EU Asks for Budget Increase

[MountcastleHibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13141644

What do people make of this?

I think it's totally ridiculous that national governments are having to cut their budgets, and yet, the EU asks for and expects an increase. It's things like this that make people want to get out of Europe. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Woody1985]

Not read it but they should **** off asking for an increase. Any grants or subscriptions should stay the same at least.

[BEEJ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13141644

What do people make of this?

I think it's totally ridiculous that national governments are having to cut their budgets, and yet, the EU asks for and expects an increase. It's things like this that make people want to get out of Europe. Absolutely ridiculous.
Not surprised. The EU regularly appears to function as if it is not of this planet. :rolleyes:

I'm sure if they put their collective minds to it they could save a few billion euros of existing spend to meet their 'longer-term spending commitments" in the poorer nations.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm just glad that the British government is fighting this proposal to the hilt.

This is just totally unacceptable and the EU is clearly having a laugh here.

The sooner we put the question of Britain's continued membership of the European Union to a referendum, the better.

We need to withdraw as soon as possible, reclaim the country as our own and spend our money how we see fit.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm just glad that the British government is fighting this proposal to the hilt.

This is just totally unacceptable and the EU is clearly having a laugh here.

The sooner we put the question of Britain's continued membership of the European Union to a referendum, the better.

We need to withdraw as soon as possible, reclaim the country as our own and spend our money how we see fit.

Thank you, Mr. Salmond. :wink:

[Beefster]

The UK's EU contribution should be cut by the percentage that our overall public spending is being cut by. No ifs, no buts. It won't though.

The UK wastes billions in taxpayer money but it's an amateur compared with the waste of the EU.

[Mibbes Aye]

The UK's EU contribution should be cut by the percentage that our overall public spending is being cut by. No ifs, no buts. It won't though.

The UK wastes billions in taxpayer money but it's an amateur compared with the waste of the EU.

:agree: It can't be easy.

Last year David Cameron said he would freeze or cut the EU budget.

Then he went to Brussels and agreed a 3% increase, didn't he?

Wonder what he'll do this time.

Still, I'm sure that he'll be able to find the money from more cuts to the NHS, or falling police numbers, or whatever :wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

:agree: It can't be easy.

Last year David Cameron said he would freeze or cut the EU budget.

Then he went to Brussels and agreed a 3% increase, didn't he?

Wonder what he'll do this time.

Still, I'm sure that he'll be able to find the money from more cuts to the NHS, or falling police numbers, or whatever :wink:

He won't cut the NHS, it's in his blood you know:wink:

[Beefster]

:agree: It can't be easy.

Last year David Cameron said he would freeze or cut the EU budget.

Then he went to Brussels and agreed a 3% increase, didn't he?

Wonder what he'll do this time.

Still, I'm sure that he'll be able to find the money from more cuts to the NHS, or falling police numbers, or whatever :wink:

Do you ever post on this board without making party political points? There hasn't been a government in 15 years or more that has said a difficult 'no' to the EU.

[Woody1985]

:agree: It can't be easy.

Last year David Cameron said he would freeze or cut the EU budget.

Then he went to Brussels and agreed a 3% increase, didn't he?

Wonder what he'll do this time.

Still, I'm sure that he'll be able to find the money from more cuts to the NHS, or falling police numbers, or whatever :wink:

All well and good having what a dig but did they not ask for six percent and he said no?

[magpie1892]

:agree: It can't be easy.

Last year David Cameron said he would freeze or cut the EU budget.

Then he went to Brussels and agreed a 3% increase, didn't he?

Wonder what he'll do this time.

Still, I'm sure that he'll be able to find the money from more cuts to the NHS, or falling police numbers, or whatever :wink:

And we could no bother afford to pay the EU whatever they wanted if Gordon Brown hadn't sold half the nation's gold at one tenth of what it would be worth today.

Hey, this is easy!

[Mibbes Aye]

And we could no bother afford to pay the EU whatever they wanted if Gordon Brown hadn't sold half the nation's gold at one tenth of what it would be worth today.

Hey, this is easy!

Except for one thing - the sale of the gold was used to buy interest-bearing securities, the income of which was used to help rebuild the country's infrastructure, making up for seventeen years of Tory neglect.

What did we need in Labour's first term - gold gathering dust in the vaults of the Bank of England?

Or replacements for the rundown, crumbling hospitals and schools that Thatcher and Major left us?

[Mibbes Aye]

All well and good having what a dig but did they not ask for six percent and he said no?

Oh well, that makes it okay then :rolleyes:

Tell you what Woody, give me a grand and see how much better you feel when I settle for five hundred quid :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Do you ever post on this board without making party political points? There hasn't been a government in 15 years or more that has said a difficult 'no' to the EU.

Good grief, the latest way to stop anyone criticising David Cameron - accuse them of making a 'party political point' :greengrin

The last I heard, he was keen enough on party politics to put himself up to lead the country. On that basis it's fair enough, don't you think?

So given he said he would get us a freeze or a cut, and then gave away an increase, it begs the question.

Is he incompetent or just a liar? :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Good grief, the latest way to stop anyone criticising David Cameron - accuse them of making a 'party political point' :greengrin

The last I heard, he was keen enough on party politics to put himself up to lead the country. On that basis it's fair enough, don't you think?

