£10 billion is a lot of money each year. That’s the sum we send to the EU and do not get back. That’s around £300 a household every year going to subsidise relatively rich countries on the continent.

One of the main questions in the referendum is how should we spend this Brexit bonus?

The cautious will say let’s reduce the deficit by not spending it.

The adventurous who want more growth will say let’s all have a Brexit tax cut, so we individually get to spend it because we pay less Income tax .

Those worried about the costs of health, schools and social services will say let’s boost our caring and educational services with some more spending.

The important thing is to open this debate. It’s good for morale to be discussing a better financial picture than the current one. It will remind all in the debate of a very positive large gain from exit.

We also need to ask the Stay in campaign what they think is going to happen to our contributions if they win.

Recent years has shown remorseless pressure and changes of the rules and methods of calculation to get more money out of us. How much more are they going to demand?

How does the UK stay out of meeting some of the costs of economic failure in parts of the Eurozone? Wont we be expected to contribute to economic regeneration and recovery plans for the countries plunged into long term austerity by the Euro?

We can of course spend the £10 billion and still give exactly the same amounts to farmers, universities etc the the EU currently gives them as well.


We need to remind them that most of the world trades quite successfully with the EU without paying a penny or a cent into EU funds.

There is no need for the UK to pay anything for the privilege of importing so much from Germany.


  1. Horatio
    January 25, 2016

    Absolute logic as usual JR. Although it is implicit in what you say I always find that I must point out to people that companies and organisations would not lose any current EU funding, for farmers for example, as all money given to us by the EU would probably be paid by the UK govt anyway. The £10b you point out is after current EU-UK expenditure is covered.

    I would make an exception with the BBC and would not cover that funding.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 25, 2016

      The BBC should not get any state funding at all until no one there earns any more than the PM. Also until they drop their incessant ever bigger state, ever higher taxes, greencrap, pro EU, lefty loon agenda.

      Even dreadful, tedious, lefty interviewers like Andrew Marr reportedly get £600K (plus pension one assumes). Quite a lot of licence fee payer just to fund him.

      There are far better people who would do the job far better for nothing.

      1. Jerry
        January 25, 2016

        “The BBC should not get any state funding at all until no one there earns any more than the PM.”

        The BBC doesn’t get state funding, but if you mean taxpayer funding then I do hope your new wage regime will extend to those media outlets that carry advertising that is paid for via the checkout, invoice or how ever otherwise billed.

        “There are far better people who would do the job far better for nothing.”

        Well that is true for all walks of life, including the renting out of housing by landlords.

      2. Jerry
        January 25, 2016

        @LL; “The BBC should not get any state funding at all until no one there earns any more than the PM.”

        But the BBC doesn’t get state funding, well no more than any broadcaster does who obtains some or all of its funding via adversing income which is as much a tax on the consumer as the TVL fee is – perhaps more so as even those without a TV still pay for advertising funded programming.

        “lefty interviewers”

        ‘Lefty’ to you Mr Lifelogic perhaps but some will consider them quite right wing, those on the two extremes of politics never being able to understand that an interviewer has to be a devils advocate, putting forward the other side of an argument.

        “There are far better people who would do the job far better for nothing.”

        They might do once, but never to broadcast again, by order of Ofcom etc!

    2. Jerry
      January 25, 2016

      @Horatio; “I would make an exception with the BBC and would not cover that funding.”

      I wonder who will be the next media whipping boy once the BBC has been closed or commercialised, Ch4 perhaps?

      Those making weak arguments always will find a fall-guy…

      1. getahead
        January 25, 2016

        Jerry you may not see it if you are that way inclined, but to crib off Lifelogic, the “incessant ever bigger state, ever higher taxes, green-crap, pro EU, lefty loon agenda”, gets most tax-payers down.

      2. Dame Rita Webb
        January 25, 2016

        No Sky News follows the same neo lib agenda as the BBC. Unlike the BBC however if I do not want it I do not have to pay for it. Here is another name to add to my ever growing list of BBC “talent’ who also had some other member of their family working there before them , (name removed – there are various tv dynasties employed by the BBC ed) “Equal opportunities employer” my eye!

        1. Jerry
          January 25, 2016

          @DRW; “Unlike the BBC however if I do not want it I do not have to pay for [Sky News] .”

          Oh yes you do pay for it, via the check out at your local shops, on the internet sales etc, buying anything from any company who advertised on BSkyB owned channels.

          Can we please bury this idea that there is some sort of free lunch for the TV watching consumer were commercial broadcasting is concerned, you pay for it [1] and quite possible pay far more than the measly 40p per day most pay the BBC.

          [1] this can be proved as companies who do not spend small fortunes on TV advertising are able to sell their products cheaper.

          1. Edward2
            January 26, 2016

            What about products I buy that are not advertised on TV ?
            Which are in the majority.
            How do I pay for sky TV in this case?
            Ridiculous argument of yours Jerry

          2. Jerry
            January 26, 2016

            @Edward2; I noted that some some products are not advertised on TV or individual channels, so unless you are seriously suggesting that most are not, or that advertising is not big business either…

            Also, it is not the product but who the company is, the product might not be advertised but if any company in the manufacture or supply advertised (be it their corporate ID or another product) you still pay for such adverts.

            Try actually reading what I say not just replying with ad-hock abusive arguments, the only person being “ridiculous” is you, not only that but you always end up showing just how little you actually know and can comprehend.

          3. Edward2
            January 26, 2016

            Yes Jerry
            I am saying only a minority of goods are advertised on TV
            And I repeat your argument is completely ridiculous.
            We have a great choice of what products to purchase.
            Only a small number of the millions available to us are advertised on TV.

          4. Jerry
            January 27, 2016

            @Edward2; It is not the products but the companies involved, be that in manufacture or supply, for example all the major supermarkets advertise on TV, someone has to pay – if it is not the consumer then who is it?!

          5. Edward2
            January 27, 2016

            It is the companies who pay the TV companies for their adverts Jerry
            It is not those in the supply chain.
            If I walk down to my local corner shop and buy some fruit and vegetables off the front of the nice display of products gathered from local farmers how am I paying for commercial TV?
            Keep struggling.

          6. Jerry
            January 28, 2016

            Esward2; “It is not those in the supply chain.”

