Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

Author
Discussion

bazza white

3,552 posts

127 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
What will be interesting is how the EU refinance, the net figure doesn't sound much but when devided by remaining net contributor's it's quite a big hit to swallow, if it's a cut in spending equaly it's a hell of a chunk of your spending which would already have been allocated.


barryrs

4,376 posts

222 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
I think I read that the EU has spending commitments that exceed revenue by some €10 billion in the next year alone so any immediate reduction in funding from the UK is going to hurt.

Mrr T

12,153 posts

264 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
barryrs said:
I think I read that the EU has spending commitments that exceed revenue by some €10 billion in the next year alone so any immediate reduction in funding from the UK is going to hurt.
The UK is already commiteed to pay its share of those commitments.

barryrs

4,376 posts

222 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
The UK is already commiteed to pay its share of those commitments.
I know and would expect that to be the case, the point I was trying to make (possibly badly) was that the EU has pretty loose purse strings so going forward they will feel the loss of the measly 6%.

I think I also read that the EU pays the UK a couple of billion via public sector payments for services provided; I wonder if they have the infrastructure in place to cover that. Can't imagine they will want to carry on paying the UK.

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
barryrs said:
I know and would expect that to be the case, the point I was trying to make (possibly badly) was that the EU has pretty loose purse strings so going forward they will feel the loss of the measly 6%.

I think I also read that the EU pays the UK a couple of billion via public sector payments for services provided; I wonder if they have the infrastructure in place to cover that. Can't imagine they will want to carry on paying the UK.
But what does the EU actually fund?

Its funding is rather tiny compared to the GDPs of the various countries so its not going to make a massive difference, same as our contribution was only every a tiny part of our GDP.

The actual funding of the EU is nothing compared to the trade considerations.

Our GDP is nearly $3000Bn. The health of our GDP is key, and trade & our openess for business plays an important in that. Saying "we're open for business" has to be backed by action - and detaining EU nationals is not a great message.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ther...

Is the daily mail saying how great this is? Didn't need CMDs deal to persecute foreigners in any case it seems.










Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 19th January 21:27

AndyDubbya

939 posts

283 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
The way I see it, all countries pay in, but rich countries take out less than they pay in while poor countries take out more than they pay in, so that (for argument's sake, I know it's not actually the case) there's none left at the end of the day.

Therefore the total of the net amount paid in by all countries is zero.

Jockman

17,912 posts

159 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Is GDP per capita more useful? I seem to remember a debate on this 600 pages or so ago.

10 EU countries have higher GDPs per caita than the UK, the highest being Luxembourg.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
///ajd said:
But what does the EU actually fund?

Its funding is rather tiny compared to the GDPs of the various countries so its not going to make a massive difference, same as our contribution was only every a tiny part of our GDP.

The actual funding of the EU is nothing compared to the trade considerations.

Our GDP is nearly $3000Bn. The health of our GDP is key, and trade & our openess for business plays an important in that. Saying "we're open for business" has to be backed by action - and detaining EU nationals is not a great message.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ther...

Is the daily mail saying how great this is? Didn't need CMDs deal to persecute foreigners in any case it seems.










Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 19th January 21:27
I don't know what the daily mail says, but I'm quite glad they're locking people up for immigration offences. I don't really understand why you think that's bad, but then I suppose I will never understand someone who seems to hate their own country as much as you do

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
bazza white said:
What will be interesting is how the EU refinance, the net figure doesn't sound much but when devided by remaining net contributor's it's quite a big hit to swallow, if it's a cut in spending equaly it's a hell of a chunk of your spending which would already have been allocated.
They could also reduce the amount of rebates received by the poorer states. Or make them swallow the whole drop in funds (that would certainly get them keen to sharpen the knives smile). Or just cut their spending. Or any combination of them all.

Mrr T said:
The UK is already commiteed to pay its share of those commitments.
I was thinking about this earlier...I wonder how "committed" we really are in extremis. Projects get cancelled all the time. It would seem sensible for someone to do some due diligence on each of them and if we're to get negligible value, bin it.