So given he said he would get us a freeze or a cut, and then gave away an increase, it begs the question.

Is he incompetent or just a liar? :greengrin

Quality. You won't get popular using the truth as a blunt instrument you know.

[Beefster]

Good grief, the latest way to stop anyone criticising David Cameron - accuse them of making a 'party political point' :greengrin

The last I heard, he was keen enough on party politics to put himself up to lead the country. On that basis it's fair enough, don't you think?

So given he said he would get us a freeze or a cut, and then gave away an increase, it begs the question.

Is he incompetent or just a liar? :greengrin

I don't think David Cameron posts on here but I could be wrong.

My point stands though. Labour complaining about the Tories being soft on Europe is a bit like Dr Harold Shipman moaning about how many folk Ted Bundy killed.

[magpie1892]

Except for one thing - the sale of the gold was used to buy interest-bearing securities, the income of which was used to help rebuild the country's infrastructure, making up for seventeen years of Tory neglect.

What did we need in Labour's first term - gold gathering dust in the vaults of the Bank of England?

Or replacements for the rundown, crumbling hospitals and schools that Thatcher and Major left us?

I think you've been 'whooshed' ever so slightly.

On a personal note, if gold 'gathers dust' in a vault while it heads upwards of $1,200/oz (and, some reckon, heading towards $2,000/oz) I think that's a price worth paying. A wee wipe with a damp cloth and you're good to go.

I must warn you, objectively, that defending Brown's gold sale is a lonely and economically incontinent position to take up.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think you've been 'whooshed' ever so slightly.

On a personal note, if gold 'gathers dust' in a vault while it heads upwards of $1,200/oz (and, some reckon, heading towards $2,000/oz) I think that's a price worth paying. A wee wipe with a damp cloth and you're good to go.

I must warn you, objectively, that defending Brown's gold sale is a lonely and economically incontinent position to take up.

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it :wink:

I think it's you who has brought this subject up in the past and I can't help but think you're conflating two points here to obscure what's relevant.

The two points are, was/is it right to sell gold reserves in the first place; and was it right to sell them at that time or that price.

Re the first point, it's not the case that our gold reserves represent some kind of massive fallback, some kind of guaranteed bail-out should we run in trouble. We don't live in that kind of world any more, haven't done for a very long time.

I think we have something like ten billions pounds of gold at current prices. If we were on the brink of bankruptcy, we wouldn't be able to command that anyway, as buyers would be well aware and even if we did, ten billion wouldn't really do much in that event.

More pertinently, I can see why many people would find it morally repugnant that we sat on some big pile of gold, like a medieval king, while the hospitals that care for our sick, and the schools that educate our children crumbled around them.

Re the second point, I'll take your word for it,that gold prices today are a lot higher than when we disposed of half our reserves some ten-fifteen years ago.

But that's not really relevant, because it's ridiculous to suggest that the particular government in power back then should have held off, on the basis that it might still be in power fifteen years later, and that gold prices would have shifted the way they did, and they then could sell them for more money. How exactly would that make any sense, to anyone :confused:

And all that while the health and education system, at near-breaking point in 1997, collapsed around us because we continued the chronic underinvestment that marked the Tory years :rolleyes:

[Leicester Fan]

But that's not really relevant, because it's ridiculous to suggest that the particular government in power back then should have held off, on the basis that it might still be in power fifteen years later, and that gold prices would have shifted the way they did, and they then could sell them for more money. How exactly would that make any sense, to anyone :confused:

And all that while the health and education system, at near-breaking point in 1997, collapsed around us because we continued the chronic underinvestment that marked the Tory years :rolleyes:

I'm sure there is an economic argument for selling gold reserves but it doesn't make much sense to announce the sale beforehand depressing the price.

As for the crumbling infrastructure don't exaggerate. People might have had to wait a bit for their operation but it wasn't half as bad as Labour would have you believe.

[heretoday]

Love Europe. Hate the EU. Vive la difference!

[easty]

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it :wink:

I think it's you who has brought this subject up in the past and I can't help but think you're conflating two points here to obscure what's relevant.

The two points are, was/is it right to sell gold reserves in the first place; and was it right to sell them at that time or that price.

Re the first point, it's not the case that our gold reserves represent some kind of massive fallback, some kind of guaranteed bail-out should we run in trouble. We don't live in that kind of world any more, haven't done for a very long time.

I think we have something like ten billions pounds of gold at current prices. If we were on the brink of bankruptcy, we wouldn't be able to command that anyway, as buyers would be well aware and even if we did, ten billion wouldn't really do much in that event.

More pertinently, I can see why many people would find it morally repugnant that we sat on some big pile of gold, like a medieval king, while the hospitals that care for our sick, and the schools that educate our children crumbled around them.

Re the second point, I'll take your word for it,that gold prices today are a lot higher than when we disposed of half our reserves some ten-fifteen years ago.

