27 - Oct 24 with 1125 views | smegma |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:02 - Oct 24 by Jigsore |
it isn't a bill it's a request ergo not compulsory |
Its still a phucking liberty. |  | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:33 - Oct 24 with 1108 views | Discodroids |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:02 - Oct 24 by Jigsore |
it isn't a bill it's a request ergo not compulsory |
oh we dont have to pay then!!!!...its a request.!!.
what should we do with it then ???make a nice origami chinese junk out of it and float it down the urinal.
ergo we cannot ignore it.
all the politicians and europe mp's from all the major partys seem pretty sure we will have to pay it.
a 'request' to pay nearly 2 billion!!. come now sir!!
thatcher would have lent back, lit up a cigar, lifted her stout skirt and fired off two pin pong balls out of her snatch with the words 'fu ck' and 'off' written on them.
perhaps it was a quite day in the EU office and they sent us a request for nearly 2 billion for a jolly jape and high jinks...
think i'll send one off to my 3rd wife for a rebate on maintenance!
[Post edited 24 Oct 2014 15:43]
|  |
| "...The monkey is never dead, Dealer. The monkey never dies. When you kick him off, he just hides in a corner, waiting his turn." |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:40 - Oct 24 with 1095 views | Metallica_Hoop |
What was that Juncker?
 |  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:41 - Oct 24 with 1091 views | Jigsore |
I still think its a ridiculous ask especially considering the delicate political situation in the UK right now. They've given the sceptics enough fuel to keep Farage in lighters until doomsday | |
| “The thing about football - the important thing about football - is that it is not just about football.†|
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:56 - Oct 24 with 1069 views | ElHoop |
If you can be bothered to read all of this then you are a better man than me, but this is where it seems to come from. Not sure how else to link this article - the link looks stupid but is a pdf file:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&u
What I don't get is that in the case of drugs and prostitutes they probably don't pay much tax but we all have to pay more tax to pay the EU because they've been doing their thing. Seems a bit illogical. |  | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:59 - Oct 24 with 1062 views | Discodroids |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:56 - Oct 24 by ElHoop |
If you can be bothered to read all of this then you are a better man than me, but this is where it seems to come from. Not sure how else to link this article - the link looks stupid but is a pdf file:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&u
What I don't get is that in the case of drugs and prostitutes they probably don't pay much tax but we all have to pay more tax to pay the EU because they've been doing their thing. Seems a bit illogical. |
can you direct me to the drugs and prostitutes section please. | |
| "...The monkey is never dead, Dealer. The monkey never dies. When you kick him off, he just hides in a corner, waiting his turn." |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 16:13 - Oct 24 with 1049 views | ElHoop |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:59 - Oct 24 by Discodroids |
can you direct me to the drugs and prostitutes section please. |
It's all about drugs and prostitutes i think - here's just the appendices, flipping heck:
Annex A. Methods, Data Sources and Assumptions
Methods, Data Sources and Assumptions for Illegal Drugs
Table 1 — Methods for Illegal Drugs
Method
Area
Details
1
Indices
We need to create volume and price indices with base year 2003 for the sales of drugs.
The price index is simple: we use street (retail) prices from the UN World Report on Drugs (Data Source 1), converted to an index.
The volume index is more complex and has two components. The first should be the amount by unit of drugs sold - unfortunately, we have data only on the number of users in England and Wales (Data Source 2), not on the amount consumed per user (Assumption 1). These numbers are scaled up by total population to cover the UK - implicitly assuming that the same proportion of the Scotland and Northern Ireland populations use drugs (Assumption 2) - and converted to an index.
The second component of the volume index is purity. Drugs are commonly "cut" (effectively diluted) with non-psychoactive chemicals and sold in this form. The proportion of psychoactive material (purity) changes over time, and this needs to be taken into account in the indices used to vary drugs output (Data Source 3) recalling that this output is of cut drugs. Determining the index used to vary through time requires making one of two assumptions about drug purchasing decisions in response to changes in the purity of cut drugs.
