14 Mar 10
The EU budget is just over 1% of the EU's GDP. Donating aid is not an EU affair, which is why the limit to sending aid is set that low. Member states decide individually how much aid they want to send. So if you want to know how much aid the EU sent, you have to add up the member states' contributions, not look at what the EU as an institution sent.
14 Mar 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe 3 million firgure is what can be sent automatically without consultation. The large amount that the E.U. sent was presumambly discussed and authorized and was in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars sent my the nations on an individual basis.
The EU budget is just over 1% of the EU's GDP. Donating aid is not an EU affair, which is why the limit to sending aid is set that low. Member states decide individually how much aid they want to send. So if you want to know how much aid the EU sent, you have to add up the member states' contributions, not look at what the EU as an institution sent.
14 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFOh I see.
The 3 million firgure is what can be sent automatically without consultation. The large amount that the E.U. sent was presumambly discussed and authorized and was in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars sent my the nations on an individual basis.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFApparently Booker disagrees with you. i wonder who will get more readers?
The E.U. sent U.S.$615 million in aid to the countries affected by the tsunami, not Euro 3 million as stated by Booker in your OP. This money was collected from its member states, who in turn also sent aid individually.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf he was wrong he was wrong. If it was disengenuous then it was disengenuous. I don't see how many readers he has is relevant in any way.
Apparently Booker disagrees with you. i wonder who will get more readers?
And neither do you. Your purported sense of humour very much goes into this wriggle-yer-tangents and redden-them-herrings mode whenever you've been caught out.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFdon't you understand the meaning of the term "immediate"?
If he was wrong he was wrong. If it was disengenuous then it was disengenuous. I don't see how many readers he has is relevant in any way.
And neither do you. Your purported sense of humour very much goes into this wriggle-yer-tangents and redden-them-herrings mode whenever you've been caught out.
apparently Booker's use of the term $3M is justified.
if YOU wanted to be honest, you would say: "well, AFTER Booker published his article, the EU coughed up more money."
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotCiting a 6 year old out-of-date obvious bash piece from a calculating polemicist at the Daily Telegraph in a piece with incorrect data, countless omissions, and that deliberately neglects to mention that immediate aid from E.U. members ran to hundreds of millions of dollars - more than the U.S. as far as can be made out, even according to the data Booker provided - and then here's you trying to extrapolate an "is the E.U. a superpower?" debate out of this tedious hackery is about as low and grotty as OPs get here at RHP.
don't you understand the meaning of the term "immediate"?
apparently Booker's use of the term $3M is justified.
if YOU wanted to be honest, you would say: "well, AFTER Booker published his article, the EU coughed up more money."
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhy did you cut and paste from such an unreliable source? It wasn't as if you managed to inspire an interesting debate about the E.U.'s superpower status, or lack of, with it.
subtitle: "The earthquake in Haiti provoked prompt and effective action from the US, and waffle from the EU, says Christopher Booker "
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFhow is he unreliable? because you don't understand what "prompt" and "immediate" mean?
Why did you cut and paste from such an unreliable source? It wasn't as if you managed to inspire an interesting debate about the E.U.'s superpower status, or lack of, with it.
re "interesting": you droning on and continuing to overlook Booker's point, intentionally or not, doesn't count as interesting, no.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotBooker neglected to mention the aid from E.U. members but DID mention the U.S. aid. A source that does that is an unreliable source. And the kind of source you peddle all the time. Anyway. Good for you. Is the E.U. a superpower? In terms of diplomacy - yes, probably. In terms of humanitarian aid? - yes, certainly. In military terms? - no. In economic terms - yes. In terms of international development? - yes. In Booker's eyes, and the Daily Telegraph's view? - no, apparently.
how is he unreliable? because you don't understand what "prompt" and "immediate" mean?
re "interesting": you droning on and continuing to overlook Booker's point, intentionally or not, doesn't count as interesting, no.