But that's not really relevant, because it's ridiculous to suggest that the particular government in power back then should have held off, on the basis that it might still be in power fifteen years later, and that gold prices would have shifted the way they did, and they then could sell them for more money. How exactly would that make any sense, to anyone :confused:

And all that while the health and education system, at near-breaking point in 1997, collapsed around us because we continued the chronic underinvestment that marked the Tory years :rolleyes:

:agree:

It's believed, by some, that the government will start to sell off the stake thats owned in Lloyds and RBS next year. In 15 years that stake may be worth a lot more than it's sold off for, or it might not, it's impossible to predict what it'll actually be worth (just like the gold reserves).

So should the government just perpetually hold on to the shares because they could always be worth more in a few years?

[Beefster]

:agree:

It's believed, by some, that the government will start to sell off the stake thats owned in Lloyds and RBS next year. In 15 years that stake may be worth a lot more than it's sold off for, or it might not, it's impossible to predict what it'll actually be worth (just like the gold reserves).

So should the government just perpetually hold on to the shares because they could always be worth more in a few years?

All the indicators and expert opinion was that the price of gold was going to increase soon. Expert opinion advised against the sale and then to make matters worse, they announced the sale in advance and sold it by auction.

It wasn't just a case of 'gold increases in due course' so it would always have gone up. As a direct result of Brown and Balls, the Treasury lost at least £2bn.

[easty]

All the indicators and expert opinion was that the price of gold was going to increase soon. Expert opinion advised against the sale and then to make matters worse, they announced the sale in advance and sold it by auction.

It wasn't just a case of 'gold increases in due course' so it would always have gone up. As a direct result of Brown and Balls, the Treasury lost at least £2bn.

Experts aren't always right. I take it these experts all bought a sh*t load of gold for themselves, their life savings all went on gold and they're now living it up away in the sun somewhere, seeing as it was such a sure thing?

There's always "experts" giving their opinions, often conflicting, and not everyone can be right. Hindsight now shows that the gold would have been worth holding onto, but I bet there were "experts" involved in the decision to sell the gold off.

[magpie1892]

I'm sure there is an economic argument for selling gold reserves but it doesn't make much sense to announce the sale beforehand depressing the price.

Indeed. And the point I was about to make to MA. In that, the second Brown announced his decision to sell some two months hence, the spot price of gold began to fall in anticipation of renewed supply to the market. When the sales began two months later, the price was 20% down on the spot price on the day of the announcement of the sale.

When the Chancellor of The Exchequer doesn't seem to understand the concept of supply and demand in terms of price then that has to be a concern. Furthermore, he was warned off the sale by the BofE and the CBI (as well as several treasury civil servants) and... ignored everyone. Gordon in 'I know best' shocker. Except, er, he didn't. He bought Euro with the gold sale. Another masterstroke.

So we have a case of incompetence mixed with arrogance. Nice.

Anyway, we're way off topic. Both Labour and Conservatives have been kissing the EU's arse for decades now and neither can lay any sort of claim to the moral high ground.

Both Labour and the Tories promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I must have been abroad when the people spoke.

[magpie1892]

I bet there were "experts" involved in the decision to sell the gold off.

As mentioned above, many ''experts'' warned Brown off not only the sale but also of his decision to spend the money on Euro. A decision that has cost the country twice over.

[Beefster]

Experts aren't always right. I take it these experts all bought a sh*t load of gold for themselves, their life savings all went on gold and they're now living it up away in the sun somewhere, seeing as it was such a sure thing?

There's always "experts" giving their opinions, often conflicting, and not everyone can be right. Hindsight now shows that the gold would have been worth holding onto, but I bet there were "experts" involved in the decision to sell the gold off.

Indeed, experts aren't always right but in this case they were absolutely spot on.

It might just be me but if the experts included the Bank of England and some of the finest economists in the country and my qualifications were in History, I'd probably listen to them.

You can spin it however you want, he ****ed up.

[gringojoe]

When exactly did it stop being The Common Market and become the European Union? Was it not all set up to promote trade in Europe rather than make stupid rules about the length of carrots?

[Mibbes Aye]

Indeed, experts aren't always right but in this case they were absolutely spot on.

It might just be me but if the experts included the Bank of England and some of the finest economists in the country and my qualifications were in History, I'd probably listen to them.

You can spin it however you want, he ****ed up.

Beefster, I will happily come back to the mysterious case of the sold gold, as there's a couple of things that don't add up in the posts of those who are commenting negatively about it :wink: :greengrin.

Will have more time tomorrow, promise :thumbsup:

Just getting back to the OP for a moment though - the EU is looking for a budget increase. The man making the decision in the UK will be David Cameron. Last year he was in a similar position. He had stated he wouldn't settle for anything less than a freeze or a cut.

I asked this -



So given he said he would get us a freeze or a cut, and then gave away an increase, it begs the question.

Is he incompetent or just a liar? :greengrin

Which is it?

(I'll accept the notion that he may actually be able to combine the two :agree: :aok:)

[Sir David Gray]

Thank you, Mr. Salmond. :wink:

Unfortunately, as I've tried to point out already on the Scottish elections thread, what I said in my last post is nothing like what Alex Salmond wants.

Alex Salmond and the SNP want a relationship with the EU that will mean that, if Scotland becomes "independent", we will not be able to "reclaim our country as our own" and neither will we be able to "spend our money how we see fit".

