This has been on various UKIP election leaflets, so it’s evidently a claim they’re proud of – but does it stand up?
Simple maths tells us that Britain paying £40 million a day to the EU would mean an annual contribution of £14.6 billion. However, the most recent Treasury Report on the UK’s EU budget contributions (PDF) shows the following GROSS figures:
2005 – £12.5 billion
2006 – £12.4 billion
2007 – £12.5 billion
2008 – £13.7 billion (estimated)
£13.7 billion divided by 365 = £37.5 million, so UKIP are, at the very least, rounding up by £2.5 million a day. Not much to round up by? That works out as £912,500,000 a year – I hope UKIP won’t be that out with their sums if they ever get near power…
But what about the rebate? What about the EU funds that are paid back to the UK in the form of things like the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund and the like? What’s the NET contribution? (Again from the most recent Treasury report)
2005 – £3.6 billion
2006 – £3.9 billion
2007 – £4.6 billion
2008 – £3.6 billion (estimate)
UKIP deliberately using gross rather than net to make the situation seem worse is to be expected, of course, but still – let’s be generous and take the highest figure of £4.6 billion – that’s still a lot of money, right? It may only work out as £12.6 million a day, but that’s still a lot of money.
Well, yes. But big figures are nothing without context, so let’s see how much the UK government spends on other things:
Would you look at that? The UK may be forking out a net figure of around £4 billion a year for EU membership, but at the same time we’re having to pay £31 billion a year merely to service the INTEREST on our debt. That’s not *pay off* our debt – just keep up with the interest. Christ!
In other words, the EU costs us 7.75 times LESS than it does to keep the international bailiffs from the door. (And that £31 billion was BEFORE the most recent round of government borrowing, and before the collapse of sterling, both of which will have hugely escalated the figure for this year, as and when it’s released.)
So, £31 billion in interest payments, for which we see no return whatsoever, versus £4 billion in payments to the EU, from which even its harshest critics must admit that we get *some* benefits – even if they will only admit to cheaper mobile phone charges or ease of travel. I don’t know about you, but I’d say that’s not too bad a deal, in comparison.
Update, October 2010:
If you’re interested in this post, you may also be interested in:
- What are the economic costs of the EU?
- What percentage of laws come from the EU?
- Why legislating and regulating at EU level is almost always a good thing
- The dishonesty of the EU debate
It`s still a very bad deal.
Just because the government wastes or loses money one way doesn`t mean we should throw away even more to the EU .That money given to the project could be used to pay off that debt.
As for the true figure, it`s usually quoted as £16 billion in, but we`ll accept your lower figure; still a waste. But you say we get some back. Maybe, but again you`re forgetting the other costs of the EU – loss of jobs and trade. So in reality the net costs are around the usual quoted gross costs.
So UKIP`s figures are near enough correct.
I’m getting my figures from the Treasury, from the linked report (that provides detailed breakdowns). That’s as official as they come. Where have you got your £16 billion figure from? Any sources? And where are your sources for the loss of jobs and trade?
It’s very easy to assert things like “£40 million a day”, “£16 billion in”, or “loss of jobs and trade” – and most people will simply shrug and assume that these assertions are more or less right. Personally, I’m interested in getting to the truth of the situation – so any chance of some evidence so that we can all judge for ourselves whether the Treasury’s figures (not mine, please note) are wrong? I’ve been careful to provide my sources for this post, as it’s a highly contested issue, this whole cost of the EU thing (and one that it’s near impossible to get a definitive answer on, thanks to the very nature of the thing) – any chance of you doing the same?
This isn’t me being confrontational – I’m genuinely fascinated to learn where these claims originate, as there is so much distortion from both sides when it comes to assessment of the plusses and minuses of EU membership. (I’d also be interested to see, if you happen to know, where the “80% of laws originate from the EU” claim comes from, as it’s been strongly refuted by both the House of Commons Library and the British Chambers of Commerce – though that’s probably a post for another time.)
Pingback: Why voting for a eurosceptic party is a good thing for the EU | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia
Did you actually look at the breakdown of our expenditure and see how many of theose little dairylea triangles are directly affected by European inflicted legislation, or if not now, soon will be.
Certaily UKIP will round up to suit their agenda, as do the Government usually round down to suit theirs. It’s called politics, and it’s submerged in lies. Shall we talk about the lies Heath ‘didn’t tell us,’ which are the unmarried mother and father which spawned this debate in the first place, the Bastard EU.
William – sure, I’d be fascinated to see how much of British government spending is due to EU regulations. Is there any way of working this out, that you’re aware of? Because there are all kinds of different estimates of how much legislation originates from the EU, from the anti-EU crowd’s (entirely unsourced, from what I can tell) 80% claim through to the House of Commons Library’s estimate of just 9% – it could be anything in between.