- Case 1. One assumption is that users buy the same amount of pure (uncut) drugs no matter what the purity of the cut product they actually buy is. If the purity halves, twice the amount will be bought. With perfect information and perfect demand elasticity to price, this is what should happen (and the price should halve) - of course neither applies to the drugs market in any way.
- Case 2. The alternative assumption is that users buy the same amount of cut drugs no matter what the purity of it is. If purity halves, the amount of actual drugs consumed will halve. This would happen if demand was perfectly price inelastic - of course, in this case suppliers would be incentivised to supply no actual drugs.
In Case 1, the appropriate index is (IU x IPRS)/IPYS where IU is the index of the number of users, IPRS is the index of the street price (of the uncut drug) and IPYS is the index of the purity of drugs sold (on the street). Note that this step involves Assumption 7.
In Case 2, purity doesn't matter, as it has no effect on purchasing decisions. The index is (IU x IPR). (Purity would affect only the volume series.)
We believe that Case 1 is more appropriate, as it fits better with the intuitively reasonable assumption that utility from using cut drugs varies proportionally with the psychoactive content.
As a final note, herbal cannabis cannot be “cut” in the same way as other drugs, so we do not apply a purity index to cannabis. The formula is as in Case 2.
2
Calculation of Variables
The indices calculated above are applied to the 2003 values given in the quoted study for each drug. This creates a time-series of sales for each drug. In a formula, for year t:
Sales = P.12003 x [(IU, t x IPRS, t)/IPYS, t]
A proportion of 0.5 is applied to the cannabis sales value and this is allocated to home-grown cannabis (Assumptions 8, 12).
For imported drugs, the sales value is deflated by the street price index used above and this implied quantity is multiplied by wholesale prices from the UN World Report on Drugs (Data Source 1); these wholesale prices must be adjusted for the differing purity of wholesale and imports by multiplying by the ratio of the two purities (Data Source 4; Assumption 6) and converted from USD to GBP using an
Inclusion of Illegal Drugs & Prostitution in the UK National Accounts | May 2014
Office for National Statistics | Page 16
Method
Area
Details
exchange rate from the Bank of England (Data Source 5). The result is imports of goods (P.71).
If IPYW is the imported or wholesale purity index (2003 = 100) of the drug and IPRW is the wholesale price index of the drug:
P.71 = P.1 x IPYW/IPYS x IPRW/IPRS
The margin, or output (P.1 = P.11), is just Sales — P.71. HHFCE = P.1 = P.11; B.3g = Sales — P.71.
For home-grown cannabis P.1 = P.11 and is equal to Sales. Intermediate consumption is calculated using DEFRA data (Data Source 6; Assumptions 9 and 10) which contains the ratios of agricultural output to intermediate consumption of “energy and lubricants” and “seeds and planting stock.” These ratios are applied to the sales value for home-grown cannabis to give the intermediate consumption values in the two categories.
3
Allocation to Industries and Products
Output of reselling imported drugs is allocated to the retail industry (SIC 47). Products are allocated in the usual way: the margin is assigned to the retail product (CPA 47) at basic prices, then valuation adjustments are applied to reassign it to pharmaceuticals (CPA 21) at purchasers’ prices. HHFCE and imports are of pharmaceuticals.
See main text for the treatment of home-grown cannabis.
Table 2 - Data Sources for Illegal Drugs
No
Data Source
Details
1
Wholesale and retail prices
The UN World Report on Drugs is published annually and contains prices for a wide variety of different drugs. These are based on data supplied by law enforcement agencies in member countries. The data is obviously patchy and contains many instances of covering gaps with the latest available year, although this is not made clear in the actual report. This is especially true of wholesale prices. No explicit quality information is available but it is possible to say that since the data is supplied by law enforcement agencies it will represent only the part of the drugs market of which they have knowledge. See United Nations (2013).
2
Number of users
This comes from the England and Wales Crime Survey, conducted by the Home Office. Similar surveys exist for Scotland and Northern Ireland but not to a sufficient level of detail. Quality information for the EWCS can be found within the publication. See ONS (2012b).