If the EU were genuinely freezing UK research bodies out of projects in the wake of the vote (as an example), maybe a precedent is out there.


FiF

43,964 posts

250 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
However you look at it in terms of % of this or that, the various different ways are simply attempts to spin the same issue according to the desired message, don't give a flying fart about denials and counter denials of spin.

The basic issue is that after UK contributions cease or drastically reduce the rEU countries collectively have a dilemma. Either they keep the budget as is and therefore the net contributors have to stump up several billion more, each, some more than others. Or the net recipients will have to receive less, again some more than others. Or a mixture of the two.

Will it be significant, possibly, can't be certain either way. Will it be noticed, probably. Will it bring down the EU. No it won't imo.

Seems as though EU central wants to go with the first option, hence kite flying ideas about universal fuel tax etc etc etc.

Will the people notice that? Certainly. Will they like it? Probably not.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
FiF said:
...

Will it be significant, possibly, can't be certain either way. Will it be noticed, probably. Will it bring down the EU. No it won't imo.

...
I agree.

The 4 "freedoms" will do that.

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
FiF said:
However you look at it in terms of % of this or that, the various different ways are simply attempts to spin the same issue according to the desired message, don't give a flying fart about denials and counter denials of spin.

The basic issue is that after UK contributions cease or drastically reduce the rEU countries collectively have a dilemma. Either they keep the budget as is and therefore the net contributors have to stump up several billion more, each, some more than others. Or the net recipients will have to receive less, again some more than others. Or a mixture of the two.

Will it be significant, possibly, can't be certain either way. Will it be noticed, probably. Will it bring down the EU. No it won't imo.

Seems as though EU central wants to go with the first option, hence kite flying ideas about universal fuel tax etc etc etc.

Will the people notice that? Certainly. Will they like it? Probably not.
Another way of looking at it is the £8.5Bn a year the UK puts into the EU - across 27 countries.

Thats only £300M/country on average.

As an example Polish GDP is $500Bn.

It is a trivial amount in the scheme of things.

They will shrug and adjust their budgets.


davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
///ajd said:
Another way of looking at it is the £8.5Bn a year the UK puts into the EU - across 27 countries.

Thats only £300M/country on average.

As an example Polish GDP is $500Bn.

It is a trivial amount in the scheme of things.

They will shrug and adjust their budgets.
It's something like 3% of Malta's GDP though, so they would certainly notice it...

FiF

43,964 posts

250 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
///ajd said:
FiF said:
However you look at it in terms of % of this or that, the various different ways are simply attempts to spin the same issue according to the desired message, don't give a flying fart about denials and counter denials of spin.

The basic issue is that after UK contributions cease or drastically reduce the rEU countries collectively have a dilemma. Either they keep the budget as is and therefore the net contributors have to stump up several billion more, each, some more than others. Or the net recipients will have to receive less, again some more than others. Or a mixture of the two.

Will it be significant, possibly, can't be certain either way. Will it be noticed, probably. Will it bring down the EU. No it won't imo.

Seems as though EU central wants to go with the first option, hence kite flying ideas about universal fuel tax etc etc etc.

Will the people notice that? Certainly. Will they like it? Probably not.
Another way of looking at it is the £8.5Bn a year the UK puts into the EU - across 27 countries.

Thats only £300M/country on average.

As an example Polish GDP is $500Bn.

It is a trivial amount in the scheme of things.

They will shrug and adjust their budgets.
Yet another way of looking at it is,

Germany puts another 3 billion in
France puts another 2 billion in
Italy and Netherlands each put another 1 billion in.
The remaining net contributors put another 1.5 billion in between them.

Poland meanwhile rubs its hands and continues to rake in 13 bn net receipts.

Eventually one net contributor says we really can't afford this, eg Italy, another one says sod this for a game of soldiers, and so on.

This game can be played forever.

They will just play with their budgets, but kidding themselves.

