It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Brexit. What should we spend the £8.5 billion savings on membership fees on if we leave?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.


And this has nothing to do with your need to get to and from work cheaply and effectively I suppose?


I would say yes and that is a HUGE part of the problem.

If cost of travel in sky high it increases costs all round from food prices to your electric bills.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.


And this has nothing to do with your need to get to and from work cheaply and effectively I suppose?


I would say yes and that is a HUGE part of the problem.

If cost of travel in sky high it increases costs all round from food prices to your electric bills.



I agree on the food but how does it affect electric prices?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I think we will need all the money for potholes alone.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
a reply to: nonspecific

I think we will need all the money for potholes alone.


If the figures are correct we need about a year and a half's worth but I don't really see how it will swing that many "Remain" voters to the other side do you?

"Leave the EU and in 14 years we will have no pot holes asides from the ones that have appeared in the last 14 years"

Kind of a lack lustre call to arms really isn't it.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.


And this has nothing to do with your need to get to and from work cheaply and effectively I suppose?


I would say yes and that is a HUGE part of the problem.

If cost of travel in sky high it increases costs all round from food prices to your electric bills.



I agree on the food but how does it affect electric prices?


Electric does not appear by magic.

Coal, oil, fuel rods ect need to be transported.

Workers need to get to work and if 25% income goes on travel they need higher wages.

Spare parts need to be delivered
Ect

EVERYTHING is affected by our roads, rail, sea ports and airports ability to cope with the use.

And there is indirect cost.

If 25% of my income is going on travel to oil company's ect that's thousands less being spent on consumer goods.
edit on 24-3-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes I am aware that everything isaffected to some degree, my dad worked in a power station so I am aware of how things work in that area.

I just do not think that you can base the cost of electric on travel costs in the same way you can with food.

If you really want to look at the faults with the electric price increases you need to look into the fact that a lot of UK power companies are now owned by Other EU countries or companies.

Link

and the fact that


The real reason energy bills are high
Expensive projects designed to slash our reliance on fossil fuels are disproportionately driving up bills compared to other countries, experts say.
The £11bn "smart meter" project, which aims to digitise every gas and electricity meter, is just one example. The Government insists the plan to install a smart meter in every home, funded by bill payers, will cut energy consumption by changing people's behaviour.


Link

I am not sure where you get the idea that energy workers are spending 25% of there income on travelling to work and back to be honest, seems way out given my understanding of the location of most of the UK's power generation facilities?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
To be fair, £8 bln is small change to the UK. Oh, it's a lot of money, but small change none-the-less.

What could £8bln buy infrastructure-wise?

A third runway at Heathrow costs c. £15 bln.
High Speed rail is £50bln.
Filling in existing potholes £15 bln.

On the other hand... Tax owed by those trendy global concerns (Facebook, Apple, Starbucks, Costa, Google et al) £398 trillion!

Best sort out corporate tax dodgers and stay in Europe if you ask me!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
To be fair, £8 bln is small change to the UK. Oh, it's a lot of money, but small change none-the-less.

What could £8bln buy infrastructure-wise?

A third runway at Heathrow costs c. £15 bln.
High Speed rail is £50bln.
Filling in existing potholes £15 bln.

On the other hand... Tax owed by those trendy global concerns (Facebook, Apple, Starbucks, Costa, Google et al) £398 trillion!

Best sort out corporate tax dodgers and stay in Europe if you ask me!


That was kind of the point I was trying to put forward, the £8.5 billion a year we put into the EU is a major card for the "exit" campaign and to an every day chap or chapess is sounds like a vast sum of money and it is on a personal scale.

When looked at on a national spending level however it kind of looks insignificant and it is worrying that people are basing such a massive decision on something that is not as important as it may seem.

As was said earlier we could not even fix the potholes in the roads with a whole years savings never mind reform the NHS, feed the hungry, overhaul the education system ect that people seem to think will happen overnight if we leave the UK.

I have no issue with anyone wishing to vote either way but would at least like to think they fully understand the reasons that they base there decision on.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I think your missing the overall point.

Roads, trains, ports and airports are life blood of the UK.

They need a huge renovation.
We can't have a 2020 economy with 1980,s transport


And yes it seems boring but everyone will benifit in some way be it cheaper food or cheaper travel or businesses spending less on transport freeing up for money for JOBS.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.