On the issue of independence, the SNP's manifesto for the upcoming election states;

"The big difference will be that instead of only deciding some issues here in Scotland, independence will allow us to take decisions on all the major issues. That is the reality of independence in this interdependent world."

Now I'm not sure what the SNP's definition of "all the major issues" is, but as far as the issues that are important to me are concerned, a Scotland within the European Union will be unable to independently legislate at all, on the vast majority of those issues.

To me, that statement is totally untrue and completely ill-thought out.


When exactly did it stop being The Common Market and become the European Union? Was it not all set up to promote trade in Europe rather than make stupid rules about the length of carrots?

The European Economic Community was set up in 1958 and was informally known as the 'Common Market'. The UK joined the EEC in 1973 and it was ratified by a referendum two years later.

The European Union came into being in 1993 with the introduction of the Maastricht Treaty with a whole host of new powers for the EU.

As I said in the Scottish election thread a few days ago, what the British people voted in favour of in 1975 is so different to what the EU has turned into, that we absolutely must put a referendum to the British people to decide whether Britain should continue being a member state of the European Union.

The EU of 2011 is totally unrecognisable to the EEC of 1975 that the referendum that was held then should now be considered invalid in my book.

[BEEJ]

Just getting back to the OP for a moment though - the EU is looking for a budget increase. The man making the decision in the UK will be David Cameron. Last year he was in a similar position. He had stated he wouldn't settle for anything less than a freeze or a cut.
A case there of Cameron speaking out on a point of principle before actually understanding his room for manoeuvre. Hence the subsequent embarrassing climb-down.

[Beefster]

Beefster, I will happily come back to the mysterious case of the sold gold, as there's a couple of things that don't add up in the posts of those who are commenting negatively about it :wink: :greengrin.

Will have more time tomorrow, promise :thumbsup:

Just getting back to the OP for a moment though - the EU is looking for a budget increase. The man making the decision in the UK will be David Cameron. Last year he was in a similar position. He had stated he wouldn't settle for anything less than a freeze or a cut.

I asked this -



Which is it?

(I'll accept the notion that he may actually be able to combine the two :agree: :aok:)

I don't believe it is either. One failure doesn't make him an incompetent PM but there is no doubt that he made a tit of it. He should have kept his mouth shut but unfortunately he has the same affliction as Blair and Brown had in that he feels the need to comment on things that he doesn't really have to.

[MountcastleHibs]

Beefster, I will happily come back to the mysterious case of the sold gold, as there's a couple of things that don't add up in the posts of those who are commenting negatively about it :wink: :greengrin.

Will have more time tomorrow, promise :thumbsup:

Just getting back to the OP for a moment though - the EU is looking for a budget increase. The man making the decision in the UK will be David Cameron. Last year he was in a similar position. He had stated he wouldn't settle for anything less than a freeze or a cut.

I asked this -



Which is it?

(I'll accept the notion that he may actually be able to combine the two :agree: :aok:)

I don't think he is either a liar (on this issue anyway) or incompetent. He made the initial point as an ideological opinion, and in line with his beliefs. After he became to understand how hard it is to negotiate at EU level, he obviously had the embarrassing climb down.

The EU has become far more than what the UK signed up for, and that needs to be reassessed imo. Without trying to score party political points here, it was ridiculous a referendum was not offered on the Lisbon Treaty - which has taken away even more sovereignty from the UK Parliament. There are countries, particularly Germany, that have heavy influence on the decision making process in the EU. I'm sure Chancellor Merkel was the one last year who was in favour of an increased budget, and I'm sure she'll be rallying the troops behind it once again.

Having spent the last year studying the inner workings of the EU, going in a a bit of a cynic of it, my mind has yet to be changed, and proposals by the Commission like this, leave me increasingly disgruntled with the EU.

[BEEJ]

The EU has become far more than what the UK signed up for, and that needs to be reassessed imo. Without trying to score party political points here, it was ridiculous a referendum was not offered on the Lisbon Treaty - which has taken away even more sovereignty from the UK Parliament.
Wasn't a UK referendum on the subject a manifesto promise of the last Labour administration?

What pressures were brought to bear, I wonder, to make them abandon that?

[One Day Soon]

I'm sure there is an economic argument for selling gold reserves but it doesn't make much sense to announce the sale beforehand depressing the price.

As for the crumbling infrastructure don't exaggerate. People might have had to wait a bit for their operation but it wasn't half as bad as Labour would have you believe.


Hospitals were old and manky (that job still isn't fully completed), schools weren't fit for purpose and the rail infrastructure was archaic. Whatever else the Tories achieved in office - they certainly did not invest adequately in public infrastructure. Why would they? Thatcher was determined to drive the free market as far as possible and under investing in hospitals and schools is a very effective way of driving increased demand for private health care and private education. She hated the railways and did everything she could to rig the transport market in favour of roads over rail - not insubstantially because of the strength the rail unions had shown in earlier industrial disputes.

[Leicester Fan]

Hospitals were old and manky (that job still isn't fully completed), schools weren't fit for purpose and the rail infrastructure was archaic. Whatever else the Tories achieved in office - they certainly did not invest adequately in public infrastructure. Why would they? Thatcher was determined to drive the free market as far as possible and under investing in hospitals and schools is a very effective way of driving increased demand for private health care and private education. She hated the railways and did everything she could to rig the transport market in favour of roads over rail - not insubstantially because of the strength the rail unions had shown in earlier industrial disputes.

