EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

And?
Someone has to be, because if everybody takes out more than they put in, all you have is a giant Ponzi scheme.

And that’s great for the member states which take all the benefits but don’t stump up a contribution - rather less good for those bankrolling it - some member states are clearly “more equal than others”.

In the future, maybe we would have had EU funding for more projects, and been a net receiver.

(Genuine question) Has there ever been a point in the history of the EU where the U.K. receives more than it pays in?

Opt-outs cannot be removed without negotiation. And if we're the least likely to lose, then that's surely good?

Apologies that was a typo on my part. I meant to say the U.K. more likely to be on the losing side, so the point stands.

I have edited the previous post.

Because maybe those wishes aren't good for the EU. Would you support motions that work against you?
The UK is coming across as a spoiled brat, like Violet Elizabeth Bott who will 'scream and scream and scream until I am sick!', who wants everything their own way, no matter how badly it impacts on everyone else.

Unsurprisingly enough I see it more that the U.K. is paying more in that it takes out, and the ungrateful EU is more interested in its own self preservation than in its member states’ interests.

So let’s stop screaming, and start leaving!

 

[Howardh]

Which is better - to have a booming economy which allows us to pay more into the EU budget (and get some back of course)
or have a failing economy and have the EU prop us up?
Got to be the former every time, hasn't it?
If/when we leave what guarantee do we have that the economy won't suffer - as if it does there's no-one to prop us up, least of all Uncle Donald.

 

[radamfi]

(Genuine question) Has there ever been a point in the history of the EU where the U.K. receives more than it pays in?

In the 80s, the UK was one of the poorest countries in the EC. I have a WH Smith School Atlas at home (circa 1980) where it shows a map of GDP for each country in western Europe. As I recall, GDP per capita in the UK was about $3,000, compared to $5,000-$6,000 in several other countries. The UK had high unemployment whereas West Germany needed workers, hence "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet". I suspect the UK wouldn't have been a net funder back then.

 

[northwichcat]

Please say there's a mistake on the answer to a parliamentary question: https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ts/written-question/Commons/2016-04-08/33071/ If the North West really only got a thousand Euros of EU funding, while the much smaller (by population) South West got almost 1500 million Euros of EU funding there really is a North-South divide!

 

[Puffing Devil]

That’s irrelevant to what I’m asking.

I’m asking, specifically, which of David Cameron’s demands in 2016 were things we could have done anyway.

The previous poster has stated many of them were, so presumably he can identify them for me.

Didn't we have an "emergency brake" which was never used?

Indeed many of DC's demands (BBC Link Here) could have been managed if we had taken the time to track and expel EU migrants who failed to get work: specifically extended entitlement to benefits and targetting the unemployed. By not managing migration we created the problem.

 

[radamfi]

Please say there's a mistake on the answer to a parliamentary question: https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ts/written-question/Commons/2016-04-08/33071/ If the North West really only got a thousand Euros of EU funding, while the much smaller (by population) South West got almost 1500 million Euros of EU funding there really is a North-South divide!

Sounds right. The only "less developed" regions in the UK are Cornwall, West Wales and the Valleys, and these get by far the most funding. Lancashire and Merseyside are "transition areas", which get less funding than the "less developed" regions. Greater Manchester and Cheshire are classed as "more developed" regions, which get less still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union

 

[northwichcat]

(Genuine question) Has there ever been a point in the history of the EU where the U.K. receives more than it pays in?

Short answer yes there's definitely one year when the UK clearly received more than it paid in. However, I'm not sure how exactly it's worked out e.g. after the IRA bombing in Manchester 98% of the regeneration funds given to Manchester were from the EU. Were they all counted as 1992 receipts or were they spread out over a number of years? Obviously the regeneration took years to complete.

 

[northwichcat]

Sounds right. The only "less developed" regions in the UK are Cornwall, West Wales and the Valleys, and these get by far the most funding. Lancashire and Merseyside are "transition areas", which get less funding than the "less developed" regions. Greater Manchester and Cheshire are classed as "more developed" regions, which get less still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union

The political North West region does include all of Cumbria as well even if both BBC and ITV have the North West region ending in the South Lakes area.

 

[radamfi]

The political North West region does include all of Cumbria as well even if both BBC and ITV have the North West region ending in the South Lakes area.

I forgot to mention Cumbria, but that is a transition region anyway.

 

[Bromley boy]

Indeed many of DC's demands (BBC Link Here) could have been managed if we had taken the time to track and expel EU migrants who failed to get work: specifically extended entitlement to benefits and targetting the unemployed. By not managing migration we created the problem.

It would improve the debate if people would answer the points raised, rather than posting inaccurate generalisations.

Since nobody else can, I will answer the question I asked myself. None of DC’s 2015/6 demands were things we could have done already, as @bnm incorrectly stated.

People are conflating DC’s demands with the (totally separate) basic 2004/38/EC restrictions on free movement*, which could have been enforced, but weren’t.

The “emergency brake” was a wholly new concession extracted from the EU, not implemented for the reasons outlined above.

Why would someone go out and negotiate something they were already entitled to? It was a nonsensical suggestion in the first place.

*the fact these (very limited) restrictions of free movement weren’t applied is completely irrelevant to objections to the policy itself.

 

[Bromley boy]

Short answer yes there's definitely one year when the UK clearly received more than it paid in. However, I'm not sure how exactly it's worked out e.g. after the IRA bombing in Manchester 98% of the regeneration funds given to Manchester were from the EU. Were they all counted as 1992 receipts or were they spread out over a number of years? Obviously the regeneration took years to complete.

If there’s definitely one year, could you please tell us which year it was, and cite a source?

 

[bnm]

It would improve the debate if people would answer the points raised, rather than posting inaccurate generalisations.

You mean generalisations like saying David Cameron came back from the EU empty handed and with his tail between his legs?

None of DC’s 2015/6 demands were things we could have done already, as @bnm incorrectly stated.

Could you provide the quote where I said that? I'm struggling to find any post of mine stating that David Cameron's demands of the EU were things the UK could do anyway.

All I've said on this particular part of the pre-referendum negotiations is that David Cameron did secure some concessions from the EU for the UK on 19th February 2016. Countering your earlier assertions that the EU categorically said no to everything. An assertion you've now acknowledged as incorrect by saying he did gain some limited concessions. It is though, far more nuanced than even 'limited'. He did quite well with the EU all things considered. Where he failed was in selling the agreements with the EU to his party.

Would you like a link to the EU document that set out those concessions?

 

[Bromley boy]

You mean generalisations like saying David Cameron came back from the EU empty handed and with his tail between his legs?



Could you provide the quote where I said that? I'm struggling to find any post of mine stating that David Cameron's demands of the EU were things the UK could do anyway.

With pleasure. I must have imagined the below post:

DC's demands were (mostly) stuff we could do anyway - but choose not to yet its the EU's fault. Sigh.

That statement is factually incorrect, for the reasons I’ve outlined above.

Countering your earlier assertions that the EU categorically said no to everything. An assertion you've now acknowledged as incorrect by saying he did gain some limited concessions. It is though, far more nuanced than even 'limited'. He did quite well with the EU all things considered. Where he failed was in selling the agreements with the EU to his party.

I never said the “EU categorically said no to everything” (can you cite a post where I did?)

I simply said he was sent back with his tail between his legs and failed to secure meaningful reform. The limited concessions extracted were a damp squib considering he was supposed to use the deal as the cornerstone of the remain argument.

EDIT: ok I owe you an apology in one respect, I see I misattributed nidave’s post to you.

 

[bnm]

With pleasure...

EDIT: ok I owe you an apology in one respect, I see I misattributed nidave’s post to you.