More importantly, though, is there any way of telling which regulations would never have entered into force without the EU’s existence? Because part of the whole reason for the EU’s existence is to harmonise legislation to ensure we’re all singing from the same hymnsheet – this means that much EU legislation would have been passed in some form by national governments even if the EU didn’t exist.
Nosemonkey,
Your post 23/5@ 8.05pm.
It`s always hard to gey figures about costs ,legislation and impact of the EU because it seems deliberately boring and complicated. How much better it would be, for example, if the EU sent the bill for our membership directly to each household, but then they wouldn`t want to show us the true cost that way, would they ?
I said I accepted your figure from your pie chart. I just mentioned another figure was often quoted .
The trouble is, our government, of whayever political colour, has become like the old Soviet government – distrusted. (The Soviet citizens actually thought the statistics for air crashes were far worse than they were because they didn`t trust their government not to lie ).
I can tell you about the jobs and businesses, but are you interested ? Wouldn`t other peoples lives and work just be an “insane detail “to you, getting in the way of the Big Picture ?
The 80% of legislation is also hard. Basically we dont know when the EU intrudes in, and when it is 100% totally out of it. How and when are we told that the government does enact/not enact some legislation in order to meet a EU guideline, rule , decree or regulation or to avoid a confrontation with the EU ? The reason we have fewer judgements set against us in the EU court is because our government doesn,t want to be seen fighting and losing cases there, so it brings in legislation in anticipation of an EU law to be passed.
The same goes for our civil service, who love to be tied up in EU regulations as it seems to bolster their power .
Nice work, it’s really appreciated that you’d put such an effort into this. It’s so important people can question such slogans as UKIP’s ’40million a day’ and think critically. But it also helps if people like yourselves can critically deconstruct it and let the reader make sense of those facts themselves.
So anyway, I was i was saying – NICE WORK!
William- “Did you actually look at the breakdown of our expenditure and see how many of theose little dairylea triangles are directly affected by European inflicted legislation, or if not now, soon will be.”
People seem to think that legisltion just comes out of the EU. Even if the EU did not exist, nations would still pass legistlation that would have an impact on the way business is run. However, that is part of a wider social contract, workers rights etc. I cant help but think that many anti-EU types have a hard-on for libertatian mimimal legistlation on business…..they think that by getting the UK out of the EU, it would make it easier to get their little pro-business, anti-worker wet dream.
Evil EUropean,
So you think you`re pro worker do you ? Do you agree with the mass displacement of British workers from their jobs ?
EvilEuropean, you have this all totally wrong. As Robin has pointed out, we are now having British workers being displaced by migrant workers. The common reason given is that Polish workers are harder working and more reliable. I, as a humble carpenter, find this highly suspect.
I have the utmost respect for the Polish people; they were brave and true fighters in the war against Hitler. I also admired their fight for freedom under the Soviet Union; a fight that one-day will have to be fought all over again when the EU assumes total power. But I’m wandering away from the point.
Contributions to the EU are just a small part of the total expenditure. We have to have quangos and tiers of bureaucracy to explain, interpret and enforce all of the laws and regulations coming out of the EU. In a free trade arrangement the companies concerned could sort this out themselves. If A wants to sell to B he only has to reach B’s requirements; if the country where B operates decides that they don’t like what A is selling then they can just tell A and he can modify his product. Why do we have to have hoards of self-important legal and civic clowns clambering all over us?
There is another point to be made concerning money coming back to us. Regional Development Agencies in Britain are made up of un-elected busybodies. They have control of the money given by the British taxpayer and recycled by the EU. They decide where the money will be spent and not the ordinary British person. Consultation is an exercise in consulting and ignoring. We even have funds devoted to brainwashing our schoolchildren into loving the EU. As if we needed any persuading to love this most cherished of corporatist projects!!
EvilEuropean, you also state:
“I cant help but think that many anti-EU types have a hard-on for libertatian mimimal legistlation on business…..they think that by getting the UK out of the EU, it would make it easier to get their little pro-business, anti-worker wet dream.”
Where have you been for the last few years? The EU is THE “pro-business, anti-worker wet dream” Try looking up Viking, Ruffert, Laval, and “Flexicurity” It is the hugely corporatist agenda of the EU that is producing reams of legislation that so impinges on the “working classes”
The sole intention of any corporate industry is to have an excess of labour. The employer can then enforce lower wages and conditions onto the workforce; if the workforce doesn’t like it they can move on because the employer has a readily available replacement migrant workforce.
I am your average working class man on the street. I can see through all of this nonsense; I just can not see how anybody who claims to be standing up for the workers can go along with this exploitative corporatist construct. You have been totally hoodwinked.
I am not too great with figures; but UKIP are not, according to them using gross payments but net!
