Right so G, assuming the almost certain scenario where we stay we're going to have a lot less pull. If we (as a country) disagree or don't want to do something that the EU has on a general level decided will be a good idea, what can we actually do against it? Previously we could threaten to leave, now we can't do that or lose so much face, we'll practically be Voldemort. We'd be arguing everything with no possible action to bargain with. Sure, it only takes one member state to disagree on something but where does that get us? It's yet more unnecessary bureaucracy. It could be unlikely but isn't covering every angle part of the debate?
The EU is corrupt as all hell, the politicians are corrupt, the commissioners are corrupt, the regulators are more than likely corrupt even when they're reporting on corruption. What is ever done about it? Jack armadillo yet again. Yeah, Britain is probably one of the least corrupt nations but pretty much the entire of eastern europe, spain, greece, northern europe. Even if I wanted to be part of the EU in principle, even if I thought that this glorious Eurostate was the best thing since Trotsky, I'd still want to leave just out of how much of the money given to it simply goes to funding some Greek bastards holiday home in Dubai.
It's a little bit extended but I hope this helps to answer your last question G and obviously I know you know what it is, and I think you give me just enough credit to know what it is but I'll humour you as I expect this is going somewhere.What the EU is meant for, what it stands for, what it was intended to do is fine in theory, if you like that sort of thinking. It's a collaboration of nations primarily banded together for world peace and economic gain but also other join ventures like education and research. In practice, widespread corruption siphons money not into collaborative economic pursuits but selfish ones, countries have become reliant on the hard work of others to keep their currency afloat and so have no incentive to improve themselves and the protection that was promised at it's creation is nowhere to be found as terrorists attack across the continent.
Penty, Right I get you now, I was totally misinterpreting what you were saying. My bad mate, now that I get what you mean, check this out:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44. If you look here it's not quite as simple as: we get 66% back on the net contributions after initial rebates. It's less than that, and we actually pay for a not insignificant amount of our own EU grant directly.
Also if you look here:
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Yand the second graph here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/It shows that we're paying substantially more per year, given how our currency has fallen against the Euro. And by the by, was there a democratic process that led to the country agreeing to let Blair sign away that money?
Also, there are commissioners that are trying to get that scrapped, and going by what I was saying earlier I reckon this will be time they make some serious headway.
@Jub, you're saying that because we have a higher GNI we should have to pay more per person? That's nonsense mate, things cost way more here than in the countries with lower GNI. If we were paying say, as high a percentage as Hungary, our poverty would be through the roof.