Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

We DO NOT give £55 million a day to the EU Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is just ********. Trade negotiations are based on economics (read: applied common sense) and discussions between leading economists in the respective states and/or blocs.
    Again, false. You're oversimplifying a highly complex process that involves a number of rounds of talks and stakeholders.

    You can stick to common sense; I'll stick to reading actually policy and research papers on the topic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    We do give £55m a day to the EU. Just because we receive some from the EU on things they choose to spend on, it doesn't mean we don't pay our contribution.

    Its not a blatant lie for me to state I paid the amount of tax that it says on my payslip. It isn't even misleading. I paid what I paid. Of course I may get some money back off the government in benefits which is like a rebate and the government provides me with services in return for that money. That is perfectly obvious. But I did pay for that in taxes.

    Saying £55m a day doesn't imply that amount is flushed down the toilet or used entirely for the benefit of foreigners. Of course we get some things from the EU but at a cost of £55m a day. It is up to the public to decide whether the benefits justify the £55m cost.
    This is irrelevant. Brexit campaigners wave this figure around saying we are a net contributor when it is simply untrue, even with rebate. Hence, this is deliberately misleading and suggests the money has gone to waste. And your tax comparison isnt valid too, people know the money they pay in tax goes to the government budget whereas in the case of this £55m, it seems as if the money is going down the drain and the benefits arent put into the equation,
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Again, false. You're oversimplifying a highly complex process that involves a number of rounds of talks and stakeholders.

    You can stick to common sense; I'll stick to reading actually policy and research papers on the topic.
    The difference is I'm building a sensible model, you're using selective reading to support your own delusions and then arguing from authority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The difference is I'm building a sensible model, you're using selective reading to support your own delusions and then arguing from authority.
    See it as you will; but the initial point remains: do you have evidence to support your earlier claim? The burden of proof lays with you.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    See it as you will; but the initial point remains: do you have evidence to support your earlier claim? The burden of proof lays with you.
    Yes. Contracting parties with larger output levels tend to get better deals. Compare the US' trade deals, for instance, with Argentina's. Enough to shift the initial burden.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes. Contracting parties with larger output levels tend to get better deals. Compare the US' trade deals, for instance, with Argentina's. Enough to shift the initial burden.
    Your discourse seems to be shifting away from what you stated earlier:

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    No, but politically speaking we are able to make more beneficial trade deals with both EU member states and with third parties as EU members.
    I asked for evidence on this point and let's stick with the case of Britain here as countries vary significantly in the factors that affect the negotiations.

    You have essentially suggested that common sense > all factors that motivate a party to negotiate terms.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is just ********. Trade negotiations are based on economics (read: applied common sense) and discussions between leading economists in the respective states and/or blocs.



    It's not untrue, but it is completely irrelevant and stating it is deliberately misleading.
    It isn't misleading. The leave campaign are entitled to tell people what the cost of EU membership is in terms of our contribution and the remain campaign can tell people what the benefits are including the rebates etc. That is fine.

    I think the fewer things included in the figures used the better. For example, the leave campaign could say that the EU also costs us in terms of lost trade with the rest of the world and add those costs into the figure too or the cost of UK regulations on businesses. But if you start adding too much in and doing a full cost benefit analysis, it gets more confusing, easier to manipulate and less accurate.

