EU how much does it cost UK

[turbo]

@Walterp if you don't mind what is the actual figure we send to the eu?not all the spin that we get back and the rebate (which I am lead to believe comes back a year in arrears)but the money we send every month

 

[RobFZS]

@Walterp if you don't mind what is the actual figure we send to the eu?not all the spin that we get back and the rebate (which I am lead to believe comes back a year in arrears)but the money we send every month

 

[Henarar]

Correct it isn't. Norway has free movement of EU citizens and pays into the EU coffers. It is also unique in that is is awash with oil, exports power to Sweden and holds 5% of the worlds stocks. Not really comparable with the U.K.
To the best of my limited knowledge no country within the EU has been at war with another country within the EU since its formation.
With Gibraltar voting to stay in Europe what happens to them post Brexit. Should they now become part of Spain? Geographically it makes perfect sense.

so its ok as long as other EU countries and the UK don't sh1t on their own doorstep is it ?

 

[Honest john]

Because it's misleading.

The claim is false on two bases:

1. The National Statistics Agency has calculated that the figure, net of repatriated receipts, is about £250 million a week.

2. It takes no account of the impact on the economy from changes to trade after leaving the EU - this is likely to be far bigger than savings from the UK’s membership fee. This explains why the Conservatives sponsored EEC membership in the first place.

Brexit supporters never advert to the fact that, if it occurs, many of the activities paid for by this fee will have to be replicated by the UK.

Reality Check: if the EU employs 47,000 civil servants to run the single market, etc, how many civil servants will the UK have to engage to replicate these duties?

And at what cost?

This figure does take into account our rebate, also our .3% vat payment etc etc.
Published by the EU.
So Boris is right.

I am not going to reply on if this payment is a great deal, because the only way to find out is to leave & look back in 10 years at how we are doing compared to say France with a similar size of economy.

 

[Walterp]

@Walterp if you don't mind what is the actual figure we send to the eu?not all the spin that we get back and the rebate (which I am lead to believe comes back a year in arrears)but the money we send every month

It's the net cost that is relevant, which has already been accepted by the 'leave' campaign. Headline figures are only for people who don't grasp this simple reality - which I am sure you do.

Hence why you harp on about a facile point.

Why not address the costs of taking over functions carried out on the UK's behalf by the EU?

That's a really interesting question - why does no one want to mention it, I wonder?

Let's have a go at estimating it: let's say that the DVLA agency has 5,000 employees, and that for various regulatory functions the UK will need 10 such agencies, we already exceed the total employed by the EU to cover the whole land area. (It may not be a bad guess, actually, because economies of scale apply equally to regulation as to farming).

Now let's proceed to the costs thereof; if each civil servant costs an average of £50,000 pa to employ, accommodate and pension, 50,000 x £50,000 = £2,500,000,000 pa (£2.5 billion pa)

Now onto the net - receipts might be in new fees and licences, inspection penalties, but I cannot really imagine much net benefit to those costs.

[These figures are guesswork, but I welcome any more accurate suggestions].

 

[Muck Spreader]

You are not a farmer, are you? Otherwise you would realise that some of those repatriated funds include the BPS.

If you don't mind me asking, what, precisely, do you do?

I suspect he works for "Sputnik". After all there is only one country in the world keen to see collapse of EU.

 

[Walterp]

This figure does take into account our rebate, also our .3% vat payment etc etc.
Published by the EU.
So Boris is right.

Let's make this a point of principle - please post your evidence, because I think you have misunderstood the position.

That's why so few are rushing to support Boris Johnson.

 

[RobFZS]

It's the net cost that is relevant, which has already been accepted by the 'leave' campaign. Headline figures are only for people who don't grasp this simple reality - which I am sure you do.

Hence why you harp on about a facile point.

Why not address the costs of taking over functions carried out on the UK's behalf by the EU?

That's a really interesting question - why does no one want to mention it, I wonder?

Let's have a go at estimating it: let's say that the DVLA agency has 5,000 employees, and that for various regulatory functions the UK will need 10 such agencies, we already exceed the total employed by the EU to cover the whole land area. (It may not be a bad guess, actually, because economies of scale apply equally to regulation as to farming).

Now let's proceed to the costs thereof; if each civil servant costs an average of £50,000 pa to employ, accommodate and pension, 50,000 x £50,000 = £2,500,000,000 pa (£2.5 billion pa)

Now onto the net - receipts might be in new fees and licences, inspection penalties, but I cannot really imagine much net benefit to those costs.

[These figures are guesswork, but I welcome any more accurate suggestions].

Whats the economic multiplier effect of spending a net 9 billion on wages in this country, rather than sending it to Brussels scotfree?

Nor do i care about the Tory leave campaign that hijacked a 20 year long campaign to leave the EU in the final month's.

 

[Walterp]

Whats the economic multiplier effect of spending a net 9 billion on wages in this country, rather than sending it to Brussels scotfree?

It would form a part of the overall CBA studies that have been carried out by the UK Government but not released for us to consider. One suspects that is because they do not make attractive reading. David Davis refused to accept these studies (they say) and hence the desire for secrecy on the part of the UK government.

Few advocate increasing public spending because of the multiplier effect - actually, money raised through taxes is 'confiscated' and just gets spent differently.

