D
david and julie
What does similar population sector mean and what is an anal island?
I see you haven't commented on the lack of a democratic vote on this yet, is there a reason?
The EU Referendum
- Thread starter Freddie
- Start date
What does similar population sector mean and what is an anal island?
I see you haven't commented on the lack of a democratic vote on this yet, is there a reason?
Sponsored Links
D
david and julie
Freddie said:
Well you've answered your own question there freddie haven't you. He can't tell you your wrong because your not!
Sponsored Links
B
Big_Spark
Feddie, did you see the actual figures quoted there...Oops no, the BBC omitted them as they did not support the argument.
The financial contribution a nation makes to the EU is based ona complicated formula based on GDP, Population, stnadard of living and several other factors.
Whilst I accept the UK does contribute more that France, I am not sonvinced that us losing a £3 Billion subsidy would increase our burden from 3X to 14X.
Look...
This is a quote from a story about Germany wishing to reduce it's contribution
Also:
The financial contribution a nation makes to the EU is based ona complicated formula based on GDP, Population, stnadard of living and several other factors.
Whilst I accept the UK does contribute more that France, I am not sonvinced that us losing a £3 Billion subsidy would increase our burden from 3X to 14X.
Look...
This is a quote from a story about Germany wishing to reduce it's contribution
Also:
D
david and julie
Any chance of some quotes from a slightly less biased source?
B
Big_Spark
OK, this took some finding in the EU website..they don't make it easy!!
It would appear that the figures for 2004 are.
These figures are in Euro's. The first figure is the actual contribution, the second figure is the total monies recieved from the EU in the form of grants and other payments. The UK figure includes 3.22 Billion as a subsidy. The German Figure included a payment agreed by all states in 1993, annually, to help absorb the East of Germany. These payments are to stop in 2007.
From the above, it can be seen that the UK is far from getting a raw deal as far as the EU is concened. It may not be as good as it could be, but when you take population into account, the Netherlands and Sweden are the the ones getting truly shafted!
It would appear that the figures for 2004 are.
These figures are in Euro's. The first figure is the actual contribution, the second figure is the total monies recieved from the EU in the form of grants and other payments. The UK figure includes 3.22 Billion as a subsidy. The German Figure included a payment agreed by all states in 1993, annually, to help absorb the East of Germany. These payments are to stop in 2007.
From the above, it can be seen that the UK is far from getting a raw deal as far as the EU is concened. It may not be as good as it could be, but when you take population into account, the Netherlands and Sweden are the the ones getting truly shafted!
D
david and julie
But to produce true figures you need audited accounts, when their accountants raise concerns they get sacked. Do you remember Marta Andreasen?
http://www.managementconsultancy.co.uk/features/1135692
Why should we believe their figures ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/18/ixnewstop.html
Indeed why do you believe them?
http://www.managementconsultancy.co.uk/features/1135692
Why should we believe their figures ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/18/ixnewstop.html
Indeed why do you believe them?
D
david and julie
petewood said:
Who and for what are you asking?
I dont understand what you mean by the BBc figures there was more to that story that i pinched off the website and they werent the BBc figures anyway, something to do with a spokesman for Jack Straw i think.
I am still waiting for this earth shattering reason as to why we must be in Europe for our future and why doubters like us are arseholes, just the reason for Europe would be enough before i die, it must be the 5th time i have asked it.
I am still waiting for this earth shattering reason as to why we must be in Europe for our future and why doubters like us are arseholes, just the reason for Europe would be enough before i die, it must be the 5th time i have asked it.
Just what I was wondering. Those figures seem to suggest that a huge amount of money is disappearing into the EU treasury and not coming out again. It all goes somewhere.
I don't really understand why there was so much bickering about exact figures. Europe as a continent is more developed than the US and has the potential to be the biggest power on the planet. America absolutely does not want this to happen. That all seems pretty obvious to me and is the main thrust of world politics right now. The EU is the best chance for Europe to really become a united force in the world. America gets more jittery every time an ex-communist country joins our side. Odd that, really.
How come you discount the cost of the Iraq war? What you seem to say is that it is OK, because most of the money will get spent buying new bullets made in british factories. But a lot of those bullets are very likely made in the good old USA. And I would much rather the money had been spent paying doctors to perform extra operations and reduce the NHS waiting lists.