            If only!…

            Anyway you still have not answered my question about how you’ll know all this, after all supply contracts are usually secrete (with NDC clauses etc.), that is why a supermarket put their address on their own-label branded product and not their suppliers. Stop trying to argue about what you so obviously have little if any knowledge of.

          7. Edward2
            January 28, 2016

            So if I buy from a farm shop near my house or the local butcher or bread shop where products are locally sourced and produced then you say I am paying for commercial TV same as I do for the BBC even though they do not advertise on TV saying the prices I pay have an element in them which somehow goes into the coffers oF commercial TV
            Come off it Jerry
            It is the most ridiculous argument of yours and you have a few.

        2. Excalibur
          January 26, 2016

          Agreed, Dame Rita. Sky has to be the worst for banality and trivia.

      3. libertarian
        January 25, 2016


        Perhaps it would help if you gave us a list of media companies that we are forced to spend taxpayers money on, then we can tell you who will be next.

        Don’t be hard on yourself Jerry, your arguments are week admittedly but I don’t see you as a fall guy.

        1. Jerry
          January 26, 2016

          @libertarian; Perhaps you can give me one media outlet in the UK that is funded via the taxpayer, clue the BBC is not the correct answer, the BBC World Service is now fully funded by the TVL fee (which is not a tax).

          If you mean funded by the public, see my reply to @DRW regarding how commercial and many subscription broadcasters (including BSkyB) are being funded via the retail check-outs etc. The fact that you do not seem to actually understandable how broadcasting works @libertarian is quite surprising considering that you say you have business interest in some sort of radio station, of course you might just be gilding a lilly on that, or indeed are just being economical with your known facts because theyt do not fit with the right-wing anti BBC agenda…

          1. Edward2
            January 27, 2016

            Still on with your ridiculous argument Jerry
            Missing the word forced
            You are forced to have a TV licence and therefore fund the BBC if you want to legally watch TV companies other than the BBC.
            You can choose to pay for Sky.
            You can watch advert funded commercial station TV for free and choose non advertised companies and products when you shop.
            It’s nothing to do with left or right wing politics just plain logic.

          2. Jerry
            January 27, 2016

            @Edward2; “You are forced to have a TV licence”

            This might come as a shock to you Edward but no one is being forced to watch TV, no one is required (in their non professional lives) to watch TV…

            “and therefore fund the BBC if you want to legally watch TV companies other than the BBC.”

            Well that is the choice people make, just like they choose to pay VED to legally use a motor vehicle on the public roads or not, even though you might never use A roads nor motorways.

            Nor are you, as I understand the TVL law, correct anyway. Until the loop-hole is tied there is nothing to stop people watching catch-up (but not live) TV via the internet.

            I repeat, no one is being forced to watch TV, no one is being forced to use a motor vehicle on the public highway, QED.

            “You can watch advert funded commercial station TV for free and choose non advertised companies and products when you shop.”

            Only if you know who the companies are and what the products are. What about a company who has two product lines, one that is advertised and carries the main brand-name and another that does neither, nor does it carry the parent companies name – buy that product and you are still funding the parent company and its TV adverts…

          3. Edward2
            January 28, 2016

            You are forced to pay for a BBC TV licence if you legally want to watch any TV even if you do not want to watch the BBC
            That is a fact
            No amount a pedantic wriggling from you negates that fact.
            To say just don’t have a TV is a pathetically weak argument.

            Shop locally and know the source of the produce you purchase (this is not hard) and you do not pay any money to TV companies
            There are millions of shops selling non TV advertised goods to choose from.
            A ridiculous argument from you Jerry

            Reply PS The roads analogy does not work, as local roads are taxpayer financed like trunk roads.

    3. Yosarion
      January 25, 2016

      I see this morning that the Beeb are to get a group of their senior celebs (paid ?) to head up a campaign to ask wealthy over seventy fives to give up their free TV licence, this on the same morning that other headlines read that charities are to get one last chance to stop Chugging the elderly.
      My link to the EUSSR, I see no difference in the Chugging bowl when its, please Sir can I have some more.

      1. getahead
        January 25, 2016

        I hope that when UKIP achieves power, as surely now it must, the BBC will be made pay per view. If you don’t use it you don’t pay for it.

      2. Jerry
        January 25, 2016

        @Yosarion; “the EUSSR”

        A very weak argument! Perhaps you need to ask some people who actually lived in the old USSR or under its jack-boot if they think the EU is anything like comparable…

        Oh and by the way, the BBC is not a charity either, and why should the BBC have to pay for a government policy to give those over 70 an effective £2.80 pw extra in their state pension, the funding should come from HMT tax receipts.

        1. Tad Davison
          January 26, 2016

          Interesting then, that the last leader of the former USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, said he couldn’t understand why anyone would want to recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe. He was of course referring to the European Union.


          1. Jerry
            January 26, 2016

            @Tad Davison; Care to actually cite that ‘quote’?

            Also Mikhail Gorbachev said many things, most of which were in Russian, do we know that the translation into English was correct and viburnum.

          2. Edward2
            January 26, 2016

            Come on Jerry
            It’s one of the most well reported quotes about the EU in the last few decades.
            If you think it’s not correct look it up and tell us otherwise.

          3. Tad Davison
            January 27, 2016


            I have a ‘viburnum’ growing well in my back garden. I think you meant to say ‘verbatim’ but I’ll let you off. We all make mistakes. As for the quote, did you really think I’d write something without properly researching it first?

            Do me a favour. Stop trying to defend an indefensible position.


          4. Jerry
            January 27, 2016

            @Edward2; @Tad Davison; Then you will have no problem citing it will you. PS, do you speak flaunt Russian (you might wish to think about why I ask that)?…

            @Tad Davison; “I’d write something without properly researching it first?”

            Honest answer; who knows, quite possibly, after all you are a very party political person, you want your message not only heard but accepted.

          5. Edward2
            January 27, 2016

            As I said earlier Jerry
            “If you think it’s not correct look it up and tell us otherwise.”
            No reply from you I see.

          6. Jerry
            January 27, 2016

            @Edward2; “If you think it’s not correct look it up and tell us otherwise.”

            That is a daft suggestion, a bit like me publicly demanding that you prove that you no longer beat your wife, without offering any proof that you were ever once a wife beater!

