So . . . .

[Chasey]

Ummmm...no I did not. Did you actually read any of what I wrote? Our liability is £350m. We send £263m per week. Some money comes back in the form of EU sponsored projects.

If you agree with all of the EU projects/grants you might wish to offset that amount and to view it as though we sent less. Which we didn't. But you can take that view. I do not. It is absurd as giving your neighbour £100 a week and being glad he let you have £25 back as long as you use it to keep the partition hedges trimmed.

This sort of twisted logic baffles me

We get billions and billions of EU grants loans and funding.

So whilst we hand over 350mill we get HALF of that back in grants and funding for UK projects.

In January James Wharton, the pro-Brexit Northern Powerhouse Minister, listed 20,000 projects in the north of England that had received funding from this pot between 2007-2013. Analysis by the University of Sheffield estimates that over 70,000 jobs were created in the area as a result - as well as a further 80,000 between Scotland and Wales.

Link

Mapped: Where in the UK receives most EU funding and how does this compare with the rest of Europe?


Do you think post Brexit the UK govt will have the funds to continue these environmental and energy developments or sustain welsh sheep farmers?

My daughter lost her EU funding for her PHD and the UK govt are not offering to replace that.

 

[fallow me]

 

[jimmy milnes]

Yes TM was voted for by her party as leader an not by the electoral public but.... if we don't like what she/her party are doing we vote and oust them after a set period of time and travel a different path...
RING ANY BELLS ???
So Mr Junker was voted in by a democratic vote, and that's OK but a democratic vote to leave the club isn't OK ?

 

[Woodsmoke]

I heard Sturgeon on the radio this morning bleating on about May needing to give Scotland yet more devolved powers, and how it's time for a 'second referendum' . . . . . My god, but I detest that woman

 

[bowji john]

TM was voted by her party to be LEADER - the people voted her in to be an MP

Totally different from the Junker scenario - where Junker and his pals are never exposed to a public vote

 

[zambezi]

This sort of twisted logic baffles me

In that we are of one mind. I really do not understand your logic here. The EU are deciding how we spend our money...and you are ok with that?

Who elected Theresa May?


The Conservative MPs of course. Not us

Ermmmmm....but as stated before, the electorate of the UK can eject May by voting the Conservatives out whereas...

But the EU reformed in 2014 so now Junker represents the first properly democratically elected leader of the EU commission

Junker was ELECTED by a vote of 22 for to 2 against. The UK were against.

Juncker was voted in by the European Council. A tiny group [as you have said]. This is a parody of democracy. And if he were merely a bureacrat delivering a democratic people's will, such a devolved system of appointment might be ok. But he has real power. And cannot be deposed by the peoples of Europe. There is the difference.

 

[african jack]

This sort of twisted logic baffles me

We get billions and billions of EU grants loans and funding.

So whilst we hand over 350mill we get HALF of that back in grants and funding for UK projects.

In January James Wharton, the pro-Brexit Northern Powerhouse Minister, listed 20,000 projects in the north of England that had received funding from this pot between 2007-2013. Analysis by the University of Sheffield estimates that over 70,000 jobs were created in the area as a result - as well as a further 80,000 between Scotland and Wales.

Link

Mapped: Where in the UK receives most EU funding and how does this compare with the rest of Europe?


Do you think post Brexit the UK govt will have the funds to continue these environmental and energy developments or sustain welsh sheep farmers?

My daughter lost her EU funding for her PHD and the UK govt are not offering to replace that.

Wow that's a good deal we must remember to thank them

 

[zambezi]

Do you think post Brexit the UK govt will have the funds to continue these environmental and energy developments or sustain welsh sheep farmers?

I think we are nearing the true epicentre of leave/remain thinking re the money now. The ONS statistics have laid bare the true UK to EU money flow. That bus slogan was not a million miles from the truth. You concede as much.

The leave/remain dividing line is about how/where money is spent. And whether the mode of disbursement is reason for concern. So whereas Brexiteers are not happy with a partial return of some of the UK's tax revenues (on EU terms), many remain folk are.

