17 ms·

Excluding Germany, Britain’s contribution is more than the total net contribution of the 26 other EU states combined. https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-cont

Excluding Germany, Britain’s contribution is more than the total net contribution of the 26 other EU states combined. https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/eu-£250-miillion.png https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01...

gonvaled 10y ago
A bit more context would be helpful for such a complex issue. That's for 2015. Total? What about per-capita? What about per-GDP? Are you expecting Malta to contribute more than the UK?
- programmernews3 10y ago
  Well one way to look at it is that the other 27 countries will have to increase their contributions just to break even, or reduce spending.
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    Well, the UK has massively benefited from its EU membership. I don't think we'll have that much money around after we leave, our trade will take a hit, our companies will have less access to EU talent (which is massively needed in IT at least), so we will be less competitive. I do think all that extra money we paid in the EU was easily recovered. It's going to be ironic when we have less money around than before paying into the EU :(
- pc256 10y ago
  I think they were referring to net contributions - Malta is a massive net recipient per capita (https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-get-back/ https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-g...)
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Net contributions are misleading. The members pay a fee according to their population and GDP. According to that, the UK is paying little. What happens with those paid fees is complex, but agreed between the members. Roughly described: * the fees go to the EU budget * some of the fees are used to pay for EU administration * some of the fees are used to pay for EU projects * one big program is "Investment in depressed regions, EU-wide". The UK is not a big beneficiary of this program because fortunately its regions are relatively rich. Some regions are poor, and they do receive funds. The reason why the UK is net contributor is because it is a rich country. Its gross contribution is small, GDP and capita-wise.

gonvaled 10y ago

A bit more context would be helpful for such a complex issue. That's for 2015. Total? What about per-capita? What about per-GDP? Are you expecting Malta to contribute more than the UK?

programmernews3 10y ago
Well one way to look at it is that the other 27 countries will have to increase their contributions just to break even, or reduce spending.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Well, the UK has massively benefited from its EU membership. I don't think we'll have that much money around after we leave, our trade will take a hit, our companies will have less access to EU talent (which is massively needed in IT at least), so we will be less competitive. I do think all that extra money we paid in the EU was easily recovered. It's going to be ironic when we have less money around than before paying into the EU :(
pc256 10y ago
I think they were referring to net contributions - Malta is a massive net recipient per capita (https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-get-back/ https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-g...)
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Net contributions are misleading. The members pay a fee according to their population and GDP. According to that, the UK is paying little. What happens with those paid fees is complex, but agreed between the members. Roughly described: * the fees go to the EU budget * some of the fees are used to pay for EU administration * some of the fees are used to pay for EU projects * one big program is "Investment in depressed regions, EU-wide". The UK is not a big beneficiary of this program because fortunately its regions are relatively rich. Some regions are poor, and they do receive funds. The reason why the UK is net contributor is because it is a rich country. Its gross contribution is small, GDP and capita-wise.