http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ng-EU.html


Can I have a rebate?

No.

It is more from the reduction in our rebate than the normal cost increasing. The rebate was becoming completely indefensible. We should have been paying more. We also get most of it back through various spending programs.

It is interesting London and the home counties have turned into THE shopping trip for Europeans. They have stopped travelling to Prague, Warsaw or Russia and are now travelling to the UK for cheap shopping.

A complete bummer, my savings and pension in the UK are now worth about 45% less than a couple of years ago.

Hardly. Over the period 2007 to 2013, Open Europe estimates the UK will contribute 103 billion euros, yet receive only 46 billion back in subsidies. Most of the money is going to the former East European countries, who are getting 4 or 5 times more than they contribute.

The whole point of the rebate is that we pay out a lot more than we get in for the size of our economy. Given that we dont get nearly as much back esp in CAP spending they had to find another way of balancing the books and giving us a rebate is the simplest way

OK, hand back the money you gain by being in the EU first. I assure you Britain gets more out of being a member than it costs.

Also, please waive your right to unrestricted travel across Europe.

Er yeah, because they're poorer than we are by a country mile. Pray tell why the poorer countries should be subsidising us?

You are forgetting to include the indirect benefits of being a member - i.e. increased trade, tax revenue etc. Without the EU, British businesses would not have been able to push into Eastern Europe like they have.

Ooh go on, I'd love to see that proved. A casual forum poster succeeding where the best economists and lawyers in Europe has failed, that would be quite something. You do realise the EU hasn't actually posted accounts worth a damn for about a decade, so nobody in fact has a clue where large chunks of it's money goes anyway? And that's without even considering invisible and reciprocal transactions and the purely hypothetical nature of predicting trade levels were we to be outside the EU at some point in the future.

Not that I'm anti-EU, I'm not, however the very idea that you can say that with any assurance given the antediluvian nature of EU finances is quite something.


Don't remember having any particular problems traveling in Europe before TBH. It's quite nice if you live in the Alps, but I've always had to show my passport at some point when traveling in the EU anyway regardless. The Euro is a useful thing, no doubt about that but the 'freedom of travel' was a solution to something that wasn't actually a problem anyway.
You'd have a better angle if you consider 'freedom of movement' in terms of being able to live or work anywhere in the EU but even then you could do it if you actually wanted to.

Jon

There's a report by HM Treasury hanging around somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.



Actually, if you look into the accounts you'll realise it's not the EU's fault. Until recently, Member States were responsible for accounting for how they spent the money, and many did not have rigorous auditing methods in place. Thus the EU's accounts didn't get signed off, because the Member States didn't properly account for the money they spent.



Sure, but to be outside the EU, we can't trade with countries within in the EU without paying a massive fee - probably larger than the one we pay for being a member. On top of that, all the goods we shipped into the EU would have to conform to EU regulations anyway. So in effect we'd be paying still, but would no longer have a say over the regulations themselves.

Also businesses will face a shortage of staff as all the East Europeans and Irish have to leave. Many businesses like the fact that they can employ lots of East europeans rather than have to pay higher wage rates to employ locals.

Whose 'fault' it is is kind of irrelevant. if I/you/we/they can't account properly for all the money the EU gets in, how can anybody say where it all goes out? Therefore to suggest we gain from being an EU member may be in fact true but it's not in any sense certain. And therefore to say so with certainty seems.. foolhardy.


'probably'?


Whoever we sold our goods to would require some level of conformity to a standard, that's a sunk cost of any export. It's not as if the EU's standards are particularly more rigorous than say the US's for example. There are several countries who trade heavily with the EU without being a member of the EU. It's patently possible to do so.

I actually have no problem with us being in the EU and I even have no problem with the UK and France and Germany (for example) being net contributors with the poorer nations being net receivers - the rich should help the poor, that seems to be something that's generally accepted by all societies. But you present a picture that's far more black & white than the actual reality and a rational conclusion as to whether we're better off in or out of the EU is a vastly complex issue which is frankly more than most people's skills to assess.

Jon

Weren't we in the position, a few years back, of taking out more than we put in?

What goes around comes around.

Nope - we have always paid in more than we have taken out - partly due to the french / germans shafting us when we applied to join

yes but we were too shorted sighted to join when it was being set up. A cost that we might have to bear for another generation. Because our government is so skeptical why should the EU listen to us?