The net figure for 2007 at £4335 bn being slightly lower than your stated figure of £4.6 bn.
However it could well be argued that the payments should be described in gross, because although a proportion comes back it is not necessarily spent in the way we would wish and is often used to prop up EU projects. It is rather like using that sort of argument on which to base our tax payments, as most of it comes back in one form or another.
The figures are based on the Batten report which uses the term “cost” rather than “pay” and includes both direct and indirect costs, such as CAP, CFP and over regulation. Batten claims that the real costs are very likely much higher than his report indicates and challenges the government to do a real cost benefit analysis, making the point that if there was a real benefit the government would be shouting it from the roof tops.
Batten estimates the EU is costing us £55.775 bn per annum £4.647 bn per month £152.8 mil per day so the UKIP figure of £40 million per day looks conservative.
Hmmm… A report by a UKIP MEP (with no background, that I’m aware of, in accountancy, finance, or anything that would give him the experience or qualifications to audit anything, let alone one of the most complicated and opaque economic/political relationships in the world), published by the anti-EU thinktank The Bruges Group? Hardly an impartial or confidence-inspiring source, there…
Still, the fact that there are so many different figures available for the costs of EU membership just goes to show that a) there needs to be a proper cost/benefit analysis, carried out by independent auditors, if we are ever to be able to form rational and defensible conclusions about the positives/negatives of membership and b) UKIP’s £40 million claim is not clear-cut fact, but an estimate based on unclear workings that tallies neither with official Treasury figures nor with a report put out by one of their own MEPs.
I think the point is that you have used only direct costs to try to discredit the £40 million when the £40 million includes indirect costs! A little bit of spin in favour of the EU I think.
I would not be to down on the UKIP £40 million a day as the Batten report claims £152.8 mil a day, given that you do not trust the report, at least UKIP are only claiming less than a third of that figure.
I would agree that the government needs to do a cost benefit analysis, the fact that they continue to refuse to do so speaks volumes.
Ken – my interest is merely in where UKIP got their figure (and what the real figure is), I’m not remotely interested in spinning in favour of the EU, I merely thought that £40 million a day seemed rather high – and according to official Treasury figures, it is.
But by your own admission, if you accept Batten’s figures for the gross *costs* rather than payments, then the £40 million is £112.8 million short. Why not go for the even larger figure?
The £40 million only seems to make sense as an exaggeration of the gross payments the UK makes to the EU according to the Treasury (c.£37.5 million a day) – not least as their wording is “£40 million daily EU bill” (bill, not costs, therefore implying payments, not alleged compound expense of membership, both in terms of payments *and* negative impact on the economy, business, etc.).
So where *does* the £40 million come from? What is this “bill” they are referring to if not the alleged payments? Have they simply rounded up the Treasury’s £37.5 million a day gross to the nearest £10 million? And if so, considering this is a difference of more than £900 million a year, does this count as dishonest campaigning?
Nosemonkey, a little bit petty but I have just this day came across something that shows how annoying and costly the EU law-making machine can be.
I attended a fire course during which we were asked to use various fire extinguishers on a variety of fires. The British have had a colour code in use for some time now for the different types of fire – water, foam, CO2, and powder. In the environment in which I work it has proved fatal when valuable seconds are lost in fighting or escaping from a fire. Being able to recognise the appropriate extinguisher for the individual type of fire is an absolute must.
All British fire extinguishers must now be phased out to be replaced with extinguishers that are all of a bright red colour with a small, different coloured triangle on each, because of EU law. Instead of being able to recognise instantly the type of extinguisher from the colour of its body I must now go from one to the other, turn each this way and that, and search for the right coloured triangle.
I highlight this as an example of the extra costs incurred on businesses in Britain due to unnecessary law from the EU. It just seems pointless, costly, and in this case dangerous.
But WG, that’s an example of idiots making bad laws. Westminster makes just as many stupid laws. Given Westminster makes 90% of our laws, Westminster makes more bad laws.
The problem with the EU lawmaking process is lack of transparency—ministers agree the laws behind closed doors and the Parliament doesn’t have enough powers to do its job properly.
Blaming whichever institution made it for every stupid law that’s passed is easy, the important thing is to get better scrutiny within the legislative process.
So voting for MEPs that’re likely to turn up would be a good start.
Mat GB,
How come you say 90% of our laws come from Westminster.?
Are you excluding all the SI`s that Westminster makes as it transposes EU law into British law ?
Did you hear the radio about the problems of the motorbike tests this morning ? BBC managed to muff up the interview AND not mention that the problem stems from the EU. Typical of how we are informed by the state broadcaster.
WG
I beleive the EU also banned the use of an inert gas in fire extinguishers because it`s a “pollutant”. Yet what does a fire do to the atmosphere as it burns in chemical factories ?
