We aim to inform YOU & provide an archive re: Ukip to TRY to make it fit for purpose


  • Follow me on Twitter


  • PAGES:

  • Just Say NO to EU

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture


    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • HoC – EU Exit Plan

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture


    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture


    JUNIUS is a Blog authored by informed individual in The EU 'Team UKIP'; Supporters of UKIP over many years who seek to expose corruption & make UKIP genuinely elec table for the informed!

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • REFERENDUM & How To Win!

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture


  • Contact YOUR Political Servants

    Contact Your Politician
  • GLOBAL WARMING, Heaven and Earth

    PLIMER, Proff. Ian

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • October 2014
    M T W T F S S
  • Flying Spaghetti Monster

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • The EU In A Nutshell

    ROTHERHAM, Dr. Lee & STARKEY, Dr. David

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The EUropean PARLIAMENT

    CORBETT, Richard; JACOBS, Francis & SHACKLETON, Michael

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The European Union

    BOMBERG, Elizabeth; CORBETT, Richard & PETERSON, John

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • GLOBAL WARMING, The Real Disaster

    BOOKER, Christopher

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    NORTH, Dr. Richard & BOOKER, Christopher

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    Dr. Richard NORTH

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    NORTH, Dr. Richard

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    YOUNG, William - 1793

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    CONNOLLY, Bernard

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    BOOKER, Christopher & NORTH, Dr. Richard

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • Ten Years on

    ROTHERHAM, Dr. Lee

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture


    MOTE, Ashley (MEP rtd.)

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • Voodoo Histories


    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture



    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

So Has David Cameron Made A €2B Hole In His Electoral Future?

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 25/10/2014

So Has David Cameron Made A €2B Hole In His Electoral Future?

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 


The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  


 So Has David Cameron Made A €2B Hole In His Electoral Future?
Clearly he was either deliberately publishing spin to dupe the electorate OR criminally incompetent & ill informed!