            Tad made a claim, I asked for a citation, you but-in (no doubt to start yet another argument and thus cause more work for our host…) and say that it is such common knowledge, if that is so how about you coming up with the proof of what Mikhail Gorbachev said.

            If you can’t, even a Wikipedia citation will do, then let the matter drop.

          7. Edward2
            January 28, 2016

            Look it up Jerry
            It’s you who is now pedantically refusing to accept anything others say without references being provided.
            This is a blog site not a University assignment portal.

            Don’t be shy
            Google is free to use.
            Unlike the BBC

    4. Tad Davison
      January 25, 2016

      I was supplied with a link to the Launch of the GO (Get Out) Campaign in Kettering by one of the panellists who e-mailed it to me late last night. I couldn’t see it on the BBC because in the words of the Conservative MP, Peter Bone, ‘The BBC couldn’t get here because they were stuck in traffic. Some planning!

      Maybe the BBC need a lesson in logistics.

      I wonder if others would care to explain the BBC’s tardiness?


      1. Jerry
        January 26, 2016

        @Tad Davison; “I wonder if others would care to explain the BBC’s tardiness?”

        Cost cutting due to having to fund various government or Ofcom political or vanity projects whilst not having had a rise in the TVL fee to even keep up with the official inflation rate never mind the actual inflation rate?

        1. Edward2
          January 26, 2016

          How does that stop them from allowing enough time for their journey ?
          That is planning.
          It costs nothing.
          More ridiculous arguments from you Jerry

          1. Jerry
            January 26, 2016

            @Edward2; Err, Mr Davison said (quoting Peter Bone) “I couldn’t see it on the BBC [because] The BBC couldn’t get here because they were stuck in traffic” [my emphasis]

            You assume that they had a ENG/Sigslink vehicle spare in time, perhaps the one booked became delayed at another location (perhaps covering something live thus unable to just pack-up and leave), not a lot of point turning up with just good/bad intent – the clue is in their name, the British Broadcasting Corporation!

          2. Edward2
            January 26, 2016

            Pedantic as ever Jerry.
            Time management has no connection to budgets.
            Just organise yourself so you turn up on time and do the job you are expected to do.

          3. Jerry
            January 27, 2016

            @Edward; Not Pedantic at all. No one can be in two places at the same time with the same equipment, nor can their be a limitless supply of equipment and trained crews (if there was people like you would be accusing the BBC of wasting money), then of course what might be the more important item to cover, a political gathering on an issue that is going to run for at least another four months or a current news story that will be done, dusted and old news by midnight.

          4. Edward2
            January 27, 2016

            Having said they were turning up they failed to show on time.
            What bit of that is due to “cuts”
            More pedantic nonsense from you Jerry

        2. Tad Davison
          January 27, 2016

          My own view? It was deliberate. The BBC has form.

          We can pick up on the BBC’s anti-EU nuances every single day of the week. And let’s not forget all the interviews where pro-EU people are allowed to sound off, without a proper counter-narrative from a REAL Eurosceptic politician, not one of those ‘Eric Pickles types’ who say they are, but don’t really measure up to our definition.

          Do you get any fun from being so wrong so often?


          1. Jerry
            January 27, 2016

            Tad Davison; “Do you get any fun from being so wrong so often?”

            Talk about asking a rhetorical question!

          2. Edward2
            January 28, 2016

            I would be more impressed if one fine day you actually admitted you were wrong Jerry.
            Rather than making some final sarcastic cheap comment.

  2. Lifelogic
    January 25, 2016

    Hopefully it will not be the current socialist, inheritance tax ratting, pension thieving, landlord robbing, stamp duty increasing, insurance premium tax grabbing chancellor who gets to decide. We still have the damaging 45% income tax rate (on top of NI). One in six workers is now in 40% tax thanks to his total failure to increase the thresholds (it used to be only one in fifteen in 1990). Pension contribution limits have been cut to £40K less than 1/6 of what they were. Pension caps too down to £1M and now it looks like he is going to mug them again by attacking the tax allowances which would make pension scheme hardly worthwhile.

    They should use the money to cut taxes, cut regulations and also to lay off the large numbers of people in the state sector who do nothing of any value (or even things of negative value) to the public. We need to encourage people to build businesses, buy their own homes, save for their retirements, provided for their own families and children, not to mug them at every such opportunity as Osborne seems to enjoy. We need a leader and a chancellor who are really low tax Conservatives at Heart not people who just mouth the words.

    They should do this because it works, the way to prosperity is to let the public invest and spend their own money. People spending or investing their own money do it so much more efficiently that governments. Government care not what they spend nor what value they get. This as it is not their money nor they who get the value, all they want is a high wage and a good pension. They are as happy blocking the road with speed humps and red lights are they are ripping them out again. Or littering the countryside and seas with wind farms as they would be ordering their removal to save the birds and bats.

    There is, as you say, no need for the UK to pay anything for the privilege of importing so much from Germany. Indeed if there were any payment it should clearly be from the EU to the UK. This as they export far more to the UK than we do to them.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 25, 2016

      Despite all these high taxes we still have a huge deficit too, which is just deferred taxation on top. Osborne has added over half a trillion pounds to the national debt, about £10,000 per man, woman and child.

      Over taxation (and over complex taxation) raises less tax in the end as it throttles the economic engine, discourages enterprise and diverts much productive activity towards parasitic tax planning, sitting on ones backside or relocating. Why can Osborne and his many treasury “experts” not see this?

      Were they perhaps the same “experts” who thought the EU, the EURO, expensive green crap energy and ERM were all great ideas? Or the ones who failed regulate or even see the huge over extension and absurd over gearing of many of the banks?

      1. fedupsoutherner
        January 25, 2016

        Lifelogic, seems that the cost of expensive green crap energy goes beyond money alone. See comments in the Sunday Herald Scotland.

        Plans to protect endangered porpoises around the Scottish coast have been
        > blocked by the Scottish Government to help clear the way for new offshore
        > wind farms, according to internal government emails seen by the Sunday Herald.
        > Senior wildlife advisors have privately accused the government’s Marine
        > Scotland directorate of displaying “unwarranted aggression” and being
        > “untruthful” about its agenda. They also warn that Scottish ministers are
        > trying “to bend the law as far as possible” and could end up being fined
        > for breaking European environmental rules.