WG – do you happen to know *which* EU law this is? I’ve not heard of it before, and a quick Google’s turned up nothing especially concrete.
Robin – on the 90% of laws from Westminster thing, I think Mat’s referring to the House of Commons Library report from 2006 that suggested that only 9% of Westminster legislation originated from the EU (sorry – don’t have a link to hand, though I’m planning a post on this shortly, so will give a full reference then). I’m not sure if they included statutory instruments in that – possibly not, as a recent British Chambers of Commerce report (from earlier this month) stated that about 20% of regulation stems from the EU. That probably accounts for the statutory instruments. (The “80% of laws” thing so frequently quoted by eurosceptics, meanwhile, I’ve never seen any original source for – it seems to be something that’s just been repeated so often that it’s taken on a life of its own.)
On the motorcycle thing, I have no idea what you’re referring to – any chance of a link, or something more specific than “on the BBC this morning”? The BBC has several dozen TV and radio stations, after all…
2005 according to when I got the comment:
http://not-little-england.blogspot.com/2005/10/euromyths.html
But the link I was given has either expired or moved, it now appears to be about magistrates courts :-(
Robin, I have never seen a single reputable source that backs up the 75/80/90% of our laws from Europe myth. I have seen it debunked.
The only possible source I can think of for the myth, for that is what it is, is that in the single year 1992, 90% of the new laws that came into action for that year were from Europe. Which is because that was when all of the single market legislation dating from the mid 80s when Thatcher signed up to the Act came in all at once.
If an SI is introduced because of Brussels legislation, then it’s a new law as a result of Brussels legislation. If an SI is introduced and ministers use Brussels as an excuse, then that’s a Minister abusing their position and blaming someone else.
And no, I heard nothing about motorcycle tests. Perhaps tell us what you’re talking about, and link to a source about the “came from the EU”? It may or may not have, it may or may not be good law, bad laws come from my local council on occasions—I want to abolish that for entirely different reasons.
Nosemonkey And Mat GB,
Sorry the motorbike report was on Radio 4 Today prog (The only BBC Chanel I`ll listen to and even then more to monitor their bias than information ).
New EU laws about Motorbike tests. One regulation is that braking tests must be at 50kph.
50 kph is 31 mph, the old speed at which the braking tests were carried out was 30mph. The old tests were done on quiet public roads with a 30 mph limit. Of course the new tests cant be taken on those roads – they have to be taken on roads which have at least a 40 mph limit.This makes a completely differnt safety angle, so new test centres at great expense have been built.The travelling to and from these may put many of the smaller motorbike tuition companies out of business (another “insane detail ?”).
This `might shed some light on the EU/British law 80 or 9 % conumdrum. The EU law might be simple – Brake test at 50kph. The British laws to comply will have to be detailed. Do we attribute the bigger percentage to the EU or to British law ? Surely to be fair it should be put down to EU law, therefore the 80% seems the correct figure.
Robin – I’d blame that on the British civil servants you hate so much for over-complicating something that’s actually very simple. Because the building of special test centres and the like could all be avoided if one tiny alteration was made to the law on speeding to allow motorbikes on tests to go 1 mph above the speed limit on 30 mph roads. (And in any case, I could have sworn we had a 1-2 mph leeway on speed limits, so perhaps even that’s unnecessary?)
Nosemonkey,
The 2mph +10% is an unofficial concession that they revoke in the courts if you contest any speeding offence. And you cant have speed limits then government organisations make private individuals excempt for expediency.
The prmary cause is the EU (we managed before without this interference) and as you say our civil service show again why we are unsuited to this project.
Excellent piece of work nosemonkey, you really have to dig deep to try to make sense of this stuff. I probably represent a large number of British voters when I say that I have been fairly ambivalent towards politics in recent years, mainly because it doesn’t seem to matter who you vote for, it appears to make little difference. At the moment I have no idea who I would vote for.
The recent furore over MP’s expenses however has made me take more interest, on the grounds that if our political representatives can’t be trusted then maybe I should take a closer look at what they’re doing! I’ve therefore been trudging through the web trying to make sense of Europe. UKIP’s claims about Europe certainly get your attention, but are they true!?
It would be a triumph for democracy if the main political parties could actually get together and publish some completely transparent facts (on which they agree!) about these issues, supported by their own party’s opinion on the relative benefits and disadvantages of membership that would give us a flavour of why we should vote for them rather than another.
I was interested to find out from the website of Richard Ashworth MEP (South East) that there are four main sources of income to the EU budget, one of which is our net contribution. The other three are levies on agricultural goods produced under CAP traded with non-EU countries, customs tariffs from goods imported from non-EU countries and a levy taken from VAT paid in each member state. I haven’t found out the value of these other contributions nor an estimate of the impact on our economy, but wonder how/whether these feature in the UKIP headlines?
