No Polly, no

Myth says we pay the EU £6bn – but never counts the sums returned.

The £6 billion (actually, rather more now) is the net contribution. That is, we take the amount we send over the Channel, deduct the amount we get back and find that our pockets, collectively, are lighter by £6 billion (and rising).

11 thoughts on “No Polly, no”

  1. That was easily one of her worst articles.
    “Mouth-foaming eye-swillevers abounded in today’s debate” is the phrase she uses those who support withdrawal from the EU. It is also probably the phrase she used to describe people who didn’t want to join the euro, which she apologizes for, in the same article.

  2. Proof that nepotism creates incompetent staff.
    If she had not got her career due to connections she would have checked her facts better.

  3. It is instructive to read what she sees as EU weaknesses:

    …….The other genuine problem with the EU was the premature and unplanned free movement of labour before countries grew more equal in wealth and opportunity………

    Surely the whole point of equal movement was the very inequality between member states. Not allowing a surplus of labour to go where it can be utilised would hardly speed up the development of anywhere.

  4. So that’s a hundred quid or so per resident. Even if you regard the whole thing as nothing more than a protection racket, it’s pretty cheap as rackets go. Certainly a trivial sum compared to the cost of our national government.

    That’s not to deny we have a built-in conflict between our desire to get the thing as good as possible as cheaply as possible, and the eurocrats desire to have an ever-increasing budget for first class junkets.

  5. JamesV, the £6bn (the latest I’ve seen it’s nearly £8bn now) is only the direct cost.

    Other potential costs include:

    – The rest of the gross contribution (yes, it’s spent in the UK, but is it spent on anything that we value?);

    – the cost of EU regulation, including the costs of compliance, administration and enforcement (query whether it would be any lower under a purely UK system);

    – higher food prices under the CAP;

    – Euro bailout costs;

    – Brussels lobbying costs;

    – lack of innovation due to Brussels regulations (query whether that would be any better under a purely UK system);

    – indirect losses because our useless politicians can blame Brussels for our problems rather than doing something about them.

  6. I’d have thought people would at least like the free trade bit. I certainly do. Out of the EU the UK would still have to comply with all the more or less daft regulation for trade purposes, but would have no influence on it.

    I don’t think Britain makes enough of its influence in the EU. Not helped by the sending of never-weres (Patten, Kinnock, Britten, Mandelson et al) to the commission where other countries tend at least to send has-beens.

  7. JamesV said: “I’d have thought people would at least like the free trade bit. I certainly do. Out of the EU the UK would still have to comply with all the more or less daft regulation for trade purposes, but would have no influence on it.”

    As do any other trading partners looking to sell to the EU. It doesn’t stop them so why would it stop us, plus you only have to meet those regulations with the relatively small amount of exports to that market and not for internal consumption and exports to other markets.

    We could enjoy free trade with the entire globe if we were outside the EU.

  8. Free Trade? Try buying cigarette outside of britain and bringing them back home, or ordering them from abroad.

  9. As Gareth says, 80% of UK trade is with the UK and another 10% is external to Europe. So why do we need a regulation that spans all that trade when it’s only needed for the 10% going into the continent?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *