again its not 2.2 Billion, go and look at the article you quoted properly and do some actual maths to work out what it will actually cost us when you figure in that there are no more subsidies and no more development grants, unless you are of course saying that all those areas that received EU funding will now get nothing from the UK government, in which case sure 2.2 billion sounds great, but I think Wales, Cornwall and most of the North might have a few words for you
Brexit thread - what happens next
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
- Status
again its not 2.2 Billion, go and look at the article you quoted properly and do some actual maths to work out what it will actually cost us when you figure in that there are no more subsidies and no more development grants, unless you are of course saying that all those areas that received EU funding will now get nothing from the UK government, in which case sure 2.2 billion sounds great, but I think Wales, Cornwall and most of the North might have a few words for you
I think the ONS/Treasury figure might include those payments.
But it's a moot point. Saving £6bn is nothing compared to the cost to the economy.
Our rebate covers those! So it is £2.2bn + £4.4bn or so rebate vs the £10bn + £4.4bn rebate. We are paying the rebate amount in both so elimate them from either side of the equation.
Rebate is different to the money received via subsidies and grants.
That includes the science funding and all contributions etc.
I've just read your link.
http://euquestion.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/cameron-watch-how-much-does-norway-pay.html?m=1
Even if the underlying assumptions are correct, it's conclusion is that the cost under EEA is half per head compared to current UK membership of the EU.
Since the website does have a clear slant we can assume this is an optimistic forecast, so it probably something higher.
However, going back to what I said before, the UK is losing out in other ways which dwarfs this saving.
your maths are still worng
our net spend on the EU per week after all rebates/subsidies/grants is 161 million.
this is approx 8.3 billion a year so call it 10 billion for ease of calcualting
now if we went EEA, yes our payment will be 2.2 billion, but now we have to still find the money to fund all the other projects that the EU was using some of our fees for. So whilst we only have to pay 2.2 billion directly to the EU we still need to find the other £4.539 billion the UK received back in EU funding (via Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy and Regional Development funds). unless of ocurse like I sated before you are alluding to the fact that we are going to sack all those projects off, tell farmers to do one and do something funky with our fishermen..........
so the saving is no 8 + billion its at best 10 billion - 2.2 billion - 4.5 billion which is about 3.3 billion
Stop trying to fudge numbers to make it look better you are worse than Osborne
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Wow, that 350m a week figure really was diabolical wasn't it. How did they get away with it?!
I hope you are not an accountant!your maths are still worng
our net spend on the EU per week after all rebates/subsidies/grants is 161 million.
this is approx 8.3 billion a year so call it 10 billion for ease of calcualting
now if we went EEA, yes our payment will be 2.2 billion, but now we have to still find the money to fund all the other projects that the EU was using some of our fees for. So whilst we only have to pay 2.2 billion directly to the EU we still need to find the other £4.539 billion the UK received back in EU funding (via Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy and Regional Development funds). unless of ocurse like I sated before you are alluding to the fact that we are going to sack all those projects off, tell farmers to do one and do something funky with our fishermen..........
so the saving is no 8 + billion its at best 10 billion - 2.2 billion - 4.5 billion which is about 3.3 billion
Stop trying to fudge numbers to make it look better you are worse than Osborne
£14.539bn is our contribution which we get £4.539bn back making our contribution £10bn as per the ONS stated net figure.
We take the EEA option our contribution drops to £2.2bn and we need to fund the projects the EU we funding with our money. So we have £6.739bn total.
The comparison is £2.2bn vs £10bn or £6.739bn vs £14.539bn. You choose.
[TW]Fox;29753439 said:
technically the 350 million wasn't a lie it was an economy of the truth as they failed to cite it in context. That is the gross ammount before rebate/subsidies/development project funds
Moreover if we get down to the business end it's all a tissue of lies as none of this money actually exists in the first place, so it's basically been an exercise in people arguing over the fact that someone owes me £1500 because they landed on Mayfair and I have a hotel on it........................