3
Purity values
The purity values used in the output indices come from analysis of drugs seized by police forces; purity rates from these are published by the Home Office. UK Border Agency (UKBA) seizures are also recorded (see next entry) and we assume that these are all of imports which have not already been sold on at retail (Assumption 5). Quality information for this data is sparse as it derives ultimately from what police have managed to seize, and so is not in any sense a representative sample of the underlying population for which the usual statistical measures can be derived. See Home Office (2012).
4
Purity values
The purity values used to reflate output to get imports and intermediate consumption come from UKBA seizures. Thus, we assume that all drugs seized by police have already been sold at retail (Assumption 6), an assumption which is probably much weaker than the converse regarding the UKBA. The remarks on the quality of Data Source 3 apply here as well.
5
Exchange Rates
The Bank of England publishes time-series for exchange rates including the desired USD->GBP rate. We use the average annual spot rate, which represents the average position over the year for most currency transactions. This data is of good quality as it is based on observations of actual market states, although the rates are not “official” ones. See Bank of England (2014b).
6
Intermediate
The Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) publishes a
Inclusion of Illegal Drugs & Prostitution in the UK National Accounts | May 2014
Office for National Statistics | Page 17
No
Data Source
Details
consumption
production and income account for the UK agricultural sector from which output and expenditure on the relevant products can be derived. This data is based on surveys of UK farmers with 90%-100% coverage, although for the data we are using the latest years have to be forecast. See DEFRA (2013) fpr contacts for further information.
7
Population data
The ONS population release; see ONS (2012b)
Table 3 - Assumptions for Illegal Drugs
Assumption
Details
1
We assume that the purity-adjusted amount of drugs consumed by the average user remains constant over time. This assumption is probably false, but we have no data to challenge it.
2
We assume that the prevalence of use of all drugs in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the same as in England and Wales. Again, we have no data either way.
3
We assume that there is no activity of registered corporations or quasi-corporations in drugs. This is reasonable as the risk of reporting such income would be a pointless one.
4
We assume that there are no labour costs within drugs activity. This is probably false, but it is impossible to distinguish salaried employees from self-employed individuals.
5
We assume that no drugs are re-exported from the UK after being imported. In the absence of contradictory evidence, this is reasonable as there is no geographical or legal incentive to import first into the UK and go through multiple customs. This is a sub-set of Assumption 11 and is identified separately because it affects the Balance of Payments.
6
We assume that all UKBA seizures of drugs happen before the drugs are cut for retail. Without further information to the contrary this is reasonable given the UKBA's role, especially as the reported purities are consistently higher than the police seizures as one would expect for imported drugs compared to drugs sold on the street.
7
We assume that all police seizures of drugs happen after the drugs have been cut. While this has some support as the purities are consistently lower than the UKBA's, we do know that the police and UKBA conduct a joint operation which means that this assumption is not entirely true. It is less likely to be true than Assumption 5 because the police have a wider-ranging role than the UKBA.
8
We assume that half of cannabis sold in the UK is imported and half home-grown. This is an arbitrary assumption.
9
We assume that cannabis production involves only energy and seed stock. This is based on an intuitive assessment of the cannabis production process.
10
We assume that the ratios of the two categories of cannabis intermediate consumption are the same for cannabis production as they are for legal agriculture. This is a weak assumption as the indoor greenhouse nature of cannabis production is different to the majority of legal agriculture; however we have no other data.
11
We assume that the only use of drugs is as final household consumption expenditure. In other words there is no use of drugs as GFCF, change in inventories, change in valuables, exports (Assumption 5), intermediate consumption, or government final consumption expenditure. The GFCF and change in valuables assumptions are reasonable because drugs are not a capital good, nor are they a good which can be an object of intrinsic value. The government final consumption expenditure assumption is reasonable because government units are very unlikely to spend money on illegal drugs. The intermediate consumption assumption is reasonable because illegal drugs cannot be used in any production process. The change in inventories assumption is probably false, but there is an incentive not to hold drugs as inventories because of the risk of detection.
