2017 General Election thread

[callan]

Thought I would correct your amount for you as it was wrong.

If you are going to correct something....

From full Fact

The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back.

In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.6 billion.

Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £4 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £17 billion in contributions.

UK EU membership Fee 2016The UK doesn’t pay or "send to Brussels" this higher figure of £17 billion, or anything equivalent per week or per day. The rebate is applied straight away, so the UK never contributes this much.

The UK’s contributions to the budget vary from year to year. They’ve been larger recently than in previous decades.

UK payments to EU budget since 1973A membership fee isn’t the same as the economic cost or benefit

Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?

We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits.

£55 million a day doesn't include the rebate and is not based on recommended figures

The claim that the UK’s membership fee is £55 million a day comes from the £20 billion annual UK payment to EU institutions listed in the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Pink Book.

The ONS told us this isn’t the correct figure to use. It has another set of figures which actually represent official government payments, although this isn’t clear from the release.

The £20 billion figure includes payments to EU institutions by UK households, and so doesn’t represent what the government pays as a ‘membership fee’.

The Treasury has more up-to-date estimates than the ONS, and uses slightly different accounting methods. They show that the UK government paid in £13.1 billion in 2016.

We previously said that “it's reasonable to describe £55 million as our ‘membership fee’, but it ignores the fact that we get money back as well.”

This was based on the understanding that the rebate is paid up front and then sent back, which we now know is wrong.

£350 million a week doesn’t include the rebate but uses better figures

It’s also been claimed that we send £350 million a week to the EU. That also misses out the rebate, although is based on better figures for the UK’s contributions.

£350 million is what we would pay to the EU budget, without the rebate.

But the UK actually pays just under £250 million a week.

The UK Statistics Authority has said the EU membership fee figure of £19 billion a year, or £350 million a week, is "not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU each year".

 

[Pubey]

The tories are dying out...

 

[haveaguiness]

I want it controlled which would of course reduce the amount of people arriving. No one I know who voted Brexit wants immigration to end as claimed by the left.

Australian or New Zealand points system gets my vote or temporary 2 year working visas. Two of her ladyships children are currently in Australia and they have had to work on a farm for 3 months as part of the deal. This would solve the problem of fruit farmers etc who struggle to find enough snowflakes who are capable of a days work.

Controlled would theoretically reduce immigration, but that is not guaranteed. Besides, I actually asked why you/75% of the population would like immigration reduced (controlled) not how we should go about doing it.

On your other point then, are you saying our current controls for non-EU immigrants are not good enough and also need to be changed?

 

[haveaguiness]

If you are going to correct something....

From full Fact

The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back.

In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.6 billion.

Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £4 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £17 billion in contributions.

UK EU membership Fee 2016The UK doesn’t pay or "send to Brussels" this higher figure of £17 billion, or anything equivalent per week or per day. The rebate is applied straight away, so the UK never contributes this much.

The UK’s contributions to the budget vary from year to year. They’ve been larger recently than in previous decades.

UK payments to EU budget since 1973A membership fee isn’t the same as the economic cost or benefit

Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?

We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits.

£55 million a day doesn't include the rebate and is not based on recommended figures

The claim that the UK’s membership fee is £55 million a day comes from the £20 billion annual UK payment to EU institutions listed in the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Pink Book.

The ONS told us this isn’t the correct figure to use. It has another set of figures which actually represent official government payments, although this isn’t clear from the release.

The £20 billion figure includes payments to EU institutions by UK households, and so doesn’t represent what the government pays as a ‘membership fee’.

The Treasury has more up-to-date estimates than the ONS, and uses slightly different accounting methods. They show that the UK government paid in £13.1 billion in 2016.

We previously said that “it's reasonable to describe £55 million as our ‘membership fee’, but it ignores the fact that we get money back as well.”

This was based on the understanding that the rebate is paid up front and then sent back, which we now know is wrong.

£350 million a week doesn’t include the rebate but uses better figures

It’s also been claimed that we send £350 million a week to the EU. That also misses out the rebate, although is based on better figures for the UK’s contributions.

£350 million is what we would pay to the EU budget, without the rebate.

But the UK actually pays just under £250 million a week.