And this has nothing to do with your need to get to and from work cheaply and effectively I suppose?


I would say yes and that is a HUGE part of the problem.

If cost of travel in sky high it increases costs all round from food prices to your electric bills.



I agree on the food but how does it affect electric prices?


Electric does not appear by magic.

Coal, oil, fuel rods ect need to be transported.

Workers need to get to work and if 25% income goes on travel they need higher wages.

Spare parts need to be delivered
Ect

EVERYTHING is affected by our roads, rail, sea ports and airports ability to cope with the use.

And there is indirect cost.

If 25% of my income is going on travel to oil company's ect that's thousands less being spent on consumer goods.


The problem with investing in roads and rail is cost. 8.5 billion would barely make a dent on the dents in the roads.

Rail is primarily electric these days and electric production isn't cheap with carbon being a huge factor. Then you have the cost of carriages and the engine itself. Also the biggest problem with transport is cities, cities are the big clogs within the veins and overhauling the transport system of just a small city would run into the tens of billions. The cost of the London underground is an excellent example of just how costly such an undertaking is.

I agree though that if we leave some of that money should be reserved for transport... Mainly Industrial.

The way I would do it is by only releasing money on transport projects that have some clout to them. That would probably land you in the private sector so we'd have to make it a damn sight easier for new companies to start. We need to open more ports and have more industrial routes direct to port. It's all easier said than done and to motivate a market you'd have to start with a good example.

In the NE their is a big automobile production sector that happens to be near a few ports that can be extended or re-opened. A direct rail network from factory to port would need no more than 70 miles of track to reach 3 ports. Last time I checked Grimsby exports a tonne of cars and that is over 100 miles away and I can imagine most of the transporting is done by truck.

But... 8.5 billion really isn't that much.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

I think your missing the overall point.

Roads, trains, ports and airports are life blood of the UK.

They need a huge renovation.
We can't have a 2020 economy with 1980,s transport


And yes it seems boring but everyone will benifit in some way be it cheaper food or cheaper travel or businesses spending less on transport freeing up for money for JOBS.


I am going to have to disagree with you here and not just for the sake of it.

Even if we took all of the money from an EU exit for 10 years and created a super duper transport network we would still not see the benefits at ground level.

Privately owned rail networks are not going to pass the saving on to us when they own the monopoly on the rail networks are they?

If big companies save money on the transportation of goods they will not pass on the savings to the consumer they will just increases profits for the shareholders.

I agree that people will benefit, just not the ones who need to thats all.






posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.


And this has nothing to do with your need to get to and from work cheaply and effectively I suppose?


I would say yes and that is a HUGE part of the problem.

If cost of travel in sky high it increases costs all round from food prices to your electric bills.



I agree on the food but how does it affect electric prices?


Electric does not appear by magic.

Coal, oil, fuel rods ect need to be transported.

Workers need to get to work and if 25% income goes on travel they need higher wages.

Spare parts need to be delivered
Ect

EVERYTHING is affected by our roads, rail, sea ports and airports ability to cope with the use.

And there is indirect cost.

If 25% of my income is going on travel to oil company's ect that's thousands less being spent on consumer goods.


I did not go looking for this it just popped up on my newsfeed and thought it was relevant.



Brexit would cause 'electric shock' for energy costs, warns Amber Rudd





Addressing employees at an energy interconnector site in Kent – chosen to highlight Britain’s relationship and interdependence with the EU – Rudd said the EU had been instrumental in keeping energy bills low, and that it was necessary to ‘work with our neighbours to deliver energy security in the future’.

“The UK’s membership of the European Union has helped keep our energy bills down,” Rudd said. “If we left the European Internal Market, we’d get a massive electric shock because UK energy costs are likely to rocket by at least half a billion pounds a year – the equivalent of British bills going up by around one and a half million pounds each and every day.

“By 2030, even if we develop the potential of UK shale gas, we are expected to import about three quarters of our gas. In other words, we will have to continue to work with our closest neighbours to deliver energy security in the future. An internal energy market helps to guarantee our energy security, which is the bedrock of our economic security. I’m not willing to play fast and loose with either.”



link



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Lots of champagne and big street parties!

