When considering in or out:

[PBC_1966]

Wasn't it established that the net contribution is about £33 million per day?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes 11 or 12 billion p.a.

 

[JohnD]

• The gross contribution in 2015 was £17.8bn but the UK rebate was worth £4.9bn

• £4.4bn was also paid back to the UK government for farm subsidies and other programmes

What do you think 17.8 - (4.9+4.4) is?

Also
After Brexit, the UK would still have to contribute to the EU budget to retain access to the single market

The Outists say they would continue paying the Landowners subsidy out of UK taxation.

The loss of revenue resulting from UK losing trade by resigning from the EU would be somewhere between A Lot and A Huge Amount.

 

[PBC_1966]

The gross contribution in 2015 was £17.8bn but the UK rebate was worth £4.9bn

• £4.4bn was also paid back to the UK government for farm subsidies and other programmes

What do you think 17.8 - (4.9+4.4) is?

No doubt the same as you think it is (8.5), but you're trying to use the £4.9 billion rebate figure in a calculation in which it's completely irrelevant.

If your other figures are correct, then the U.K.'s net contribution to the EU for 2015 was simply 17.8 - 4.4 = £13.4 billion per annum.

After Brexit, the UK would still have to contribute to the EU budget to retain access to the single market

Why?

The Outists say they would continue paying the Landowners subsidy out of UK taxation.

Well even if they did, according to your 2015 figures there would be almost £37 million per day saved which could go toward it.

The loss of revenue resulting from UK losing trade by resigning from the EU would be somewhere between A Lot and A Huge Amount.

And your evidence for this is......?

Edited for a slip in the figures.

 

[noseall]

How come all the financial heavyweights are saying stay put? From what I have seen and heard thus far, the important business and financial institutions are vey nervous about leaving to the point of making public statements.
Extraordinary.

 

[tony1851]

How come all the financial heavyweights are saying stay put? From what I have seen and heard thus far, the important business and financial institutions are vey nervous about leaving to the point of making public statements.
Extraordinary.

No, it isn't extraordinary - it's only to be expected.

The financial heavyweights have a vested interest in the status quo, regardless of how this affects the nation as a whole. As long as their CEOs and wealthy shareholders continue to rake in profits, they are not concerned about ordinary people. Top managers of these institutions do not have to fight to get their kids into a local school, wait weeks for a GP appointment, cram like sardines on cr*p trains and buses - they have choices.

We are all subject to the noise this Referendum is generating from both sides - figures banded about, personalities ridiculed on both sides, claim- and counter-claim etc. But as I see it, the bottom line is this; do we want to be ruled by a cr*p elite in Brussels, or by a cr*p elite in Westminster? We can at least vote for or against our own cr*p every 5 years, but we could never get rid of the Brussels elite; that is NOT democracy.

 

[Himaginn]

PBC has refused to vote in favour, and the result is that I don't get my million pounds.

Of course, because Parliament can refuse to pass legislation proposed by the Commission. That's not what's in dispute.

Yet PBC pretends that I am the one in charge.

O.K., so as Parliament I voted against JohnD being paid a million pounds and you don't get the money. But now I ask you, as the Commission, to send back another proposal requiring that you pay me a million. Obviously you wouldn't like the prospect of submitting such a proposal to Parliament and it being passed. But are you obliged to submit the proposal that Parliament has requested?

Use the UK Parliament and committees as an analogy.
If Parliament,as a whole and unanimously, requested a committee to submit a proposal, would that committee be obliged to submit that proposal?
Of course they would, but it would be an extreme case if it ever reached that stage.
In the normal course of events, a body of members, some of whom would be members of that committee, would have thrashed out the details, in committee, before presenting that proposal before Parliament.

The majority of legislation, etc, is not born on the floor of the house! It has gone through several stages by the time it reaches the floor of the house.

 

[empip]

How come all the financial heavyweights are saying stay put? From what I have seen and heard thus far, the important business and financial institutions are vey nervous about leaving to the point of making public statements.
Extraordinary.

Do you mean the same bunch of twerps who didn't foresee the 2007 debacle ?

 

[Brigadier]

How come all the financial heavyweights are saying stay put? From what I have seen and heard thus far, the important business and financial institutions are vey nervous about leaving to the point of making public statements.
Extraordinary.

Not in the least bit extraordinary.

 

[empip]

Even handed appraisal of facts ?
https://fullfact.org/europe/governments-eu-leaflet-introduction/

From another angle :-

"Dodgy Dave's Dossier..."
http://euquestion.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/cameron-watch-dodgy-dave-gives-us.html

Moving on - The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
George M. May not be everyone's cuppa tea, but he does tend to provide references to stated facts.

"Big Farmer..."
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/28/big-farmer/
Perhaps the largest benefit takers tend to be invisible.

"...As for the biggest beneficiary, it is shrouded in mystery. It’s a company based in France called Syral UK Ltd. Its website describes it as a producer of industrial starch, alcohol and proteins, but says nothing about owning or farming any land(21). Yet it receives £18.7m from the taxpayer. It has not yet answered my questions about how this has happened, but my guess is that the money might take the form of export subsidies: the kind of payments which have done so much to damage the livelihoods of poor farmers in the developing world..."
-----------------
As of late 2011 'Tereos Syral becomes Tereos Starch & Sweeteners Europe'

-0-

 

[Deleted member 63160]

How come all the financial heavyweights are saying stay put? From what I have seen and heard thus far, the important business and financial institutions are vey nervous about leaving to the point of making public statements.
Extraordinary.

Do you mean the same bunch of twerps who didn't foresee the 2007 debacle ?

The ones who reckoned joining the Euro was a smart bet??

 

[PBC_1966]

Use the UK Parliament and committees as an analogy.
If Parliament,as a whole and unanimously, requested a committee to submit a proposal, would that committee be obliged to submit that proposal?
Of course they would, but it would be an extreme case if it ever reached that stage.
In the normal course of events, a body of members, some of whom would be members of that committee, would have thrashed out the details, in committee, before presenting that proposal before Parliament.

The majority of legislation, etc, is not born on the floor of the house! It has gone through several stages by the time it reaches the floor of the house.

None of which actually answers the question I asked.

 

[Himaginn]

Use the UK Parliament and committees as an analogy.
If Parliament,as a whole and unanimously, requested a committee to submit a proposal, would that committee be obliged to submit that proposal?
Of course they would, but it would be an extreme case if it ever reached that stage.
In the normal course of events, a body of members, some of whom would be members of that committee, would have thrashed out the details, in committee, before presenting that proposal before Parliament.

The majority of legislation, etc, is not born on the floor of the house! It has gone through several stages by the time it reaches the floor of the house.

None of which actually answers the question I asked.

That's because the question you're asking is: "if an almost impossible scenario existed, what would happen?"
It's an almost impossible scenario, so who cares!

It's like saying, if the members of parliament asked a committee to draft some legislation, would they be obliged to do so.
The answer is: of course! But it's extremely unlikely that scenario would or could ever exist. If all the members of parliament were in a situation to ask a committee to draft some legislation, they would be in a position to do it themselves! Why would they need the committee?
It's the chicken and egg question.
When you go to see an expert, do you wait for their expert opinion, which you then decide to accept or not?
You don't go to an expert and tell them what to write, then see if you will accept it or not!

You just keep asking because you want an answer that you agree with!
Stop being pedantic!
The legislation exists, if it's ever required, but it's extremely unlikely that it would ever be required!

 

[Himaginn]

How come all the financial heavyweights are saying stay put? From what I have seen and heard thus far, the important business and financial institutions are vey nervous about leaving to the point of making public statements.
Extraordinary.

Do you mean the same bunch of twerps who didn't foresee the 2007 debacle ?

The ones who reckoned joining the Euro was a smart bet??

As I understand it, only Blair and a couple of Cabinet members, Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke were up for joining the Euro.

The conclusion was never really in doubt. Brown did not think the UK should join the single currency and the Treasury analysis provided him with strong arguments to fend off the much more enthusiastic Tony Blair.

So where is your source for claiming that BofE, CBI, USA, IMF, ECB, et al, were in favour of UK joining the Euro?

 

[PBC_1966]

The legislation exists, if it's ever required, but it's extremely unlikely that it would ever be required!

Then let's have a citation.