The EU has sent Britain a bill for £1.7 billion and given us until 1st December to pay up. They claimed to have recalculated the size of our economy and found that it was bigger than they thought. Therefore they claim that we have to pay more since contributions are based on the size of the economy. Conversely, France and Germany are struggling because they did not have the sense to avoid the single currency so they will receive a rebate in the hundreds of million of pounds.
Calculating the size of a national economy is not an exact science because you would need to find a way to quantify and to take into account all the economic activity within a given area. As part of their attempt to do this the EU’s stats agency took into account the black market such as prostitution in addition to more mundane sectors. How would they have accurately done this? They would have needed to have taken into account all the financial transactions between the prostitutes and their clients, and it is unlikely that the prostitutes would have included this on their tax returns. It is therefore guessing, although they would come up with a more technical term than ‘guessing’. You can be certain that they would be erring upwards to increase the size of the bill.
They would want to get as much money as possible out of economies that are not in recession or in the euro (though they also charged Greece too; guess Germany wants to get some of its money back now that it isn’t growing). It could undergo the same austerity measures that it wants to impose on member countries but the Brussels budget is considered sacrosanct. If it had less money then it would have less to hand out to NGOs and sub-national authorities to act propagandists on its behalf. Then there is the Brussels gravy -train to fund too. Those bureaucrats need their champagne after all.
They won’t care about the accountability of this decision to national electorates since the Commission actively intends to subvert the accountability of national governments with its own technocratic rule. They would give us a say on matters that they consider less important such as the composition of the impotent European Parliament. If they did not want to give us a say on an issue , such as its budget, then they would call it a ‘technical’ matter rather than political one.
The EU argues that this was done in accordance with rules agreed by member states. This could be the case since EU rules have a lot wrong with them. The nature of EU rules is that they are not enacted to benefit and to suit all the member states but are compromises put forward by the commission (to increase its own power) and accepted by squabbling nations as a less bad option. It is also likely that the Commission included various clauses in the small print because it is unlikely that these rules are concise and clear. Bureaucrats like to obscurantism because it creates loop-holes for them to exploit later on.
If we left then we would not be subject to such a stitch-up and would not be surprised by sudden demands for payment. Many Europhiles are also unhappy with the demand for more money but for the reason that it would play into the hands of EU-sceptics. They worry that ordinary people would be more likely to vote for EU-sceptic parties. Hopefully this would be the case.
Cameron is unhappy with it because it puts him in a difficult situation. He wants to stay in but this would make it more difficult to persuade the British people that our interests lie within the EU. He will portray himself at odds with the unaccountable EU bureaucracy but this would be for the benefit of those considering voting UKIP.
The EU just gives us more reasons to leave; it will do the job for those wanting the return of national autonomy.
resistancetoantidemocraticleft 
Leave a comment