Thatcher - benefits scrounger

[TheFaQQer]

I sorted by 'net benefit (billions)'

Top 4 losers:
Germany −86
United Kingdom −57
France −51
Italy −46

Using that logic, the UK "pays in" more than Germany. However, we don't. We pay in less than Germany, France and Italy.

Italy has a lower GDP than the UK, and actually pays in more than the UK as well - maybe you should be championing what a rough deal they get?

[TimberWolf]

Using that logic, the UK "pays in" more than Germany. However, we don't. We pay in less than Germany, France and Italy.

Italy has a lower GDP than the UK, and actually pays in more than the UK as well - maybe you should be championing what a rough deal they get?

What are you wittering on about you twit. I never said we pay more than Germany.

[TheFaQQer]

What are you wittering on about you twit. I never said we pay more than Germany.

No, you said we paid more than France, which we don't. Unless my maths is failing me today, 140 is more than 103.

Extending your logic further (i.e. net benefit means "we pay more" - which is a fairly ridiculous point of view, since we DON'T pay more than France), then Germany pays "less" than the UK because their net benefit is -86 whereas ours is -57.

Let's see what the computer says:

SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM   DUAL
WHERE  140 < 103
/

  COUNT(*)
----------
         0

I'll try it one more time for the hard of thinking - we DO NOT pay more than France into the EU. We pay LESS than France into the EU.

[TimberWolf]

No, you said we paid more than France, which we don't. Unless my maths is failing me today, 140 is more than 103.

Extending your logic further (i.e. net benefit means "we pay more" - which is a fairly ridiculous point of view, since we DON'T pay more than France), then Germany pays "less" than the UK because their net benefit is -86 whereas ours is -57.

Let's see what the computer says:

SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM   DUAL
WHERE  140 < 103
/

  COUNT(*)
----------
         0

I'll try it one more time for the hard of thinking - we DO NOT pay more than France into the EU. We pay LESS than France into the EU.

The negative sign means a net loss. Germany's, having a larger negative number in that table, does not mean their net payment is less than the UK's, it means it's greater. Argue if you will that net contribution is not a great metric, but I hardly think payments excepting returns is a good one.

[TheFaQQer]

The negative sign means a net loss. Germany's, having a larger negative number in that table, does not mean their net payment is less than the UK's, it means it's greater. Argue if you will that net contribution is not a great metric, but I hardly think payments excepting returns is a good one.

I'm not arguing that it's not a good metric, but your statement that we pay in more than France is completely wrong.

A better metric, I think, would be net benefit per capita, but that doesn't fit the argument that it "seems like the UK gets shafted the most" quite as neatly.

[TimberWolf]

I'm not arguing that it's not a good metric, but your statement that we pay in more than France is completely wrong.

In what way wrong? I already explained how it is right, given the metric used.

In reply you suggest that non-net contributions was the true metric. You're boring me now.

[Doggy Styles]

I sorted by 'net benefit (billions)'

Top 4 losers:
Germany −86
United Kingdom −57
France −51
Italy −46

On these figures I agree that the UK is a higher NET contributor than everyone bar Germany.

But as the EU accounts weren't kept properly and weren't signed off for 15 years, gawd knows where all that money went.

[TheFaQQer]

In what way wrong?

You said

How come the UK pays more into the EU than France, when France's GDP is higher than the UK's?

I pointed out that 140 is not, in fact, less than 103. 140 is a bigger number than 103. It is not smaller. There is a difference between the two numbers - 140 is the LARGER number than 103, which is SMALLER.

Is that clear enough to explain why you are wrong to say that "the UK pays more into the EU than France"? The reason it's wrong to say that is, simply, because it is not right

You then changed tack slightly, and said

Argue if you will that net contribution is not a great metric, but I hardly think payments excepting returns is a good one.

which is a different argument altogether. Perhaps what your original post should have said was "How come the UK (although we pay in less than France) ends up taking out less money than France, so we have a worse net benefit than a country with a larger GDP than ours?"

You also suggest that

Always seems like the UK gets shafted the most.

. None of the figures in the table support that statement:

Money in: Germany (UK fourth)
Worst net benefit: Germany (UK second)
Ratio of money out/in: Netherlands (UK second)
Net benefit per capita: Netherlands (UK sixth)

[DodgyAgent]

You said


I pointed out that 140 is not, in fact, less than 103. 140 is a bigger number than 103. It is not smaller. There is a difference between the two numbers - 140 is the LARGER number than 103, which is SMALLER.

Is that clear enough to explain why you are wrong to say that "the pays more into the EU than France"? The reason it's wrong to say that is, simply, because it is not right

You then changed tack slightly, and said



which is a different argument altogether. Perhaps what your original post should have said was "How come the UK (although we pay in less than France) ends up taking out less money than France, so we have a worse net benefit than a country with a larger GDP than ours?"

You also suggest that . None of the figures in the table support that statement:

Money in: Germany (UK fourth)
Worst net benefit: Germany (UK second)
Ratio of money out/in: Netherlands (UK second)
Net benefit per capita: Netherlands (UK sixth)

And I'm a dutchman

[TimberWolf]

You said


I pointed out that 140 is not, in fact, less than 103. 140 is a bigger number than 103. It is not smaller. There is a difference between the two numbers - 140 is the LARGER number than 103, which is SMALLER.

Is that clear enough to explain why you are wrong to say that "the UK pays more into the EU than France"? The reason it's wrong to say that is, simply, because it is not right

You then changed tack slightly, and said



which is a different argument altogether. Perhaps what your original post should have said was "How come the UK (although we pay in less than France) ends up taking out less money than France, so we have a worse net benefit than a country with a larger GDP than ours?"

You also suggest that . None of the figures in the table support that statement:

Money in: Germany (UK fourth)
Worst net benefit: Germany (UK second)
Ratio of money out/in: Netherlands (UK second)
Net benefit per capita: Netherlands (UK sixth)

Thanks for your brilliant insight.