one of the arguments for brexit was the cost of the extra layer of representation, some might call it bureaucracy, payed for via taxes, the EU went a long way towards redistributing wealth via lobbying and representation. i live in an area which has benefited by that extra layer of representation. now its been taken away, now they're going after Hollyrood and the Welsh assembly. another layer of representation under the "guise" of efficiency to save a few pounds.
erm nope it was by turning from a trade association into a united states of europe, it was self creating itself in a way to take more from the largest contributors, funds that are desperatly needed in house so to speak. The extra layer would suggest your home grown layer wasn't upto the job and you needed the eu ? No longer needed would be more appropriate and not forgetting through a nationwide democratic vote which all parties took part in, in the hope their side would win. Any proof of that?
Everybody benefits from having money circulating around the economy, including poor people. If there is a reduction in the velocity of circulation (as happened e.g. in the worldwide financial crisis of 2008) this harms everyone in the economy and perhaps the poor most of all.
If you pay money into a bank account, do you think it just sits there doing nothing? Really? Has it not occurred to you that the bank immediately lends that money, and more besides, to companies, individuals, institutions, and governments? And that those borrowers use the money for other purposes in turn? And pay interest which goes back to the lenders? A bundle of banknotes under your bed is not in circulation in the economy; but money in the bank is.
Up to a point. Total funds passing through EU institutions have always been capped at 1% of GDP. Which means, for the mathematically challenged, that 99% of GDP of all 28 EU member states never goes to the EU. That 1% is then paid out again, most of it back to the same countries from which it came. A small proportion is redistributed to various industrial and agricultural sectors, regions in need of development, and infrastructure investments. A microscopically small amount is spent of "bureaucracy", rather less than would have been spent on diplomatic relations if the EU had never existed. The effects of the EU on redistribution of wealth have been virtually negligible - that is a matter for member states.
Indeed, that's part of the story. But you should realise that it is not possible for every trading nation to have a trade surplus. Over the whole world surpluses and deficits have to balance out, as a simple matter of accounting. At various times in history UK has run huge trade surpluses but this too eventually becomes unsustainable. To put it simply, you can only sell stuff to countries which have money to pay for it. At other times in history, the UK has run huge trade deficits. At present, services in surplus but goods are in (larger) deficit. The present situation is not catastrophic, but it is worrying. The government ought to have a policy designed to bring the account closer to balance - but sadly it doesn't, being distracted by other obsessions.
That is not true. There is no proposal to increase contributions above the 1% which has applied for many years.
There have been nationwide democratic votes every five years since 1979, so eight democratic elections so far, to the European Parliament. All parties take part in those democratic nationwide votes, in the hope their side would win seats. Now those democratic elections and representatives are to be taken away, the UK is to lose its representation, and all UK citizens are to be deprived of that layer of democratic rights without any option. If you personally choose to abstain from voting in elections, that is entirely up to you and no blame attaches. But why are you so obsessively keen on depriving me (and millions of others) of our democratic right to vote? Why are you so gleeful about our loss of rights? Is it that you are particularly opposed to democratic rights, so that their abolition does not trouble you?
I'm afraid it is true Pete. You say 1% because that is what you are told when thinking binary. Every year since it's inception there has been increases, where they have hoodwinked many is that when they say they need a 1% of their current budget as an increase, every year a new department, project etc happens so the eu increases so the 1% start cost would be quite minimal, now 1% of the eu costings by today's united states of europe would be vastly greater being. Every new year they have a new department they will set up new funds then when the increases come it is that new departments running cost plus 1% You also have the non direct costs. Each country will be given an expected financial outline, if a country does far better that the forecast, the eu has it in legislation that they can go to those countries and demand a greater additional contribution. The U.K. particularly has been caught out a few times on this This will help you to understand the difference between direct percentage budgets and addition revenue streams from other procedures by the eu to gain additional funds In effect it's like a builder giving you a quote, then doing that sharp extra sucking of gums before they have an additional costing under extras which were real costs all along but hidden to keep the original costs "looking lower" https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget-european-union
Sorry Pete you just sound like a whinging pom. All elections will have one side that will push one side and not another, in it's simplest forms you couls say labour will always spend other peoples money and the torys will get it back. You, like me and anyone else that votes makes your choices knowing only one side can win Why would we need representation to a body we would no longer belong too? Bless you Pete, it really is all about you isn't it. whether you abstain, voted for or against, you exercised your democratic right but whatever you decided only one outcome will succeed as that is and has been the democratic way of democratic elections, ALL SIDES know this, did you not? I personally am not depriving you of anything, the democratic vote had two directions, we are following the democratic direction of the vote that one. Your right to vote still remains, although if the eu had had their way the right to vote would have not been allowed and that is the side you chose? no wonder you get confused. I wonder if you saw Macrons interview recently where he said if France was allowed a vote (allowed in a democracy) He thought the French people vote vote out too. The majority do not see a loss of rights but more gaining more say over the country we live in, rights we have been through decades of building but slowly being eroded by the eu. Pete you are a classicist, a classic example of democracy only exists as long as your side wins
Coming out with a load of tendentious waffle is easy. Let's nail it down to some real life figures instead. The total annual GDP of the 28 EU member states is about Euros 15 Trillion . The total annual expenditure budget of the EU is about Euros 142 Billion. I make this 1% . If you think it is anything else, what figures are you using?
Maybe you missed the in my post which may have hinted at some sarcasm. Has it not occurred to you that whilst we are not all educated to your high and mighty level, that does not mean we are all fiscally and mentally challenged. I appreciate (sometimes) an genuinely enlightening post by you, especially if done with tact and fact. Not just opinion. Condescending posts less so. Maybe its just the way they read.. Genuine question though, you overlooked the 'offshore part'. If UK sourced money is being deposited in offshore bank accounts and investments etc., then that money may well be in circulation via re investment..somewhere. But maybe not in the UK. So that could be a problem for the amount of money actually in circulation in the UK economy?
I (along with many millions of other citizens) have voted in eight democratic elections since 1979 for the European Parliament. Sometimes the side I voted for did well, at other times less well - but that is beside the point. It is the right to vote for our representatives which is precious and valuable. I looked forward to exercising the right to vote again in future elections, like every other citizen. That democratic right is, apparently, to be taken away without any option. It appears we shall be deprived of the right to vote in future EP elections. This is a loss of rights for all of us and a serious erosion of democracy. That fact is blindingly obvious to everyone. If you personally are careless about the loss of your own rights, well that is your weakness and your misfortune. My point was to question why you chose to post so vindictively and gleefully about other peoples' worries upon losing democratic rights which are precious to them. From your responses, you seem incapable of any kind of understanding, empathy, or regret for the losses or worries of others. And that again is your misfortune.
Pete if your side had won, you would be yayyyy democracy will out. Only one side can win and it wasn't yours so now to you and your ilk, democracy is boooo democracy stinks. It can't be seen as any other way. it's like going to the bookies and asking for a re run because your preferred horse lost. If you looked at the eu in regards to democracy you will see it is one of the least democratic organisations ever in place. your fooling self chap. Do you want a safe space?
The IFS report you linked to starts off: "Total spending by the EU in 2014 across all 28 member states was €142 billion, or just over 1% of the Gross National Income (GNI) of the whole EU." So if you disagree with 1%, what percentage do you think it is, and where do you get your figures from?
Pete you're not stupid, it's there in the figures it shows you the declared 1% and how the additional funds are gained so year on year if the eu only recieved just the 1%, it would fold. all there in the info I supplied with one simple link Sorry Pete I can't help you if your struggling but it is there clear as day. Perhaps you take some time to actually read it?
Whilst your reading I'll give you some other goodness People such as yourself and the project fear idiots continually kept/keep saying why would we turn our back on 550 million consumers? truth is, we haven't and don't intend too. Even allowing for the dodgy sums of including Turkey which is not an eu country so the real figure is 508 million, we will continue to trade with europe as they will with us. It is only under what terms it will be, a clear run with 0% tariff or a tit for tatt customs levy Now, what barnier and junker are cacking their pants about is in the true spirit of Britishness we have started to plan ahead.They are worried that the commonwealth could move from a historical organisation into a trade organisation, a trade organisation of 2.3 billion, stick that in your pipe jean claude but even more worrying is that many commonwealth countries have individual deals with the eu, now imagine if the commonwealth becomes a trade body and renegotiates all deals to get a huge big discount for all members. Imagine the unites states of europe being smaller than the commonwealth trade body and the ego's in the eu that would fall The other part also is that many African countries face incredibly high tariffs when selling to the eu, in effect keeping them in poverty rather than allowing them to stand on their own two feet. Imagine a commonwealth trade body dictating to the eu give our 2.3 billion members a good deal or your 505 million will get the same shitty deal you are offering us. Imagine the poorest nations having some of the strongest nations as their allies in a way that would allow third world poverty to reduce.
finm said: ↑ now its been taken away, No longer needed would be more appropriate and not forgetting through a nationwide democratic vote which all parties took part in, in the hope their side would win. in which case i guess the brexiters in full knowledge of all the facts where happy to risk a shrinking of the economy, less democracy, not more, massive swings left and right, i fear a lot more right before the pendulum swings at Westminster, a looming constitutional crisis, for the city, a lingering one would be best etc etc in the event of securing an out vote, you think you won. i think you have lost it. i think of at least 1,6bill that wont be overly unhappy with that, and many more up for being persuaded . finm said: ↑ now they're going after Hollyrood and the Welsh assembly. another layer of representation under the "guise" of efficiency to save a few pounds. Any proof of that? plenty, and i am sure the forum massive would agree with the BBC, Daily Record and so on when they said it was/is to dull to report. and yip plenty proof of that also. i think the rest was covered by yer man so, there you go. dude, i aint gonna be bettering this back and forth, but fire away.