I have also found this article by Paul Stephenson (Open Europe) that refers to the staggering number of pieces of EU legislation passed – 10,000 in the period 1957-1997 and 22,000 during 1997-2005. This article also refers to the fact that 77% of the cost of regulation on businesses in the UK stems from EU legislation. Perhaps this explains the 75%-90% statistic?
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/10stephenson.pdf
Paul – thanks, and some interesting stuff there that I should follow up in more detail when it’s not 11:50 on a Friday night and I’m a bit pissed.
One thing though, on your last paragraph – don’t have the link to hand (but the report should be easy to find on their website, as it only came out this month), but the British Chambers of Commerce recently estimated a figure of 20% for regulation stemming from the EU that affects UK businesses and (if I remember correctly) estimated a *net* cost of around £2 million (yes, with an M, not a B) per year.
Am hoping to do a post on this shortly. I’m not saying I believe the BCC’s figures, but it is yet more indication that *nobody* actually knows how much the EU costs or affects anything or anyone. I’m interested in the reality, not the political spin. I used to be anti-EU, after all. If the evidence is there, I’ll happily switch back – but the evidence the anti-EU side tend to use is usually anything but convincing once you start looking into it (or at least, so I’ve found over the last six years or so…)
Even if the £40 million per day were correct, that, for a population of 60 million, is about 65p per day per person, to maintain good contact with 375 million neighbours in 70-odd countries. By comparison, UKIP MEPs, for their supporters in constituencies of some 80,000, are costing, I gather, £300,0000 EACH, per annum, plus expenses, and what for? To disrupt proceedings, throw paper aeroplanes about, and generally act like badly-behaved schoolboys. Heaven help us if they ever got into power!
Even if UKIP’s £40 million per day figure is correct, that makes, for a UK population of 60 million, about 65p per day per person (even babies can be included, since they do grow up!). By comparison, the UKIP MEPs represent only PART (their followers) of constituencies of some 80,000. At, I gather, some £300,000 plus expenses per MEP per annum. And what for? To disrupt proceedings, throw about paper aeroplanes, and generally act like badly-behaved schoolchildren. Heaven help us if they ever got into power. We’d be prisoners in an isolated country run by lunatics.
Frederick Robinson,
How come the recipient countries dont stump up 65p per day to be in this project ?
Why do we need to pay this to be in “contact” with those others ? Why have you given a figure of 70 other countries.?
Wouldn`t that £40 million be better spent on ourselves ? Are we awash with money in this country that we can throw it away without seeing any benefit from it ?
Robin,
Those that can afford it, DO pay (and some more than us!). I don’t know how old you are; but I was born at the beginning of WWII, which financially crippled the UK (and many other countries) for decades, as well as taking the lives of millions. In the forties and fifties, travel outside the UK entailed tight border and currency restrictions, and regulations that effectively made citizens prisoners in their own countries. ‘Spending the 65p per person per day on ourselves’ – a bar of chocolate? bottle of fizz? a newspaper? – would potentially bring down those prison bars again. Only with the EC/EEC/EU did things loosen up. Inevitably with 375 million people to administer (sorry about the ’70′ countries; a mistype in the heat of the moment), there are difficulties, complications, opportunities for abuse; but I’d rather that AMENDABLE situation than the irreversibility of war.
65p a day for a family of 5 = £1183. !!
What am I paying such an amount for?! I don t see any benifits to this!
The EU keeps saying Lisbon is a great thing and that everyone wants it, why then are they affraid to let the people vote!?
Ryan – you’re not paying 65p a day for EU membership. Because UKIP’s claim of £40 million a day is a huge exaggeration.
But based on the figures given above, the government IS spending £1.41 a day for every single man, woman and child in this country to pay off the interest on our national debt. For a family of five that’s £2,583 per year.
For interest payments we see no benefits whatsoever; for the EU we see some benefits – even if the extent and worth of those benefits is hotly contested.
Have the people been asked about involvement in the EU? No, not recently. But have the people EVER been asked for permission for the government to run up vast amounts of debt on our behalf, to be paid off with our money at huge rates of interest? No. Never.
Robin,
P.S. My reason for raising these matters is UKIP’s complaint about what amounts to 65p per person per day to achieve something the purpose of which I’ve just tried to illustrate. Perhaps you can explain to me the logic of a United Kingdom Independence Party that accumulates Members of the EUROPEAN Parliament (MEPs) at (as they seem to delight in admitting) INORDINATE expense (inordinate, in my opinion, only because they WASTE it), simply to disrupt proceedings. Serious MEPS (700-odd to represent 375 million, compared with Westminster’s 600 to represent 60 million) are, if we’re talking financial value, 5 or 6 times less-expensive than British MPs, even disregarding the latters’ expenses abuse. UKIP simply add to the bill for no reason while (since they have NO chance within the EU of destroying it) travelling on what they claim to be a gravy-train and creating jobs-for-life for themselves as interminable protestors. They could only WIN if the EU became an enlarged UK, or Britain became Prison UK (with UKIP’s stentorian leader as head-jailer); or, as at present, by wasting time at your and my and the EU’s expense. I respect UKIP’s democratic wish, but I suspect their tactics (honest strategy I cannot perceive).
