02/08/2013
Our net contribution to the EU soared from £10.83 billion in 2011 to £12.23 billion last year, says the Office for National Statistics, via the
Daily Express. The gross contribution was a record £20 billion, and the £7.78 billion returned from Brussels was the lowest in 10 years.
Britain's net contribution has now doubled since the economic downturn began, leading campaigners to argue that the overall increase year-on-year represents 1.4 billion further reasons for us to leave.
Tory MP Peter Bone says: "My solution is to come out of the EU, then we would have £20 billion to decide how to spend". Fellow Tory Mark Reckless says, "If we left the EU and we were mad enough not to agree a free trade area, the £20 billion saved could pay the cost of any tariffs three times over".
One trusts that we would not be "mad enough" to leave without some form of agreement, otherwise leaving the EU could end up costing us â in the short-term â a great deal more than £20 billion a year.
And, while the top-line figure of £20 billion is great propaganda, we need to be a little careful how we use it. Representing less than two month's borrowing, we would not actually save any money if the net effect would be simply to reduce the deficit. That is good enough, but it does say that we would have nothing more to spend.
Secondly, if we left on the basis of a negotiated settlement, part of the deal would undoubtedly be that we honoured any multi-annual commitments. It could, therefore, be some years before we say any fall in net contributions made to the EU.
Third, as members of the EEA (to which we would aspire) some payments would continue, while we would also have to fund things like agricultural subsidies, regional payments and the multi-annual framework research programmes. These costs would eat heavily into our "savings".
In all, it might be many years after leaving the EU that we begin to see significant savings, and the first few years could actually see an increase in costs. But the answer to that would be, "it's worth it".
The point, of course, is that â just as we should not let economic reasons prevent us from leaving â we should not seek economic justifications for leaving. We would be lucky if, in the first decade or so of independence, withdrawal was economically neutral.
The reality is that leaving the EU would entail costs. Call that an investment in our future. And, whatever the price, it is an investment we cannot afford not to make.
COMMENT THREAD