many will have by now noted David Cameron’s ill informed outburs over his Government’s undertaking to pay an additional £1.7Bn. to the EU.
Within a very short time I Tweeted that it was possible that with his idiotic & ill tempered outburst he may well have signed his electoral ‘Death Warrant’.
In discussion of the complex nature of the agreement he was very publicly posturing to SEEM as if he was outraged it became apparent that Richard North was working on a complex blog explaining the details – which I have with his full permission posted below as a >GUEST POST<.
However to summarise:
In 2012 & 2013 the UN was negotiating with all the relevant international organisations WTO (World Trade Organisation), CODEX (Codex Alimentarius [standards for food etc.]), OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), USA, EU, etc. etc. to agree a new and more accurate INAS (International National Accounting System) which would give a standardised method of presenting National Accounts.
The UN achieved agreement in early 2013 – on 13-Mar-2013 for and on behalf of the British Government William Hague signed up to this new system of accounting which resulted in new and standardised methods of presenting such figures as GDP (Gross Domestic Product), GNI (Gross National Income) and the like.
The final agreement we had entered into was presented and published 22-Apr-2013.
The EU then carried out almost its only relevant action of significance which was to rubber stamp the new methods into EU law, as the EU makes very little actual law of any consequence being largely a redundant and outdated concept. The EU merely translates laws handed down to them by such International bodies as The WTO, IMF (International Monetary Fund), CODEX, UN, WHO (World Health Organisation) and the like putting their impramature on the item and them inclines to pretend it is some authoratitive EU decision when clearly they have merely acted as a rubber stamp!
Naturally the sooner Britain can Leave-The_EU we can resume our positiopn at the top table internationally negotiating with the many global bodies that make the law and acting in defence of not just Britain but the many smaller countries that formerly depended on Britain through the Commonwealth to ensure a sound grounding to new international laws rather than being muzzled and sidelined by our membership of the EU who are seeking ideas that are one size fits all on the basis that their representative may well be considering the interests of Malta, Latvia, France or Spain but more probably Germany or France above those of these United Kingdoms and Commonwealth countries and the Anglosphere!
The mantra that at thwe heart of the EU Britain is better represented is clearly nonsense as it not just distances Britain from the decision making but divorces us from influence of any value on the world stage where we have so many allies and trading partners of long standing.
To revert to the present debacle over our debt to the EU of a supplementary €2Billion, the methodology of calculating payments to the EU was defined when we signed The Treaty of Rome and has been clarified and recodified through the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice, Maastricht and most recently Lisbon. The minutiae of the payment structure was an integral part of Maggie Thatcher’s Government signature to the 1988 Single Market Act.
Further the talks regarding INAS have been ongoing within the UN since 1993 andf as I said were signed off by Britain in March 2013 leading to enshrinement in the ESA as published 22-Apr-2013.
Our own ONS (Office of National Statistics) in May 2014 provided an executive summary and a 650 detailed exposition of the new agreement we had chosen to be bound by via the ESA, including a detailed section warning of the consequences to GNI – which materially alters our annual debt to the EU – a matter which was published and widely distributed by the EU in an open Press Release in January this year.
We have all by now heard David Cameron’s posturings on this matter but in his refusal to pay as it is British tax payers’ money and they are his employers you may have missed the weasle words that sotto voce stated as to be expected to pay by 01-Dec-2014 was unreasonable – OK so when will he pay?
You will note Barosso has publicly reminded everyone that the agreement was made long ago and that the agreed due date for calculation was December annually – clearly the emergency meeting of relevant ministers is as to when the due date for payment shall be executed, after which default will be fined on a percentage basis amounting to 43Million a month (though I am uncertain whether that will be 43M £s or €s) – no doubt David Cameron will be seeking to save face and have, if not the payment, the fines payable from AFTER the General Election!
Cameron speaking in 2010.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“We owe them this much
& I refuse to pay”!
I trust this helps clarify the position a little and I apologise for including this in what is primarily a Ukip web site blog but it does materially play into the hands of Ukip amongst the less well informed though as so often through no ability of Ukip!
BAROSSO 01“It’s a very small part of the money I get
To use to bribe MEPs to betray their countries”
As one senior journalist recently said to me Ukip are like a minor league football team, they lack a competent manager, have poor coaching, are without a star striker, utilise the owners wife to do PR and have little understanding of the rules nor the required kit and are clearly ‘unfit’ – when they find themselves playing against a Premiere League team they jun around the pitch in eveer decreasing circles shouting and abusing causing something of a melee, which the professional  Premiere team find bemusing resulting in many errors that place Ukip in the embarrassing situation of winning as a result of a series of own goals by the championship team!
Failing all else they just hurl abuse at the referee and other match officials to get attention and distract from the actual game.
FARAGE, Nigel awash 01 publicity pic co CROUCHER“Actually they owe this much
& he’ll have to pay”
from a Ukip publicity shot
of Nigel Farage,
standing in a puddle,
on a building site in Kent!
You will no doubt have realised from the leading article in today’s Telegraph and numerous other papers, even the broadcast media the journalists would seem to have the most febrile grasp of how the EU functions, almost on a par, it would seem, to that of The Prime Minister!
To quote The Telegraph:
000a Telegraph-025 Budget.jpg
It is strange that the media and politicians are so ill informed when you consider the salaries, perks and expenses most of them receive! Even stranger is the fact that the politicians fail to read copious reports produced at considerable cost to the tax payers, produced often by their own departments!
However to be fair it is worth noting that in about May The Financial Times published an article on the subject, which clearly few read, as did The Economist in August!

To move on here, with thanks and as promised, is the most up to date version of Richard North’s far more detailed clarification of the position David Cameron has foolishly painted himself into:

EU budget: the story so far

Sunday 26 October 2014

000a Telegraph-024 Budget2.jpg

When the news broke of the “shock” demand that Britain should pay €2.2bn (£1.7bn) into the EU coffers by the end of next month, the media was all at sea as to the reasons. The likes of the Guardian had it that it was: “because the UK economy is doing better relative to other European economies”. Yet this is not closer to the truth than many of the other theories that have since sprung up.

According to the Guardian, British and European Commission officials confirmed that the Treasury had been told last week that budget contribution calculations based on gross national income (GNI) adjustments carried out by Eurostat, the EU statistics agency, had “exposed a huge discrepancy between what Britain had been asked to contribute and what it should be paying, because of the UK’s recovery”.

The “bombshell”, apparently first reported by the Financial Times, was dropped into the middle of a European Council meeting in Brussels where Cameron and 27 other leaders were “mired in tough negotiations over climate-change policy and attempts to agree big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030”.

In response, or so the story went, a Downing Street source said: “It’s not acceptable to just change the fees for previous years and demand them back at a moment’s notice. The European Commission was not expecting this money and does not need this money and we will work with other countries similarly affected to do all we can to challenge this”.

Such was the apparent suddenness of this demand, though, that Kirkup in the Telegraph was speculating that the “colleagues” were perhaps EU trying to push Britain towards leaving. Even the noble Guardian – lover of all things “European” – remained nonplussed, telling us that the “infuriating” reason for this sudden hike is “because Eurostat has reviewed the figures and believes the UK economy has performed better in recent years than was previously believed”.

