Britain’s contribution to the EU will have to increase by next year by another £350 million.
Britain, sat at the EU’s top table and as always supposedly shaping the community to our way of thinking, opposed this payment.
The result? Britain was outvoted. Not enough EU member states voted to block the increase. The interests of the British people were trampled underfoot by foreign nationals, whose own interests were served at our expense by extracting more money from hard pressed British taxpayers. As usual, the EU’s fans in the British press gave the impression of dissent whilst retaining their fetish for rule from abroad by unelected and unaccountable mandarins who pander to the corporatist interests of the media barons.
This is nothing less than the state sanctioned theft of funds which are generated in these islands and are needed for the benefit of the citizens of these islands.
Would it not be better to be free of this straitjacket? David Cameron’s view is very clear:
I think it would be bad for Britain. When I look at what is in our national interest, we are not some country that looks in on ourself or retreats from the world. Britain’s interest – trading a vast share of our GDP – is to be in those markets. Not just buying, selling, investing, receiving investment but also helping to write the rules. If we were outside, we wouldn’t be able to do that.
If we were outside we would not be relieved of our money to benefit people elsewhere in Europe to the detriment of our own.
And in any case, if this country were a real democracy, those of us who are expected to foot the bill would determine how our money is spent.
Autonomous Mind 
Well, you all know the answer to this question:
What are we going to do about it?
Click to access BN77.pdf
The UK’s Missing Sovereign Wealth Fund
What if the UK, instead of handing over its EU Budget Contributions to Brussels, had invested the cash in a British Sovereign Wealth Fund ?
That fund would today be one of the biggest in the world
UK Contributions to the EU Budget between 1973 & 2010 totalled £ 380 billion in 2010 values, around 42% of theUK national debt at March 20112. By 2014, at projected 2014/15 values, the total is estimated to be in the region of £ 550 billion3. Had the £ 380 billion at 2010 values been invested in a British Sovereign Wealth Fund, instead of being spent on and by the EU, that fund would today have been approximately the same size as the world’s two biggest sovereign wealth funds, those of Abu Dhabi and Norway.
David Cameron :”I do think that the single market is vital for us and that determining the rules of that market matters for us.”
Does anyone think that the following facts show that “the single market is vital for us” ?
– UK share of the vote in EU institutions : 8%
– Cost of single market: €600 billion / benefits €120 billion.
– UK trade deficit with EU (1973-2009): £438 billion
– UK payments-EU Budget (1973-2010): £380 billion (2010 Values)
– Western Europe’s share of world GDP 1974 : 36% projected to fall to 15% by 2020
The Swiss Government’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of EU Membership
Full EU membership would cost Switzerland almost NINE TIMES as much
as the current system of Bilateral Agreements
It can be seen that full EU membership would cost almost NINE TIMES as much as the current system of Swiss-EU Bilateral Agreements, based on the estimated Swiss gross contribution to the EU Budget, or over SIX TIMES as much based on the estimated Swiss net contribution. Joining the EEA would be significantly more costly than the current Bilateral Agreements, but still far less costly than joining the EU.
Annual Cost to Switzerland of alternative relationships with EU: 2007-2013
Swiss francs millions Index
Continue Bilateral Agreements 557 100
Join EEA 737 132
Join EU (net contribution) 3400 610
Join EU (gross contribution) 4940 886
Sigh. Out now, AM. No other way.
Yes Cameron, define “our national interest” with no hand waving or weasel words. Distinguish between it and “my own interest”.
It’s a bit like another word politicians use but never explain exactly what they mean by it, “fairness”. Well no one’s against “fairness” and everyone thinks they know what it means and it sounds pretty good.
“Having a seat at the top table” meaning a few talking heads in the EU, is another, sounds great, obviously suits the political establishment term. but it isn’t clear why everyone else should give automatic approval. Actually, given the way international regulation is decided, outside the EU the UK could have a seat ‘at the top table’. Inside the EU we are part of a body which does not press for our interests specifically and has one ‘seat at the top table’ for 27 diverse states. Not much of a ‘seat at the top table’.
Out brothers out.
There is NO OTHER WAY!