    I think it is better for both campaigns to use easily understood figures and the public can weight them up as they will. Saying overall the EU costs us £x or benefits us £y is pretty meaningless.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    This is irrelevant. Brexit campaigners wave this figure around saying we are a net contributor when it is simply untrue, even with rebate. Hence, this is deliberately misleading and suggests the money has gone to waste. And your tax comparison isnt valid too, people know the money they pay in tax goes to the government budget whereas in the case of this £55m, it seems as if the money is going down the drain and the benefits arent put into the equation,
    People know the money goes to the EU budget. And people know that the EU budget is used to do some useful things for the country like the government's budget provides some useful things for the individuals who pay tax. Where else to people think the EU budget goes? But as I said, the question is whether those benefits justify the membership fee.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    People know the money goes to the EU budget. And people know that the EU budget is used to do some useful things for the country like the government's budget provides some useful things for the individuals who pay tax. Where else to people think the EU budget goes? But as I said, the question is whether those benefits justify the membership fee.
    Well my point was waving the figure around is misleading without explicitly talking about the benefits it brings. The figure itself is misleading given that the transaction is easily quotable but the benefits cannot be quantified.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I asked for evidence on this point and let's stick with the case of Britain here as countries vary significantly in the factors that affect the negotiations.

    You have essentially suggested that common sense > all factors that motivate a party to negotiate terms.
    By staying in the EU we essentially have a vote where laws are made regarding the so called 'red tape'. Let's say we join the trade deal again, we now must abide by the laws without voting on it, which could cause a conflict of interest.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Your discourse seems to be shifting away from what you stated earlier:



    I asked for evidence on this point and let's stick with the case of Britain here as countries vary significantly in the factors that affect the negotiations.

    You have essentially suggested that common sense > all factors that motivate a party to negotiate terms.
    My discourse is exactly the same. The US' exports, like the UK's, are dominated by services (the US retains a larger manufacturing sector but is essentially similar apart from that) - accordingly, it is an appropriate point of comparison. Furthermore, if you need a basic logical point to support, nearly any significant economy needs far more from the EU than they do from the UK, especially as Germany's financial services industry is becoming significantly more developed. Add to this the fact that in many areas the UK is heavily reliant on imports and this is visible for all other economies, thus changing their equilibrium strat to one which pushes for a significantly better deal for themselves (and accordingly worse for the UK - n.b. I understand the process of making a trade deal is not a zero-sum game, but I'd submit that it is also not one with pareto dominated equilibria).

    (Original post by Sternumator)
    It isn't misleading. The leave campaign are entitled to tell people what the cost of EU membership is in terms of our contribution and the remain campaign can tell people what the benefits are including the rebates etc. That is fine.

    I think the fewer things included in the figures used the better. For example, the leave campaign could say that the EU also costs us in terms of lost trade with the rest of the world and add those costs into the figure too or the cost of UK regulations on businesses. But if you start adding too much in and doing a full cost benefit analysis, it gets more confusing, easier to manipulate and less accurate.

    I think it is better for both campaigns to use easily understood figures and the public can weight them up as they will. Saying overall the EU costs us £x or benefits us £y is pretty meaningless.
    Quoting the £55b figure is like me going to the local corner shop, buying a freddo, paying with a £50 note, getting £45 change ( ) and then saying 'that corner shop is so great, they gave me £45' - completely disingenuous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    Well my point was waving the figure around is misleading without explicitly talking about the benefits it brings. The figure itself is misleading given that the transaction is easily quotable but the benefits cannot be quantified.
    I think you could criticise any political argument on those grounds. It is a political question and it is not possible to be completely objective in your arguments so you can call anyone who doesn't agree with you misleading.

    It certainly isn't the leave campaigns job to emphasise the benefits of the EU.

    It is the leave campaign's job to emphasise the case for leaving and the remain campaigns job to emphasise the benefits of staying in.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Just want to put this out there to combat this campaign of blatant lies coming from the out campaign.

    Over half of the money we give to the EU comes directly back to us in the form of a rebate. We then get more back in the form of science grants, development funding and agriculture subsidies. We still pay for two sets of politicians, two sets of parliaments, two sets of embassies around the world etc

    I don't understand how this lie keeps being spread. Do none of the out voters actually do any research of their own? Do they just parrot whatever they read in their tabloid of choice? Ridiculous.
    Maybe its because we do give it to the EU ? Although we get some back, the rebate is bot guarenteed and money is spent by the EU so its not like it goes to the treasury to spend on schools and healthcare


    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Thought this thread might be yours.

    IMO any money saved from a Brexit would be used by the Tories on further tax cuts for millionaires and have no benefit for normal people whatsoever.
    What tories do with it is irrelevant, decions about spending should be made by british mps and not doled out cap or buy influence in ukraine or a eu army
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)

    Quoting the £55b figure is like me going to the local corner shop, buying a freddo, paying with a £50 note, getting £45 change ( ) and then saying 'that corner shop is so great, they gave me £45' - completely disingenuous.
    Good analogy.

    But its more like you go to the shop to buy your Fredo, hand over your £50 but are given your £45 in change as gift vouchers for shops that you may or may not like.

    Then you say "I paid £50 to the shop today".
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Good analogy.

    But its more like you go to the shop to buy your Fredo, hand over your £50 but are given your £45 in change as gift vouchers for shops that you may or may not like.

    Then you say "I paid £50 to the shop today".
    If that's the analogy then replace it with £100 in vouchers for shops everyone likes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If that's the analogy then replace it with £100 in vouchers for shops everyone likes.
    Sure and both sides of the campaign will disagree on whether we get £100 of shopping vouchers for our £50 or whether it is more like £25.

    I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm just saying that what we can agree on is that we paid £50 for them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I think you could criticise any political argument on those grounds. It is a political question and it is not possible to be completely objective in your arguments so you can call anyone who doesn't agree with you misleading.

    It certainly isn't the leave campaigns job to emphasise the benefits of the EU.

    It is the leave campaign's job to emphasise the case for leaving and the remain campaigns job to emphasise the benefits of staying in.
    You cant say that about the remain campaign, they dont use misleading figures, just persuasive language.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    My discourse is exactly the same. The US' exports, like the UK's, are dominated by services (the US retains a larger manufacturing sector but is essentially similar apart from that) - accordingly, it is an appropriate point of comparison. Furthermore, if you need a basic logical point to support, nearly any significant economy needs far more from the EU than they do from the UK, especially as Germany's financial services industry is becoming significantly more developed. Add to this the fact that in many areas the UK is heavily reliant on imports and this is visible for all other economies, thus changing their equilibrium strat to one which pushes for a significantly better deal for themselves (and accordingly worse for the UK - n.b. I understand the process of making a trade deal is not a zero-sum game, but I'd submit that it is also not one with pareto dominated equilibria).
    They are actually not a point of comparison, as you are basing the comparison on the 'basket' of exports and ignoring the make up of the main exporting nations and the relative percentage of exported goods (which are different for both). Moreover, comparison does not constitute fact. It may give us an indication of the possible outcomes, but these remain probabilities and not certainities.You claimed that Britain was able to make more beneficial deals with member states - what evidence do you have to suggest this?

    I would argue that we look at the economic history of Britain pre-1970s. A great deal of work has been done on this subject by leading trade historians who concluded that trade grew significantly between 1880-1913. For example, British trade volumes grew more than both Italy and the Netherlands during this period. It is not a perfect case but it shows that Britain can trade without the European Union (it's not going to be easy and it will take time but it is possible; a claim you denied in your earlier post).

    Secondly, logical support may work on paper but it does not in actual trade negotiations. As mentioned previously, your basic assumption seems to be monetary value (For example, does a deal contribute a net profit or loss). It ignores the simple fact that nations such as Britain have different types of deals: some are exclusively trade, whereas for others, trade is but a part of the bilateral agreement. This ignores the complexity of bilateral exchange.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    By staying in the EU we essentially have a vote where laws are made regarding the so called 'red tape'. Let's say we join the trade deal again, we now must abide by the laws without voting on it, which could cause a conflict of interest.
    Are you referring to the regulations by which European commissioners will negotiate agreements?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Are you referring to the regulations by which European commissioners will negotiate agreements?
    Whichever one where we lose voting privileges on. I think its this one, but im not too sure
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.