12
We assume that no drugs other than cannabis are produced in the UK. While this is probably false, we do not have any evidence to the contrary.
13
We assume that electricity used in cannabis production is captured within the existing data sources for household final consumption expenditure. This is based on the intuition that it is difficult to buy electricity without it being recorded, and producers would have an incentive to avoid detection by reporting it as for private use.
Inclusion of Illegal Drugs & Prostitution in the UK National Accounts | May 2014
Office for National Statistics | Page 18
Assumption
Details
14
We assume that seeds used in cannabis production are not captured within any existing data source. This is based on the intuition that reporting such transactions might lead to detection of the activity.
15
We assumed imported illegal drugs are not transformed. It could be argued that “cutting” or adulterating drugs with non-psychoactive substances — which self-evidently takes place —is a transformation activity. However, we consider that the product in question is the psychoactive drug and that any adulteration does not transform the product but simply increases the price of a given quantity of it. An analogy would be a retailer selling alcohol that they have illegally diluted — they are still a retailer.
Methods, Data Sources and Assumptions for Prostitution
Table 4 - Methods for Prostitution
Method
Area
Details
1
Output Volume Series
The method is to calculate annual volume as P*C*52, where P is the number of prostitutes active in a given year (Data Source 1), W is the average charge per client (Data Source 3), and C is the average number of clients per week [Data Source 2].
As there is no time series, we vary the point estimates in time using the male population (Assumption 1).
2
Output Price Series
The method is to calculate W following an estimate from Punternet supported by a 2004 journal article. This is £55 in 2004. This is varied through time using the CPI for the personal services product (CPA: 96). [Data Source 3]
3
Intermediate Consumption Series
Intermediate consumption is assumed to consist of 3 elements: rental (CPA: 68.1-2), clothes (CPA: 14) and condoms (CPA: 22).
Method 3a. Rental is calculated as P*RR*T, where P is the number of prostitutes, RR is the average room rental used in the imputed rental calculations, and T is the proportion of renters:owner-occupiers used in those calculations. This obviously involves several large assumptions [Assumption 2a]. As we have no data the only other option is to follow the Netherlands and use a fixed proportion of revenue.
Method 3b. Following a paper by de Heij (2007), we assume that each prostitute spent the equivalent of €125 per year on clothes and €0.50 per client on condoms in 2007 [Assumption 2b]. These values are converted to £ using the Bank of England annual average spot rate and varied through time using the CPI for clothes and footwear and chemists' products respectively. These values are then multiplied by the estimated number of prostitutes to give levels in each year.
Method 3c. These values must be subtracted from HHFCE, as they will already be counted as HHFCE in the data for that variable. This creates an imbalance.
4
Split into Income Variables
After this calculation of GVA(P), it must be split into the income components. As mentioned, we reasonably assume that there is no activity of corporations or quasi-corporations [Assumption 3a] and no employment [Assumption 3b]. So all of GVA(P) is mixed income (B.3g)
5
Split into Expenditure Variables
As mentioned, we assume no trade [Assumption 5], no government FCE, and no intermediate consumption [Assumption 6]. So all expenditure is HHFCE.
6
Industry and Product Allocation
Prostitution output will be assigned to industry and product 96, as it is explicitly mentioned in the SIC and CPA descriptions.
Inclusion of Illegal Drugs & Prostitution in the UK National Accounts | May 2014
Office for National Statistics | Page 19
Table 5 - Data Sources for Prostitution
No
Data Source
Details
1
Number of prostitutes in UK
Variable P in the formula in table 5, line 1. We first estimate the number of prostitutes in the UK in each year. A study in 2004 by Eaves (a charity helping prostitutes) estimated that there were approx 7000 off-street prostitutes in London in that year; this was done by calling numbers advertised in various media and asking how many prostitutes were in each place. In the same year the Metropolitan Police estimated 115 prostitutes on the street at any one time in London (Home Office (2004)). Adding these and scaling up by UK population [Assumption 5] gives c. 58,000 prostitutes in the whole country.