I have no doubt that some worthy causes and projects have been endowed by EU munificence. I am sure many remainers can cite benefits that they, or their community, have enjoyed via those projects.

Looking at Chasey's line above, is the issue that we do not feel we [UK citizens] have sufficient control of our elected government officials to put the tax revenues where we want them? Is that it? If that is the case, if remain are saying we prefer the EU's project selections, then I would suggest we need to bolster domestic politician accountability. Not outsource fiscal disbursement to unelected third parties.

 

[Woodsmoke]

Hey! D'you think we'll still be allowed to play Euromillions????

 

[Stevie/P]

Hey! D'you think we'll still be allowed to play Euromillions????

worse than that what about eurovision gutted if we can't enter that.

 

[jimmy milnes]

worse than that what about eurovision gutted if we can't enter that.

Hey maybe that's why Australia have started entering that ... so they can join the EU through the back door !!

 

[bowji john]

Ha ha

The EU is not ready for the Aussies

They (the EU) couldn't cope with their no bulsh1t realism

One Aussie thorn would pop their make-believe bubble on first contact

I'd pay to watch that

 

[Rob-E]

In that we are of one mind. I really do not understand your logic here. The EU are deciding how we spend our money...and you are ok with that?





Ermmmmm....but as stated before, the electorate of the UK can eject May by voting the Conservatives out whereas...





Juncker was voted in by the European Council. A tiny group [as you have said]. This is a parody of democracy. And if he were merely a bureacrat delivering a democratic people's will, such a devolved system of appointment might be ok. But he has real power. And cannot be deposed by the peoples of Europe. There is the difference.

We can vote for our EU representatives (MEP) it’s just unlike Germany, France, Belgium etc only 35.5% (2014) of our population bothered to turn out and vote. I think it’s odd for a country that is so concerned about the EU only just over a third bothered to vote for our MEPs. Only 72.21% bothered to vote on Brexit.

I find it perplexing that if people had such a problem with the EU for so long why didn’t they bother to vote on EU issues.
Even more so the fact we thought we could leave the EU and keep the nice bits we wanted and ignore the bits we didn’t. Which is what the campaigns facts centred around.
Who on earth would agree to such a deal.

If the UK has a hard brexit we could be up to 100BN worse off a year. In a country that is already struggling with public service, NHS, Police, Fire, Armed Forces. Food banks have increased 49% in a year. Why would we give ourselves as a country less money? I am aware the above is not caused by brexit however if we are struggling now with these things then think how bad it will be when the govt. has less money to spend in the public sector.

 

[Stevie/P]

We can vote for our EU representatives (MEP) it’s just unlike Germany, France, Belgium etc only 35.5% (2014) of our population bothered to turn out and vote. I think it’s odd for a country that is so concerned about the EU only just over a third bothered to vote for our MEPs. Only 72.21% bothered to vote on Brexit.

I find it perplexing that if people had such a problem with the EU for so long why didn’t they bother to vote on EU issues.
Even more so the fact we thought we could leave the EU and keep the nice bits we wanted and ignore the bits we didn’t. Which is what the campaigns facts centred around.
Who on earth would agree to such a deal.

If the UK has a hard brexit we could be up to 100BN worse off a year. In a country that is already struggling with public service, NHS, Police, Fire, Armed Forces. Food banks have increased 49% in a year. Why would we give ourselves as a country less money? I am aware the above is not caused by brexit however if we are struggling now with these things then think how bad it will be when the govt. has less money to spend in the public sector.

if the government had a trillion £ to spend they wouldn't spend it on services they spend it on them self's first just like them tossers in Brussels..

 

[Rob-E]

I'm not saying they wouldn't but let's say they spend 10% on services.
10% of 300bn is better than 10% of 200bn.
Granted the UKs 2017 GDP was $2.62tn.

 

[zambezi]

We can vote for our EU representatives (MEP) it’s just unlike Germany, France, Belgium etc only 35.5% (2014) of our population bothered to turn out and vote. I think it’s odd for a country that is so concerned about the EU only just over a third bothered to vote for our MEPs.

There are some very good reasons: (1) MEPs cannot initiate legislation, they can only rubber stamp commission wisdom. I think UK voters realise and are jaded by that limitation (2) There are over 700 MEPs. Nominally they reflect European populations. Sound democratic? Not really: it is a continent-wide equivalent of a coalition government at national level: It is the neutering of government by dilution and disparity. There is less cohesion in voting than we see in Eurovision. In this dynamic, the law makers [the Commission] only need to garner a majority vote from MEPs to proceed with their policies. It is usually possible to pork-belly a majority. (3) the MEP election campaigns I have seen are often narrow single-interest manifestos. And all the folk in an area who want an advocate on that issue get their person into office.

Even more so the fact we thought we could leave the EU and keep the nice bits we wanted and ignore the bits we didn’t. Which is what the campaigns facts centred around.

Who on earth would agree to such a deal.

Who ever said that? Ever? We traded with Europe before the advent of the Common Market and its heirs and successors. Let's do that again. At whatever tariff is mutually acceptable.

If the UK has a hard brexit we could be up to 100BN worse off a year. In a country that is already struggling with public service, NHS, Police, Fire, Armed Forces. Food banks have increased 49% in a year. Why would we give ourselves as a country less money? I am aware the above is not caused by brexit however if we are struggling now with these things then think how bad it will be when the govt. has less money to spend in the public sector.

As ever, where does the emotive £100bn number come from? Please supply a reliable, apolitical source for that assertion. The EU neither contribute to nor aid foodbanks now. And issues of how and what we fund in terms of public services should remain a domestic political decision. Of the facts in this area, recall the Eurozone is a global underperformer [empirical data in earlier post]. Staying in we will be less well off globally. Coming out carries as yet unquantified risk. Let's agree that.

 

[Rob-E]

Brexit deal 'will cost UK £100bn' a year by 2030

 

[zambezi]

Brexit deal 'will cost UK £100bn' a year by 2030

I qualified my request for a data source: it should be apolitical. The second sentence on that Biased Broadcasting Claptrap site reads as follows:

" The study commissioned by the People's Vote, which wants a second referendum, said GDP would be 3.9% lower by 2030. "

 

[Rob-E]

All data information is found from somewhere it's up to you what you do with it.
Other sources that provide the same info are:

The Independent
The Huffington Post
The European
Spectator
The Standard
The London Economic Journal
The Mirror
The Guardian

As you can see there are both left and right leaving media sources as well as more specialist journals.

 

[Cumbrian 1]

We can vote for our EU representatives (MEP) it’s just unlike Germany, France, Belgium etc only 35.5% (2014) of our population bothered to turn out and vote. I think it’s odd for a country that is so concerned about the EU only just over a third bothered to vote for our MEPs. Only 72.21% bothered to vote on Brexit.

I find it perplexing that if people had such a problem with the EU for so long why didn’t they bother to vote on EU issues.
Even more so the fact we thought we could leave the EU and keep the nice bits we wanted and ignore the bits we didn’t. Which is what the campaigns facts centred around.
Who on earth would agree to such a deal.

If the UK has a hard brexit we could be up to 100BN worse off a year. In a country that is already struggling with public service, NHS, Police, Fire, Armed Forces. Food banks have increased 49% in a year. Why would we give ourselves as a country less money? I am aware the above is not caused by brexit however if we are struggling now with these things then think how bad it will be when the govt. has less money to spend in the public sector.

I don't think you understand how the EU works it is very undemocratic, MEPs cannot propose laws/rules only an unelected panel of "experts" can propose them the MEPs can simply vote yes or no for example if the EU decided to put a panel together for countryside matters and they ask Chris Packham to sit on it wouldn't that be great because he's the expert in all things wildlife....