Frederick Robinson,
65 p per person per day is £4.55 per week per person which is £2366 per person per year.So for the family of five that is £11830 per year.
If the EU is such a good bargain why dont they tell us this figure and why dont they bill us direct ?
So why are some paying for this and some are not (I`m talking here about the tax involved, not the loss of trade or jobs yet)
We know about WW2 and its cost , but that`s another era and you cannot prove that Britain would be involved in another war again but for our membership of this project . We had currency restrictions after the war because of the exceptionable circumstances but we dont have them now with countries inside or outside the EU .Border controls, as we see by the mass out of control immigration are a Good Thing , and dont forget we cannot deport undesirables if they are EU citizens, and those Romanian rapists who came here just to get a cushy life in a UK prison.
As for the performance of UKIP MEPs in Brussels, you damn them if they do and damn them if they dont. How can they work properly in the sham parliament and hasn`t that parliament shown some petty undemocratic antics ?
Dave,
Just because money is wasted one way by the British government doesn`t mean that it should waste more money by shovelling sacks of shekels into the EU.
You claim the EU has disputable benefits and therefore that is a reason for being in. What about the drawbacks (not including our contributions) like loss of jobs and destruction of trades and industries ?
So we could write off our debt nearly five times over just by not wasting money giving it to the EU.
Robin, 65p per day (based on exaggerated UKIP claims, anyway) is, as you correctly compute, £4.55 per week. But multiply this by 52 and the annual total is not £2366 as you suggest, but £236.60. This, I suspect, is the kind of intentional or erroneous exaggeration UKIP indulge in when it suits them. Your family of five total would then be ten times less than your figure of £11830, i.e. £1183. Compare that with your UKIP MEP’s salary: you’ll find he costs twice that amount PER WEEK, excluding travel and expenses. ‘Why don’t they tell us this figure, why not bill us direct?’ Do you ask this question of our (currently deeply-discredited) national Parliament? Who do you mean by ‘us’? The UK is billed direct; perhaps not you personally. And like any ongoing transactions, sometimes A is in credit, B in debt, sometimes vice versa. Negotiation is all. The alternative is put up the barriers and prepare for war. I ‘cannot prove (I don’t want to!!!) that Britain would be involved in another war again’; but have you forgotten Yugoslavia, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, etc., etc?
Robin, if you stick to making serious points that demonstrate a basic understanding of how the British system works, you might manage to make some coherent points, but to answer your questions:
They do, the figures stated above are in the public record and publicly released every year. That the media/you tend to do little to no analysis of the figures is not a fault of the people that publish them
Because we have a system or progressive taxation in this country in which our incomes are taxed according to our ability to pay, and the items we buy are taxed according to their value? In addition, we are not billed for membership becasue each country is a Member State, and has a membership bill as a result, that bill is paid for out of general taxation, the figures for which are, I state again, published annually
Because not everyone earns income, not everyone purchases items that attract VAT, etc.
This is politics/civics 101, surely?
Because when you look at the state of our economy when we joined (the phrase “sick man of Europe” mean anything to you?) to where we are now, we’re all, substantaially, better off.
Economies change, a dynamic economy is based on the idea that old jobsa re phased out and new ones created. Barring the recent economic difficulties caused, primarily, by actions taken outside the EU, our economy was in the best state it had ever been.
Seriously, there are some legitimate arguments you could be making. Destruction of the economy is not one. You might want to blame that purely and squarely on the actions of successive UK Govts, from Thatcher onwards.
Frederick Robinson,
My aplologies it is £236 which makes it 1183 for the family of five.
Which, although 10 times less than my erroneos figure, is still a waste of our money to be in a project that does not do us any good. the figure of £40 million a day could be spent properly here on ourselves as we do not have money to waste.
As regards the premise that but for our membership of this project we would be at war I think this is another scare tactic without foundation. The wars you mentioned have happened while we have been in the EU, and our EU “partners haven`t helped us here.(and some are nothing to do with us ).
I wouldn`t have to pay the UKIP MEP`s salary (and LibDims and Labour and Greens) if we were not in the EU. Plus can we stop saying that we can throw away money in one area just because the government has thrown it away in another ?
Mat GB,
I understand how our system works as much as the next man, and sometimes, because of the nature of my business, I am given an insight into its failings.
The figure given is always open to dispute because of the complexity of this. How about then, you tell us how much the EU gave to Britain last year ?
We are not billed directly because of course it is easier to collect this way, but the EU couldn`t collect if it did bill directly because then we would know the true cost. It doesn`t stop the EU from putting its Ring of Stars on every project that it is involved with, thus helping to foster the “beneficial” side and hiding the cost.
And as you say not everyone has income, so the true figure for taxpayers is back up to the UKIP figure.
We would be substantially better off anyway, as all countries are outside of Africa. We were the “sick man of Europe” but that was also the period when we joined the Common Market. The reforms of the eighties by Maggie stooped that, not the EU.
Economies do change, but that is no reason for our powers that be to sabotage perfectly good jobs for no good reason except a Reverse Luddism attitude prevalent in Whittehall. Not everyone can have a carreer, some have to make do with jobs. As our foreign competitors seem to know and make use of.
If my way of life (not just my livelyhood, my actual way of life ) was destroyed because I was lazy, incompetent, stupid ,greedy unneccesary, then that is acceptable. But it wasn`t and a good part of the reason is because of the EU.Is it acceptable to destroy a Rainforest Indian`s, An Eskimoes, a Gypsies or French farmers way of life for no good reason ?
Destruction of our economy ? I thought you said it was in good health because of the EU ?
Robin,
Thank you for your apology. The end of your last letter suggests that (right or wrong) you blame the EU for what seem to be unfortunate personal circumstances; and if, as suggested at least, you have a family of five to support, you hjave my sympathy. But I could have said the same about MY circumstances (‘downsized’, hence divorced, my children taken, jobless for 2/3 years) in the Thatcherite 80s: along with, let it be said, 3 million others! Mrs T’s reforms (not all of which I criticise: having it suggested I was ‘not unemployed, but a one-man business seeking custom’ I found psychologically very liberating) led, however, to Cardboard City, the death of the mining, shipbuilding and other industries, with concomitant demise of communities and – under-resourced – need for social aid on a large scale; and the glorification of the financial (banking, dealing, etc.) sector beyond reason, to the point where the bubble has burst internationally….As for the recent wars ‘within Europe’, the last time there was a problem in Yugoslavia, Sarajevo 1914, the various networks of non-co-operating national alliances resulted in WW1 and MILLIONS of dead. This recent time, nasty and protracted as it was (and in my opinion the result of capitalist machinations to destroy the last Communist state in Europe apart from Russia; remember Fukuyama’s book ‘The End of History’ erroneously anticipating the final success of capitalism – cf the Credit Crunch) the EU did not rise to the bait. Partly because they are committed not to do so.
Pingback: What percentage of laws come from the EU? | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia
Pingback: Nosemonkey » Blog Archive » What percentage of laws come from the EU?
Frederick Robinson,
Although you have my sympathy for your plight in the eighties , the cutbacks that Mrs T made are not the same as the decimation of my industry by the econoomic sabotage of our civil servicewho imply it is at the behest of the EU.
Whether the wholesale loss of jobs and the way it was done ,plus whatever cushioning was given to those affected can be points for dispute, can you tell me any good reason why my industry should be killed off and replaced by foreigners ?
You mention about the demise of the communities that happened due to the eighties policies. At least the workers involved were not replaced by foreign ones and told to move, not just to a different locality in the UK, but to another country, which is what we are told now DUE AGAIN to the EU.
Thatcher and Tebbit may have seemed harsh, but why are the ones who advocate this mass movement of people now not condemmned for their callous attitude to the working man?
Regarding Sarajevo and WW1. Britain had an age of “Glorious Isolation” and tended not to worry about European affairs. Then some within some circles worried that we were losing “influence” and wanted us to go to all the international treaties and meetings.They wanted to “build alliances ” and get involved.So we did and ended up in a world war.
We did? Did that get completely skipped over in all the books I read on British history before abandoning the idea of becoming a history teacher? When was this pray tell, I’ll go and check some reputable sources and re-educate myself.
They imply? They imply? That’s it? Cite sources, give a law, actually back up your assertions with some facts.
Comparative Advantage, it’s been a basic principle of economics for the last 200 odd years. We have a dynamic economy, we’re best doing what we’re best at and importing stuff we’re not so good at.
The best explanations of this I’ve ever read were by a certain Tim Worstall, who happens to be a UKIP candidate and their press officer.
But you’ve still not actually provided any real evidence other than a dislike of foreigners for your position. So, unless you actually back up your assertions with actual facts, actual legislation and actual real reasons, I’m not going to waste my time on you any more.
I don’t give a shit who does a job, I care that the job is done well. You care that it’s not done by foreigners, but insist you’re not racist? Give me a break.