2
Number of clients per week
Variable C. We also have to estimate the number of clients seen by each prostitute per week. Following a Netherlands assumption with some research support, quoted in Smekens and Verbruggen (2005), we calculate estimates based on 20, 25 and 30.
3
Prices
Variable W (the payment to prostitutes per client). This was estimated based on research on Punternet12
4
Exchange rate
The EUR->GBP exchange rate. See table 2, data source 6; exactly the same comments apply.
Table 6- - Assumptions for Prostitution
Assumption
Details
1
We assume that the number of prostitutes has the same pattern through time as the 16+ male population. This is a weak assumption based on the market for prostitutes' services. It is necessary because we have no time series data for the number of prostitutes.
2
These are assumptions used to plug holes in the source data for intermediate consumption:
2a. Prostitutes or their pimps pay the same average rent as is used in the imputed rental calculation, and the renter:occupier ratio among them is the same as in the data used in that calculation. This assumption is because there is no other data.
2b. Prostitutes spent the equivalent of €125 per year on clothes and €0.50 per client on condoms in 2007. Unlike the Netherlands we assign this to intermediate consumption, not HHFCE; this is because we consider that this expenditure consists of inputs to the production process and not final consumption. The exchange rate used comes from the Bank of England and is the average annual spot rate (Data Source 4)
3
These are assumptions used to split GVA(P) into income components:
3a. There is no activity of corporations or quasi-corporations in prostitution. This is simply based on the intuition that prostitution is illegal, and the reporting to government required to achieve corporate or quasi-corporate status would be a pointless risk.
3b. There is no employment in prostitution; all prostitutes and pimps are self-employed. This is a controversial assumption based on reasoning from two premises. Firstly, we intuit that voluntary employment in prostitution - pimps paying regular wages to prostitutes - does not exist, because the relationships that make up employment are based on legal protections that are unavailable in illegal activity. Secondly, reasoning from the principle that involuntary transactions are not included in the production boundary and hence not in the accounts, we discard all involuntary employment, where prostitutes are forced to work, and assume that this does not exist in the numbers we have as there is no direct evidence. The results of the UK Census 2011 were analysed; however the Census occupational classification does not include illegal prostitution, only legal sex work like lap dancing.
4
These are assumptions that there is no trade in either direction in prostitution:
4a. There are no imports of prostitution services. All prostitutes in the UK are UK residents; British residents do not consume prostitution services abroad. The former has some justification, since a large proportion of foreign national prostitutes are here illegally and the fixed costs of smuggling them in and out are not negligible. The latter is obviously false, but we have no chance of obtaining data on this.
12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punternet
Inclusion of Illegal Drugs & Prostitution in the UK National Accounts | May 2014
Office for National Statistics | Page 20
Assumption
Details
4b. There are no exports of prostitution services. All prostitution in the UK is consumed by UK residents. Again, this is obviously false, but the UK is not a centre of sex tourism, so the amounts are assumed to be negligible.
5
Theses are assumptions that expenditure components other than HHFCE do not exist for prostitution:
5a. There are no P.5 components (GFCF, change in inventories or change in valuables) of the prostitution product. This is self-evident as prostitution is not a physical good that can be invested in, nor a transaction cost of investment; nor is work-in-progress possible between reference periods.
5b. There is no intermediate consumption of the prostitution product. While there is anecdotal evidence for businesses buying sex for senior employees, this is not strong, widespread or quantifiable enough to enter the accounts.
5c. There is no government final consumption expenditure on the prostitution product. This should be self-evident.
