Eu Exit Savings Already Spoken For?

[Hypognosis]

UKIP's Nathan Gill assures Welsh farmers that the subsidy payments which they fear they will lose, should Britain quit the EU, will be maintained, following an exit, made possible because of the £250m per year saving from our departure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33588602

Will the other parties echo this promise?

As a side issue, just how much of our EU "subscription fee" just boomerangs back to us?

Will the £250m "saving" turn into 200m? 150? 100?

Are UKIP manifesto promises going to be as "fully funded" as they thought?

[Svejk]

250 million a week?

[Ellipsis]

We are a net contributor to the EU (i.e. we pay in more than we get back) so in theory all subsidies the EU pays could be paid directly by us.

In practice it depends how much better or worse off we would be out of the EU once not only our net contribution but also the gains or losses in trade were taken into consideration, plus of course whether our government at the time wanted to continue to pay those subsidies rather than spending the money on something else.

[Hypognosis]

Arghh. Rissoles!

Yes, he says £10bn/year in the video clip, which is £192m/wk. Thanks for the correction.

The question of much the true windfall might be remains.

[Gromit]

£250 million?

Shome mishtake Shurely.

We pay about £20Billion, or £55million a DAY.

We get about half of it back directly in subsidies.

[Hypognosis]

@Ellipsis

Thanks.

Many farmers are barely breaking even, despite these subsidies and reckon even a modest reduction (should UK take over CAP payments) would meand they'd go under in two or three years.


Supposed loss of trade, post exit is something we are getting mixed messages over. If demand is in place and they sell to the Eurozone now, what part of exit chokes off that demand? It's not like a gate is being shut, more something to do with pricing competitively or not. Has anyone got a clue?

[Hypognosis]

@Gromit

Either Gill needs to be rebriefed or he is counting that "half-back" bit and really meant £10bn net.

If you're going to bandy figures about, may as well make sure you're not ambiguous about it.

[Svejk]

Without bothering to look, I believe foreign farmers (esp. French) take the lion's share of farm subsidies. And the little bit we get is making some extremely wealthy farmers wealthier.

[Gromit]

Hypognosis

They are barely making any money because the big supermarkets (their biggest customers ) pay them a pittance for their produce. If they don't sell, the produce can be imported.

[Svejk]

I've always seen that 55 million a day quoted.

[Hypognosis]

@Svejk

All this time I have been puzzled about the apparent scarcity of "I'm a farmer and a UKIP supporter" in the audiences of the debate programs. Well, now we know why!

@Gromit

It just goes to show, the globals can push people around as much as they want, without dropping bombs on them or parking tanks on their lawn.

Thinks: will EU exit really curb that variety of bully-boy behaviour?

[New Judge]

“We pay about £20Billion, or £55million a DAY.

We get about half of it back directly in subsidies.”

Yes, quite a good scheme. Rather like you giving me £100 and I give you fifty quid back but dictate what you must spend it on.

The net change in trade between the UK and the EU as a result of a “Brexit” will be next to nothing. Trade takes place despite political interference not because of it. Threats of 3m jobs being at risk are fatuous. Yes, perhaps three million jobs depend on trade with EU nations, but they do not depend on EU membership. There is no evidence that wholesale loss of trade will result in our leaving the EU and it will leave us free to develop trading agreements with other markets which we cannot do at present due to the fact that we have ceded that privilege (along with many others) to the EU.

Welsh farmers, or indeed any other farmers (particularly French ones) should not be afforded taxpayer subsidies either via the EU or via the UK government. If their businesses do not make a profit without the subsidies they should either remodel their business or pack it in.

[Hypognosis]

This source is going to be unpopular… you are welcome to post link yourself, of course.

https://factcheckeu.org/factchecks/show/342/nigel-farage

[Gromit]

Svejk,

Poland get more back than France. See graphic at the bottom of this page...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11221427/EU-budget-what-you-need-to-know.html

[Hypognosis]

@New Judge

I swear I heard the first grumbles about subsidising French farmers back in the 80's. This may be a trick of the mind, so I would be reassured to hear other people remember it from that long ago.

The long-standing Tory opposition to joining the EU now becomes clear. They didn't want British taxpayer's money funding socialism in another country.

We really should have been exiting the EU every time the Tories got into power.

[Khandro]

NJ //... farmers, should not be afforded taxpayer subsidies either via the EU or via the UK government. If their businesses do not make a profit without the subsidies they should either remodel their business or pack it in.//
We could find it possible to close down ALL farming and import all our food, as we have done with other industries, but would that be wise? It appears the UK will soon be importing half its food as it is anyway.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/uk-will-need-to-import-over-half-of-its-food-within-a-generation-farmers-warn

[Ellipsis]

> Has anyone got a clue?

Maybe. The difficulty is in knowing who has a clue, when there are so many different opinions to be heard.

If it was hugely obvious that we'd be far better off then surely the issue would be settled by now. Or do we have successive governments of all persuasions over many years who knowingly and willingly fritter away our money on the European "project" in which case ... why? For what gain?

IMO we're likely to be either a little bit better off or a little bit worse off by exiting the EU, i.e. it won't a massive financial difference either way. I think a "Brexit" should be on ideological rather than financial grounds.

[Svejk]

Farm Subsidies, gromit. Not that I care much who gets them.
I very much doubt all the UK farmers will go out of business without subsidies. I think some of you are simplifying the effects of subsidies given and taken away.
You could just as well say that every shop in the UK will shut without in-work benefits paying their wage bill.

[brionon]

We export 73% of our exports to the EU. UKIP seems to believe that we can leave the EU and they won't tax our goods !!

[Svejk]

If that were the case, brionen, we'd be quids in. We import far more than we export to Europe.

[Hypognosis]

Have been reading Grom's 14:49 link, from which I got (2013 figures)

"Most of the money Britain receives from the
EU is used to subsidise farming (€3.1bn). "

So, that means about 3/10ths of what EU exit stands to save us will continue to prop up the farmers. *Provided* the government of the day upholds a promise made by UKIP.

Ultimately it is the consumer who squeezes the supermarkets on prices and they, in turn squeeze the farmers. European farmers will get their subsidy recalibrated, likely lessened because UK Subs are missing. They will have to raise their prices and our farmers will then be in a position to either win undercut sales, abroad, or follow suit on price.

All this time (started 1960s, that article said) food prices have been kept artificially low, by these subsidies. Needless to say, even if it would be desirable to see what the natural price level really is, removing subsidies will hit the poorest hardest. Not something to be attempted as some form of social experiment.

It does, however underline my sense of the falsehood built into our economic systems. We don't pay the lowest earners enough to buy the basics for civilised life at their natural, unsubsidised price. Yet, if we did, manufactured and luxury goods would go up so much that even the well off would start complaining about prices.