I think it's a lot!

Call me a cynic but future lucrative arms sales, maybe?

I think it is too much.

But then I also cannot understand why we are giving millions in aid to China when their economic situations seems so much better than ours.

Supposedly to help stop terrorism bybeing "benefactors" ,Pakistan has the border with Afghanistan and the Taliban etc cross the border and train in both countries.I don't think it'll work.

I think they'll spunk it on training camps for said terrorists

ahhh..! the penny drops lol

yep

not to help out but to secure deals

cheeky git he is-thats not right is it?

 

There are two areas that seem to be protected from cuts EU budget and foreign aid.We are also expexted to bail portugal out. We should not be giving aid to countries that can afford to have a nuclear programme or wasting so much money on the EU. 

 

It is kind of like a man forcing his family to tighten there beelts and eat cheap food so he can give all his money to someone else.

 

I don't know what we can do to make sure foreign aid goes to the right places but it is about time we had a refurendum on EU membership after all no one ever has had a vote,  most of out laws get made in EU now not westminster and it costs us a massive 48 million pounds a day and this does not include the bail outs of the euro

 

I don't want to get too political on here but the campian to give us a say on EU membership is growing fast weather you are for or against EU membership it is hard to argue that such a project should be allowed to happen without a democratic vote of the people ever taking place (common market was not the EU) if you agree and are from the UK please sign the peoples pledge http://www.peoplespledge.org/

 

thanks

 

I think we gain a few benefits from the EU.  I don't believe we just hand over 48mill a day and get f'all in return.

 

Also, most law is made in Europe now, not here?  Really?  What's the figures for that then?

 

apparently we will be giving 3billion to Portugal and guess what - Portugal refuse to make cuts in their public spending to try and make up the deficit...

 

Indeed !

That was badly timed. I was agreeing with the previous opinion and not the merits of bailing out our oldest ally.

I know that Cameron has criticised Brown and his party for leaving our economy in such a bad state, bit hasn't he missed a trick here? Why doesn't he attack Labour for leaving Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Pakistan in such a state too? Or are there other factors at play? I'm not an expert.

Neither are he or Gideon. Apart from at the blame game

I can totally understand that, coming from a country where we've had Bankers and Politicians in cohoots with each other for so long and pulling stunts that any other Joe Bloggs would be thrown in jail for, it's grains on your every last nerve to have to start taking cuts elsewhere.

 

Countries like the UK don't give money to other countries for nothing.  There are usually economic trade reasons behind it.  I don't understand the Pakistan contribution though, unless as some one else said it's to help educate people in an attempt to deter them from joining the Taliban and such?

 

 

We're not giving them owt.  It's effectively a loan - or we are acting as loan guarantors.  We could conceivably make a profit on this in the long run.

Re Portugal, interesting little quote.

 

I'm no expert but it seems to explain it a bit better to me.

 

Of course, if Portugal default - not unimaginable since the reason they're doing this is no one will 'lend' them any cash at a reasonable rate (in effect) cause the markets do think they're a bad risk - then that asset becomes null and void and it does cost UK plc pots of cash.

 

That and our interest rates (of borrowing) will fluctuate (I think) whereas Portugal are getting it at a fixed rate.  If our rates go higher than what we're charging them then we're f*cked too...

 

I think.

 

"Borrowing money to make a loan means you have a liability matched by an asset with no net effect on your balance sheet. Borrowing money to spend means you have a liability but no asset.

This is why we can "afford" to loan money to Portugal but not to spend on domestic issues"

 

 

Surely we usually just invade 'benefactors' of terrorism, or at least we did in Iraq - or rather, we said we were.

oh

i didnt know it was a loan

*note to self*  research before starting threads

 

sorry

Maybe there are but surely it is up to the British people to decide one way or the other and it would be nice if we could hear what the benefits are that no MP will currently explain to us. In a democracy the electorate loans the power to govern and make law to the MP's it isn't up to them to give that power away to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU commission. Also it seems clear that the EU accounts are going down a black hole as they have been unable to sign off there own accounts for the last 16 years so just where is all the money going.

 

What is needed is a full debate on the pros and cons of the EU but since other than Germany we are the biggest net payee any grants the EU gives us could be done cheaper missing out the middle man that is the EU. I really would like to know what we get that we couldn't provide ourselves as all we seem to here about is over regulation and the lack on control out own government has because of it. The pledge isn't about if you are pro or anti EU it is about if you are pro or anti democracy. Since the EU has such huge powers now continuing without a vote since we cannot vote those in the commission out (who are the only ones who decide policy) is a dictatorship in disguise as a democracy.

So what's the data on the majority of laws affecting us coming from Europe - compared to Westminster?  Pretty strong statement and it's either true or it isn't.  I don't know if you're right or not - just looking for a reference

 

As for debate re the EU - it seems to me we've had pretty constant debate on the subject of Europe since the 70's.  Indeed before.  It's not really the elephant in the room that never gets mentioned, is it?

 

A referendum might have some merit - if only so people can actually get told what we put in and what we get out.  What we get out of EU is hardly only about what grants we receive.

There is a great deal of disagreement on exactly how many come from  EU regulations but the figure is somewhere between 50 and 84% (probably around 60%) You see the way it works the commission thinks up a regulation the european parliament then ratifies it and then member states are bound by it as it is EU law. The Lisbon treaty that Labour forced though denying a much demanded referendum gave the EU huge powers over member states

 

As for the vote in the 70's that was not for the EU that was the common market a free trade area not a political union the EU was not created until 1993. If there is a referendum the EU will have to be sold to us and we could then make a decision on if it is worth it or not, as it is all we get told is it is good for us but no one will ever say why. (do you know I don't and I have even tried to find out)  A referendum would force them to tell us.

Make huge dramatic cuts in this country and see his 'own' people suffer (while he and his cosy brown nosers don't), but quick to lend aid to anywhere else on the planet that needs it.

 

Cameron's a complete and utter knob.

 

A geranium plant in Tasmania is dying and needs help! No problem! Superman from the UK on his way in his private jet. Here, why not have £40 million to grow some more? I'll just claw it back from the NHS.

 

Twunt.

  Couldn't agree more with everything you say.

All the political peoples are fannys!