The anti-democratic MPs’ latest extension to EU membership has a big price tag.

Graham Charles Lear
4 min readSep 7, 2019

Corbyn’s extension: How will the EU spend some of the UK’s extra £3 billion?

The Act passed yesterday by anti-democratic peers and MPs seeking to block Brexit, assuming it gets Royal Assent, will cost British taxpayers another £3 billion. This could easily double if the EU insists on six-month extension, rather than the three months envisaged.

Today I show how the EU spends outside its borders, on countries it hopes will become part of the European Union.

The overall spend outside the EU is huge, running to hundreds of billions, but here we look at just one country, Ukraine, and just a few day-to-day examples.

British taxpayers paying for non-EU countries like Ukraine

The EU is spending £10 billion in just one non-EU country.

EU Commission launched a £10 BILLION support package for Ukraine in 2015.

Money is being spent on hundreds of projects (see examples below)

Ukraine is only one of 16 countries backed by EU’s “European Neighbourhood Policy”.

45 million Ukrainians were granted visa-free access two years ago.

By May of this year, over 2 million Ukrainians had made the trip.

UK Remainer MPs can’t vote on any of this.

Why did I pick Ukraine?

Ukraine is particularly relevant as an example because two years ago (June 2017) the EU granted 45 million Ukrainians visa-free access. In less than two years, the Ukrainian Mission to the EU reported that more than two million Ukrainians had entered the EU. Whilst Ukrainians are supposed to leave after 3 months, there seems to be little control over this.

It’s important to note that only Ukrainians with biometric passports are allowed visa-free access. This dramatically limited the number who could come. As more Ukrainians obtain the new biometric passports, these numbers may rise significantly.

Overall EU funding for Ukraine

Four years ago, the EU agreed on a support package for Ukraine of €11.2 billion (approx 10 billion pounds) which continues to be spent. This comprises numerous elements from various EU bodies.

Examples of EU expenditure in Ukraine

£15,300 — For film discussion clubs for Ukrainian young people

£14,700 — Waste sorting (recycling bin project) for an ex-Ukrainian village now in Russian Crimea

£449,200 — For the study of the social impact of Ukrainian adults going abroad to work

£2.9 million — Crimean Tourism Diversification and Support Project

The above are just 4 examples from thousands of ‘micro-projects’ funded by the EU over the last few years using British taxpayers’ money. In each case, the EU funded 80–100% of the money.

The final example we gave above is particularly interesting. The Crimea (part of Ukraine) was invaded and annexed by Russia in March 2014, and yet the EU’s project continued until Feb 2015.

It’s the Russians who are now benefiting from the £2.9 million given for that ‘project’.

Crimea is shown in light-green in the map below

It’s important to note that because of the different cost of living of Ukrainians, monies given to them by the EU are worth over 10 times what they would be worth in the UK. In other words, the £15,000 donation for film discussion clubs for young Ukrainians to talk about human rights would be worth approximately £150,000 to UK youth clubs.

The EU’s “European Neighbourhood Policy”

Ukraine is just one of 16 countries benefiting from the EU’s “European Neighbourhood Policy” (ENP). The ENP is chiefly a bilateral policy between the EU and each partner country and governs the EU’s relations with 16 of its eastern and southern neighbours.

The full list of countries is Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Armenia, Georgia, Libya, Syria, Azerbaijan, Israel, Moldova, Tunisia, Belarus, Jordan, Morocco, and Ukraine.

The £10 billion I have quoted only relates to Ukraine. It includes “Overall development assistance” and “Macro financial assistance”.

Key questions for Remainer MPs

Are Remainer MPs happy with this? Do they even know how the EU spends money in general? Is it normal and acceptable for the EU to use British taxpayers’ money to fund countries outside the EU? We’re not talking disaster relief and food parcels here.

Is it normal and acceptable for British MPs to have no say over how much is spent, where it is spent, and what it is spent on? And should it not be done with the informed consent of the British people?

The rights and wrongs of distributing wealth to other countries can be debated. Some people will agree, some will not. However, this is the whole point.

A sovereign and democratic country CAN debate these issues. The UK — its Parliament and people — currently cannot.

I suggest that if the EU wishes to subsidise countries so that they can reach the standards required for the EU to enlarge its membership and have them join, then that should be a cost borne by the EU, not by the British taxpayer.

Or perhaps Jeremy Corbyn (Lab), Ian Blackford (SNP), Jo Swinson (LibDem), Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru), and whoever is running Change UK these days might want to chip in?

[ Sources: EU Commission | Ukrainian diplomatic mission to the EU ]

--

--

Graham Charles Lear

What is life without a little controversy in it? Quite boring and sterile would be my answer.