Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
craigjm said:
B'stard Child said:
Sway said:
craigjm said:
I know that but how do you persuade 28 countries to pay into a club to do deals with 1 country that is not paying in?
Taking Britain out, there are 27 other members of 'the club'. The majority of those members aren't paying in to be a member with benefits, they're being paid to be a member with less 'benefits'... I think regardless of the numbers involved we can at least say one way or other for the UK
We can probably say same for Greece too it's pretty unlikely that they pay in more than they receive......
According to my figures, sourced from Denmark, according to the EU own calculations the 6 biggest net recipients in 2013 were,in descending order
Poland 12.2bn
Greece 5.3bn
Hungary 4.6bn
Portugal 4.4bn
Romania 4.1bn
Czech Republic 3.4bn
Net contributors again in descending order
Germany -13.8bn
UK -8.6bn
France -8.4bn
Italy -3.8bn
Netherlands -2.7bn
Sweden -2.2bn
There were 11 net contributors in total but that includes such as Luxembourg, just on contribution side with a few million, and others with relatively small net contributions.
The additional issue, which doesn't help the poster who asked for accurate figures, is that the EU excludes agricultural levies and custom duties, nor administration costs on the expenditure side.
Being a bit cynical, one wonders how much of the desire to prevent the UK leaving boils down towards that old investigation rule, "follow the money".
Poland 12.2bn
Greece 5.3bn
Hungary 4.6bn
Portugal 4.4bn
Romania 4.1bn
Czech Republic 3.4bn
Net contributors again in descending order
Germany -13.8bn
UK -8.6bn
France -8.4bn
Italy -3.8bn
Netherlands -2.7bn
Sweden -2.2bn
There were 11 net contributors in total but that includes such as Luxembourg, just on contribution side with a few million, and others with relatively small net contributions.
The additional issue, which doesn't help the poster who asked for accurate figures, is that the EU excludes agricultural levies and custom duties, nor administration costs on the expenditure side.
Being a bit cynical, one wonders how much of the desire to prevent the UK leaving boils down towards that old investigation rule, "follow the money".
FiF said:
UK -8.6bn
Yeah but no but no but ......Oh perhaps not worth going there again.
Oh a serious note, if the Government compensate funding losers eg farmers, and factor in all the extra costs of not being in the EU eg boarder control then I bet the taxpayer will actually save nowt.
craigjm said:
Based on those figures makes me wonder if the big mistake was enlarging into Eastern Europe. What would the "club" be like now if it as just the pre 2004 club.
I assume the thinking is long term: they will eventually improve their economies and reduce their net draw. Whether that turns out to be correct is a different matter, but I can see the argument for it. PurpleMoonlight said:
FiF said:
UK -8.6bn
Yeah but no but no but ......Oh perhaps not worth going there again.
Oh a serious note, if the Government compensate funding losers eg farmers, and factor in all the extra costs of not being in the EU eg boarder control then I bet the taxpayer will actually save nowt.
We'd be hard pushed to be spending 8.6billion on border control don't you think?
Edited to correct my gross number - Fullfact reckon we put in 13 and get back 4.5
Edited again because my original 18billion gross figure was correct, but was pre-rebate. In 2015 the rebate was 5billion.
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 28th September 15:17
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 28th September 15:19
andymadmak said:
My understanding of the 8.6billion is that it is the net figure. That means that this is what we are giving to the EU over and above anything that we get back from the EU in terms of regional grants, agricultural subsidies etc. The gross figure in terms of our contribution is something like 13billion is it not?
We'd be hard pushed to be spending 8.6billion on border control don't you think?
Edited to correct my gross number - Fullfact reckon we put in 13 and get back 4.5
Yes it's the net cost.We'd be hard pushed to be spending 8.6billion on border control don't you think?
Edited to correct my gross number - Fullfact reckon we put in 13 and get back 4.5
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 28th September 15:17
To be fair I have no idea of the cost of increased boarder control but it's more than just salaries, eg equipment, maybe buildings. Won't we also have to establish and maintain a process for payments to eg farmers that the EU did?
Happy to be corrected if we already have that.
