I never ceases to amaze me how some EU fans can, apparently in all seriousness, expound upon how "wonderful" it is that the EU hands out grants to the U.K. for various projects and claims that to be a benefit of being a member.
Tell you what, if anyone here would like to send me £100, I will willingly return £50 to you with conditions attached on how you may spend it, and, of course, on the proviso that you make it clear by way of big signs that the funds were provided by my generosity. Any takers? No, I thought not.....
Tell you what, if anyone here would like to send me £100, I will willingly return £50 to you with conditions attached on how you may spend it, and, of course, on the proviso that you make it clear by way of big signs that the funds were provided by my generosity. Any takers? No, I thought not.....
Let's say as an example it just goes into housing....
1. Housing shortage sorted - No reason for anyone being homeless any more
2. House prices / rent should become more affordable as the supply vs demand is put in order
3. More builders / plumbers / roofers / sparky's etc etc in work and doing well
4. Trade suppliers have increased sales
5. Government rake in more through the vat produced through item 4 and will get more through corporation tax due to increased profits.
That's just a few things. Sounds good for the economy to me.
I've said in my previous post that on balance I'd vote out but I think you deserve an answer .
To be fair several of the things PCB listed can also be viewed as positives as much as negatives , the employment legislation and environmental protection laws for example. Business is allegedly smoothed and trade is easier although I would have to take others word for it as I rarely work more than ten miles from home let alone across the continent . From what I saw on a BBC4 report on Norway , Switzerland , and Iceland their being out of the EU but still closely trading has resulted in their having to adopt many EU laws without having any input plus a similar financial outgoing that we have. Being in has kept us free of some of the worst of US cooperate laws although again the EU seems to in the process of warming to TTIP . At least with the power of veto its implementation could be at least delayed.
With regards to simple money terms we of course get grants etc from the EU , we've all seen those " funded by the EU " signs but without goggling the figures I can't say how much of a dent it makes in that £33M . The BBC report also said that benefits to EU migrants ( it may have been just working tax credits rather than all benefits ) costs us £230M a year so if our wonderful PM negotiated a single weeks rebate that would cover on of the most talked about points of our membership.
It should also of course be mentioned that one of the original aims was a safer Europe which of course it seems to have done . We haven't laid waste to huge tracts of land and slaughtered a generation ( well not on a continental scale ) since 1945 .
Not saying you're completely wrong but doesn't your first point assume the £33M sent by the government to the EU would then be spent by that same government building houses?
I don't get your point. Would you rather we gave it to the EU or build homes with it instead?
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 1,347
- Reaction score
- 428
- Country
I suspect a proportion of it would find its way into the pockets of our honest and upright MPs.
George Monbiot's recent piece ,
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire?CMP=share_btn_fb
Point is I don't think if this government stopped payments to the EU tomorrow it would start building social housing or use that money for anything currently catered for by private enterprise.
You may well be correct, as they are too stupid to put it to sensible use anyway.
I was making a point of how that money could benefit all, if only we had "leaders" with more than the brain of a dead gnat.
The £33M per day is after the dent has been made.
What he and Osborne have done is significantly cut government spending, ensuring that the UK maintains a AAA credit status (which reduces the cost of government borrowing) and reducing the deficit, and created a strong economy that is seeing significant drops in unemployment. Osborne was widely criticised five years ago, with Balls and others saying his cuts would destroy the country. He had more balls than Balls, and held his own, so to speak, he had the courage to follow his plans.
And if doing something means invading Iraq, giving back some of the EU rebate, and hugely increasing public spending, I'll opt for not doing something thanks.
Ah cheers EFL I was just working on the figures given by others rather than googling .
