• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to EU"

Collapse

  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Since when has an EU "statement" ever meant anything?

    Obviously does to a lot of people otherwise this thread would never have been started and caused the comments it has: http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2010875

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    A curveball here.

    Off the back of UKIP's recent poster that is exploiting the young Rotherham girls. This is the results of an EU vote to toughen up on "Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography" Guess who didn't turn up? Most of UKIP's MEP's, including Nigel Farage. Only 3 kipper MEP's turned up and they abstained! Could any kippers care to explain this one: VoteWatch Europe: European Parliament, Council of the EU

    Just in case no-one saw it:



    BTW, the UKIP candidate on the poster, Jack Clarkson was an inspector in the South Yorkshire police - this is the same force that ignored claims of abuse by these children and their families

    It was a UKIP led council that was responsible for rotherham social services? Since when has an EU "statement" ever meant anything?

    Leave a comment:


  • CheeseSlice
    replied
    Originally posted by TykeMerc View Post
    Is that per head of adult population, per registered voter or per actual voter?
    You weren't supposed to spot the basic problem with this. That was per person of any age. Per voter would be more. The amount payable also increases with the number of UKIP votes.

    Some brainy programmer or maths nerd can probably come up with an equation. I doubt its linear.

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    A curveball here.

    Off the back of UKIP's recent poster that is exploiting the young Rotherham girls. This is the results of an EU vote to toughen up on "Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography" Guess who didn't turn up? Most of UKIP's MEP's, including Nigel Farage. Only 3 kipper MEP's turned up and they abstained! Could any kippers care to explain this one: VoteWatch Europe: European Parliament, Council of the EU

    Just in case no-one saw it:



    BTW, the UKIP candidate on the poster, Jack Clarkson was an inspector in the South Yorkshire police - this is the same force that ignored claims of abuse by these children and their families

    Leave a comment:


  • Batcher
    replied
    The UK government knew back in May when they signed the budget arrangement at the European Council meeting that the GNI figures were getting revised upwards therefore increasing the UK's payments. The budget arrangements were agreed to 'without discussion' by all parties including the UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    You have a problem don't you? It might help if you could read and actually understand what was written but possibly that's what happens when the Daily Mail is a person's only source of reading material...Leaves grow on trees so they come from trees...
    The Money i.e. banknotes do not grow on trees which is the point of the saying,some of its constituent parts may grow on trees which was the point you were trying to make however the original statement is still true however you try to fudge it.

    I took this point and turned it around to highlight the commonly held fantasy of Europhiles that is is a democratically created organisation using your logic on the money tree It was obviously too subtle.

    Leaves also grow on bushes & plants still doesn't make them legal tender.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by CheeseSlice View Post
    I think it works out at something like £30 per head so it could be charged at the ballot box when voting for parties other than UKIP.
    How would leaving the EU now mean a prior debt isn't still collectable?

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    You have a problem don't you? It might help if you could read and actually understand what was written but possibly that's what happens when the Daily Mail is a person's only source of reading material...Leaves grow on trees so they come from trees...
    Do you take everything literally?

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    MONEY doesn't grow on trees , some of the materials to make money may well come from trees.

    A bit like an EU superstate was not voted for by the electorate, but the common market that allowed it to become a reality was voted on by the electorate who were sold a false prospectus.

    I can see why you get confused all the time.
    You have a problem don't you? It might help if you could read and actually understand what was written but possibly that's what happens when the Daily Mail is a person's only source of reading material...Leaves grow on trees so they come from trees...

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    Possibly not coins but banknotes: A banknote (often known as a bill, paper money, or simply a note), are made of paper of which could come from wood: Paper is a thin material produced by pressing together moist fibers, typically cellulose pulp derived from wood, rags or grasses, and drying them into flexible sheets. Now admittedly quite a few banknotes today are made of polymer and I believe that the UK has moved to them now and as we know a polymer is a plastic and plastics tend to be made from pertochemicals which in turn tend to be created from fossil fuels which were not only creatures but also trees, plants, etc. So some of that money in your pocket probably did grow on trees...so kippers are (possibly) intelligent enough to understand that money does not grow on trees but are they clever enough?

    (Actually they believe it comes from ex-Tories)
    MONEY doesn't grow on trees , some of the materials to make money may well come from trees.

    A bit like an EU superstate was not voted for by the electorate, but the common market that allowed it to become a reality was voted on by the electorate who were sold a false prospectus.

    I can see why you get confused all the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Nope they are intelligent enough to understand that money does not grow on trees.
    Possibly not coins but banknotes: A banknote (often known as a bill, paper money, or simply a note), are made of paper of which could come from wood: Paper is a thin material produced by pressing together moist fibers, typically cellulose pulp derived from wood, rags or grasses, and drying them into flexible sheets. Now admittedly quite a few banknotes today are made of polymer and I believe that the UK has moved to them now and as we know a polymer is a plastic and plastics tend to be made from pertochemicals which in turn tend to be created from fossil fuels which were not only creatures but also trees, plants, etc. So some of that money in your pocket probably did grow on trees...so kippers are (possibly) intelligent enough to understand that money does not grow on trees but are they clever enough?




    (Actually they believe it comes from ex-Tories)

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    Would that be because kippers can't afford 30 quid?
    Nope they are intelligent enough to understand that money does not grow on trees.

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by CheeseSlice View Post
    I think it works out at something like £30 per head so it could be charged at the ballot box when voting for parties other than UKIP.
    Would that be because kippers can't afford 30 quid?

    Leave a comment:


  • TykeMerc
    replied
    Originally posted by CheeseSlice View Post
    I think it works out at something like £30 per head so it could be charged at the ballot box when voting for parties other than UKIP.
    Is that per head of adult population, per registered voter or per actual voter?

    Leave a comment:


  • CheeseSlice
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    I think that all those who fawningly support the EU should pay the tax out of their own pockets
    I think it works out at something like £30 per head so it could be charged at the ballot box when voting for parties other than UKIP.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X