6
London contains the same proportion of UK prostitutes as it does of UK population. This is used to scale up the London estimates of a study on prostitution. We might expect that the proportion would be higher in London (as an economic and internal tourism centre) but the study's estimates are stated to be under-estimates anyway. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 16:22 - Oct 24 with 1022 views | themodfather |
well europe can pay us back restitution for ww2, after the war we paid to rebuild up germany and others, while we struggled!
did any send us cash when we were potless in the 70s?
maggie had to go and demand money of them....
do all of the eu pay into nato and done their bit in iraq/afghan etc and doing so against IS?
if the EU are serious, the people of britain will just say, let's LEAVE EUROPE...it's dragging us down. | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 16:26 - Oct 24 with 1007 views | ElHoop |
Can the EU be charged with living off immoral earnings? Does that sort of legislation still exist? | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 16:30 - Oct 24 with 996 views | CiderwithRsie |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:41 - Oct 24 by Jigsore |
I still think its a ridiculous ask especially considering the delicate political situation in the UK right now. They've given the sceptics enough fuel to keep Farage in lighters until doomsday |
Of course its bleeding ridiculous. I'm probably the only bloke in the UK who would like us to be part of a federal Europe, but I'd like whoever runs it to be halfway competent.
1. The timing and manner of this is incredibly damaging to the EU, even if they don't give a flying one for the UK. Don't they have any idea of how close the UK is to walking out? Reminds me of when the recession first started and the Commission was happily demanding an increased budget at a time when every govt in the EU was making massive cuts to cope with deficit. Cue shocked surprise when every national govt told the Commission to s*d off. Who could have seen that coming, eh?
2. It's a penalty to the UK for working hard. That's a ridiculous way for any organisation to behave to its members
3. One months notice to find 2 billion euros? Even if it was reasonable to pay it, how the feck is that a reasonable way to behave? How come it's taken them all this long to work out the bill, but think it's OK to demand payment in a month's time?
4. Counting profits of crime as part of our economy is just weird. How does the govt get hold of that money - are all the good little drug dealers and pimps gonna get a tax bill?
5. How about we pay it when the Greeks have paid back all they owe, eh? i.e. never.
For those allergic to the Daily Mail, try this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/eu-budget-bombshell-david-c | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 17:08 - Oct 24 with 954 views | jamois |
How about the entire country goes on a 1 year euro-strike? No holidays in europe, no buying eu goods, no BMWs. I mean the germans have their fingers in everything, so it's hard to totally avoid, but it wouldn't be difficult to recoup that payment. Or at least, just go on a French & German strike. Ireland is to all intents and purposes now German anyway so Brian/Monohoop etc are excused. That the French get rebated is a disgrace because they are run about as well as Queens Park Rangers Ltd. |  |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 17:25 - Oct 24 with 938 views | simmo |
Great pies in the counting house. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 17:56 - Oct 24 with 915 views | johncharles |
In my day drugs were fun  |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 18:47 - Oct 24 with 898 views | SpiritofGregory |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 13:29 - Oct 24 by derbyhoop |
Treasury knew it was coming. Allegedly, news leaked to undermine Cameron.
Doesn't seem just. Greece is an economic basket case and has to pay more, while France and Denmark get a rebate.
Perhaps if Farage did his job as an MEP he could have influenced this decision. |
Farage will lead us out of the EU. |  | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 18:56 - Oct 24 with 884 views | R_from_afar |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 14:03 - Oct 24 by Clive_Anderson |
Of course big business want unlimited immigration in order to drive down wages for their staff, so they're bound to come out with stuff like this.
I like how people try to make out that all trade with European countries will stop if we leave the EU, when clearly that's bollocks.
Cameron should tell them to get stuffed, but I seriously doubt that he will. Where's Maggie when you need her? |
The trouble is once out of the EU, our companies will still need to abide by EU regulations in order to trade successfully. However, once outside the EU, we will no longer be able to in any way influence those regulations.
I am definitely not saying the EU is perfect, mind. For starters, why on earth do they need to have two HQs? Utter madness.
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:08 - Oct 24 with 874 views | QPR_John |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 18:56 - Oct 24 by R_from_afar |
The trouble is once out of the EU, our companies will still need to abide by EU regulations in order to trade successfully. However, once outside the EU, we will no longer be able to in any way influence those regulations.
I am definitely not saying the EU is perfect, mind. For starters, why on earth do they need to have two HQs? Utter madness.
RFA |
Never quite understood that argument. Surely when we trade with any country we need to abide by their regulations. | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:24 - Oct 24 with 848 views | ElHoop |
Difficult to know what to make of it all - 'why now' is a question that I ask on these occasions.