It's hard to see that the multiplier effect is greater, or less, than if we were taxed less. That explains why the argument over public spending tends to be an ideological one, rather than an economic one.

The related question - what is the net cost or benefit to the UK of EU membership - is really what's under discussion. The annual membership fee is a necessary starting point, but few then wish to explore costing out the alternatives.

Which, again, is ideological rather than economic.

 

[turbo]

It's the net cost that is relevant, which has already been accepted by the 'leave' campaign. Headline figures are only for people who don't grasp this simple reality - which I am sure you do.

Hence why you harp on about a facile point.

Why not address the costs of taking over functions carried out on the UK's behalf by the EU?

That's a really interesting question - why does no one want to mention it, I wonder?

Let's have a go at estimating it: let's say that the DVLA agency has 5,000 employees, and that for various regulatory functions the UK will need 10 such agencies, we already exceed the total employed by the EU to cover the whole land area. (It may not be a bad guess, actually, because economies of scale apply equally to regulation as to farming).

Now let's proceed to the costs thereof; if each civil servant costs an average of £50,000 pa to employ, accommodate and pension, 50,000 x £50,000 = £2,500,000,000 pa (£2.5 billion pa)

Now onto the net - receipts might be in new fees and licences, inspection penalties, but I cannot really imagine much net benefit to those costs.

[These figures are guesswork, but I welcome any more accurate suggestions].

You're correct pure guess work bording on fantasy I would say.here is another one for you then what work does Europe do for us that isn't mirror image here already?

 

[RobFZS]

It would form a part of the overall CBA studies that have been carried out by the UK Government but not released for us to consider. One suspects that is because they do not make attractive reading. David Davis refused to accept these studies (they say) and hence the desire for secrecy on the part of the UK government.

Few advocate increasing public spending because of the multiplier effect - actually, money raised through taxes is 'confiscated' and just gets spent differently.

It's hard to see that the multiplier effect is greater, or less, than if we were taxed less. That explains why the argument over public spending tends to be an ideological one, rather than an economic one.

The related question - what is the net cost or benefit to the UK of EU membership - is really what's under discussion. The annual membership fee is a necessary starting point, but few then wish to explore costing out the alternatives.

Which, again, is ideological rather than economic.

You should pay more attention Walter, the recent increase in the public sector pay was down to the economic effect, if it was ideological, they would have just said, no!


https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2014/05/On-line-Catalogue223292.pdf Unison does a good little part on it in their report, either way, it would all be spent here, not just dead money

The Net cost benefits of being part of the single market is what we are looking at, which there have been many studies, of which why the Norway way is best, all the benefits and half the cost, a cost which all countries that are part of the many varies scheme's that are tied to the EU have to pay, Ie Israel paying to be part of ERASMUS, and Canada paying towards customs cooperation as part of CETA.

 

[czechmate]

You are not a farmer, are you? Otherwise you would realise that some of those repatriated funds include the BPS.

If you don't mind me asking, what, precisely, do you do?

You won't get "that" answer. Ive asked a couple of times, then realised I was t actually interested anyway

 

[renewablejohn]

But its not forecast 2016 figures that where quoted on the bus but 2015 figures as already stated. Like any statistics its very easy to mislead the public especially if the story is driven by the press.

 

[Henarar]

This figure does take into account our rebate, also our .3% vat payment etc etc.
Published by the EU.
So Boris is right.

I am not going to reply on if this payment is a great deal, because the only way to find out is to leave & look back in 10 years at how we are doing compared to say France with a similar size of economy.

looking back in ten years you will not find out nothing will ever tell you if it was a good idea, it is impossible to ever find out

 

[RobFZS]

But its not forecast 2016 figures that where quoted on the bus but 2015 figures as already stated. Like any statistics its very easy to mislead the public especially if the story is driven by the press.

the bus was a load of eye catching rubbish to annoy the remainers from debating the real issues

The appetite to leave the eu came along way before that bus was wrapped

 

[Henarar]

what did it say on the bus ?

 

[RobFZS]

what did it say on the bus ?

a reminder we send alot of money to the EU

 

[stewart]

so its ok as long as other EU countries and the UK don't sh1t on their own doorstep is it ?

It would be better not to sh!t on anyone's doorstep.

 

[Henarar]

Your right there

So I spose the thinking is that once the UK leaves the EU it Will start scrapping with some EU members if it's only the EU that keeps the peace
Oh well time will tell

So why does the EU want an army then if it's all about peace ? Why not call it a peace keeping force

 

[RobFZS]

Your right there

So I spose the thinking is that once the UK leaves the EU it Will start scrapping with some EU members if it's only the EU that keeps the peace
Oh well time will tell

So why does the EU want an army then if it's all about peace ? Why not call it a peace keeping force

They've got the Flag, they've got the national anthem, they've got the currency, army and a few other things are left over for a superstate , in for a penny, in for a euro as they say

It's just a centralised powergrab and some people will allow it all just to not rock the boat, while thinking reform is on its way, the reform is the centralisation

The funny thing is, all these people that fawn over the Eu making things great for them, overruling national governments, what happen's when they start doing the opposite? but you can't get rid of them, short term-ism at it's finest.