Vox Political proved right about payments to the EU – £200m/week LESS than claimed
‘£350 million a week for the NHS’: it was a ‘Leave’ campaign lie, endorsed by Boris Johnson. In fact the UK has paid only £150m a week to the EU, on average. Is Mr Johnson using the rest to bribe us in the run-up to an expected general election?
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has confirmed that UK payments to the European Union averaged around £150 million per week between 2014 and 2018 – but this shouldn’t be news to you.
Vox Political said we were paying more or less that much in June 2016 – a little more than a week before the referendum was held.
How did I know? That’s easy. I knew because I did my own research rather than taking the word of the selfish right-wingers running the “Leave” campaign.
Before anyone writes in to point out that I said spending was £161 million a week and that’s not the same as £150 million a week, please bear in mind that I quoted that figure three years ago and our payments have fallen since then. The £150 million figure is an average over a period of years.
Britain’s contribution to the EU budget was £150m a week, significantly lower than the £350m cited by pro-Brexit campaigners in the 2016 referendum campaign, according to the Office of National Statistics.
Figures published yesterday showed that the UK’s net outgoings to Brussels were as low as £7.8bn a year on average over the past five years, once the rebate and other payments were taken into account.
Previous estimates by statisticians suggested the figure was closer to £9.8bn a year between 2014 and 2018.
Vote Leave, the official pro-Brexit campaign group, claimed the UK’s contribution to the EU was “around £20bn”. The group covered a bus with a slogan stating the country sends £350m a week to Brussels, and called for the money to go to the NHS instead.
The logical question, following on from this information, is: what has happened to the extra £200 million a year that we haven’t been paying in to the EU?
In fact, as I pointed out in my 2016 article, once you factor in the UK’s profit, in revenues raised from EU migrants, this country was in profit by £120 billion per week.
Admittedly, this was also in 2016 and the figure may have fallen drastically after the referendum result made these shores unfriendly to visitors from the EU27.
There’s still a huge amount of moolah missing, it seems to me.
Is this how Boris Johnson has managed to afford the huge funding commitments with which he is trying to bribe the people?
If so, someone should point out that he and previous prime ministers could have used that money at any time between 2016 and now, shoring up our health service against (for example) winter crises that have killed tens of thousands per year, or preventing the deaths of more than 100,000 people by boosting the benefits system.
It would be the depth of immorality to try to buy our votes in this way.
Would you be happy to support Boris Johnson, knowing his offers are backed by blood money?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
My understanding is that however inaccurate Mr. Johnson’s figure was, it was representing the gross, whereby the figure that has been quoted, today, is net. I would like to see a like for like comparison, so that we can see just how far out he actually was.
He was £200 million per week out. The claim was that the UK gave £350m/week to the European Union and the UK never did.
I’ve just done some digging and the 5 year average contribution, net of the abatement, between 2014 and 2018, was £13.4bn*, or £258m a week, according to the Office For National Statistics. The Gross figure for 2018 was £20bn*, 15.5bn* net of the abatement, or £298m per week. Aye, some considerable sum short of what Boris Johnson M.P. said but not as low as is other net calculations that are being used to compare. These figures are far more useful for comparing his claims to the reality. Aye, we get some back in the form of public and private sector credits but the aim of the claim was to show that we would be able to decide how all of that money is spent, outside of the European Union. The average total gross liability 2014 – 2018 was £18bn*, or £346m per week, which is closer to the figure that Mr. Johnson used and might explain where it came from. If he had used the word “liability,” he might have been able to claim a truth however there was, shall we say, creative use of language to make that figure work. Why he didn’t just stick to the figure net of the abatement, I don’t know. So, like for like, the error is £92m per week.
No, the error is £200m per week. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the ONS.
This was directly from the Office Of National Statistics, as I explained; I even gave you the breakdown. £ike for like, (and I stress, like for like, which is what I wanted to know) it is £92m (£350m – £258m = £92m). Check it for yourself; there’s even a calculator that works out the weekly figure, for you. According to the Office Of National Statistics, the 5 year average figure was provided by the European Commission.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31
It doesn’t make any difference. The fact is that the Leave campaign was wrong by £200m/week. Are you seriously suggesting that the European Commission doesn’t know what it receives from the UK, or is lying about it? That would be ridiculous.