Mat GB
Britain`s Glorious Isolation was between 1870 and 1910. I dont know what you`re teaching ?
The economic sabotage can be proved by the correspondence with the department of Transport. You`re welcome to see it as proof, if you can understand such things.
Comparative Advantage ?! have you ever been in business ? Our trucks have to pay when in other countries, they dont pay here. We are strictly regulated, they are not. That`s just the half. does that sound like a fair competition ?
Dislike of foreigners and racist. Read the posts properly before making stupid assertions and uncivil comments. You`re a typical self regarding prig. I`m glad you`re on their side.
Robin – other than noting that you’ve forgotten the 1904 Entente Cordiale, I suggest you look up the 1860 Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce, which remained in force for most of the next 40 years. From a handy online review of a recent book on the subject:
“As a result of the treaty, a network of bilateral trade agreements based on most favored nation (MFN) trading status spread across Europe as other countries sought to obtain equal access to the French market in the aftermath of the accord… This network of treaties was never formalized into a single regime, but British policy makers did explore whether a pan-European trade agreement would be viable.”
Britain has *always* been closely involved in Europe – if not obviously in the midst of the action, then behind the scenes working the diplomatic channels. And Britain was *especially* active from 1870-1910, as this was the major period of European imperial expansion (especially into Africa) – as well as the principle period in which the rest of the world began to catch up to Britain’s level of industrial and commercial development – and Britain had to protect her interests. Indeed, c.1870-1910 is arguably one of the most intensive peacetime periods of British diplomatic involvement in both Europe and the world that you could name.
Nosemonkey,
My apologies, the term was called the Splendid Isolationist period although someone like MatGb who purports to be a history teacher cant diplomatically correct the terminology does not inspire confidence for our childrens future.Perhaps he is as ignorant as that.
I wouldn`t claim that is was universally popular but it was the vogue at the time until Edward VII.
We may have had that treaty but dont forget the Fashoda incident of 1890.I`m also aware that Germany was one of our biggest, if not the biggest trading partner .
Reading comprehension not top of your list of acheivements is it (sorry NM, but this is just beyond daft now). I said:
I’m not, nor have I ever been, a teacher. I considered becoming one and have a lot of background knowledge of history. “splendid isolation” is not a term I’ve heard before, and as NM said, while it may’ve been used in propaganda or by rose tinted backlookers, it’s palpably ahistorical.
And if you’re blaming the idea that UK trucks are regulated while others within the EU are not on the EU, there’s a logic flaw there. I’ve already agreed with you that the daft way we tax vehicles in this country is daft, but that’s not an EU policy either. If treasury correspondence says it is, then whoever wrote the letter was lying, get them for it, don’t blame an organisation that had nowt to do with it.
*unsubs from this thread, it’s not worth it*
As the Mat GB poster cannot understand others and misreads posts we will have to ignore his factually incorrect last one.
Pingback: » What percentage of our laws actually come from the EU?Liberal Conspiracy
Robin:
I don’t know where you get your ideas, but they are quite fun, and strongly resemble the tortured, twisted notions of the UKIP party and their rather curious acolytes. I think you’d probably find that the money wasted by the British government far outweighs the cost of the EU and, before you clamour about the loss of British jobs, Britain is not yet an implementing party to Schengen and, as such, responsibility for allowing migrant workers into the UK lies predominantly with the British Government and Border Control, not the European Institutions (unless I missed something, which often happens due to my short attention ooh a cloud). Not mentioning, of course, the fact that, due to EU membership, vast numbers of Britons have been able to flee abroad seeking more gainful employment. Surely, then, the costs of EU membership, in terms of jobs, are balanced; migrants take British jobs while Britons themselves become migrant workers.
The European Institutions might bear a cost, sometimes a significant one (though 800+ a year doesn’t seem too bad to me), but I can assure you that, as it stands today, the EU is in fact doing a lot more good for the “Average Joe On The Street” than you might think, more so than the British Government at least. One point in case would be the legislation, that the European Institutions are trying to pass, on information collecting and personal freedoms, parallel to the British Government’s own actions; while the Commission is trying to draft laws forbidding governments to develop massive databases to record our personal details and electronic communications, as well as detain citizens with no due cause for over a few days, the British Government is trying to ensure that it can detain any citizen for 42 days without charge, and currently stores all email, messenger and mobile phone communication on databases. I’d rather trust the European Institutions for a few hundred a year than our government for a few thousand, wouldn’t you?
I hope you have enjoyed my use of semicolons and, finally, must posit that your ad homs really don’t do you justice.
Great blog Mr. Monkey.
Robin,
MatGB wrote more sense in his all-too-short, sensibly-foreshortened foray into this glutinous blog than the whole of your meandering molrass of misinformation: ‘glorious isolation’, for example.
Actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation