Brexit, in or out.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

That's what's costing loads and sending Money home out of benefits ,

Whilst it sticks in the craw, it's small beer. But we generally haemorrhage money, it's true. The trouble is, the rich don't care about this for one simple reason; it ain't their money. Everyone wants to save the world - as long as it's on someone else's dime. The easy way to stop conflating economics with humanitarianism is to leave the EU, abolish foreign aid and introduce a voluntary tax rate for those who want to help people from overseas.

THEN we'd see who rally wants to save the world.

[gavpowell]

abolish foreign aid

You are aware that foreign aid is used as a bribe to encourage trade deals, I presume? It's what made the SFO investigation into BAE Systems so ridiculous to me - governments love bribery, so long as it's not obvious.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Because we don't send that much in the first place, as has been made clear repeatedly, but it doesn't suit the agenda of Farage and Emperor Boris so they keep peddling it.

We send around £250 million - it wouold be £350 million but we get a "rebate" which isn't a rebate because we don't get it back, we don't give it in the first place.

Of the £250 million, around half of it comes back, but you're right, we don't entirely control what we can spend it on.

But on the other hand, our governments past and present have negotiated, endorsed and voted for the arrangments like the Common Agricultural Policy(indeed even the Leave campaign say they'd maintain the NHS and farming spending, or increase it), so that would leave even less spare cash.

Some of it goes to help poorer areas, and Cameron's two governments have certainly shown they're not really interested in poor people, or people with medical conditions who require assistance.

Depends what you mean by "Hitting the jackpot" doesn't it? If your aim is to help build a stronger Europe and strengthen trading links, you look at the money spent as invested - if you're looking to make a simple, direct profit, you change the tax rules and bung 10 billion a year in an ISA.

Wouldn't it make more sense to use that 10b to pay down the national debt?

Anyway, "entirely"? Lol. How about none whatsoever instead? I don't need any help with what eu cash is spent on, thanks.

The rebate...that is temporary and can be renegotiated at any time. And who secured it in the first place? If it wasn't for thatch, we'd STILL be stumping up and would be for ever more.

[gavpowell]

Show me evidence the royal family does not generate more tourist tax dollars than it takes out through the civil list. A quite preposterous notion.

It was you who said that it generates profits through tourism - the burden of proof is on you, 'cos the Royals never make that argument. And the Civil List is only part of it - we've got the security, the money we pay to transport them all over the place, the upkeep of the buildings(much cheaper if nobody has to live in them) etc.

But you give me accurate and transparent figures and I'll concede the point. Good luck!

Having no joy finding anything about this Polish art thing - not saying you're wrong, just want to know about it and can't find anything searching for EU art, art exhibit, nobody attend, art poland eu...any idea when it was on?

[gavpowell]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use that 10b to pay down the national debt?

I don't know - to me, it seems sensible to pay down the debt, eliminate the deficit and balance the books so you have zero debt. To anyone who has a grasp of economics, however, this is a laughable and irresponsible idea.

Anyway, "entirely"? Lol. How about none whatsoever instead? I don't need any help with what eu cash is spent on, thanks.

Of course we do - we are involved in negotiating all these things, like the CAP. And you needed help on the right number we spent in the first place...

The rebate...that is temporary and can be renegotiated at any time.

No it isn't - it's written into the treaties and we have a veto over any reduction, so the only way it gets reduced is if our government chooses to let it go - and you want the British government to make the decisions so that's fine.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

It was you who said that it generates profits through tourism - the burden of proof is on you, 'cos the Royals never make that argument. And the Civil List is only part of it - we've got the security, the money we pay to transport them all over the place, the upkeep of the buildings(much cheaper if nobody has to live in them) etc.

But you give me accurate and transparent figures and I'll concede the point. Good luck!

Having no joy finding anything about this Polish art thing - not saying you're wrong, just want to know about it and can't find anything searching for EU art, art exhibit, nobody attend, art poland eu...any idea when it was on?

No. Does it matter? More to the point, does it surprise you? Take it from me, government is spectacularly bad at spending our money.

As for the pull of royalty, have you actually been to London?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I don't know - to me, it seems sensible to pay down the debt, eliminate the deficit and balance the books so you have zero debt. To anyone who has a grasp of economics, however, this is a laughable and irresponsible idea.

As an economics graduate, with almost 30 years experience of spending tax payer dollars, it appears eminently sensibly to me. Would you care to explain why paying your way in life is laughable and irresponsible?

I

Of course we do - we are involved in negotiating all these things, like the CAP. And you needed help on the right number we spent in the first place...

No, we have marginal input when it comes to agreeing the generalities of the bidding criteria, but we absolutely cannot unilaterally decide where to spend the money. Bids for funding are assessed against a criteria agreed amongst member states.

As you mention CAP, check out Monbiot's piece from today grauniad. George being George he had to blame leave, but there is no greater example of the immorality of the EU than the CAP. I briefly worked on this scheme- we paid consultants 1k a day to visit farmers so they could explain to them they could earn thousands for doing nothing. That element was 3 billion quid a year.

I
No it isn't - it's written into the treaties and we have a veto over any reduction, so the only way it gets reduced is if our government chooses to let it go - and you want the British government to make the decisions so that's fine.

Anyone believing the rebate is safe forever is a loon. If that were the case, the rebate would simply have been struck off years ago. It is an EU bargaining chip for later down the line.

There is something deeply unsettling about so many people being so keen to surrender sovereignty to foreign powers.

[itsnoteasy]

HMBS is correct , I used to work in the civil service, they couldn't give a toss how much money things cost, it wasn't theirs, it was spent like water. Also near the end of the financial year any surplus in budgets were just wasted on anything, and I mean anything, from art in the office, to junkets abroad for fact finding, just to spend up to the limit, because if they didn't the budgets would be cut the following year. I have no reason to think it's not the same in all government departments.
Gav I could be wrong but I don't think the rebate is written in stone, we have already given up half( I think) of it from what Thatcher got, I think it was Brown who gave it up, again I could be wrong.
I work a lot with farmers, always bloody moaning they are skint, as they jump out of their seventy grand tractor and into their fifty grand Range Rover, they all get subsidies, I have one who doesn't grow anything because he gets more from the eu to let it lie fallow. Another has a couple of massive boggy patches that he couldn't drain, he fenced it off called it a nature reserve and got a mahoosive grant from the eu. They were paid to rip hedges out to produce more, now they are paid to put hedges back in, you just can't make it up.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

HMBS is correct , I used to work in the civil service, they couldn't give a toss how much money things cost, it wasn't theirs, it was spent like water. Also near the end of the financial year any surplus in budgets were just wasted on anything, and I mean anything, from art in the office, to junkets abroad for fact finding, just to spend up to the limit, because if they didn't the budgets would be cut the following year. I have no reason to think it's not the same in all government departments.
Gav I could be wrong but I don't think the rebate is written in stone, we have already given up half( I think) of it from what Thatcher got, I think it was Brown who gave it up, again I could be wrong.

Which dept mate?

Things have changed tremendously in recent years - you are expected to work your nuts off, all spending is checked in duplicate and triplicate, it's a pretty cutthroat environment, the people left following all the cuts are either tedious drones or PC fascists, or both.

Gone are the days of 4 hour boozy lunches and 'accidentally' over ordering the buffet - we cannot even provide tea and coffee to visitors - water only.

[itsnoteasy]

Wow it's changed since my days lol, I was only an EO,not high up at all. It's around 25 years ago I left the civil service.sorry missed the department, I was in the health service( accounts department)

[s.h442]

There is quite allot of hypocrisy with the leave campaign claiming democracy when Britain itself is a Monarchist state.Monarchy is one of the worst human inventions of all time. How any one thinks they have the divine right to be head of state. Its very simple put your self up for election or you don't get in. The Eu isn't perfect and some laws are silly to the point of being there for the sake of it. But I do think it has some merits.

[itsnoteasy]

There is quite allot of hypocrisy with the leave campaign claiming democracy when Britain itself is a Monarchist state.Monarchy is one of the worst human inventions of all time. How any one thinks they have the divine right to be head of state. Its very simple put your self up for election or you don't get in. The Eu isn't perfect and some laws are silly to the point of being there for the sake of it. But I do think it has some merits.

Is the remain campaign promising to get rid of the Monarchy? Now that I would vote for. Or if I vote remain will I just wake up still in Europe and with a Monarchy?

[mikeyd100]

Quick music break

[ADR147]

Have we funded any art installations in rural Poland or did you make that up?

Nobody, even Buck House, has accurately proven the Royals have any net benefit from a tourist point of view. France of course struggles with tourism, as do all the stately homes of the National Trust/English Heritage.

Yeah, the royals cost less than the EU, but I thought we wanted to get away from unelected officials?

So we have a wholly unelected upper chamber, an unelected head of state and an unelected civil service. Scrap the Lords and the monarchy, I reckon you'd equal the cost of the EU contribution, plus you gain some new tourist attractions. Force them all to get jobs and you voila! net benefit to the economy!

the civil list costs about £31m a year most of which we would have to spend anyway because it is used to maintain the buildings, the idea that royals cost us anything is silly, and I am one who would get rid of them!

[gavpowell]

the civil list costs about £31m a year most of which we would have to spend anyway because it is used to maintain the buildings, the idea that royals cost us anything is silly, and I am one who would get rid of them!

There actually isn;'t a civil list anymore - they get money from the Crown Estates instead as a a support grant, and it does not include things like security, for which the bill is footed by the Metropolitan Police(allegedly around 20 million for William's wedding), royal visits are paid for by local councils. How is that not costing us anything?