A few possibilities:
1. EU is just full of cocks who don't know what they are doing and this is a random event occurring whenever it was going to happen.
2. EU and Cameron have decided to outflank UKIP by setting this up and then sorting it out in Britain's favour prior to the Rochester by-election.
3. EU has decided that Britain will cause so much trouble to the existing regime that they'll manufacture their early departure from the EU, starting off with the Rochester by-election, followed by the general election and subsequent referendum.
I have no idea which it is. I just want three points against Villa and the same against the scum. | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:37 - Oct 24 with 840 views | CiderwithRsie |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:08 - Oct 24 by QPR_John |
Never quite understood that argument. Surely when we trade with any country we need to abide by their regulations. |
My sister-in-law is Swiss. She's quite clear that in her work she has to abide by every EU regulation going. It's a requirement of the arrangements under which Switzerland has access to EU markets. And as she works in education, there's no point in having qualifications which aren't recognised in the EU, so even if Switzerland had not signed up to the trade deal she would still have to work to EU standards - same as anyone who wants to sell stuff in USA has to meet US food standards . | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:39 - Oct 24 with 837 views | CiderwithRsie |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 15:59 - Oct 24 by Discodroids |
can you direct me to the drugs and prostitutes section please. |
Essential phrases in any guidebook no 42. | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:48 - Oct 24 with 824 views | DWQPR |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 18:56 - Oct 24 by R_from_afar |
The trouble is once out of the EU, our companies will still need to abide by EU regulations in order to trade successfully. However, once outside the EU, we will no longer be able to in any way influence those regulations.
I am definitely not saying the EU is perfect, mind. For starters, why on earth do they need to have two HQs? Utter madness.
RFA |
Good, they will have to abide by ours as well. Therefore I am sure some bi-lateral agreement can be sorted out. | |
| |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:56 - Oct 24 with 815 views | Clive_Anderson |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 19:37 - Oct 24 by CiderwithRsie |
My sister-in-law is Swiss. She's quite clear that in her work she has to abide by every EU regulation going. It's a requirement of the arrangements under which Switzerland has access to EU markets. And as she works in education, there's no point in having qualifications which aren't recognised in the EU, so even if Switzerland had not signed up to the trade deal she would still have to work to EU standards - same as anyone who wants to sell stuff in USA has to meet US food standards . |
The Swiss get a good deal then. They get to work with the same EU regulations that the rest of Europe do and yet they don't have to pay for the cost of administering it.
I don't buy the fact that the regulations would be at all different had the Swiss been there at the negotiations anyway. And they don't get sent bills for £1.7bn every time the French are a bit short of cash. | | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 20:01 - Oct 24 with 809 views | Brightonhoop |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 18:56 - Oct 24 by R_from_afar |
The trouble is once out of the EU, our companies will still need to abide by EU regulations in order to trade successfully. However, once outside the EU, we will no longer be able to in any way influence those regulations.
I am definitely not saying the EU is perfect, mind. For starters, why on earth do they need to have two HQs? Utter madness.
RFA |
I'm anti-federalist across the board on this, as was Benn and Michael Foot,simply because if you want to know about Tin Mining in Cornall that's where you,same for car building in Coventry,coal mining in Newcastle etc, NOT effing Brussels. Only succesive National and Euro Governments have laid them all to waste.
The idea that Britain has any influence in the EU, or the vast majority of Nation Members do, i'm afraid is farce. What we dont' need though is the extremism and utter disaster that Farage will bring. If the EU is to ever work it has to start listening and stop dictating like some old German Dictator. It cannot have it both ways. Junker is the only one with any influence in the EU and he will destroy it the way he is going. Far too much power, arrogance, he's nothing but a Nazi in sheeps clothing. Extremely dangerous for the whole of Europe. Farage should be confined to Norwich and not allowed out again. Whether they like it or not they are both cut from the same cloth. |  | | |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 20:33 - Oct 24 with 777 views | Trom |
| This £1.7 billion Bill from the E.U today on 13:33 - Oct 24 by Discodroids |
sorry el hoop...i did try.....