Greg66 said:
I assume the thinking is long term: they will eventually improve their economies and reduce their net draw. Whether that turns out to be correct is a different matter, but I can see the argument for it.
Nothing about the EU dream is linked to economics. This is about expanding the Federation, paid for by the sheep.PurpleMoonlight said:
Yes it's the net cost.
To be fair I have no idea of the cost of increased boarder control but it's more than just salaries, eg equipment, maybe buildings. Won't we also have to establish and maintain a process for payments to eg farmers that the EU did?
Happy to be corrected if we already have that.
I believe that DEFRA processes the CAP payments for the EU, so DEFRA can easily process the same payments from HMG. To be fair I have no idea of the cost of increased boarder control but it's more than just salaries, eg equipment, maybe buildings. Won't we also have to establish and maintain a process for payments to eg farmers that the EU did?
Happy to be corrected if we already have that.
We have border control already. We may need more of it at the major hubs to prevent undue delays to visitors. There will be costs, but not 8.6billion.
andymadmak said:
I believe that DEFRA processes the CAP payments for the EU, so DEFRA can easily process the same payments from HMG.
We have border control already. We may need more of it at the major hubs to prevent undue delays to visitors. There will be costs, but not 8.6billion.
Ah, okay. Ta.We have border control already. We may need more of it at the major hubs to prevent undue delays to visitors. There will be costs, but not 8.6billion.
don4l said:
With even more respect, I would suggest that you ask yourself "Which one of us is part of the majority?".
I speak for 17M people.
You speak for 16M people.
Oh dear. It is so tempting to explain but one knows that it won't be read. He believes he speaks for every person who voted leave. Quite remarkable and yet really silly.I speak for 17M people.
You speak for 16M people.
And then we get someone who knows the minds of 'most leavers'. But to even things up he has spoken to some remainers. To be fair, he doesn't claim to have spoken to them all.
CaptainSlow said:
FMOL is a price too far for most Leavers.
Whereas, most Remainers I have spoken to were unhappy with much of the EU and their argument (and also the official Remain argument) was that we can reform the EU from the inside, I wonder how many people that voted Remain have now seen this would have never been possible?
Whereas, most Remainers I have spoken to were unhappy with much of the EU and their argument (and also the official Remain argument) was that we can reform the EU from the inside, I wonder how many people that voted Remain have now seen this would have never been possible?
My previous comments about the thoughts of most Remainers were an attempt to get someone to raise the point that I couldn't possibly know the thoughts of the majority. So congratulations, you've picked up on it. Now you just need to make the step of realising that you couldn't know the minds of most Leavers and stop posting that you do, I doubt you'll make this logic leap though.
That said, Derek you have come across as the most disingenuous person posting on this subject. Prior to the vote you claimed to be undecided and wanted to be swayed, then you claimed you were undecided but would vote as per your children's wishes and now you're one of the most vocal Remainers on this forum. Unsure what your agenda was/is.
eta, and as for knowing the minds of most Leavers, my assumption is based on Immigration being the main decisioning point as per the polls.
That said, Derek you have come across as the most disingenuous person posting on this subject. Prior to the vote you claimed to be undecided and wanted to be swayed, then you claimed you were undecided but would vote as per your children's wishes and now you're one of the most vocal Remainers on this forum. Unsure what your agenda was/is.
eta, and as for knowing the minds of most Leavers, my assumption is based on Immigration being the main decisioning point as per the polls.
CaptainSlow said:
as for knowing the minds of most Leavers, my assumption is based on Immigration being the main decisioning point as per the polls.
Towards the end of the campaigning the Telegraph (IIRC) summed it up along the lines of "for those who regard the economy to be the most important factor the predominant vote is for Remain while for those who regard immigration as the most important factor the predominant vote is for Leave".AC43 said:
CaptainSlow said:
as for knowing the minds of most Leavers, my assumption is based on Immigration being the main decisioning point as per the polls.