Back in the land of reality we could sure do with helping NHS, struggling schools, building houses, helping small businesses, helping our young with more opportunities for those who want to start up businesses, training more GPs, nurses, doctors, much needed for research, science and innovation, money to go into small towns with high unemployment and poverty. The list goes on and on.a reply to: nonspecific



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
£8 billion annually is like spit in the Ocean.

Having said that, I'd be all for putting it towards the NHS or Education.

Nurse training & higher wages, more medical equipment, etc.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: anxiouswens
Lots of champagne and big street parties!

Back in the land of reality we could sure do with helping NHS, struggling schools, building houses, helping small businesses, helping our young with more opportunities for those who want to start up businesses, training more GPs, nurses, doctors, much needed for research, science and innovation, money to go into small towns with high unemployment and poverty. The list goes on and on.a reply to: nonspecific



Unfortunatley in the land of reality the £8.5 billion could not even attempt to do one of those things never mind all of them!

Did you take a look at the site in the OP and see just how much we already spend?

You might be more realistic with the champagne to be brutally honest. Membership per capita is about £150ish I think so we could all have a couple of bottles of bubbly and a takeaway if we divided it up evenly.
edit on 24/3/2016 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Oh go on then thats what we should do. I will just be happy to be free from the madness that is the EU. I will be able to have light in my life literally (100 watt bulbs heaven). On a more serious note I dont think the savings will be that great it will be like having a rise at work and then being no better off because just go out and buy a better car or house.

I know the economy is important but I think most people who want to leave are already realistic that there may be a few tough years. However, any mistakes or downfalls will be OURS and not because of someone we havent even voted for telling us what is best for us. In that respect I wouldnt care if we made no savings. a reply to: nonspecific



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: anxiouswens
Oh go on then thats what we should do. I will just be happy to be free from the madness that is the EU. I will be able to have light in my life literally (100 watt bulbs heaven). On a more serious note I dont think the savings will be that great it will be like having a rise at work and then being no better off because just go out and buy a better car or house.

I know the economy is important but I think most people who want to leave are already realistic that there may be a few tough years. However, any mistakes or downfalls will be OURS and not because of someone we havent even voted for telling us what is best for us. In that respect I wouldnt care if we made no savings. a reply to: nonspecific



We may be free from the EU but we will not be free from our own government though.

Was it the EU that looked to cut disability payments recently?

Is the EU responsible for the corperate tax evasion that is costing hundreds of billions?

Is it the EU that is slowly privatising the NHS?

I respect your right to choose but please do not be under the impression that things will be any better.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Fund a fully independent and impartial investigation into historic and current child abuse.

Build a bigger nonce wing in Belmarsh then fill it with MPs, councillors, and former celebrities.

Increase subsidies in British owned companies that manufacture exportable goods and create further incentives for them to hire British workers.

Provide better transitional care for servicemen leaving the forces and tax breaks for veterans.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
We need to learn to choose our politicians carefully thats for sure. Not my mistake though never voted them in and never would. Always voted Labout but didnt last year. I was too angry with the arrogance of Ed Milliband saying he wouldnt be allowing a referendum because basically he knew best. I told our local MP when he was doing door to door that there was no way I would vote and I thought Labour would lose a lot of votes because of it. I was right.

Labour also no longer represent the working men and women of this Country. They are completely out of touch with how British people feel. I think we just need a good clear out of all the career politicians.

I think our MP's should revert back to a shorter term in office how it used to be. Conservatives would already have had a vote of no confidence if it was how it used to be. Problem with the new system they know they can carry on regardless for 5 years.

I also think instead of Prime Ministers Questions each week they should have a system where every week members of the public are chosen to put their questions to the Prime Minister for an hour. They could write in and be chosen randomly. They would then be held to account by the people they work for and wouldnt be able to cut themselves off as easily when faced with real people. Look at the one woman in Question Time who spoke emotionally about how tax credit changes would affect her she only spoke for a minute but was part of the backlash and part of the reason why the policy was voted agaonst.a reply to: nonspecific



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
8 billion could fund a lot of worthwhile small projects each year, but if you want one big spend that would benefit 90 odd per cent of households in the country: give the money to the BBC and scrap the television licence fee.

Many people would be pleased to save nearly 150 quid per year and the time and resources spent on catching and prosecuting licence dodgers would be saved.

Added bonus - the snarky little git who writes the horribly intimidating 'reminders' would be redundant.

edit on 24-3-2016 by berenike because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join