The UK Statistics Authority has said the EU membership fee figure of £19 billion a year, or £350 million a week, is "not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU each year".

No you are right, I mistyped, it should have been £136m not £126 million (typo).

The Full Facts article is correct, I won't dispute that, but it is not answering the same question. It is answering what we actually send to the EU each week, which is £250m

However, when you take into account the funding we also receive for a number of different things from science, agriculture etc. the amount we are actually down is around £136m although I am sure this fluctuates each year. However, we still send this money to the EU in order to receive it back. As we would no longer get that money back, we would effectively have £136m (or so) spare to spend on the NHS or whatever other under funded service we want to spend on.

 

[rigsby]

Controlled would theoretically reduce immigration, but that is not guaranteed. Besides, I actually asked why you/75% of the population would like immigration reduced (controlled) not how we should go about doing it.

On your other point then, are you saying our current controls for non-EU immigrants are not good enough and also need to be changed?

Yes of course as do 75% of the population. ( note I admit I my figures are from Brexit surveys 12 months ago). According to the BBC the figure is now higher than 75%

 

[MK Shrimper]

Controlled would theoretically reduce immigration, but that is not guaranteed. Besides, I actually asked why you/75% of the population would like immigration reduced (controlled) not how we should go about doing it.

On your other point then, are you saying our current controls for non-EU immigrants are not good enough and also need to be changed?

75%? Wow, did they ask you HAG? Cos' everyone I know have never been polled on anything, not even Family Fortunes.

 

[callan]

No you are right, I mistyped, it should have been £136m not £126 million (typo).

The Full Facts article is correct, I won't dispute that, but it is not answering the same question. It is answering what we actually send to the EU each week, which is £250m

However, when you take into account the funding we also receive for a number of different things from science, agriculture etc. the amount we are actually down is around £136m although I am sure this fluctuates each year. However, we still send this money to the EU in order to receive it back. As we would no longer get that money back, we would effectively have £136m (or so) spare to spend on the NHS or whatever other under funded service we want to spend on.

Which is surely the point (despite leaves mischievous use of the gross figure)...that we choose where to spend the money?

 

[haveaguiness]

Which is surely the point (despite leaves mischievous use of the gross figure)...that we choose where to spend the money?

We can choose yes, but we were all told that we would spend £350m on our NHS which is both factually incorrect in terms of the amount and a complete lie in terms of it going on the NHS, as the government and even Boris himself won't confirm this.

 

[rigsby]

75%? Wow, did they ask you HAG? Cos' everyone I know have never been polled on anything, not even Family Fortunes.

They avoid the 5% when doing surveys. You know the 5% of the extreme right and the 5% of the extreme left ......You must be on a list.

 

[callan]

We can choose yes, but we were all told that we would spend £350m on our NHS which is both factually incorrect in terms of the amount and a complete lie in terms of it going on the NHS, as the government and even Boris himself won't confirm this.

So is it better to choose or apply for grants?....notwithstanding the (mis) use of the gross amount.

 

[MK Shrimper]

They avoid the 5% when doing surveys. You know the 5% of the extreme right and the 5% of the extreme left ......You must be on a list.

I own my own home and I have a job. The only list I'm on is the one for Clubcard points.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Not unfounded at all.

Frankly the rest is none of your business.

Frankly this is a forum where if someone repeatedly expresses a certain opinion it is not an unreasonable question to ask if that is a recent or long term interest, but as with everything on here we are just a group of friends chatting so whatever you want to keep to yourself is up to you.

As an aside on my way to work this morning I saw a man with a 'white power' tattoo and inquired about it then gave him advise on laser removal treatment. No one got punched, which I think surprised us both.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

They avoid the 5% when doing surveys. You know the 5% of the extreme right and the 5% of the extreme left ......You must be on a list.

I'm pretty sure that adds up to 10%

 

[haveaguiness]

So is it better to choose or apply for grants?....notwithstanding the (mis) use of the gross amount.

There is no choose OR apply. You would still have to apply for a grant, but yes, we could choose I guess. The bigger question would be whether the grants would actually still exist, which I don't believe there has been any confirmation of from the government yet. If they do, then great, we still have significantly less than the monies they advertised, if they don't then a large number of people that benefit from those handouts will surely be very aggrieved and it would likely put a lot of businesses out of business, wouldn't it?