        I hope we don’t continue to waste money on this bull sh…t!

        1. Lifelogic
          January 25, 2016

          What must surely drive it is the desire to divert tax payers and bill payers money to certain well connected interested parties. Why else would anyone sane do it?

      2. GTE
        January 25, 2016

        Despite all these high taxes we still have a huge deficit too, which is just deferred taxation on top.

        Deficit = spending – taxation.

        However, that’s not the same thing as deferred taxation. Deferred taxation is really the increase future cost of servicing and paying off the state’s debts.

        That’s something completely different. The reason is that borrowing is just a small fraction of the state’s debts. About 10%. There’s all those pensions paid for in the past as well.

        1. Lifelogic
          January 25, 2016

          Unless the government defaults on its debts then it is just deferred taxation in effect – perhaps deferred to the next generation even. They are mortgaging future tax payers.

      3. GTE
        January 25, 2016

        Osbourne has added way more than 500 bn. The reason is that you have confused borrowing with debt. Borrowing is a debt, but its not the only one.

        There are civil service pensions as well. They are a debt. Just like the state pension.

        That’s 9,200 bn, present value.

        On the per head bit. It’s only tax payers who pay. 30 million not 64 million.

        But is that down to Osbourne?

        Nope. He inherited a debt that was out of control. His error was in to carry on hiding the debt. Now he can’t reveal how much is owed, because he gets the blame. Should have done it immediately

        Bottom of page 4

        In summary, the estimates in the new supplementary table indicate a total Government pension obligation, at the end of December 2010, of £5.01 trillion

        FRS102 the accounting standard, pension obligations are on the books. The state’s books are crooked.

      4. getahead
        January 25, 2016

        Excellent comment Lifelogic.

  3. Richard Jenkins
    January 25, 2016

    We should really consider not only how we would spen the net payment to the EU (actually forecast to be £11.1bn in 2016) but also how we would spend the amount the the EU so graciously decides to give back to us, in ways that it chooses. The money returned will be £4.2bn in 2016. If this £4.2bn is kept in our coffers, rather than paid and returned, we could obviously decide to spend it in the same way, in which case no-one currently benefiting from EU largesse would lose from our exit from the EU. Or we could decide to spend it differently. In either case, the total amount available for the UK to decide how to spend would be £15.3BN. (Figures from HoC Library paper SN06091, which is disappointingly contentious in many ways)

    1. Duyfken
      January 25, 2016

      On Richard’s forecast figures for 2016 and with the ONS estimate of 27,735,000 households in UK (26.7 million in 2014), I arrive at the cost per household as:

      Gross payment = £15.3bn / 27,735,000 = £ 552 per household

      Net payment = £11.1bn / 27,735,000 = £ 400 per household

      1. Duyfken
        January 25, 2016

        “(26.7 million in 2014)” should be “(27.2 million in 2014)”.

  4. sm
    January 25, 2016

    Perhaps the UK could, for a start, cut back on its borrowing – or am I missing something?

    1. oldtimer
      January 25, 2016

      Yes you are missing something. That is the irresistable urge by those who gain control of the levers of power to spend beyond their means. Like you my priority would be to put the net £10 billion gain towards deficit reduction but, if the country votes for Brexit, I doubt that would actually happen. Special pleading for the real or imagined consequences of Brexit for various special interest groups would surely win the day. A better alternative than that would be a tax cut.

      1. fedupsoutherner
        January 25, 2016

        Oltimer, I can imagine much of it being given away on welfare payments. The bill for this will surely rise with the amount of immigration going on.

        One wonders how much 3,000 children will cost to house, feed, educate and keep well. Don’t we have enough children in the UK needing care and not enough social workers to cope already?

    2. Mockbeggar
      January 25, 2016

      Of course we should. We have the largest National Debt in our history. We may be able to afford it now while interest rates are so low, but that won’t always be the case. Our offspring won’t thank us.

    3. Dame Rita Webb
      January 25, 2016

      The press over the weekend were reporting that Osborne’s pledge to eliminate the deficit in this parliament (having failed to do so in the last one) is more than likely going to be another load of cobblers. If there is an “exit dividend” it’s doubtful anyone here will see it.

      Out of interest will any of the over 75s here be voluntarily paying their TV licence as the BBC would like them to do so?

      1. Qubus
        January 25, 2016

        Not on your life. I would far rather give it to a charity of my own choice.

        I think that whilst the BBC throws away so much money on exorbitant salaries and pay-offs, doesn’t reduce the size of its online activities, allows its executives to throw money away on foreign jollies and five-star hotels, spends thousands on taxi- rides of around a mile and stops sending more reporters to Olympic events than we have competitors, I shall be keeping my hands in my pockets.

        1. Lifelogic
          January 25, 2016

          I would be happy to pay for some of the BBC output. I like not having adverts. What I cannot stand is the BBC LibDim agenda. They are just wrong on nearly every substantive issue.

          Oh and they do have lots of adds too for BBC products, books, twitter, and charities. Many programmes are in effect just adverts anyway.

      2. Tim L
        January 25, 2016

        Dame Rita Webb …..Out of interest will any of the over 75s here be voluntarily paying their TV licence as the BBC would like them to do so?

        I think they are deluded to think the general public will pay up in any numbers.

        1. Lifelogic
          January 25, 2016

          I am not yet over 75 but would indeed pay up providing they stopped their lefty, pro EU, PC, greencrap, political agenda and if they the stopped paying any staff at the BBC more than about £100K PA.

          Lots of excellent people would do the job for virtually nothing and do it far better.

      3. Martyn G
        January 25, 2016

        Absolutely not! I have no desire to be seen supporting such a biased, left-wing, riddled with too much lefty management, propaganda machine called the BBC. All sorts of emotional chat on radio Oxford this morning making the point that well-off over 75s now have a moral duty to buy a license. Absolute twaddle and an insult to us oldies!

  5. Mike Stallard
    January 25, 2016

    Good point. £10 billion is about a third of what we spend on defence and is a lot of money.
    The EU costs us a lot more than that though:
    Fracking made difficult. In USA it has revolutionised their gas supply.
    Very high electricity prices closing down our industry because of Green lunacy.
    Permanent immigration of people who simply cannot and will not be able to integrate with us.
    Growing tensions with Russia over Syria, Georgia and the Ukraine needing a lot more defence.
    The 2000 Water Directive which has initiated (but not demanded) that dredging cease and is replaced by ecology. Hence the flooding.

