The gross amount is 1% of GDP. Most of that money comes straight back, so the net amount is not far off 1% of UK government expenditure. So the other 99% (just to spell it out) has nothing to do with the EU.
Couldn't care less if they paid us. Funding either way is utterly irrelevant. I don't want to live under laws and regulations imposed on me by a quasi European single state administered without democratic mandate by people in an overseas quango whom I cannot vote from office. I want to live under Parliamentary democracy in a sovereign and self-contained nation with secure borders. Whether the annual subscription for living under European imperial rule costs tuppenny ha'penny here or threepence ha'penny there is of no interest whatsoever. I don't want it anyway. That is why I voted leave and would always vote leave until my dying day.
And do you think this Govt would really do that? They seem more interested in paying their wealthy mates more money.
The world and Countries and borders have always evolved and changed to suit the times they are in. That will always be the case.
"A new poll alleging an 11-point lead for ‘Remain’ campaigners if a Brexit referendum were held today is being intentionally used to deceive the British public over the sentiment of their fellow countrymen, with the latest data burying the fact that the “gains” in the Remain column are made up of 2016 referendum non-voters. The hard-left, anti-Brexit website the Independent commissioned the BMG poll, which has been thoughtlessly re-reported across the UK media. But what the news articles either do not say, or bury towards the end of their copy, is that the polling is scarcely reflective of the vote that constituted the 2016 referendum result, and has to include likely non-voters in order to come to its conclusions. The Independent reported this weekend: The British public has swung behind staying in the EU by its largest margin since the referendum, with those backing Remain outstripping Leavers by 11 points, a new poll has revealed. But the full breakdown of results includes commentary by BMG’s Head of Polling Michael Turner, who revealed THREE major areas in which the reports on the polling have been intentionally misleading: Turner admitted: “Readers should also be aware that when we dig a little deeper into the data, it reveals that this shift has come predominantly from those who did not actually vote in the 2016 Referendum. Around nine in ten Leave and Remain voters say they are still unchanged in their view on whether to leave or remain”. He also stated: “It is also worth noting that the fieldwork for this poll was conducted when much was being made in the public press about the UK’s failure to progress to the next stage of the Brexit negotiations. It is plausible therefore, that the latest polling is to some degree a reflection of what could be considered the height of tensions between the UK and EU negotiating teams, as well as public concerns over the Irish border, which included interventions from the Irish government and the DUP.” Finally, the pollster was forced to add a clarification on their website following the Independent’s misleading report. BMG noted: “Readers should note that this poll does not mean that the British public think that the decision to leave the EU should be reversed. Nor does it indicate strong support for another referendum. In fact polling shows that there is very little support for having a second referendum”. The pollster used a methodology which included attempting to elicit “squeeze responses” out of those polled, meaning they were pressed to give an answer when initially they may have been reluctant. In polling, this is regarded as a way of getting a better answer from non-engaged or non-voters, but it also is criticised because many people will give answers just to get the pollster off the phone, or to breeze through an online survey. In 1992, those who could not be squeezed — i.e. did not answer and were not factored into the final results — were found to lean more towards conservative (i.e. pro-Brexit in this scenario) viewpoints. It isn’t the first time polls have been used as campaigning tools, as I have previously reported at length". http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...rexit-remainers-now-11-point-lead-leave-dont/
Some hard truths for the brainwashed or devious to consider regards a 'united' Europe: https://international-adviser.com/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-tax-avoidance/ https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-defends-open-border-migration-refugee-policy-germany/ https://www.politico.eu/article/juncker-on-the-defensive-over-luxembourg-tax-scheme/ The above articles are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg but do show the lie of the notion of a united europe. How can it be a united europe when one country can act alone and all the other countries have to deal with the consequences of that action without having any input to the original decision? Clue: It can't.
Why do you call the membership of the EU illegal. Are you saying we didn’t vote to join a body which was heading towards being a United States Of Europe. In 1972 the then Prime Minster Edward Heath said: “The community which we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the true sense of that term. It is concerned not only with the establishment of free trade, economic and monetary union and other major economic issues, important though these are — but also as the Paris Summit Meeting has demonstrated, with social issues which affect us all — environmental questions, working conditions in industry, consumer protection, aid to development areas and vocational training.” Source: Illustrated London News. Prime Minister Edward Heath, December 1972 Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t need want to keep England and Wales in the EU, she wants the same deal the north of Ireland has
So your point is that people living in Scotland would spend £6 on petrol to go to Asda in Carlisle to save 30p or whatever on the price of a bottle of diamond white, instead of staying home and paying the same price for their bottle of Grouse or Lagavulin. Is that your point?
Not all people silly, only the snp financial minister would see long trips as acceptable. I doubt those in the market for a 2 litre bottle of white diamond are those in the same market as those seeking Lagavulin.
Since when did people in Scotland only drink one bottle of grog? There's quite saving to be made based on consumption.
It doesn’t affect the price of Lagavulin. It affects the price of only a very few products such as super strength ciders. Clearly you don’t Understand how it works
I understand how Scots work, which is usually on superstrengh lager / cider. You've been hoisted by your own petard.
Good to see 749er you are typical of the whole world revolves around Scotland, even more so as this is a brexit thread. Perhaps you needed to go to this thread where those with a more open mind explain the drink situation, you may struggle with open mind situations but if you ask nicely some will help https://www.ducatiforum.co.uk/threads/scotlands-booze-cruise.55817/