1988-2006- chronic drug addict and alcoholic in the square mile.
diary of a reinsurance broker from brentwood..
6am: unleash bowel movement , purging yesterdays cocaine, lager and sweet meats.
6.30am: get up/shower/power wa nk ..thereby processing remaining toxins down the plug hole....
6.45am: violent argument with wife
7 am: no time for breakfast , off to work!!
7.45 am: toilet, wa nk , capaucino
8am : work!! push papers around, stare at screen , tap pen on teeth, toilet, wa nk.
1oam :pretend to read 'lloyds list'
11am : 'strategy 'meeting with other 'non marine facualty specialists', , in reality alcoholics all shaking like the drunken bakers in 'viz'.
item one, agenda one , priority one ..liase to meet in drakes wine bar or the english club 11.45am
11.40am: pick up folders and with the determined look of east german sprinter marlies goher, stride purposefully to the 'market' with durans durans 'hungry like the wolf' ringing in your head. eager for new business....
11.42am: simply decide against the exciting new buisness venture of going to see some cu nt in his 'box' head straight for 'drakes' in leadenhall market.
11.45am. meet with other 'non marine facualty specialists' to discuss covering each others arses, if it all gets on top.
12.15pm: thoughts turn to the kibble/cocaine and where we take our custom today.
will it be 'wraps', 'bar bed' , the counting house, the elephant or the wine lodge.(descisions descisions!!
1pm: time to take the show on the road!!: press buzzer to gain entry into bar bed's gentlemens club upstairs behind reinforced fire door.
1.01pm: time to mingle!!. associate with 'colourful' collection of junkys, theives, bullys, cu nts,pimps, whores and reinsurance brokers.
4.30pm: leave establishment ripped to the tits and £2OO Lighter, but in possession of the life giving elexier that is the kibble. scurry' golem ' like to lloyds of london for an appointment with inaminate object 'the lutine bell'
4.45pm: 'chat ' with bob the pristine yeoman at the entrance , of lloyds, cu nted , like a long lost brother(making a mental note to ignore him the next day, if i survive the next 24 hours)
5pm: leave bob crying/scared and go to meet broker for my 2.30pm appointment..
5.o2pm: wa nk in bogs, really unloading a pootle of gear in a prolonged orgasm due to being on the kib all afternoon.
5.11pm.... miss my 2.30pm appointment and express my apologies. my dogs dying of 'testicular cancer 'or something
5:15pm ..'lunch ' more kibble and more pints in leadenhall market. discuss exciting new opportunities within a growing market with other 'specialists'
5.45pm..return to office. pack up leave.may 'jimmy' open the petty cash box and point the finger at the african cleaners...after all 'my word is my bond'
5.55pm..in to the wine lodge , more cocaine, more pints, more disscussion on pornography
7pm..asked to leave by management, quick inventory reveals dangerously low stock levels of kib ie 1/2 a grm. reorder critical.i repeat reorder critical!!
8pm..leave the counting house pub restocked..phew!!!
8.15..in the cheshire cheese, reminiscing with other 'reinsurance specialists' about our brave comrades that have fallen by the wayside and now live above a pet shop in a bedsit in tooting/eltham/basildon. either estranged from their wife and children or dead.
8.15pm to 1opm : have a fu cking good laugh about the above 'fallen'. cu nts.
10.15pm: time for home!!!. ring estranged ex colleagues wife on train home , wired to fu ck, with propositions of a sexual nature, realise you have in fact rung your sister, but continue anyway.
11pm just in time to get a top up of cocaine from colourful characters in the essex arms or to ring the travelling community to pop a gram round, phew!
12.25: home time!!!, throw dinner in bin have violent argument with wife, spend a night of fitful sleep on the sette in suit, waiting to do it all again!!
halcyon days...  |
It's like the 80s never left the insurance industry.
Really old skool compared to the rest of the city. Not saying the rest of the city is fine just that we've moved on from the 80s and make new and improved screw ups. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
