Reform

[georgenorman]

I want to knock on the head this idea that us being in the EU meant it costed us £Billions!

It is a lie. One that was believed by the public but is still a lie. It needs to be corrected if ever we again are going to recognise the value of membership.

Of course we made contributions. Any organisation that does things needs to be funded. It’s whether those contributions represent value for money that really matters.

So what did we get in return? EU funded projects? The benefits that flowed from the single market? Both true. But the biggest were the savings that resulted from subsidiarity. Allowing one set of specialists and regulators to develop standards and methods for all the members, at a fraction of the cost of each having do it themselves.

Measuring that isn’t easy, which is why it’s often overlooked, but we were better off before 2016 than we are today, of that I am certain.

Wisbechian obfuscation of the highest order.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Wisbechian obfuscation of the highest order.

Only the wilfully blind think a straight forward explanation tries to obscure something.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I want to knock on the head this idea that us being in the EU meant it costed us £Billions!

It is a lie. One that was believed by the public but is still a lie. It needs to be corrected if ever we again are going to recognise the value of membership.

Of course we made contributions. Any organisation that does things needs to be funded. It’s whether those contributions represent value for money that really matters.

So what did we get in return? EU funded projects? The benefits that flowed from the single market? Both true. But the biggest were the savings that resulted from subsidiarity. Allowing one set of specialists and regulators to develop standards and methods for all the members, at a fraction of the cost of each having do it themselves.

Measuring that isn’t easy, which is why it’s often overlooked, but we were better off before 2016 than we are today, of that I am certain.

So it didn't cost over £1 bn a month?

The UK's EU membership fee – Full Fact

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £9 billion.

fullfact.org

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So it didn't cost over £1 bn a month?

The UK's EU membership fee – Full Fact

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £9 billion.

fullfact.org

No.

That’s the contribution, not the cost.

To know the cost/profit you need to also know the value of the benefits. Which is hard to determine and would be subject to a range of opinions. I asked Chat GBT for its opinion. This is what it said:-

“Most independent economic studies concluded that:

• The economic benefits of EU membership (especially via trade and investment) outweighed the direct financial cost.
• The Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) and HM Treasury estimated long-term GDP was higher due to EU membership.
• However, those studies often focused on aggregate national gains, not localised effects.”

 

[Teddy Eagle]

No.

That’s the contribution, not the cost.

To know the cost/profit you need to also know the value of the benefits. Which is hard to determine and would be subject to a range of opinions. I asked Chat GBT for its opinion. This is what it said:-

“Most independent economic studies concluded that:

• The economic benefits of EU membership (especially via trade and investment) outweighed the direct financial cost.
• The Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) and HM Treasury estimated long-term GDP was higher due to EU membership.
• However, those studies often focused on aggregate national gains, not localised effects.”

We were still net contributors as opposed to several members.

EU budget: Who pays most in and who gets most back?

How much are the EU countries paying into and receiving from the EU?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Nutmegyeti]

No.

That’s the contribution, not the cost.

To know the cost/profit you need to also know the value of the benefits. Which is hard to determine and would be subject to a range of opinions. I asked Chat GBT for its opinion. This is what it said:-

“Most independent economic studies concluded that:

• The economic benefits of EU membership (especially via trade and investment) outweighed the direct financial cost.
• The Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) and HM Treasury estimated long-term GDP was higher due to EU membership.
• However, those studies often focused on aggregate national gains, not localised effects.”

Well that explains a bit, the rest of us use GPT. I’m assuming the B stands for B*****ks ;-)

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Well that explains a bit, the rest of us use GPT. I’m assuming the B stands for B*****ks ;-)

Can we trust Chat GPT?


AI Overview

While ChatGPT can be a helpful tool, it should not be blindly trusted as a source of factual information. ChatGPT, like other large language models, is prone to "hallucinations," meaning it can generate incorrect, misleading, or biased information. It's crucial to verify any information obtained from ChatGPT with reliable, reputable sources.

 

[georgenorman]

I asked an AI Bot "Does Wisbech speak nonsense" and got:
"Wisbech has experienced a significant increase in its population due to immigration, primarily from Eastern European countries like Poland and Lithuania. This influx has led to both positive and negative consequences. Some sources suggest that the town has a "vibrant culture" due to its diversity, with access to various Eastern European foods and a large Portuguese community. However, other sources highlight tensions and challenges. There are also differing opinions on the impact of migrant workers on the local economy, with some believing they have revived the town center, while others blame them for economic downturn."