Desperately wanted it to be me who said it eh? Ho hum. Apology accepted, with pleasure too.

 

[Bromley boy]

Desperately wanted it to be me who said it eh? Ho hum. Apology accepted, with pleasure too.

You remoaners all merge into one in the end .

Fair enough, I’m not above admitting to my own mistakes.

 

[northwichcat]

If there’s definitely one year, could you please tell us which year it was, and cite a source?

Government document briefing MPs on leaving the EU: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7886/CBP-7886.pdf which is why I questioned how funding has been distributed between years. As we know any party in government like to use statistics in a way which shows their policy is the right one and their policy is to leave the EU. Although, Appendix 1 showing money continuing to move in both directions until at least 2064 surely won't please the hard Brexiteers.

 

[EM2]

And that’s great for the member states which take all the benefits but don’t stump up a contribution - rather less good for those bankrolling it - some member states are clearly “more equal than others”.

You don't think we should contribute to the greater good, then?

 

[furnessvale]

You don't think we should contribute to the greater good, then?

I think we more than cover the "greater good" by having a £multi billions trade deficit with the EU.

 

[EM2]

I think we more than cover the "greater good" by having a £multi billions trade deficit with the EU.

You mean because we buy more from them than they buy from us? Maybe that's because they're a lot bigger and make a lot more stuff?

 

[Bromley boy]

You don't think we should contribute to the greater good, then?

That rather depends on the definition of the “greater good”.

What’s yours?

 

[furnessvale]

You mean because we buy more from them than they buy from us? Maybe that's because they're a lot bigger and make a lot more stuff?

Ignoring the statistical nonsense of your post, it remains a fact that our trade deficit with the EU contributes £billions to their coffers.

Given that our payments to the EU were meant to reflect the benefit to the UK of membership, it is well past the time that the UK should be net recipients.

 

[Bromley boy]

Government document briefing MPs on leaving the EU: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7886/CBP-7886.pdf which is why I questioned how funding has been distributed between years. As we know any party in government like to use statistics in a way which shows their policy is the right one and their policy is to leave the EU. Although, Appendix 1 showing money continuing to move in both directions until at least 2064 surely won't please the hard Brexiteers.

A link to a 25 page document isn’t an answer to my question and I’m certainly not going to answer it for you.

You’ve told me there is as at least one year where the U.K. received more than it paid to the EU.

A pithy statement of which year, + quote and link to the relevant paragraph of text is all that’s required, if you please?!

 

[EM2]

What’s yours?

Well, in this context it would be assisting partners in Europe with developments in infrastructure and other areas which allow them to flourish and grow until they are in a position to become a successful nation in their own right. Ireland is a good example.

 

[EM2]

Ignoring the statistical nonsense of your post, it remains a fact that our trade deficit with the EU contributes £billions to their coffers.

Given that our payments to the EU were meant to reflect the benefit to the UK of membership, it is well past the time that the UK should be net recipients.

Trade deficit has nothing to do with EU payments. If we made a lot of good stuff that people wanted to buy, we wouldn't have a deficit (and indeed in services, rather than goods, we don't).

 

[Puffing Devil]

Indeed many of DC's demands (BBC Link Here) could have been managed if we had taken the time to track and expel EU migrants who failed to get work: specifically extended entitlement to benefits and targetting the unemployed. By not managing migration we created the problem.

It would improve the debate if people would answer the points raised, rather than posting inaccurate generalisations.

Since nobody else can, I will answer the question I asked myself. None of DC’s 2015/6 demands were things we could have done already, as @bnm incorrectly stated.

People are conflating DC’s demands with the (totally separate) basic 2004/38/EC restrictions on free movement*, which could have been enforced, but weren’t.

The “emergency brake” was a wholly new concession extracted from the EU, not implemented for the reasons outlined above.

Why would someone go out and negotiate something they were already entitled to? It was a nonsensical suggestion in the first place.