Towards the end of the campaigning the Telegraph (IIRC) summed it up along the lines of "for those who regard the economy to be the most important factor the predominant vote is for Remain while for those who regard immigration as the most important factor the predominant vote is for Leave".Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
CaptainSlow said:
My previous comments about the thoughts of most Remainers were an attempt to get someone to raise the point that I couldn't possibly know the thoughts of the majority. So congratulations, you've picked up on it. Now you just need to make the step of realising that you couldn't know the minds of most Leavers and stop posting that you do, I doubt you'll make this logic leap though.
That said, Derek you have come across as the most disingenuous person posting on this subject. Prior to the vote you claimed to be undecided and wanted to be swayed, then you claimed you were undecided but would vote as per your children's wishes and now you're one of the most vocal Remainers on this forum. Unsure what your agenda was/is.
eta, and as for knowing the minds of most Leavers, my assumption is based on Immigration being the main decisioning point as per the polls.
Read my post again as to what I was criticising in your post.That said, Derek you have come across as the most disingenuous person posting on this subject. Prior to the vote you claimed to be undecided and wanted to be swayed, then you claimed you were undecided but would vote as per your children's wishes and now you're one of the most vocal Remainers on this forum. Unsure what your agenda was/is.
eta, and as for knowing the minds of most Leavers, my assumption is based on Immigration being the main decisioning point as per the polls.
You've attacked me personally. You are quite right in saying that I tried to go on facts in order to decide which way to vote, but the lies obscured everything. Much has become clearer since the vote, I assume to everyone.
You suggest I'm a vocal remainer. If by that you suggest I want another vote, you obviously have not read my posts. Had you read them you would not be unsure, but I'll point out again what they are in the hope that you understand.
1/ We are probably going to leave. I've said that umpteen times. I can justify why I am not certain but you obviously didn't read it the last time so unless you want me to spell it out again, I'll just hope you'll agree with what is a stand based on history and not just hope. I am no longer a remainer any more than you are a leaver. The vote is over, it is done. Such terminology is nonsensical.
2/ I want the best for the UK, me and mine by way of the negotiations.
All else in my posts is just concerns for the political realities of the situation. May will not have a free hand in deciding what she wants by way of exit. She can give quotes that excite those of feeble mind, but so far she has singularly avoided precision. What we will do will take into consideration the paymasters of the tory party, the CBI, international business and, far behind, the voters. So for the final bit:
3/ We've had our say. We no longer have any input. I have no idea what will happen and in this I am just the same as you and everyone else.
4/ To depend on the vagueness of brexit means brexit strikes me as desperation. It means nothing and I will continue to point this out. No one, not even the negotiators, know what will have to be spun as a great victory once the negotiations are over.
5/ I am glad that May is probably going to suffer in the next few years. She will have people whose wishes she cannot ignore. With the police, when she said there will be no more cuts, she was not, remarkably, 100% on line with the truth. My force suffered a massive cut from April this year. But the media supported her so there were no problems. Now she is going to have to deliver and she won't be able to because, as everyone knows, brexit means all sorts of things to different people. She's had it easy kicking the police, reducing their conditions and pay, so it is only right she should suffer. It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.
I don't have an 'agenda'. I just want what's best for me and mine.
If, as you say, you think I lack frankness and/or sincerity, think again. Everything I've said in this post I've said before. And I mean it.
PurpleMoonlight said:
andymadmak said:
I believe that DEFRA processes the CAP payments for the EU, so DEFRA can easily process the same payments from HMG.
We have border control already. We may need more of it at the major hubs to prevent undue delays to visitors. There will be costs, but not 8.6billion.
Ah, okay. Ta.We have border control already. We may need more of it at the major hubs to prevent undue delays to visitors. There will be costs, but not 8.6billion.
What isn't covered are direct research grants, no accurate figures for those, maybe 1.5bn estimate.
Also not covered as mentioned are custom duties and agricultural levies as the EU see these as not national payments. In reality if we imports foodstuffs subject to duties and levy that adds to UK cost of living but the money goes to the EU, not a particularly good way of describing it but best I can do.
System is indeed already in place for payments to farmers, handled by DEFRA.
As for border control, in the overall scheme of things vs national budget, we pay square root of bugger all on this, the system is underfunded. But there are other things required eg maritime surveillance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff