£1.7million. What are we actually paying for?

[3littlefrogs]

Please can someone explain what this bill is for?
Goods?
Services?
I genuinely don't know, so would be grateful if someone better informed could explain.
Thanks

You are right Piglet John, the UK is free to make a democratic decision to leave the EU.

It also seems that Germany, in particular, is now drawing lines in the sand in terms of what it will agree to to keep the UK in.

UK in particular, and not for the first time, has been drawing lines and making demands on all the other members, and threatening to go home in a sulk unless it gets its way.

It is surely no surprise that an anti-Union politician gets reminded that he can leave if his citizens want to.

I agree, the UK can only threaten to leave so often before another EU country/countries call its bluff.

It's not up to Germany to "keep us in" or out. The EU comprises 2 members and none has the right go decided whether a fellow member is kept in or not. This is not Chancellor Merkel's private club.

The anti EU voice is stronger because people are starting to realise that what they have been dismissing as unfounded actually is true and that the UK pays dearly to shackle itself yo the corpse if a failing trading nation that limits our ability to trade with the rest of the world and the emerging markets in Asia.

The EU is dying. It's only contributions from countries such as the UKIP that is keeping it limping along. I cannot understand why we pay billions to it every year for the pleasure of restricting our trading ability.

It's not up to Germany to "keep us in" or out

Correct, it's not. We're the ones threatening to take our ball home if we dont get our own way. And Germany have just said "if that's what you want to do then fine!"

We pay billions into the EU budgets but it's not wasted money. In return we get open access to 27 other nations economies with no trading restrictions. Look at it like a membership fee. The real question is if this fee is worth it.

Arguably it is because it's accepted by all business leaders that we get many more billions of pounds worth of trade in return.

Economically staying in the EU makes total sense. Politically it's become unpalatable. But that's mainly down to parties like UKIP who have been able to milk the ignorance of your typical "Britain first" voter and turn it into the acceptable face of politics.

The EU was set up for and mainatins the goal of "ever closer union".

The ultimate aim of the EU is full poltical union.

The Uk therefor e has a choice of

a) stay in the EU and accept that we must cede sovereignty to the EU and become poltically subsumed into an amorphous legal entity called "Europe".

We would eventually have to move to the Euro. There would be no justification for France and the UK to both have permament seas in the UN Security Council so I would expect both countries seats to be replaced by one for 'Europe'. I would also expect our individual NATO memeberships to be merged into a 'Europe' membership, or the EU member states could form a European Defence Force.

Therefore, by staying with the EU as it marches on towards full political union our position in the world is weakened, while the smaller countries of the EU gain a significance on the world stage that they could only dream of via their EU membership.

b) exit the EU. Establish lucrative trading relations with the emerging Asian and Pacifc markets. Retain the pound. Retain our armed forces, NATO membership, Un Security Concil seat, unshackle ourselves from the the burden of propping up failed EU members.

Why is putting 'Britain first' so unpaltable?

Its exactly what our fellow EU members do - put their countries first.

You may not be old enough to remember the Buy Britaish' campaign of the 70s. Nobody suggested that supporting your country wa wrong at that time. Why does modern day politics ridicule people who actually have pride in their country?

The EU is just a form of socialism bording on communism whereby those successful nations share their wealth with underperforming nations. Those nations have no reason to increase their performance, because the hardworking get shafterd with bills and the underperforming get the money anyway. Hence a Greek hairdresser can retire from their dangerious profession on full state pension at age 45 and the French can work a 35 hour week. Why should we work ourselves silly in this country to improve our ecomony so we can pay billions over to the EU to prop up the absolutely insane CAP or the Common Fisheries policy?

But the truth is always kept fromm the general public who frankly couldn't give a stuff anyway as long as Corrie and Esatenders are on every night. But the big lie that we must stay in to be better off / retain our place in the world etc etc is starting to unravel as people start to realise just how much of this country's wealth is being squandered by an unelected EU Commission. Its nothing to do wth immigration, its everything to do with sovereignty and the ability to govern ourselves, trade with whom we wish to, set the taxes we want to, admit or refuse entry to those we want or dont want, make our own laws and have the ability to vote out those people we no longer want in office.

And there are plenty of people who think our EU membership does us no favours/ Tony Benn was on. Another is Nigel Lawson, who probably understands the issues rather better than some of the noisy Europhilles, such as Ken Clark, who admitted that while he was Chancellor he didn't bother reading the Maastricht Treaty.

When you don't read the small print you shouldnt be surprised when you get hit with bills for 1.7billion.

It's not up to Germany to "keep us in" or out

Maybe not BEFORE the late 2007 financial crash, but when you look at the figures below, you'll see just how much GERMAN taxpayers are now ‘in for’, and might explain why Merkel’s patience with the UK complaining about the ability of cheap labour to move from country to next, is wearing thin.

So at a time of EU economic stagnation expected for years ahead, 11% unemployment more likely to rise than fall, inflation/prices still falling and approaching Deflation (where businesses invest/hire less and consumers expecting lower prices wait to spend) – Germany is on ‘the hook’ should we get more global financial/economic ‘shocks’ and member nations struggle, or even default.

“Debt crisis has left Germany vulnerable”
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/07434b7e-3a54-11e3-b234-00144feab7de.html#axzz3I6VJxT50

“Germany remains dependent on its neighbours, with 69 per cent of total exports going to European countries, including 57 per cent to the member states of the European Union.”

“German guarantees supporting the existing bailout fund are €211bn. The ESM will require a capital contribution from Germany. If the ESM lends its full commitment of €500bn and the recipients default, Germany’s liability could be as high as €280bn. There is also indirect exposure via the ECB and the Target 2 claims.”