*the fact these (very limited) restrictions of free movement weren’t applied is completely irrelevant to objections to the policy itself.

I'm struggling here as I did answer the points raised and related it to two of the demands documented for us by the BBC. The fact is that the UK chose, and continues not to, track migrants entering the UK from the EU. Had that been in place the access to benefits could easily be prevented by the removal of the person should that fail to gain employment. EU migrants are only permitted if they are not a burden on the state.

Answering your own "question" in a supercilious manner does not improve the debate.

 

[Howardh]

I don't understand this "trade surplus/deficit" thing with us and the EU. As alluded to, the EU is, population-wise, 10 times bigger (roughly) and a lot bigger in area, with more farms, vineyards, industry etc, so we're bound to buy more from them than them from us. Also they produce stuff that geographically we can't - wine as an example save for the few vineyards we have. Tha' can't grow Rivington Merlot ont'slopes of Winter Hill. Boy, have I tried.

What the worry should be is what voters will thing if, after Brexit, the price of EU imported stuff rises and there's no decrease in rest-of-the-world stuff (ie we can't arrange suitable FTA with others).

Meanwhile, back home, in this brave new world, I'll ask again, what are we gonna sell to the rest of the world that they (a) can't make/produce themselves cheaper or (b) import themselves cheaper? Example, Brazil is a growing economy. What's in our shop window for them? isn't it in china's shop window too for half the price?

 

[bramling]

I'm struggling here as I did answer the points raised and related it to two of the demands documented for us by the BBC. The fact is that the UK chose, and continues not to, track migrants entering the UK from the EU. Had that been in place the access to benefits could easily be prevented by the removal of the person should that fail to gain employment. EU migrants are only permitted if they are not a burden on the state.

Answering your own "question" in a supercilious manner does not improve the debate.

Isn’t that a bit like chasing a rat around a yard when it would be preferable for it not to have entered in the first place? How much (of our tax) would it cost to do this tracking?

 

[nuneatonmark]

The access to benefits could not have been withdrawn, we’ll it could but the uk government would only then been told to stop withdrawing the benefits by the European courts or the EU itself. The best reason to be out of the EU is nothing to do with immigration, nothing to do with trade deals (in the short term anyway) it’s because the EU will break up in it’s present form, it’s over reaching itself. It’s going to fail and it’s better to be out of it when it does although when it does fail we’ll still be impacted. The Franco-German obsession with assimilation rather than cooperation will be it’s death knell.

 

[bramling]

The access to benefits could not have been withdrawn, we’ll it could but the uk government would only then been told to stop withdrawing the benefits by the European courts or the EU itself. The best reason to be out of the EU is nothing to do with immigration, nothing to do with trade deals (in the short term anyway) it’s because the EU will break up in it’s present form, it’s over reaching itself. It’s going to fail and it’s better to be out of it when it does although when it does fail we’ll still be impacted. The Franco-German obsession with assimilation rather than cooperation will be it’s death knell.

I agree with this, and I’d say it’s a fair bet that the EU will eventually wither. It’s already done quite a bit of damage in Europe thanks to the inflexibility inherent with the single currency. Political fads come and go, and the EU is little different.

 

[Howardh]

Isn’t that a bit like chasing a rat around a yard when it would be preferable for it not to have entered in the first place? How much (of our tax) would it cost to do this tracking?

Brexit is chasing all the "rats" round the yard, chasing them out, blocking all the ways in....except leaving one wide, wide open (the Irish Border). So there will be zero saving in chasing down illegal immigrants - except that you are actually adding to the numbers that need chasing on top of the r/o/worlds already.
If someone was - after Brexit - as desperate to come here as they are now, then that Irish route will be wide, wide open, as long as they are EU citizens and legally entitled to be in the Republic.
Even if the job of finding and reporting them is given to the employers and landlords, there will still be substantial cost in getting them, examining the case and then if they appeal the courts, then the appeals, and finally getting rid.
And next month back they come via Ireland....