Ok, now you have shown that you don't read or at least ignore the things I have said. Just look what I actually said on waste and what the 6% figure is (hint not waste).
Seems you need reminding on what you actually said......and below
The EU has indeed some strange things and is wasting money in some area's, and is very efficient in some other area's. How much of the annual budget is wasted in the UK on civil servants and the hole government apparatus? In the EU it is 6%, very efficient, so you and your college's waste much more money than the EU, so I am not exactly sure how you can lecture the EU about not wasting money. All the services the EU does at the moment will go back to the UK, most probably it will cost the UK tax-payer more when your wet dream becomes reality. But why let facts stand in the way of a good argument?
If the EU “is 6%, very efficient” that implies the UK is less efficient, do you agree?
By what % is the UK inefficient?
There are, as at the end of March 2018 430,075 civil servants in the Home Civil Service, this does not include: government ministers (who are politically appointed), members of the British Armed Forces, the police, officers of local government authorities or quangos of the Houses of Parliament, employees of the National Health Service (NHS), or staff of the Royal Household. Source
. I could not find what the UK spends on these 430 thousand civil servants, the UK isn't as transparent as the EU is. To put a number at this: median income in the UK was £27,195
in 2014 or 30,839EUR, so at the absolute minimum, the total som of the civil servants pay is: (and mind you this excludes all kind of employer pay, offices, political apparatus, the average civil servant has a higher education thus are paid more, are stationed in London were the pay is better etc. etc. etc., all of this is included in the 6%). An average UK civil servant, spends 1,138,150/430,075 = 2.646.398EURO and actually, this figure is a lot lower, because a number of civil servants aren't included in the numbers.
The number of people that were employed by the Commission as officials and temporary agents in their 2016 budget: 24,428 persons. In addition to these, 9.066 "external staff" were employed. Source
. So the average EU civil servant spends around: 165.800.000.000
/24.428 = 6.787.293EURO per person.
Thus the EU is more efficient than in the UK.
Please show us that ALL functions the EU does overlap with the functions the UK government does. And are you mad about government waste? I mean if your assertion is right, it means that the UK government is doing things double which could have lead to putting this money somewhere where it is more useful. So thinking with your train of thought, it could actually be put in the NHS by simply scrapping these asserted overlaps and staying in the EU. A brilliant argument, so there we have it, you are a secret remainer, you just don't know it yet.
Just a couple of examples from the top of my head, but that does not mean giving the EU the political federal union it wants and the majority of the the electorate do not want... hence the vote to leave the EU.
DFID 0.7% of our gross national income goes to foreign aid
EU unveils increased foreign aid budget for 2021-27 (15 Jun 2018)
UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) Name change to UK Department for International Trade (DIT) (july2016)
EU Directorate-General for Trade (DG TRADE) coordinates trade relations between the European Union (EU) and the rest of the world.[/quote]
Now I expect the same level of detail to back up your claims, just on top of your head won't fly, if you demand this from me.
But to react to this: you can lower your foreign aid program if you wish, the EU hasn't got jurisdiction over the UK budget. So it isn't a double function.
Ok, you have a DIT, well, as you correctly say, the UK doesn't do its own trade deals, so what the DG TRADE does for the EU28, will have to go back to the UK and since the UK wants to deal with all the countries, it needs to be as large as the DG TRADE, so there will be more UK staff then they pay now within the EU budget, so an excellent point in favor of the UK. The DIT will probably be something like Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency
. An agency trying to get companies to invest in the Netherlands, not an agency to make trade deals.
So these two examples are a false narrative, so your whole argument fails. Since you base your Brexit conclusions on the wrong assumptions, I assume you will have enough of a flexible mind to reach another conclusion, right?