But yet it somehow is starting a process which will either see the economy driven into the sea or every chav will be in a Maserati by breakfast because of the windfall......................
your maths are still worng
our net spend on the EU per week after all rebates/subsidies/grants is 161 million.
this is approx 8.3 billion a year so call it 10 billion for ease of calcualting
now if we went EEA, yes our payment will be 2.2 billion, but now we have to still find the money to fund all the other projects that the EU was using some of our fees for. So whilst we only have to pay 2.2 billion directly to the EU we still need to find the other £4.539 billion the UK received back in EU funding (via Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy and Regional Development funds). unless of ocurse like I sated before you are alluding to the fact that we are going to sack all those projects off, tell farmers to do one and do something funky with our fishermen..........
so the saving is no 8 + billion its at best 10 billion - 2.2 billion - 4.5 billion which is about 3.3 billion
Stop trying to fudge numbers to make it look better you are worse than Osborne
Good spot.
Here are the 2 numbers to compare from that link. The red boxes show the net amounts in both cases.
edit: see posts later on, i'm wrong.
Last edited:
He's right. The table is misleading you.
After all where is the money labelled "Funds to the UK" coming in the second scenario?
edit: see posts later on, i'm wrong.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;29753318 said:
For some reason a van with a trailer which is owned by a business and carries goods for others falls under full haulage operators license rules and everything that entails. Don't try to Google what it entails because it's a massive can of worms of multiple regs that are intertwined and a complete nightmare to figure out. Dvsa even admitted it was a mess when I was trying to confirm I was compliant and they weren't sure.
The operators licence up until recently was only required by large haulage carriers but the EU changed it because foreign hauliers weren't happy with having to compete with guys with a van, like guys like me are even competition. Basically my van with a trailer is treated the same as a 26 tonne artic under EU regulation. None of the regulations actually deal directly with a van and trailer in the wording even though you are expecting to comply with it.
On the plus side, if I want to buy a few artics and start my own logistics company I'm pretty much set.
I think.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Stuff related to Norwegian EEA membership from the other thread:
It has its swings and roundabouts: http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_lessons_from_the_norway_eu_relationship_7046.
The report he's linked:
http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/NOU2012_2_Chapter_1.pdf
http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/Nou2012_2_Chapter 13.pdf
Not sure if there are any more chapters. Don't think so. But feel free to dig here:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/norwegian-official-reports/id1767/
It has its swings and roundabouts: http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_lessons_from_the_norway_eu_relationship_7046.
The report he's linked:
http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/NOU2012_2_Chapter_1.pdf
http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/Nou2012_2_Chapter 13.pdf
Not sure if there are any more chapters. Don't think so. But feel free to dig here:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/norwegian-official-reports/id1767/
Just use the totals from that table and imagine we get rebates for both situations EU and EEA.
Funds to UK comes from our total.
No rebate under the EEA nor any CAP/CFP payments.
The "totals" they've labelled are wrong.
What is important is the Net Contribution.
The net contributions are £10bn and £2.2bn, but the UK has to replace £4.5bn of the funds we would otherwise have got..
edit: see posts later on, i'm wrong
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
[TW]Fox;29753439 said:
The £350m figure is what are legally obliged to hand over the the EU.
The rebate is purely optional and can be withdrawn at any time, the subsidies whilst coming back to the UK (and would be cancelled out mathematically post Brexit by the government having to do it instead) are out of the control of the UK Government meaning they (the EU) decide what gets subsidised for the benefit of the EU rather than what gets subsidised for the benefit of the UK.
So technically, by leaving the EU (and if everything stayed the same economically) the UK Government would be able to divert £350m a week more in funding to the NHS. Of course that would mean removing all subsidies from areas that get it now (farmers, science etc).
The £350m claim was overly-simplistic at best and deviously disingenuous at worst, but it was not "horse ****" or "a complete lie" as some remainers are saying...on the contrary, it was a substantially incomplete truth.
Last edited:
Think of it this way.
You pay me £19. I give you a rebate of £5, so you only have to pay me £14 in total.
Now I also give you £4 to buy some food (net payment is £10).
The second scenario. You only have to pay me £2. But what about your food?
You pay me £19. I give you a rebate of £5, so you only have to pay me £14 in total.
Now I also give you £4 to buy some food (net payment is £10).
The second scenario. You only have to pay me £2. But what about your food?
I know there isn't a rebate. We pay in the total figure to the EU as well and get the rebate which is our net figure. If we ignore the word rebate and let's just say it is funding for various UK projects we have total money which includes a net contribution to the EU and funding for the various projects. Compared with the EEA total which is a net contribution and funding to various projects. We pay for these various projects in both situations. So the only comparison is the net figure.
- Status