How, on Earth, did you draw that conclusion? As I have explained and given you the link to see for yourself, as explained by the Office Of National Statistics, the amount the it receives is the total liability less the abatement, which, according to the figures for the 5 year average 2014 – 2018 was £13.4bn*, which, according the Office For National Statistics own online calculator, is £258m per week, which, if you do the sums, is £92m per week less than the figure on the bus. Did you check for yourself, as I did and suggest that you do?
“In 2018 the UK’s gross contribution to the EU amounted to £20.0 billion; however, this amount of money was never actually transferred to the EU. It is best thought of as a theoretical liability.
This is because before the UK government transfers any money to the EU, the adjustment (or abatement) is applied.
In 2018 the UK abatement was £4.5 billion. This means £15.5 billion was transferred from the UK government to the EU in official payments.”
This is for the year 2018. By the site’s own calculator, this equates to £298bn* per week. Exactly which part of that am I making up?
I draw the conclusion that is the fact of the matter, as explained by the ONS. You have done your own sums that do not agree with what was said, so your sums are wrong.
Why are you determined to see what is not there? This IS the Office For National Statistics, using figures from the European Commission. I have even QUOTED the Office Of National Statistic OWN page, detailing how the figures are constructed. Again, exactly what part of what I have presented have I made up? Did you even visit the page? Why do you seem determined to see only what you wish to? Remember, this was something of which I took no account, during the Referendum Campaign, I was merely curious to know what the like for like figure was, because people were quoting different things. I have no vested interest in supporting Mr. Johnson’s claim.
Nobody’s suggesting you made anything up – but your figures are still wrong.
You’re not being very constructive, or helpful. Anybody can say that, Mike. WHAT is wrong? I’ve given you the evidence, from the Office Of National Statistics own website, which explains the figures, where they come from and what they are, I’ve provided you with the link, so that you can check it yourself. My arithmetic is fine and the figures, thenceforth come from using the Office For National Statistics’s OWN online calculator. My sums are just fine and the figures, using the Office For National Statistics own formula, are correct. If, as you claim, they are not, show me!
Have you even visited the page, to verify my findings?
What’s wrong is that the ONS provided the figures I used, but you’ve gone into its site and concocted your own because you didn’t like them. The ONS knows what it is doing. The EU knows what it is doing. If they say the figure was £150m/week, then I have no doubt that that is what it was. Why do you insist on claiming that they are lying about this?
Good grief, Mike! I thought that you were objective. Now you’re putting words into my mouth. I, nowhere suggested that I didn’t like the figures, I asked a question, a legitimate question (remember the question) and set about finding the answer. All that you have done is criticise, no less, accuse me of concocting my own figures and tell me that I’m wrong but fail to provide and evidence as to how. Where have I said, or claimed that anybody is lying? You should know better than to libel people and I would like and apology. I have quoted the Office For National Statistics own words. Based on the 2018 total liability of £20bn*: “In 2018 the UK abatement was £4.5 billion. This means £15.5 billion was transferred from the UK government to the EU in official payments.” I repeat, “TRANSFERRED FROM THE U.K. GOVERNMENT TO THE E.U. IN OFFICIAL PAYMENTS.” Which part of that is incorrect? Applying the same formula to the 5 year average, 2014 – 2018, the figure is £13.4bn*, (£18bn* less the abatement of £4.6bn*, as described above) which, when you use the Office For National Statistics’s own online calculator, you get a figure of £258m per week. Again, which part of that is incorrect? The difference between that and the figure on the bus is £92m. What, exactly and how have I concocted? It has nothing to do with what I like, or not.
I am deeply insulted and ashamed of you. I have always held you in deep regard and respected your impartiality and respect for the truth but to say these things about me… I never thought it of you.
I say, again, SHOW me what is wrong.
I suspect that you may have misunderstood what I was seeking and am demonstrating but that is no excuse for stating that I have accused others of lying.
You are saying the ONS and the EU have produced inaccurate figures, which is a tacit suggestion that they were lying. There is no getting around that, Zippi.
In addition, you are putting your figures – put together by somebody who does not know exactly how to do so – before us and suggesting that we should trust them more than the official statistics. Sorry, but I’m not going to do that – most particularly because, as a Brexiter, you have an interest in getting people to believe that we have been paying more. We haven’t.
My article is based on the facts. You don’t like them. We have established that. This dialogue is closed.
I’m still waiting for my apology. I shouldn’t have to ask for one, because you know that you were wrong for saying what you did. The fact that I have been proven correct is neither here nor there.
See my response to your previous comment. You were mistaken; you remain so.