At least if you consider the sum is small, then you should not be too bothered by the contribution to the EU, which is rather less.
We have something in this country called the NHS. It gives out healthcare pretty much according to demand. If you never get sick, then you never get anything back for all your tax money that went into it. The EU works the same. It has rules. The rules say how the money is spent. Some countries get more benefit from the rules, some less. Same rules.
And that rebate the French hate and we love. It partly depends upon how much we get back in payments under the normal rules. If we got more under the normal rules, then the rebate would automatically reduce. Strangely, the UK government sometimes does not apply for money available under EU schemes. Makes it hard for individuals or local authorities to apply for EU money. Why? perhaps because every pound a UK citizen gets is one pound less on the rebate which the government will get.
I don't really understand why there was so much bickering about exact figures. Europe as a continent is more developed than the US and has the potential to be the biggest power on the planet. America absolutely does not want this to happen. That all seems pretty obvious to me and is the main thrust of world politics right now. The EU is the best chance for Europe to really become a united force in the world. America gets more jittery every time an ex-communist country joins our side. Odd that, really.
How come you discount the cost of the Iraq war? What you seem to say is that it is OK, because most of the money will get spent buying new bullets made in british factories. But a lot of those bullets are very likely made in the good old USA. And I would much rather the money had been spent paying doctors to perform extra operations and reduce the NHS waiting lists.
At least if you consider the sum is small, then you should not be too bothered by the contribution to the EU, which is rather less.
We have something in this country called the NHS. It gives out healthcare pretty much according to demand. If you never get sick, then you never get anything back for all your tax money that went into it. The EU works the same. It has rules. The rules say how the money is spent. Some countries get more benefit from the rules, some less. Same rules.
And that rebate the French hate and we love. It partly depends upon how much we get back in payments under the normal rules. If we got more under the normal rules, then the rebate would automatically reduce. Strangely, the UK government sometimes does not apply for money available under EU schemes. Makes it hard for individuals or local authorities to apply for EU money. Why? perhaps because every pound a UK citizen gets is one pound less on the rebate which the government will get.
I couldnt find it on the BBC , but this is from the Liverpool echo with the amounts you wanted
And the French pre-emptive strike prompted an immediate British Government rebuttal and the publication of figures showing how much EU membership costs the nation - and why it is still fully justified.
They show that since joining the EU in 1973, British taxpayers have paid A£76 billion to the Brussels kitty - saving A£57 billion on the A£133 billion due without the rebate. Even with the rebate Britain pays more than two-and-a-half times as much as the French: without it, the Treasury's share of running the EU would be a staggering 14 times that of France.
All EU member states contribute to the EU's running costs, but claw back some of their contributions in the form of agriculture subsidies and grants for regional development and social policy projects.
In Britain's case, the "net contribution" - the balance between contributions and grants and subsidies - has long been recognised as unfair, thanks largely to a British community of relatively efficient farmers who qualify far less than their French counterparts for aid from Brussels
And the French pre-emptive strike prompted an immediate British Government rebuttal and the publication of figures showing how much EU membership costs the nation - and why it is still fully justified.
They show that since joining the EU in 1973, British taxpayers have paid A£76 billion to the Brussels kitty - saving A£57 billion on the A£133 billion due without the rebate. Even with the rebate Britain pays more than two-and-a-half times as much as the French: without it, the Treasury's share of running the EU would be a staggering 14 times that of France.
All EU member states contribute to the EU's running costs, but claw back some of their contributions in the form of agriculture subsidies and grants for regional development and social policy projects.
In Britain's case, the "net contribution" - the balance between contributions and grants and subsidies - has long been recognised as unfair, thanks largely to a British community of relatively efficient farmers who qualify far less than their French counterparts for aid from Brussels
OK Freddie. Ted Heath brought us into the EU, and I reckon he thought it was the best thing he ever did. Because when he was a lad he saw Europe blowing itself to pieces for the second time this century. His friends being blown to pieces. Something that has regularly happened for the last 2000 years.
People take peace in Europe for granted now. Because of the EU and because the states are learning to work together.
People take peace in Europe for granted now. Because of the EU and because the states are learning to work together.
Sponsored Links