“At best, increased commitments to support its European partners will absorb German savings, crippling the economy. At worst, default of one of the weaker countries or a restructuring of the euro will result in large losses to Germany; the best estimates are in the range of €750bn to €1,500bn.”

The European block is the only global trading block contracting, and the problem has been that EU members sleep walked into global trading complacency; in 2010 the UK was doing more trade with Ireland, than the combined 2.4 billion people in Brazil, Russia, India and China – which is for a trading nation like us, a national disgrace.

But Labour does not understand business growth, and stayed in their comfort zone, growing the State and State employment, not worried how it would be funded when any economic pooh flew..

The UK needs to know the facts of our EU membership, why apparently ‘we’ll lose 3 million jobs if we leave’, why we ‘will be better off’ – and that can ONLY happen if the UK has an EU Referendum, and both sides put their QUALIFIED facts forward, for scrutiny by brighter people than me.

I didn't say that Germany could decide to keep the UK in or out of the EU. What I said was that it seems the UK can only make so many demands for things to change, under the threat of leaving the EU if they don't, before it becomes likely that other EU countries will take the approach of 'alright then off you go'.

And there is the key problem of the EU, as take away catchy soundbites like 'no more European World Wars', it cannot look inside itself, see what the project has morphed into, and that it is not working for the EU CITIZENS - and therefore NEEDS to consider changes.

The UK over the past 30-odd years have made various reforms that some of the larger countries know they need to make, but won't e.g. employment laws where EU companies can't risk hiring in case a recovery isn't sustainable.

What we ask for is mainly good, efficient, productive governance, useful when competing in global markets - but rarely get it, so who's the dumb-koft, us for asking, or them for refusing?

"Off you go then" should not be seen as a problem for us IF they don't change/reform - and via a Referendum our membership as is will be democratically approved, or cancelled - sorted.

The EU can clearly SEE the UK has a competitive advantage to the EU block, but clearly can't work out why under the current pro business administration, the UK is growing at a decent clip, while the EU is flatlining.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/u-k-growth-forecasts-raised-by-european-commission-on-spending.html

But 'it' doesn't think it needs need to reform/change. D'uh.

Have the auditors signed off the EU accounts yet?
Thought not.
Who would continue to bankroll invest in an enterprise so corrupt that the auditors refuse to sign the accounts?

DontGoToRoehampton there is a post further back in this discussion that points out that the auditors not signing off on the EU accounts claim is wrong, though it is often rolled out by anti-EU parties.

Apparently we will all be receiving a letter form |HMRC telling us how our income taxes (ie tax and NI) are allocated for spending.
Will be interesting so see how much is for the EU.

Mitch Feierstein's blog, Planet Ponzi is well worth a read. A couple of weeks ago he was interviewed on tv and said the UK should pull out of Europe otherwise we'll be saddled with paying for the European banks when they fail, as Germany won't allow the ECB to bail them out with unlimited QE, as they remember what happened last time.

Found this on the EU Budget website

A Tax Freedom Day comparison is telling. This is the amount of time during the year that people have to work to pay their total tax burden. In most EU countries, citizens have to work well into the spring and summer until they have paid their contribution. In contrast, the average EU citizen has to work only 4 days to cover his or her contribution to the EU budget.

These are the words of Jean Monnet (1888-1979), a French politician and the chief architect of European integration. He was one of the founders of the EU.

I find his words very chilling:

Europes nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.

Schoolhouse

I'd take a large pinch of salt with anything I read on the EU's own propoganda website.

HMRC what your tax is spent on

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11204213/Voters-to-get-letters-showing-how-much-of-their-money-is-spent-on-benefits.html

You should bear in mind that these figures were pre the 1.7 billion demand which raises our daily contribution from 55Million to 66 million. The MHRC is also a headline figure that does not include, for instance, the cost to public services and business of implementing all the EU directives.

Id like to see what we actually get out of the EU. I suspect it will be a headline rather like the "It will cost you 450,000 to raise your child" , which we see regulatly and which we all know is total bollox.

So based on that Telegraph article if you earn £30,000 your contribution to the EU budget is 0.17% of your gross salary and if you earn £60,000 it's 0.23%?

Your quote is wrongly attributed WetAugust

The following quote is often misascribed to Jean Monnet — in fact it is a paraphrase of a characterization of Monnet's intentions by British Conservative Adrian Hilton:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

What's the amount that individuals pay have to do with it? You're just getting bogged down in the detail, which is what they want? Oh it's such a small amount it's nothing to worry about.

Well I do worry because that small amount that each person pays adds up to 66million a day and that could be much better spent here, in this country, for the benefit of those people who paid the tax in the first place

yes, it was Hilton, not Monnet, so apologies to you School and to Hilton.

However it sums up perfectly the ultimate aim of the EU.

and as James Goldsmith said - we are sleepwalking into a European Superstate.

( I know he said that because I was in the audience)

That was the point of the article you posted WetAugust so I assumed that's why you posted it.

We pay it so we can be in that nice club of European mates run by France and Germany.

No, I posted it because someone had said they were interested in seeing the HMRC breakdown.

I just find I it totally indefensible that we are paying these billions to the EU for them to distribute at their whim when we have hospital waiting lists, cancer drugs gait are too expensive for the NHS to provide, food banks, students saddled with tens of thousand pounds of debt, old folk who have to chide between food if heating.......

66 million pounds a day would go a long way towards helping UK tax payers.

My understanding is that the EU budget is voted on by both the leaders of the national governments and MEPs, so not so much spent 'on a whim'. Of course there is a counter argument for what the contribution could otherwise be spent on.

This recent article seems quite balanced in terms of positives and negatives

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10823040/EU-elections-2014-What-has-the-European-Union-done-for-us.html