Rail travel and investment in the infrastructure went up under privatisation.

[One Day Soon]

Rail travel and investment in the infrastructure went up under privatisation.

Except that Railtrack failed, subsidies and taxation heavily favoured road transport over rail, rail freight transportation was hamstrung by the failure to invest in connector points, high speed rail wasn't developed, rail safety and accident rates were appalling because under investment left a legacy of antiquated systems and the rolling stock was a joke and therefore incredibly unreliable.

However I have to say I think Network Rail are doing a pretty fair job. If you compare our rail system to France and Germany though it is way, way behind in quality, scope and reliability.

[Beefster]

Except that Railtrack failed, subsidies and taxation heavily favoured road transport over rail, rail freight transportation was hamstrung by the failure to invest in connector points, high speed rail wasn't developed, rail safety and accident rates were appalling because under investment left a legacy of antiquated systems and the rolling stock was a joke and therefore incredibly unreliable.

However I have to say I think Network Rail are doing a pretty fair job. If you compare our rail system to France and Germany though it is way, way behind in quality, scope and reliability.

Sometimes I think folk forget that Labour were in power for 13 years.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't believe it is either. One failure doesn't make him an incompetent PM but there is no doubt that he made a tit of it. He should have kept his mouth shut but unfortunately he has the same affliction as Blair and Brown had in that he feels the need to comment on things that he doesn't really have to.

I actually agree on this one, he may well prove yet to be incompetent but on this occasion he just opened his mouth when he shouldn't have, much like his comments this week on interns.

Somebody needs to guide him better on when to shut the **** up.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sometimes I think folk forget that Labour were in power for 13 years.

labours failures doesn't excuse the tories theres!!

[magpie1892]

labours failures doesn't excuse the tories theres!!

Very true, but Labour have just concluded 13 years in power with 2 out of 3 of their election victories providing absolutely thumping majorities and thus a mandate to do as they pleased.

Party political posturing doesn't alter the fact that the electorate have been and are being badly let down by successive governments. Again, there's no moral high ground vacant for either labour or the tories to position themselves on.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Very true, but Labour have just concluded 13 years in power with 2 out of 3 of their election victories providing absolutely thumping majorities and thus a mandate to do as they pleased.

Party political posturing doesn't alter the fact that the electorate have been and are being badly let down by successive governments. Again, there's no moral high ground vacant for either labour or the tories to position themselves on.

Agreed

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

Sometimes I think folk forget that Labour were in power for 13 years.

Yep. And a huge job of transforming this country's infrastructure was done during that time.

Anyway, back at the EU budget increase demand.....

[magpie1892]

Beefster, I will happily come back to the mysterious case of the sold gold, as there's a couple of things that don't add up in the posts of those who are commenting negatively about it :wink: :greengrin.

Will have more time tomorrow, promise :thumbsup:


That's 72 hours now, so something really special must be on the horizon!

[magpie1892]

Anyway, back at the EU budget increase demand.....

Unless I completely misread the mood, I think the vast majority of taxpayers would like the government to tell the EU to GTF and then have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. And know with certainty that neither will ever happen.

[CropleyWasGod]

Unless I completely misread the mood, I think the vast majority of taxpayers would like the government to tell the EU to GTF and then have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. And know with certainty that neither will ever happen.

I read it differently, and I think that, generally, the attitude is split along age lines. Older voters don't see the point of the EU, whilst younger ones tend to wonder why we wouldn't be in it.

Generalisations, sure, but probably quite reasonable ones. Maybe the Governments think the same way, and are waiting until the old antis die out before having a referendum?

[magpie1892]

I read it differently, and I think that, generally, the attitude is split along age lines. Older voters don't see the point of the EU, whilst younger ones tend to wonder why we wouldn't be in it.

Generalisations, sure, but probably quite reasonable ones. Maybe the Governments think the same way, and are waiting until the old antis die out before having a referendum?

Your first point is a fair one, it seems that Common Purpose, Frankfurt School and various other insidious organisations have done their job well. The trickle-down effect of 'older' voters' difficulties with numerous aspects of the EU and its M.O. have us in a situation, though, where if there were a referendum tomorrow: 'in or out', the 'outs' would have it at a canter.

Re: your second point - I think there'll be a long wait. Disenchantment with mainstream political parties is growing steadily and the alternatives (UKIP, tories that are actually tories (i.e. not the current parliamentary party), even proper socialists (i.e. obviously not the Labour party as is)) view the EU with suspicion through outright hostility.

In a democracy, the difficulties the majority (and it is a clear majority) of the electorate have with the EU would see the matter addressed robustly, but we obviously don't live in a democracy - the list of things the electorate wants but MPs simply ignore gets longer by the day.

One wonders what the tipping point is.

[Leicester Fan]

Your first point is a fair one, it seems that Common Purpose, Frankfurt School and various other insidious organisations have done their job well. The trickle-down effect of 'older' voters' difficulties with numerous aspects of the EU and its M.O. have us in a situation, though, where if there were a referendum tomorrow: 'in or out', the 'outs' would have it at a canter.

Re: your second point - I think there'll be a long wait. Disenchantment with mainstream political parties is growing steadily and the alternatives (UKIP, tories that are actually tories (i.e. not the current parliamentary party), even proper socialists (i.e. obviously not the Labour party as is)) view the EU with suspicion through outright hostility.

In a democracy, the difficulties the majority (and it is a clear majority) of the electorate have with the EU would see the matter addressed robustly, but we obviously don't live in a democracy - the list of things the electorate wants but MPs simply ignore gets longer by the day.

One wonders what the tipping point is.

I'd like to think you were right, but there'll always be plenty of scare stories to convince the population to stay in.

[magpie1892]

I'd like to think you were right, but there'll always be plenty of scare stories to convince the population to stay in.

Again, I agree. The pro-EU camp will try every trick in the book, but the electorate - of all political hues, and not before time - are finally beginning to see that 99% of Westminster's output is just ****ing lies.

Having said that, I don't see a referendum coming unless there's a revolution, and that ain't going to happen as the people who pay for the upkeep of twats that trash Fortnum & Mason and Tesco are too apathetic, or plotting an escape from this benighted isle.

[Beefster]

Beefster, I will happily come back to the mysterious case of the sold gold, as there's a couple of things that don't add up in the posts of those who are commenting negatively about it :wink: :greengrin.

Will have more time tomorrow, promise :thumbsup:

Just getting back to the OP for a moment though - the EU is looking for a budget increase. The man making the decision in the UK will be David Cameron. Last year he was in a similar position. He had stated he wouldn't settle for anything less than a freeze or a cut.

I asked this -



Which is it?

(I'll accept the notion that he may actually be able to combine the two :agree: :aok:)

After 6 days silence, is it safe to assume that even one of Labour's staunchest defenders could not defend the indefensible?!

Think of all the pensioners, children and poorly suffering as a result of the money lost.....

[RyeSloan]

After 6 days silence, is it safe to assume that even one of Labour's staunchest defenders could not defend the indefensible?!

Think of all the pensioners, children and poorly suffering as a result of the money lost.....

I think you are right....Sure there may have been some reasonable reasons to do what he did but it was a poorly times move poorly excecuted...there was plenty of commentary at the time that stated this and history has hardly been kind has it.

I towuld be refreshing for once for the uber Labour supporters to admit that at least once they got something a bit wrong..

[magpie1892]

I towuld be refreshing for once for the uber Labour supporters to admit that at least once they got something a bit wrong..

Dream on. Fascists don't do 'sorry'!

[Mibbes Aye]

After 6 days silence, is it safe to assume that even one of Labour's staunchest defenders could not defend the indefensible?!

Think of all the pensioners, children and poorly suffering as a result of the money lost.....

:thumbsup::top marks

I was on ma holidays :greengrin


I know it's off-topic but I think we had established the following:


That selling gold wasn't in itself necessarily wrong.


The price got for it was the price got for it and comparing that to the price ten years later as a criticism is meaningless.


What now seems to be the received wisdom of those criticising the decision is that it was done with advance notice, and that 'experts' criticised it.

The 'experts 'cited include the IMF - as has been pointed out before on here, while they may get it right some of the time they get it spectacularly wrong too.

My opinion is that many of the posters on here are just as capable of using their intellect to get it right.

But as to the advance notice, it does beg a couple of questions for me.

Instead of giving advance notice, should the UK just have dumped the gold on the market without telling anyone in one go?

Wouldn't that have caused a panic as people wondered what the hell we were up to, what sort of mess we were in to have to do this - investor confidence would have slumped and sparked a run on the pound.

Or, instead, we could have put the gold on the market in dribs and drabs, without telling anyone? Markets are sophisiticated and sensitive though - in no time we would have the same problem as above.

And markets react quickly - as soon as it became clear that we were creating a lot of supply, the price would nosedive.

In some ways you could argue counterintuitively on this one - by making people aware that there will be an increase in supply, the first effect may well be a price drop. What that does though is give time for the larger-scale investors to prepare capital and look to invest on a large scale. As it starts to become clear who may be able and prepared to invest on a large scale a mini-market develops around them, pushing the price up.

Not saying I'm right, merely putting it out there for consideration :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't believe it is either. One failure doesn't make him an incompetent PM but there is no doubt that he made a tit of it. He should have kept his mouth shut but unfortunately he has the same affliction as Blair and Brown had in that he feels the need to comment on things that he doesn't really have to.

Agreed Beefster.

But this is far from the first time he's said one thing and gone with the opposite.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

No scrapping of the EMA.

There are tons more I'm sure, feel free to add :greengrin

Maybe it isn't incompetence or lies then.

Maybe Cameron is just supremely arrogant?

[magpie1892]

I know it's off-topic but I think we had established the following:


That selling gold wasn't in itself necessarily wrong.



The price got for it was the price got for it and comparing that to the price ten years later as a criticism is meaningless.



We had, had we? That must be the Royal 'we', because re-reading this thread there is a clear consensus that the gold sale was poorly conceived, planned and executed.

[magpie1892]

Maybe Cameron is just supremely arrogant?

Politician in 'arrogant' shocker. Not cuddly, inclusive and a listener like Gordo, eh?

They're all the same. Even the stupid ones (yes, Jim Devine, I mean you) have shown breathtaking arrogance to their employers.

Have you not figured it out yet?

[bighairyfaeleith]

We had, had we? That must be the Royal 'we', because re-reading this thread there is a clear consensus that the gold sale was poorly conceived, planned and executed.

You bit then :)

[bighairyfaeleith]

We had, had we? That must be the Royal 'we', because re-reading this thread there is a clear consensus that the gold sale was poorly conceived, planned and executed.

On a serious note though, I kind of agree with mibbes, comparing the sale price is flawed and lets be honest, we had to sell the gold to start to rebuild britain after the tories let it crumble. Would you rather we sat on a pot of gold while people died while waiting on operations?

Of course in hindsight there will have been a better way to get more money, but in hindsight I wouldn't have voted for the lib dems at the last election. Hindsight is a way for folk with no answers to act smug.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Agreed Beefster.

But this is far from the first time he's said one thing and gone with the opposite.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

No scrapping of the EMA.

There are tons more I'm sure, feel free to add :greengrin

Maybe it isn't incompetence or lies then.

Maybe Cameron is just supremely arrogant?

waltzing around the arab world with arms dealers while gadaffi was killing his own with our weapons???:wink:

[magpie1892]

You bit then :)

I did.


On a serious note though, I kind of agree with mibbes, comparing the sale price is flawed and lets be honest, we had to sell the gold to start to rebuild britain after the tories let it crumble. Would you rather we sat on a pot of gold while people died while waiting on operations?

Of course in hindsight there will have been a better way to get more money, but in hindsight I wouldn't have voted for the lib dems at the last election. Hindsight is a way for folk with no answers to act smug.

Comparing the sale price is not flawed when we consider that Brown was told by a number of people/bodies (i.e. more than the one cherrypicked by MA) that the sale was a bad idea, that gold was a good bet, that the method of the sale was risky, etc.

This wasn't hindsight - this was all told to Brown before the sale. He didn't listen. It cost us billions.

If you want to raise money, selling the nation's gold for pennies is bottom of the list of sensible ideas. The sale is indefensible on anything other than a tribal basis. Economically and logistically, it was catastrophic from start to finish, and completely avoidable.

[Beefster]

On a serious note though, I kind of agree with mibbes, comparing the sale price is flawed and lets be honest, we had to sell the gold to start to rebuild britain after the tories let it crumble. Would you rather we sat on a pot of gold while people died while waiting on operations?

Of course in hindsight there will have been a better way to get more money, but in hindsight I wouldn't have voted for the lib dems at the last election. Hindsight is a way for folk with no answers to act smug.

Folk who think that we're just arguing "gold is worth more now" are spectacularly missing the point. Experts advised him that gold prices were cyclical and that, at that time, they were likely at or near the bottom of the cycle. That's ignoring the expert advice against the practical aspects of the sale too.

Brown ****ed up but it's fun watching Mibbes scrambling about looking for some, any justification for letting him off the hook and you jump on any reason to have a dig at the nasty Tories. Sometimes, you just need to cut your losses and admit that your man blew it.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Folk who think that we're just arguing "gold is worth more now" are spectacularly missing the point. Experts advised him that gold prices were cyclical and that, at that time, they were likely at or near the bottom of the cycle. That's ignoring the expert advice against the practical aspects of the sale too.

Brown ****ed up but it's fun watching Mibbes scrambling about looking for some, any justification for letting him off the hook and you jump on any reason to have a dig at the nasty Tories. Sometimes, you just need to cut your losses and admit that your man blew it.

sorry where did I mention the tories?

*edit - actually I did mention them, it wasn't the thrust of my point though so hence the reason I didn't even remember, to once again dismiss it though because you don't like us anyway is a bit pathetic.

Can I not have a viewpoint without you saying, but you hate the tories so it doesn't count??

Brown maybe ****ed up, if what you are saying about the professional advice is true then I can see your point, and I don't know enough about it to argue otherwise.

[Beefster]

sorry where did I mention the tories?

*edit - actually I did mention them, it wasn't the thrust of my point though so hence the reason I didn't even remember, to once again dismiss it though because you don't like us anyway is a bit pathetic.

Can I not have a viewpoint without you saying, but you hate the tories so it doesn't count??

Brown maybe ****ed up, if what you are saying about the professional advice is true then I can see your point, and I don't know enough about it to argue otherwise.

You can have any viewpoint you want. It's a public forum though so I might comment on it or dismiss it at my leisure.

What I'm saying about the professional advice is well documented. It would make no difference whether it was Brown, Blair, Balls, Cameron, Osborne or whoever who had made the decision, I'd still criticise it.

[magpie1892]

It would make no difference whether it was Brown, Blair, Balls, Cameron, Osborne or whoever who had made the decision, I'd still criticise it.

Indeed. Party politics are not relevant to the fact that the gold sale was, from start to finish, a perfect example of how to cock it up at every stage.

Overall, I think it's worryingly symptomatic of the 'quality' of politicians from which me make our choices that someone as limited as Brown could ever become Prime Minister. Same goes for Cameron, Clegg and countless others.

[Mibbes Aye]

Folk who think that we're just arguing "gold is worth more now" are spectacularly missing the point. Experts advised him that gold prices were cyclical and that, at that time, they were likely at or near the bottom of the cycle. That's ignoring the expert advice against the practical aspects of the sale too.

Brown ****ed up but it's fun watching Mibbes scrambling about looking for some, any justification for letting him off the hook and you jump on any reason to have a dig at the nasty Tories. Sometimes, you just need to cut your losses and admit that your man blew it.

I've posted reasonably lengthy, thought-out replies to all the points you've used as criticisms. Not claimed to be right but I've put it out there.

Your responses?
"Aye but....I read in the paper that some 'expert' said it was wrong" :agree:

There's someone scrambling around but I don't think it's me :greengrin

[Beefster]

I've posted reasonably lengthy, thought-out replies to all the points you've used as criticisms. Not claimed to be right but I've put it out there.

Your responses?
"Aye but....I read in the paper that some 'expert' said it was wrong" :agree:

There's someone scrambling around but I don't think it's me :greengrin

As opposed to you having a chat with Gordon Brown before posting?!

I didn't think your reply did much beyond try to muddy the waters a bit and claim that hindsight is a wonderful thing. I might have to go back and see the pearls that I missed.....

[magpie1892]

I've posted reasonably lengthy, thought-out replies to all the points you've used as criticisms. Not claimed to be right but I've put it out there.

You have claimed to be right. Not only that, but in saying:


I think we had established the following: That selling gold wasn't in itself necessarily wrong.You're bizarrely claiming a consensus which is square against you and telling us what we think. Typical lefty!

[bighairyfaeleith]

I've posted reasonably lengthy, thought-out replies to all the points you've used as criticisms. Not claimed to be right but I've put it out there.

Your responses?
"Aye but....I read in the paper that some 'expert' said it was wrong" :agree:

There's someone scrambling around but I don't think it's me :greengrin

your both claiming to have posted facts to have trumped each other, would you both care to in one post give your arguments why selling the gold was good or bad and lets put this to bed?

[magpie1892]

your both claiming to have posted facts to have trumped each other

The facts about why Gordo made a **** of it are all in the thread - and everywhere online. MA just doesn't see it that way, but the weight of evidence does not favour him.

[One Day Soon]

The facts about why Gordo made a **** of it are all in the thread - and everywhere online. MA just doesn't see it that way, but the weight of evidence does not favour him.

I don't quite know why I did this because I don't actually care too much but anyway: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LcNpczjM

A google and then this on the first page of results which would seem to contradict the assertion that he got it wrong.

How are you anyway Magpie?

[magpie1892]

I don't quite know why I did this because I don't actually care too much but anyway: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LcNpczjM

A google and then this on the first page of results which would seem to contradict the assertion that he got it wrong.

How are you anyway Magpie?

I saw that piece, as it happens. It's all about opinions, I suppose, but the numbers in the '**** up' camp are significantly higher. I'm among them!

I'm good. You? Email from BC in Doha saying it's 44C today. Definitely not missing that...

[One Day Soon]

I saw that piece, as it happens. It's all about opinions, I suppose, but the numbers in the '**** up' camp are significantly higher. I'm among them!

I'm good. You? Email from BC in Doha saying it's 44C today. Definitely not missing that...

To be fair the numbers in that camp are higher. But then it is Gordon brown we are talking about and he has been a VERY popular punch bag for some time.

I'm pretty good actually. Who is BC? You aren't going to start on Middle Eastern world cups again are you........

[magpie1892]

To be fair the numbers in that camp are higher. But then it is Gordon brown we are talking about and he has been a VERY popular punch bag for some time.

I'm pretty good actually. Who is BC? You aren't going to start on Middle Eastern world cups again are you........

Yes, that's true. However, he was warned beforehand, before the sale and long, lng before he became PM.

Hibby friend in Doha. He's well kent on here.

I hadn't planned to. 2022 will not take place in Doha's summer though...

[RyeSloan]

I don't quite know why I did this because I don't actually care too much but anyway: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LcNpczjM

A google and then this on the first page of results which would seem to contradict the assertion that he got it wrong.



It's a good article and to be fair the overriding ideal of selling gold was probably not a bad one (the whole concept of gold reserves is a bit of a reflection of human irrationality when it comes to the yellow metal!)...however selling it at a 20year low just before a substantial bull market has to be a case of extremely poor timing.

Sure hindsight is a wonderful thing but there is plenty evidence that suggested it was quite clear at the time that gold was at or near the bottom of it's cycle.

In other words, a not bad idea poorly timed.

I said it before in this thread, I'm not quite sure why it's such a problem for some people to admit this.

[magpie1892]

In other words, a not bad idea poorly timed.

I said it before in this thread, I'm not quite sure why it's such a problem for some people to admit this.

It's just tribalism with a bit of denial thrown in. We're all guilty of this to a greater or lesser extent. It's alarming, though, in this case, when the evidence stacks up so conclusively in support of your potted analysis, that not only will people defend the integrity of the sale, but also attempt some sort of 'Hibee Jedi Mind Trick' to claim that we've 'established' in this thread that the sale was actually handled quite well.