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
FiF said:
///ajd said:
FiF said:
However you look at it in terms of % of this or that, the various different ways are simply attempts to spin the same issue according to the desired message, don't give a flying fart about denials and counter denials of spin.

The basic issue is that after UK contributions cease or drastically reduce the rEU countries collectively have a dilemma. Either they keep the budget as is and therefore the net contributors have to stump up several billion more, each, some more than others. Or the net recipients will have to receive less, again some more than others. Or a mixture of the two.

Will it be significant, possibly, can't be certain either way. Will it be noticed, probably. Will it bring down the EU. No it won't imo.

Seems as though EU central wants to go with the first option, hence kite flying ideas about universal fuel tax etc etc etc.

Will the people notice that? Certainly. Will they like it? Probably not.
Another way of looking at it is the £8.5Bn a year the UK puts into the EU - across 27 countries.

Thats only £300M/country on average.

As an example Polish GDP is $500Bn.

It is a trivial amount in the scheme of things.

They will shrug and adjust their budgets.
Yet another way of looking at it is,

Germany puts another 3 billion in
France puts another 2 billion in
Italy and Netherlands each put another 1 billion in.
The remaining net contributors put another 1.5 billion in between them.

Poland meanwhile rubs its hands and continues to rake in 13 bn net receipts.

Eventually one net contributor says we really can't afford this, eg Italy, another one says sod this for a game of soldiers, and so on.

This game can be played forever.

They will just play with their budgets, but kidding themselves.
By adjusting their budgets I meant they would exclude the UK contribution.

UK goes - 10% less money to around?

Malta receives about €80M net from the EU. Slash it 10% thats €8M less.

Their GDP is $10Bn.

10% sounds alot but it is noise when the actual numbers are compared to national economies.








davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
///ajd said:
By adjusting their budgets I meant they would exclude the UK contribution.

UK goes - 10% less money to around?

Malta receives about €80M net from the EU. Slash it 10% thats €8M less.

Their GDP is $10Bn.

10% sounds alot but it is noise when the actual numbers are compared to national economies.
You only just said every country has to pay an extra €300m. How is Malta going to pay an extra €300m (which is something like 10% of total government spending) but still receive a net €72m?

FYI, €80m is more than their entire police budget, or about equal to their whole university budget. It's a bit more than a drop in the ocean for them.

https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/U...


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
Not remotely.
In the context of the point I made, comparing the net with the gross is completely valid.

The figure was quoted to demonstrate that we weren't actually the massive loss to the EU budget that was being touted.
I.e., in the context of our contributions the EU will only be worse off by the net figure which is 6% of their budget.

I can't believe how this simple statement has caused so much confusion. It is so simple a point and so obvious that the subsequent pages of bickering is nothing short of bizarre. There is no 'slant' or 'deliberate attempt' to present a skewed picture. Merely a fundamental, unarguable point that the extent of our contributions to the EU is a relatively small percentage (less than 6) of their budget hence it is not going to make or break them.
It is particularly bizarre when it has been isolated from the post it was replying to where the context was so blatantly obvious as to render this whole episode as utterly retarded.
I love the way you bluster and deride other posters opinions who have presented links and research, yet you have failed to back anything up at all! biggrin

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
davepoth said:
You only just said every country has to pay an extra €300m. How is Malta going to pay an extra €300m (which is something like 10% of total government spending) but still receive a net €72m?

FYI, €80m is more than their entire police budget, or about equal to their whole university budget. It's a bit more than a drop in the ocean for them.

https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/U...
Bingo.

Comparing any extra they will have to pay to their GDP isn't too meaningful. Comparing the extras to their current expenditure is.

The net recipients aren't going to be swimming in cash by definition. And there aren't many net contributors left.

Sump

5,484 posts

166 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
Is it me or has the general vibe over the last couple of weeks been..no matter what the situation, no matter how bad of a deal it is or how good of a deal it is, no matter if it's the right move or wrong move, we will simply leave the EU?

Does this not defy some sort of sensible logic confused