 

[callan]

There is no choose OR apply. You would still have to apply for a grant, but yes, we could choose I guess. The bigger question would be whether the grants would actually still exist, which I don't believe there has been any confirmation of from the government yet. If they do, then great, we still have significantly less than the monies they advertised, if they don't then a large number of people that benefit from those handouts will surely be very aggrieved and it would likely put a lot of businesses out of business, wouldn't it?

Not sure I'm following this...out of the EU the UK could spend 250 million....wherever we wanted ...in the EU we cant but would have circa 114 million in grants.

Do I have the math right? (regardless of what was written on the side of a bus).

If I do then we would still be able to maintain those grants if needed and have an extra 136 million (per week) left over?

 

[londonblue]

Frankly this is a forum where if someone repeatedly expresses a certain opinion it is not an unreasonable question to ask if that is a recent or long term interest, but as with everything on here we are just a group of friends chatting so whatever you want to keep to yourself is up to you.

As an aside on my way to work this morning I saw a man with a 'white power' tattoo and inquired about it then gave him advise on laser removal treatment. No one got punched, which I think surprised us both.

It's completely unreasonable to try to make the point that a point is only worthy of being made by someone that has been campaigning for a length of time. You should be able to take the fact that I am campaigning against racism in the labour party at face value. The length of time I have been involved in anti-racism is none of your business, and I find the fact that you try to equate the two to be extremely offensive as it comes down to credibility. You are basically saying that the argument (from me) has no credibility because I haven't been on an anti-racism campaign long enough.

The fact is you don't know how long I've been involved, or how that involvement has manifested itself because, as I stated before, it's none of your business.

 

[haveaguiness]

Not sure I'm following this...out of the EU the UK could spend 250 million....wherever we wanted ...in the EU we cant but would have circa 114 million in grants.

Do I have the math right? (regardless of what was written on the side of a bus).

If I do then we would still be able to maintain those grants if needed and have an extra 136 million left over?

Yes, you are correct. The original point made, however, was that we would have £350m spare, which you have just confirmed is incorrect. You then said £250m, which again, is what we "pay" the EU, but the actual amount is somewhere around £136m after the grants.

The point I am trying to make is that you either keep the grants and we have a significantly smaller amount than what people were promised, or you cut the grants, have a slightly larger amount (£250m) but you end up risking a large number of businesses going out of business and people losing their jobs that rely on those grants. Either way, the amount promised and "sold" to people was significantly more than what the true amount is.

 

[rigsby]

I own my own home and I have a job. The only list I'm on is the one for Clubcard points.

So did Hitler and he was still an extremist.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It's completely unreasonable to try to make the point that a point is only worthy of being made by someone that has been campaigning for a length of time. You should be able to take the fact that I am campaigning against racism in the labour party at face value. The length of time I have been involved in anti-racism is none of your business, and I find the fact that you try to equate the two to be extremely offensive as it comes down to credibility. You are basically saying that the argument (from me) has no credibility because I haven't been on an anti-racism campaign long enough.

The fact is you don't know how long I've been involved, or how that involvement has manifested itself because, as I stated before, it's none of your business.

you are very vocal about one very specific type of racism. You bring it up often and it has been discussed often and because it is one very specific type of racism that you are often talking about there is a limited amount of material to keep the discussion going, so I was looking to talk around the topic of racism and widen the scope - hence my 'racism - what else you got?' inquiry. It's a very interesting subject and something that manifests itself in many ways. As it is something we both have an interest in I thought you may like to discuss it further rather than just in one very narrow way. No?

 

[rigsby]

I'm pretty sure that adds up to 10%

I don't mean 10% of the population when I say the five percenters. I mean the extreme in any group of people. So in effect the 5% of people who are already left wing or 5% of people who are already right wing. 5% of muslims who are dangerous. 5% of The Blue voice etc.

People on the left who would qualify would be someone who wants to put a bullet in Nigel Farage's head. Someone who supports violence against a legal fox hunt etc. Do you know anyone who has said such ridiculous comments ?