The following day had the Independent tell us that George Osborne had “left David Cameron in the dark” about the EU’s “unexpected” demand. The Chancellor, we were told, had known about the bill since the beginning of the week, yet the prime minister had only been told on Thursday, just as he had been on his way to Brussels for the European Council.

Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is said to have known about the bill before Mr Cameron was informed, which has left the prime minister venting his anger from a podium in the press suite in the Brussels Council building, declaring: “This is completely unacceptable. It is an unacceptable way for this organisation to work – to suddenly present a bill like this for such a vast sum of money with so little time to pay it”.

Thus, days after Mr Cameron’s supposed “ambush”, the collected political/media establishment are still having trouble coming to terms with what precisely has happened, and why. So lacking is the comprehension that the Daily Telegraph leader yesterday was accusing the Commission of acting on a “whim”, while another pundit was arguing that the timing was politically motivated.

Shining like a beacon through the morass, however, are the comments from Angela Merkel during the European Council. According to the Telegraph, she told David Cameron that: “This did not come out of the blue”, adding that she could “understand” that it was difficult to come up with money but “this should have been expected”.

Remarkably, diplomats are recorded as described Merkel’s intervention as “cold-blooded and ruthless” but this is hardly the case. The German Chancellor was only stating the obvious – and very far removed from the Telegraph’s earlier idea that some anonymous official in the EU’s statistical department woke up one day and decided – presumably just for the fun of it – to review all the GNI figures. It should have been expected.

In fact the process which has delivered this result starts, not with Eurostat but with the United Nations and its System of National Accounts, a process of producing standardised accounts for every nation in the world, which has been in place since 1953. Far from coming out of the blue, the timeline for the events of last week start in 1993, when the last standard was published, a process which automatically triggers a review which inexorably leads to the next published standard.

If this seems complicated, it isn’t really – it is a process of continuous review, carried out by many international and national organisations, the bureaucratic equivalent of painting the Forth Bridge. As soon as you have finished, you start all over again.

In this case, the review triggered by the 1993 standard was carried out under the responsibility of five organisations: the UN as the lead organisation, plus the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the World Bank and … the European Union. It took 15 years, numerous meetings and many consultation sessions, before the work complete.

Thus, it was not until 2008 that the United Nations was able to issue its revised standard, setting out the new international rules for how nations should calculate their gross national products (and their GNIs). This represented – as the introduction to the standard declared – “an update, mandated by the United Nations Statistical Commission in 2003, of the System of National Accounts 1993”.

The new standard was formally published in 2009, which then put the EU out of line with the global system. So, in December 2010, the Commission issued a legislative proposals (COM(2010) 774 final) aimed at bringing its own system – the European System of Accounts (ESA), last amended in 1995 – back into line.

The proposed regulation took over two years going through the process, but was agreed by William Hague at the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 22 April 2013, following a single reading by the European Parliament on 13 March. It became Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of 21 May 2013 on “the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union”. A mere 727 pages long, its short title was the “ESA 2010 regulation”.

For those who cared to read the European Parliament position document, it clearly warned that: “The Commission uses: “aggregates of national and regional accounts for Union administrative purposes and, in particular, budgetary calculations”. Thus, anyone paid to watch such things (such as Treasury officials) should have known that there was a potential for impacting on UK contributions to the EU.

Then, in January 2014, Eurostat pitched in with a press briefing, explaining the impact of the changes – pointing out that the US – which had introduced the international standard a year earlier – had experienced  a 3.5 percent “boost” in its GNP – entirely due to the new method of accounting.

Making things abundantly clear, the press release also noted: which should have made things clear. National accounts, it said, “have a deeper role. They are at the source of many of the indicators that constitute the quantitative backbone of European economic governance. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), more precisely Gross National Income, is at the heart of the calculation of the EU budget”.

The European Union, we were also told, “will fully move to ESA 2010 in September 2014, when the data transmission programme included in ESA 2010 Regulation enters into application”. It warned: “The national accounts data will then be compiled all around Europe based on the new methodology”.

That most certainly should have rung alarm bells. Every year on 1 December, the Commission revises its estimates of member state liabilities for their annual contributions to the EU budget. And what was coming through was that the UK would be showing a rise in GNI higher than the European average.

Interestingly, the change to the criteria was flagged up by the Financial Times, but not until 23 April 2014 – nearly a year after the EU regulation had come into force. It did not reveal the UN source though. In our post, a few days later, though, we did track down the origin, noting that the FT was remarking that the picture on the UK economy (then improving) was to get even better in September when the UK “adopts the new international standards for national income accounting”.

