‘Brexit’ Vote Shows Why Trump Can Win

[Adam White]

demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.

At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them.  They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies.  I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.

That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.

Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse  and being blockers -  due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.

I agree. The UK was highly dependent on the EU. Crossrail was completed with EU funding, for example. And if you follow the news in the UK, there are reports that Cornwall has asked for guarantees of central government funding to cover the 60m per year funding they received from the EU. Some of the councils in Yorkshire have done the same. Of course, all those people voted to leave.

[acme54321]

demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.

At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them.  They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies.  I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.

That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.

Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse  and being blockers -  due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.

I agree. The UK was highly dependent on the EU. Crossrail was completed with EU funding, for example. And if you follow the news in the UK, there are reports that Cornwall has asked for guarantees of central government funding to cover the 60m per year funding they received from the EU. Some of the councils in Yorkshire have done the same. Of course, all those people voted to leave.

Where did the EU money originally come from?  Do the member countries pay an "EU Tax" or something?  I have no idea how it all works but curious how the EU is funded and how the EU determines where the funds are distributed. 

[Gunnar]

demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.

At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them.  They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies.  I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.

That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.

Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse  and being blockers -  due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.

I agree. The UK was highly dependent on the EU. Crossrail was completed with EU funding, for example. And if you follow the news in the UK, there are reports that Cornwall has asked for guarantees of central government funding to cover the 60m per year funding they received from the EU. Some of the councils in Yorkshire have done the same. Of course, all those people voted to leave.

Where did the EU money originally come from?  Do the member countries pay an "EU Tax" or something?  I have no idea how it all works but curious how the EU is funded and how the EU determines where the funds are distributed.

How is the EU funded ? http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/money/revenue-income/index_en.htm

There is no "EU Tax" per se, although a small part of the VAT does to the EU budget. The EU is funded via import duties and by the member countries (i.e. money comes from their budgets). The money is then spent on the EU institutions / administration and distributed back to member countries through various programs:

In the end, this leaves some countries as in a net payer position (e.g. UK, Germany, Netherlands...) and others as net recipients. Part of the idea is also to use funds from high GDP countries to improve living conditions in low GDP / less developed member countries (or areas) through regional development funds.

-> This would even include rural areas in say the UK that lagged behind the EU average. One example would be the EU helping finance broadband internet or a University campus in Cornwall:  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b881406-1b46-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz4CnR2pbuE

The UK under Thatcher managed to secure a rebate on their payments based on the then definitely valid point that most of the EU budget at that time was spent on agriculture and that the UK benefited less from this than most of the other EU member countries.

[acme54321]

So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back?  Breaking even? 

[acme54321]

So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?

no, quite the opposite.

Not according to this:. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

[Gunnar]

So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?

no, quite the opposite.

Not according to this:. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Yes, according to that.

A 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. "There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK's EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal", as the House of Commons Library says.

If my membership means that I pay 18 dollars, but get 10 back in rebates and It lets me have a booth at the flea market that lets me sell duty free items for a profit of 430 dollars, then I am getting back way more from my membership than I am putting in. 

because: obviously.

Here is the page that you apparently missed:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ask-full-fact-our-eu-membership-fee-and-economy/

Excellent point - that is really at the heart of the question: Does the UK get their money's worth, or not? The majority of the voters seem to think otherwise.

Now, the direct payments are not the only factor here - there are EU rules to adhere to which can also cost money / opportunities (e.g. environmental protection, workers' rights etc...). Again, Brexit proponents seem to believe that many of the rules are holding the UK back.

The funny thing is that some Brexit supporters are trying to say that they will be able to negotiate the same rights that the UK has now (full access to the common market and complete freedom of movement for UK citizens in the EU...), without having to pay into the EU, without a reciprocal freedom of movement for EU citizens in the UK and without having to adhere to any EU rules.

I would be very  suprised if the EU were to agree to it (and each member country needs to agree afaik). If you e.g. look at Norway, which is not a EU member but has full access to the common market, this is exactly what they needed to do - offer reciprocal freedom of movement, adhere to many EU rules and pay into EU funds.

[acme54321]

So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?

no, quite the opposite.

Not according to this:. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Yes, according to that.

A 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. "There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK's EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal", as the House of Commons Library says.

If my membership means that I pay 18 dollars, but get 10 back in rebates and It lets me have a booth at the flea market that lets me sell duty free items for a profit of 430 dollars, then I am getting back way more from my membership than I am putting in. 

because: obviously.

Here is the page that you apparently missed:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ask-full-fact-our-eu-membership-fee-and-economy/

I don't know if you get off on attempting to belittle people with your snarky, condescending posts, but it gets old and looks poorly on you (and this site that you run). 

I'm just trying to understand all of this.  Out of the "obvious" info you posted the only thing obvious to me is that no one really knows what the impact of all of this is going to be.