    1. fedupsoutherner
      January 25, 2016

      Yes, I saw on the news this morning that many otters are homeless because of the flooding. Save the mussels beds like the EU want us to but damn the rest of the wildlife. Madness.

  6. Antisthenes
    January 25, 2016

    More important than what we do with the money we save is the fact that we can decide what we can do with it instead of it being dictated to us by Brussels. A very symbolic act as it demonstrates the fact that we are free. Free to determine what policies and practices we want to follow instead of it being done for us by faceless EU technocrats.

    To me it is glaringly obvious that being a member of the EU is tantamount to being in bondage and worse we are expected to pay for the privilege. What greater reason can there be than for us to have our sovereignty back and therefore out right to self determination. There are a myriad of other reasons for leaving the EU but that is the most important one. We have fought hard, long and many times to gain and keep that freedom yet there are many now who are quire happy to give it away. If that is not perverse thinking then I know not what is.

    If giving our sovereignty away brought us greater benefits by doing so then it would be a price worth paying. However it does not there are some benefits but none worth the price despite Europhilies claiming the opposite. Any benefits could be achieved without the heavy costly, inefficient and undemocratic hand of the EU. In any case freedom is priceless so there is nothing worth losing it for.

  7. Ex-expat Colin
    January 25, 2016

    It’ll be largely arched up a wall somewhere…nothing new about that. The size of the HoC/HoL needs to be cut also. Invest some in UK industry and pay off the stupid debts. Ignore/dump all lefty sponsorship and get this country straightened out.

    BBC World Service last night went to Norway and presented their case(s) for not being in the EU and as EEA/EFTA member. Bit of a rats nest in terms of tariffs, but those sensible people manage their own fisheries and energy and are very pleased about that. Too damned right! Its a very stark comparison and against all the awkwardness the EU can push out (rules/standards/directives etc).

    Fancy the BBC letting on about that and did not present a wailing pro case. Yep…was in the middle of the night?

    The BBC asking for contributions to the free TV licence….who do they think they are and why do they they think they are good at what they do? Certainly they are very good at physically contracting program production out…thats about all!

    1. getahead
      January 25, 2016

      “Bit of a rats nest in terms of tariffs”
      We don’t want the deal that Norway has with the EU. We don’t want to be paying any tariffs. If the EU want to sell us stuff okay, but we’re not going to pay them for giving them that privilege.

    2. Dame Rita Webb
      January 25, 2016

      There are a few French francs stuffed down the back of my sofa. I will pass them onto my mother when she gets the begging letter from the BBC.

      1. stred
        January 26, 2016

        I pay the BBC three licence fees, as I had threatening letters when tenants failed to pay and brought in their own small tele. I will be delighted to refuse to pay for their bloated salaries and lefty liberal, pro EUcrap in all three cases. Perhaps they should ask for an extra bung from the Brussells commissars.

  8. EngUKnotEU
    January 25, 2016

    No doubt you will deal with the point that Stay In supporters will make, in later blog comments, but, I can hear them saying there will not be £15bn Gross and £11bn net to spend because the UK will not fare as well when out of the EU.

  9. eeyore
    January 25, 2016

    “The important thing is to open this debate.” Couldn’t agree more. Let’s have a short poster campaign – posters are cheap and they provoke debate in the rest of the media – along the lines of “I WANT MY £300 NOW!” , “£300 – THAT’S MINE NOT MERKEL’S” and “WHERE’S MY 300 QUID, DAVE?”

    That’ll get people talking.

  10. Jerry
    January 25, 2016

    “The adventurous who want more growth will say let’s all have a Brexit tax cut, so we individually get to spend it because we pay less Income tax.”

    Well rather than reducing income tax, remember that not everyone pays it, we could have a VAT cut, indeed it might be an idea to abolish it and then bring back a lower purchase tax (with perhaps an option that an additional local PT rate being set and going to county councils). This would be better that suggesting/promising income tax cuts as that sort of offer is now largely seen for what it is -an election bribe- and thus will simply give a gift to those who wish to stay in. I can hear them even now, vote to leave and you will be giving tax cuts to millionaires!

    “We can of course spend the £10 billion and still give exactly the same amounts to farmers, universities etc the the EU currently gives them as well.

    I would actually have hopped that we could spend a little more on such vital sectors!

    Oh and one last plea John, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT in the title (nor elsewhere really), it looks horrid as well as more difficult to read.

  11. Margaret
    January 25, 2016

    Of course the money could simply be invested , but with interest rates as they are and a global down turn on the horizon it doesn’t seem worth it. Ten billion spent will not last a long time. Dividing it amongst different factions will reduce its pulling power, but at least there is choice.

  12. Pete
    January 25, 2016

    How about the government NOT spend the money. How about not stealing it from it’s real owners in the first place?

  13. DaveM
    January 25, 2016

    How about a new TV channel as an alternative to the the BBC? There’s an interesting YouTube channel called The People’s Channel!!

    This weekend I’ve seen a Norway-based anti-Brexit documentary on BBC World News, a programme which I believe was repeated in some form on Radio 4, and the BBC is playing the “Corbyn demands” and “poor little kiddies” pro-immigration tune very loudly today. Additionally, BSE is getting a lot of coverage on the BBC website today, with misleading headlines.

    Strange that the launch of GO, with Fox, Hoey, etc on it didn’t even get a mention on the BBC.

  14. stred
    January 25, 2016

    The amount contriuted to the EU is huge, but has to be compared with other huge expenditure by HMG. We spend about the same as France on defence- around $60bn pa- 4x the money for the EU. Russia spends a bit more but much less per taxpayer. The US spends aout 10x as much as the UK. Conclusion: the UK gets far less value for defence than Russia and wastes a quarter as much on the EU.

  15. stred
    January 25, 2016

    re wiki= defence expenditure.

  16. Bert Young
    January 25, 2016

    There is no question that the health facilities – seriously stretched and needing to put its house in order , should be top of the list if there is more £sd available . We ought not be subsidising other EU countries when things on our own doorstep are more of a priority .

    The way the French have benefited from the CAP and used EU funds when their labour laws have favoured leisure and poor working practices is , frankly , criminal . Sharing and assisting other EU countries does not seem to bother the French . Europe is not equal economically and socially -we all know that , but turning one’s back on flagrant abuse has to be put at the incompetence of Brussels .

    Once free and able to really decide for ourselves , we must prioritise the direction we take ; growing our economy and having access to revenue has a lot to do with incentivising and attracting business ; low taxes can contribute much to this . Equally we just cannot continue to grow by borrowing other people’s money , so , dealing with the deficit has to be high on the list . There is much to be done and having the freedom to decide is , surely ,the right way to go .

  17. Know-Dice
    January 25, 2016

    “We can of course spend the £10 billion and still give exactly the same amounts to farmers, universities etc the the EU currently gives them as well. “

    And more !!!

    How much of a British tax payers pound actually finds it’s way back to the final recipient?

    I would guess that through HMRC, British Civil Servants and EU bureaucrats that probably less that 25 pence in the pound actually gets to it’s final destination – In other words in order for the EU to “grant” £1 you have to take a tax of £4…the less hands tax money goes through the more efficiently it gets spent in the end.

    And much better to minimize what you take in the first place…

  18. agricola
    January 25, 2016

    Concentrating on how we should spend the Brexit bonus I have a suggestion. We need as a country to increase our export of manufactured goods. So why not a bonus corporation tax reduction for anyone manufacturing or more especially exporting manufactured goods. I would omit the service industries some of whom have demonstrated a unique way of minimising Corporation Tax by incorporating overseas.

    The normal rate is 20% I believe. This produced£43.0 Billion in 2014/15. I do not know , nor can I find out what the split is between manufacturing industries and service industries. No doubt the Treasury computer could oblige.

    If we take the EU membership fee of £10.0 Billion from the overall figure of £43.0Billion we end up with a total take of £33.0 Billion. This would result in a 15.35% rate of Corporation Tax for all industry. Were we to concentrate on exporting manufacturing industry, the reduction in Corporation Tax for them could be even more significant. If it was found to work, then it could be extended to service industries that exported their services to customers outside the UK.

    Reducing tax often has the effect of actually increasing the tax take, because it incentivises greater activity. Additionally a lower rate might encourage further foreign manufacturing exporting industries to set up in the UK. What I suggest may be simplistic, but with full knowledge of the figures and intelligent application it could be of great benefit to the UK.

  19. majorfrustration
    January 25, 2016

    And how exactly is the EU going to cover the £10b shortfall in their budget. Print more money I suppose.

  20. Richard1
    January 25, 2016

    You should challenge Sir Stuart Rose to a public debate on these issues, it would be helpful for floating voters. Interviewed by the BBC this am, Sir Stuart didn’t offer anything positive about the EU – no defence of the euro, the shengen agreement, the CAP the CFP etc. His line was its worth £3,000 per household – a discredited figure – and it would be a huge risk to leave because of all the trade. This seems to be the main argument of the Ins: trade with the EU will at best stay the same and probably decline if we leave and trade with the rest of the world will be damaged because c 150 trade deals will have to be re-signed by the UK over a period of years. Trade is the issue to focus debate on. (£10bn is nice to have but its a rounding error when we are still running a deficit every year of well over 5x that).

    1. Know-Dice
      January 25, 2016

      And from the BBC this morning:

      “Civitas studied official trade statistics and said that Britain had recorded slower export growth than any of the other founding nations of Europe’s single market.

      Michael Burrage, who wrote the report, said: “While the single market cannot be counted a success in export terms for the EU as a whole, for the UK it must be counted at the very least a massive disappointment, and not far short of a disaster.”

      His report found growth in UK exports had tended to drop after European Commission trade deals, whereas independent countries Switzerland, Singapore and South Korea grew exports in the majority of cases after they negotiated their own trade agreements.

      He added that UK export growth was 22.3% lower since joining the single market at the end of 1992 than it would have been had it continued at its rate during the common market in 1973-1992.

      Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott said: “The unquestioning mantra that the single market has been good for British trade is wrong and should be challenged as this research makes crystal clear.”

      Other opponents to EU membership also argue that the UK’s trade position with the EU would not change much in the event of a vote to leave.

      The organisation said “given that we buy more from the EU than it buys from us” the EU would be unlikely to change Britain’s trade terms.”

    2. Denis Cooper
      January 25, 2016

      That would be “a discredited figure” as in “a brazen lie”. But this is what we get from the government and its pro-EU allies, there will be no scruples.

    January 25, 2016

    ….£300 a household every year going to subsidise …” ( 2nd line )

    £300 tax refund per household tax exactly one year after leaving the EU. Thereupon a £300 per year tax -free savings fund set up by the government payable as a tax refund 10 years after leaving the EU subject to everyone with continual residence in the UK over the same period with options for further reinvestment.

    This would be a true stakeholder society. Everyone… would have savings for the first time in British history and possibly the first time in world history.
    I believe other countries would copycat such a measure in some form of other.

  22. Tony Harrison
    January 25, 2016

    Don’t spend the money. Our governments – all of them – always spend far too much. Reduce our indebtedness. Cut public spending radically. After that, cut taxes.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 25, 2016

      Indeed cut spending (is is largely waste anyway), cut taxes and let the people who made the money use it. They will do so far better than Osborne and the state sector that is certain. If the state ran the food supply system we would all starve.

  23. Bill
    January 25, 2016

    Yes, the group that wants to remain in the EU has to make the case that the loss would be greater than the annual £11bn membership fee. We read, however, that female voters are not turned on or influenced by the numbers but want a more emotional reason for coming out (and this is not intended to be a sexist comment but simply to repeat what is said to by informed journalistic comment). The Scottish Nationalists talked about growing up and breaking free of the British. And these were the arguments used by the Welsh Nationalists before the inauguration of the Welsh Assembly.

    We need clear numbers but we also need other arguments as well. For me, the principle of self-government is telling.

  24. GTE
    January 25, 2016

    There is no need for the UK to pay anything for the privilege of importing so much from Germany.

    BSE say we would have to pay to sell to the EU.

    How about charging them instead? That’s even more of a reason for leaving [1]

    [1] If you apply the barmy pro EU logic.

  25. agricola
    January 25, 2016

    Having already suggested what to do with the £10.0 Billion I have gone through the possibilities you offer.

    The Deficit is reducing so while interest rates are low let it run.

    Reducing Income Tax might increase spending power, but could suck in lots of imports. Bad news for the Deficit and Debt.

    The ever expanding health budget needs to be got under control because it is patently badly managed. Social Services need a bigger reality check than they have yet had, if only to ensure that those who need it get much more than at present. The liberal loophole that allows a claimant to do so for the consequences of having more than one wife are unbelievable.

    Education is already moving in the right direction, but by ensuring that the money goes to schools rather than education authorities would generate even more front end funding.

    The £10.0 Billion saving is I suspect only the tip of the iceberg. Impositions by the EU on
    industry, energy generation, agriculture, et al have never been quantified, but I have little doubt that they exceed the membership fee. Having a legal profession, effectively ambulance chasing at the behest of the ECHR and their own pockets is a burden we do not need.

    Eliminating the burden on the health service, education, transport, and the social services by removing the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant would be an unquantifiable bonus with added security benefits.

    So as earlier stated I would go for reducing Corporation Tax on exporting manufacturing industry.

  26. Ian wragg
    January 25, 2016

    Perfectly logical John but completely lost on your boss. £10 billion being a trifling amount of taxpayers money to ensure a seat at the top table (or so he thinks).
    We are now to get 3000 refugee children. Just bait so their families can use umanrites law for reunification. So that will probably be about 50000 total then.
    etc ed

  27. Kenneth
    January 25, 2016

    We must be realistic. We know that the BBC and other left wing political groups will be campaigning against the closure of some previously eu-funded projects, particularly in Wales and other regions.

    Politically, therefore, some of these projects will need to be seen through to a conclusion. However, for what it is worth, I think the rest should be used for a windfall tax cut in year one and then split 50/50 between tax cuts and deficit reduction in subsequent years.

    It’s a great idea for the IN campaign to highlight this happy problem.

    1. Kenneth
      January 25, 2016

      Oh, just re-read the post. We are talking about the NET contribution (sorry) . In that case, all tax cuts in year one and then 50/50 tax cuts & deficit/debt reduction

  28. lojolondon
    January 25, 2016

    John, this is a good article, but there will be much more than £10 Billion a year to spend – what about the massive windfall expected when Amazon, Starbucks, Google, Microsoft and the rest including banks, steel companies and some of our rail operators actually have to pay corporation tax in country, instead of in Lichtenstein etc.? That will run to several billion. What about the new trade deals that will happen – USA and China would be obvious quick and easy wins to negotiate? The possibilities are endless, and EU performance has been so bad for so long that the only way is up!!

    1. getahead
      January 25, 2016

      And now all the immigrants are coming to Europe for their welfare, clearly there is no more need to be paying out foreign aid. A lot of money to be saved there.

  29. Andrew Cullen
    January 25, 2016

    While opening up a discussion what the saved tax funds that would no longer be contributed from the UK to the EU could be used for is of interest, I do not think it greatly adds value to the key issues that need discussion in the forthcoming referendum debate (assuming, that is, some “emergency” is not invented in the coming weeks to forestall this event). Those key issues are succinctly put in an early blog by JR on this site.

    What I suggest needs to be added is the issue of the probable future of the EU if Britain remains in it. That is important because the future is already writ large in the policies, plans and proposals that are already laid out. Namely, more centralisation of power and policy control in Brussels, expansion and strengethening of “new” policy areas like EU diplomacy, policing and an EU army; not to mention the radical new laws to regulate the entire banking sector (“bail-ins” and the like). And, of course, more taxation and strengthening of the EU institutions’ own powers at the expense of national government.

    Not least, we should accentuate the extent to which most existing EU policies are examples of policy failure: fisheries, trade, energy, for example. So, by extension, why would there be any confidence in eU new policy credibility – just look at the debacle of the EU’s dealings with Ukraine.

    The vital point about all this is: the overwhelming political character of the political elites and decision-making instances within the EU is socialist, social democratic or corporatist conservatism. There exist negligible tangible political voices calling for free markets, less regulation, lower taxes and a fundamental rolling back of the state.

    In my view, the forthcoming debate is an opportunity for the public to re-discover the virtues of self help, independence, sovereignty, freedom of speech, non-interventionist government, low taxation and the rule of law. None of these are part of the current structure of EU government which is anti-democratic.

    The likely trajectory of the EU’s evolution in the coming few years is not likely – in my view – to progress smoothly along the lines that the EU federalists expect or wish. The euro crisis annd the sovereign debt crisis are going to re-emerge soon. The rising tide of new political organisations across the continent – all of which in one respect or another are anti the EU statu quo – are going to have an impact on the configuration of the EU.

    In sum, if the EU is about to experience a phase of rising political, security and monetary (debt default) volatility, then Britain would be well advised to be outside of the maelstrom of conflicts. All largely avoidable by voting for OUT in the referendum.

    The political plus within the UK would be to force a change in the character of the leadership of the Tory party so that it would re-discover its liberal, free enterprise principles.

  30. MikeP
    January 25, 2016

    John while arguments are made to use the £10bn to reduce the deficit, did this or the previous Government ever bother to examine our expenditure department by department, comparing present day to when we last balanced the books?

    Without knowing the true figures my strong suspicion would be that, on Welfare spend, pensions and disability benefit are much larger (the former per head, the latter due to much higher claimant count) but that the main outliers elsewhere are in Energy, Climate Change and other Whitehall pen-pushers. If such a comparison exists I’d love to be pointed towards it.

  31. miami.mode
    January 25, 2016

    They had Lord Rose on the radio this morning repeating the mantra that membership of the EU benefited every UK household by £3,000 per annum, which amounts to roughly 10 times the amount paid in cash. When pushed to justify this figure he merely stated that it was produced by the CBI, but surely this is a bit like John McDonnell quoting Chairman Mao as though it is all true without any justification.

    It must be a legitimate question to him to get the CBI to publish their figures so that they can be easily understood by the electorate and scrutinised by the Brexiteers.

  32. Denis Cooper
    January 25, 2016

    I’m certainly not going to criticise anyone who produces illustrations of the different useful ways we could use this money if we left the EU.

    But I’m more concerned about how we are going to convince voters that we would be in the position of deciding how to use the money we saved, rather than having to grapple with the economic and financial disaster being forecast by the government and its allies.

  33. Cheshire Girl
    January 25, 2016

    As I read this afternoon, that yet another public figure ( Lord Parkinson) has died from cancer, I think a large tranche of money should be given to Cancer Research, to enable them to try to find a cure, or more effective drugs, to tackle this terrible disease that is taking so many people, in public and in private lives, from us.

  34. Denis Cooper
    January 25, 2016

    Well, unless people actually want their country to be subjugated in a pan-European federation, a sovereign federal United States of Europe – some do, but not many – they need to understand that staying in the EU is also not a risk-free option.

  35. A different Simon
    January 25, 2016

    Spend savings on strengthening areas where the U.K. has become weak and where EU membership currently has a positive influence .

    1) An independent U.K. might offer even less resistance to U.S. intimidation .

    This might manifest itself in the U.K. succumbing to pressure to pass U.S. style patent laws allowing patenting of the natural world . The EU thankfully has no truck with that rubbish .

    2) HM Govt has a problem – it acts in the interests of The City and Big Corporations rather than the interests of British Citizens .

    I fear that the situation could get even worse in an independent U.K.

    3) British institutions including Parliament and Whitehall are no longer fit for purpose .

    Parliament turns out shoddy legislation in comparison with the professional bureaucrats on the continent .

    That bonfire of the Quangos really needs to happen .

    Our civil service is bloated – the Environment Agency is ineffective and inefficient in comparison to it’s counterpart organisations in France and Germany .

    There needs to be a revolution when we leave . The public sector needs to be cleansed of useless/disloyal senior staff and some of the money will need to be set aside for their redundancy payouts .

    The class system is alive and well in the upper echelons of the public sector and is holding the country back .
    The U.K. can no longer afford to ignore the talents of the 92.5% just because their parents sent them to a state school – or provide less able children who went to independent schools sinecures in a Quango .

  36. John Ward
    January 25, 2016

    Very few UK politicians can deconstruct anti-Brexit nonsense with quite the cool brevity of Mr Redwood. I look forward to the day when his wisdom can play a major part in a Ministry of All Talents.

  37. Maureen Turner
    January 25, 2016

    How about scrapping HS2 which is due to start in 2017. The intention when the idea was first proposed was for the convenience of the captains of industry by shaving off 30 minutes travelling time between the South and the North of England plus this would help regenerate industry in the north. Even in the 1970’s the preferred form of travel for CEO’s was very often the company’s own aircraft. It was an exclusivity of travel and a kudos thing.

    The cost of tickets would no doubt be prohibitive for most rail users and being high speed had few stopping points. HS2 is a required EU project and is to be funded from monies coming from our annual membership rebate.

    Good piece today by Lord Tebbit in the DT – “These are dangerous times for Western democracy.” Also the sad death of Lord Parkinson. Where has confident Britain gone as we now stare at our Continent in turmoil?

  38. turbo terrier
    January 25, 2016

    The money will be spent on trying to sort out the train smash waiting to happen in our major cities. One thing for certain it will not get any better.

    1. Anonymous
      January 25, 2016

      TT – At some point the hidden migrants are going to feel that they have earned a stake in our society – the builders working for a sandwich a day. The cleaners, the nannies and gardeners and valeters grafting in money laundering operations, working for next to nowt.

      And they would be right. They are contributing far more to our society than those in receipt of welfare whilst making their excuses not to work in the jobs capital of Europe.

      There will come a time when they demand their rights to citizenship and to a stake in our society. An amnesty.

      We have no choice but to give it to them. They are not leaving and we will not kick them out. There is no point in awaiting the riots that will come with the peasant’s revolt.

      We’d all end up feeling the same too.

  39. Iain gill
    January 25, 2016

    Can I just say the education secretary action against protest against the religious segregation in our schools is madness. Nobody o know from anywhere in the political spectrum agrees with the current segregation and bias. Integrate our kids and only separate on ability.

  40. William Grant
    January 26, 2016

    I remember Nigel Farage say in the past that he wanted the money saved to be put towards more defence spending in part. We will need to if Marine Le Pen is right and there is a more fevered Europe left after Engexit mortally wounds the EU. You have to tell us what your fellow travellers in the Out camp want to do with the money, like the left of the Labour party and the fundamentalist Scottish nationalists who want Brexit follwed by Brexit.

  41. Lindsay McDougall
    January 26, 2016

    It’s a no brainer. We use the bonus to pay down the deficit.

    As for having to carry on making payments, should we not subsidise British farming rather than continental farming – indeed we subsidise at all.

    This seems a good point to say that we do not need to copy the Norwegian or Swiss deals, which involve accepting all of the Single Market regulations while having no say in their evolution.

  42. Andrew Cullen
    January 26, 2016

    I am disappointed to see that my comments submitted yesterday have not at all bee accepted.

    As this is my first visit and I consider thsoe comments both pertinent and appropriate, perhaps the moderator can please provide guidelines on what grounds contributors are “censored”, as there was nothing to cause offence or that was irrelevant in the content, IMO. Thank you.

  43. The Active Citizen
    January 27, 2016

    Another great article JR. I only take slight issue with the figures, based on looking at the last ten years.

    The UK’s contributions to the EU :-
    Actual 2006 : £3.9bn net, £12.4bn gross
    Proj’d 2016 : £11.1bn net, £19.6bn gross

    So our net contributions to the EU this year will have almost trebled in 10 years. I see no reason for this rate of increase to fall, only to rise.

    Assuming a vote to leave this year, and the 2-year period of exit envisaged in the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, our net contributions to the EU would be around £11.75bn when we leave.

    That’s £11.75bn divided by 28,035,000 households = £419 per household.

    There’s only one way to present this in the Referendum campaign and that’s as a direct payment to every household in the country in 2018. I leave the precise method to people smarter than me. Thereafter it can be used to pay off the deficit annually.

    We want to win this referendum and money talks.


    Note : The figures above assume the same upward trend in EU contributions we’ve experienced over the past 10 years, and an extra 300,000 households in the next two years.

    Sources: UK Treasury Report to Parliament and OBR reports, Jul 2006-Jan 2016.

Comments are closed.