000a Economist-025 GDP.jpg

Then, just to add to the picture, the change was also flagged up by the UK’s ONS in May 2014, and also by the Economist magazine in the August. This time, the UK’s relative position was shown, with an increment of about 4.5 percent in its GNP. As other EU member states were not increasing by the same amount, it should then have been obvious to Treasury officials that the UK’s contributions to Brussels were going to increase by a substantial amount.

If there had been any doubt, Eurostat – now with a legislative mandate to produce a new system – had in any case come up with a 655-page document in July 2013, describing the full methodology on the ESA 2010 standard. And it was this methodology that was to be applied by ONS, which calculated the figures and passed them to Brussels.

Currently, with the September 2014 implementation deadline passed, Eurostat has checked and approved the revised GNI figures prepared by the EU member states, and passed them on to Brussels. And it is on these figures that latest EU contributions have been based for the 1 December review – one of which Mrs Merkel was apparently aware, but was apparently unknown to Mr Cameron.

The irony now is almost too much to bear. When the UK joined the EEC in 1973, it was felt it that it was paying an excessive budgetary contribution – excessive because the UK was undergoing financial crises and its GNP was depressed.

It was then proposed that the contributions should be linked to GDP – which latterly became GNI – but this was not implemented until 1988 as the Own Resources Decision (ORD) 1988. But that was putting into effect the 1984 agreement with Margaret Thatcher at Fountainebleau, after she had settled Britain’s rebate. At the heart of Mr Cameron’s travails, therefore, is Mrs Thatcher’s famous “handbag” victory, reducing Britain’s contributions. Perhaps it should have come with a heath warning: “what goes down can go up”.

With Britain’s annual contribution to the EU now linked to GNI as a result of Mrs Thatcher’s endeavours, this made it inevitable that, with the GNI increasing under the new, UN-mandated system of accounting, Britain’s contribution was going to increase.

It is thus all very well for Mr Cameron to huff and puff about refusing to pay a “completely unacceptable” bill, but he has no grounds to do so. The original system was agreed by Margaret Thatcher. Amendments were approved by Tony Blair’s government and Gordon Brown in 2007, making them equally responsible, and the new system of accounting was agreed by Mr Cameron’s own government last year.

Thus, Mrs Merkel was absolutely right. Mr Cameron should not have been in the least surprised by the £1.7bn additional bill. This is nothing to do with the improvement in the British economy – it simply reflects a change in the accounting procedure, which has been on the stocks for two decades, the effects of which were predictable five years ago.

Although one is concerned for the poor benighted taxpayer, therefore, there can be no sympathy for Mr Cameron. This is the man who is in favour of continued membership of the EU: all he had to do was read the 727-page regulations which his government approved, or the 655-page explanatory document produced by Eurostat. He would then have known exactly where the UK stood.

With his government having agreed the new regulation, bringing in the changes to the way the GNI was calculated – and the consequences of those changes having been flagged up – Mr Cameron has no excuses.

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, the German MEP who has been speaking to the BBC is absolutely right: “everybody has to pay their dues”. Whether we like it or not, his government is legally obliged to pay the bill, as it conforms with the system he personally endorses and which his government has approved.

But the biggest irony of all is that no-one ever set out to increase the UK’s bill. This is simply an unintended consequence of the routine processes of globalisation that are going on all the time – unseen and largely unrecognised. But once the UN had changed the system, the EU had no choice but to conform – leading to the current situation.

Presumably, Mr Farage is now going to demand that we leave the UN – one of the many villains of the story. But at the heart of Mr Cameron’s discomfort, it seems to me, is a failure of communication.  He should have been told well in advance what was going to happen.

And there lies a final irony – he was in Brussels trying to convince the “colleagues” to buy into his climate change fantasy, which is set to cost the UK £1.3 trillion by 2050. Against that, a mere £1.7bn seems small change.

To view Dr. Richard North’s original article CLICK HERE





 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

Reclaim YOUR Future 
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
to Reclaim YOUR Future 

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Details & Links:
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive:
General Stuff ongoing:
Health Blog.:

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide


To Leave-The-EU

We welcome comments but reserve the right to moderate & refuse libelous or offensive comments and those we choose to delete when written by unidentifiable individuals hidden in anonymity in a cowardly manner to defame or abuse. No comment has EVER been barred or deleted which is genuine & clearly authored by a named & identifiable individual. You will note many comments made have been commented on and even corrected by the blog owner. We welcome genuine comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: