UK contributions to Brussels QUADRUPLE to £11.3bn

deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Mail wrote:

UK contributions to Brussels QUADRUPLE to £11.3bn... even before the EU's latest demand for another £1.7bn is counted

*UK handed over £11.3billion in 2013 up from £2.7billion in 2008, says ONS
*Figure even more than Treasury forecast of £8.6billion published yesterday
*Biggest cause of rise was Tony Blair sacrificing part of EU rebate
*Margaret Thatcher secured rebate in 1984 by banging on the table
*Comes as Brussels demands an extra £1.7billion by December 1
*Sharp rise in support for leaving the EU after row over shock bill

Britain's contributions to the EU have quadrupled to £11.3 billion in just five years, official figures revealed this morning.

It means each family in the UK now sends £450 a year to Brussels on average – up £350 from the £100 bill in 2008 – according to the Office for National Statistics figures.

The soaring bill comes before the latest demand for an extra £1.7billion, which David Cameron has refused to pay by the December 1 deadline.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815820/UK-contributions-Brussels-QUADRUPLE-11-3bn-EU-s-latest-demand-1-7bn-counted.html#ixzz3Hjpa86rk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It looks like we will become the top contributor of money to the EU sooner or later.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/weighting_votes_council_en.htm
Europa wrote:

Weighting of votes in the Council

Qualified majority voting in the Council of the European Union is based on the principle of the weighting of votes. Under the current weighting system, the Member States with the largest populations have 27-29 votes, the medium-sized countries have 7-14 votes and the small countries 3 or 4 votes. A decision requires at least 255 out of 345 votes to be adopted.

The weighting arrangements are the result of a compromise between Member States that, although equal in law, differ in various respects. The number of votes allocated to a Member State is determined by the size of its population, with an adjustment that leads to relative over-representation of the countries with small populations.

Maybe voting weight should depend on payments not just population.
Mail wrote:

A major cause has been Tony Blair's decision to agree to a 7 per cut in the rebate during negotiations on the last seven-year budget deal. It cost Britain £7billion over seven years.

Margaret Thatcher famously secured the rebate in 1984 by banging the table and demanding 'our own money back' during a summit with European leaders in Fontainebleau, in France.

However, the rebate has fallen from £5.4billion in 2009 to only £3.7billion in 2013.

Ukip leader Nigel Farage told MailOnline: 'Thank you Mr Blair for sacrificing a large chunk of the British rebate in return for absolutely nothing.

'Much of the money that has come back to Britain has been used to make rich landowners richer (through the Common Agriculture Policy).

Knew Tony Blair would be mixed up in this somehow.

Comments

  • warlordwarlord Posts: 3,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What are we getting in exchange? What does it pay for, this fee that is bigger than the entire Home Office budget, big enough to build and host another Olympic Games every year? Well, it makes us members of the only trade bloc on the planet that is not experiencing any economic growth. We are sundered from our natural markets, especially in other English-speaking and common-law countries, and forced by EU rules artificially to redirect our commerce to the only continent on Earth that is in economic decline.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100289749/the-eu-has-just-given-us-another-1-7-billion-reasons-to-leave/
  • WhiteFangWhiteFang Posts: 3,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just hand it over and pretend to act tough....Scandalous >:(
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe we should send Tony Blair a bill, he's got loads of cash and it was sort of his fault.
  • sandstonesandstone Posts: 1,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do they want to keep expanding the EU, it seems to me the bigger the nest the more mouths we have to feed.
  • WhiteFangWhiteFang Posts: 3,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    By the time Albania and others join, the UK will be getting yearly bills for 25 billion or more.Its becoming like the old centralised USSR and trying to create some utopia where borders and wealth are the same everywhere.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WhiteFang wrote: »
    By the time Albania and others join, the UK will be getting yearly bills for 25 billion or more.

    Which should make life easier-

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/05/22/leaving-the-european-union-would-likely-have-a-significant-negative-economic-impact-on-the-uks-economy/

    Taking account of all these effects, we find that Brexit would decrease UK income by 1.13 per cent in the optimistic case and 3.09 per cent in the pessimistic case. Thus, the costs of lower trade far outweigh the fiscal savings. Most of the impact comes from changes in non-tariff barriers, which are particularly important in services where the UK is a major exporter. In cash terms, the loss is £50 billion in the pessimistic scenario and a still substantial £18 billion in the optimistic one.

    So we run the numbers and as the costs to stay approach the cost to leave, the correct decision should become obvious even to politicians. Along the way, we'd also need to include the cost of compliance with the latest EU Diktats.. I mean Directives, including opportunity costs. Other European countries seem to thrive and trade with the EU without paying the billions in membership dues.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It seems obvious that the net benefit to the UK from membership is approaching zero.

    Nice for the dirt-poor nations, but the benefit to the UK seems not to be there that much. If at all.

    Also we know how commerce works, nations just love to trade with the UK, the idea that that would change is nonsense.
  • swingalegswingaleg Posts: 102,981
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Just been watching This Week on the repeat showing on the Parliament Channel and was a bit surprised to see Michael Portillo making the case for increasing the UK Contribution to the EU

    His argument ran something like this.....

    It's in our interests for the more developed countries in the EU to contribute more so that more funds are available to improve the economic infrastructure of the poorer countries........this in turn will lead to more prosperity and economic growth which will benefit British companies and it will also take away the attraction of people from the poorer countries wanting to move to the richer countries

    Sounds like a socialist !
  • AndyCopenAndyCopen Posts: 2,213
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes let's give that poor undeveloped country Germany a few hundered million
  • trunkstertrunkster Posts: 14,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    swingaleg wrote: »
    Just been watching This Week on the repeat showing on the Parliament Channel and was a bit surprised to see Michael Portillo making the case for increasing the UK Contribution to the EU

    His argument ran something like this.....

    It's in our interests for the more developed countries in the EU to contribute more so that more funds are available to improve the economic infrastructure of the poorer countries........this in turn will lead to more prosperity and economic growth which will benefit British companies and it will also take away the attraction of people from the poorer countries wanting to move to the richer countries

    Sounds like a socialist !

    Or rather the evil capitalist west should pay for the failed socialist/communist experiment 1945-1990.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sandstone wrote: »
    Why do they want to keep expanding the EU, it seems to me the bigger the nest the more mouths we have to feed.

    Because they eventually want a USofE and want it as large as possible, the majority of countries that could join from now on are poorer ones so will only cost us more and more and make it more of a bureaucratic unaccountable nightmare than it is already, which suits those with their snouts in the trough.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How much can be attributed to devaluation of the pound?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trunkster wrote: »
    Or rather the evil capitalist west should pay for the failed socialist/communist experiment 1945-1990.
    "I'm sorry, but it was your dad had a referendum and decided to pull out, so why should we pay for the failed isolationist experiment 2016-2020, Mr Farage"
  • rjb101rjb101 Posts: 2,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sandstone wrote: »
    Why do they want to keep expanding the EU, it seems to me the bigger the nest the more mouths we have to feed.

    British policy, The idea is to water down German and French influence.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    Also we know how commerce works, nations just love to trade with the UK, the idea that that would change is nonsense.

    It could even make it easier. Bananas could go back to being plain'ol bananas rather than having to be EU-standard. Carrots could go back to being veg instead of fruit.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Eventually the EU will be to the UK as London is to the "regions" (of the UK)

    Sucking the life and cash out of member states is the future of the EU.
  • Fappy_McFapperFappy_McFapper Posts: 1,302
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "I'm sorry, but it was your dad had a referendum and decided to pull out, so why should we pay for the failed isolationist experiment 2016-2020, Mr Farage"

    No, no, no Farage would still find a way to blame Johnny Foreigner.
  • Camp FreddieCamp Freddie Posts: 1,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But consider the benefits. Uncontrolled immigration from EU member states, thousands of illegal immigrants knocking at the UK`s door over in Calais, thanks to EU borders that leak like a sieve and the ECHR to back up their claim to asylum. Add to that mobile phone roaming rates ! Cheap at twice the price. Value like that even puts Peter Andre and his Iceland offers to shame. :D
  • vauxhall1964vauxhall1964 Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But consider the benefits. Uncontrolled immigration from EU member states, thousands of illegal immigrants knocking at the UK`s door over in Calais, thanks to EU borders that leak like a sieve and the ECHR to back up their claim to asylum. Add to that mobile phone roaming rates ! Cheap at twice the price. Value like that even puts Peter Andre and his Iceland offers to shame. :D

    you're deluded if you think leaving the EU will make our immigration problem go away. The scenes in Calais would still be going on...those people want to get to Britain not an EU country (as they've been through several EU members to reach France). Britain outside the EU will be just as attractive a destination - most of our immigration has come from outside the EU anyway.

    As for roaming rates it's the EU trying to scrap them
Sign In or Register to comment.