Seems to me that you have already discounted Scotland then?
Surely that will be one of the 'overlooked' benefits - no longer having to subsidise us. Or are you a tad wary that that will turn out to be an alternative fact?
Effect of Brexit
- Thread starter Davylad
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Seems to me that you have already discounted Scotland then?
Surely that will be one of the 'overlooked' benefits - no longer having to subsidise us. Or are you a tad wary that that will turn out to be an alternative fact?
You have missed the point Leo
Brexit will:
1. Give us our sovereignty back ! Like the man on the sinking ship retains a certain 'dignity' while doing it. We could have a certain interim period of 'self determination' until jumping into some kind of mini TTIP with uncle Donald over the pond. (Then you can forget sovereignty for evermore).
2. We could also leave the Eurovision song contest
3. A future People's Republic of England could bring everything under public ownership without having to worry about EU. rules (unlikely scenario).
4. On a more serious note both the major parties are seriously crippled (this will be slightly more delayed for the Tories) and if the next election is held mainly on the management of Brexit then we could see the breakdown of the 2 party system in the UK.
5. We could now see a united Ireland in our lifetime.
You are only half right. The Labour Party is certainly crippled with no sign of any improvement on the horizon. They are heading for a meltdown as they did in Scotland. Their constituencies will be shared by the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP. This will leave the Tories as the natural party in government for an awfully long time.
If the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted to join the Irish Republic then I'm not sure too many in the UK would have a problem with that.
One aspect of all this which is constantly ignored by the Brexit fraction is the collateral damage to Britain's international image which has been caused, not by the Brexit decision, but by the manner in which the referendum was arranged, and the manner in which the campaign was pursued. The lack of real information, the lies on both sides, and the way in which a government has been brought into a position of having to administer something which they, themselves, do not believe in. Britain's political system has been 'shown up' as being inadequate, and that on the World stage. The country now appears like a woman who has just had a divorce and is 'open game' for the next suitor, whoever that may be. But is Britain now seen as being a reliable partner by any other suitor ? If Britain can turn its back on one partner then it can run away from others as well. A fatal flaw in the Brexit imagination is also the idea that it would be possible to have free trade with both the EU. and with the USA at the same time. In that scenario Britain would become a conduit (like that proposed for Canada under Ceta conditions) ie. it would become a back door for American products to Europe.
Euroscepticism in the UK has been a long held attitude by the UK's population.This is now mirrored amongst many other EU countries. France and Greece, amongst others, now have a greater degree of dissatisfaction in the EU than the UK has ever had. It should therefore be no surprise to people in other countries that a member country rejects the EU concept.
They may be surprised that the EU did not have the ability to bully the UK to reconsider, as they previously did to other member countries, when the 'wrong' decision was delivered.
Britain was right to reject a failing protectionist system in favour of increasing its worldwide trade.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
A spot which, in all probability, will be gleefully taken by New Zealand.
Or, god forbid, simply be retained by Scotland...
No BAGPIPES
I will buy some of that. I think Cologne overstates the damage to our reputation; the UK has famously been the reluctant bride to use his analogy. To be honest we have never fitted properly into the EU (- we should not have allowed the French to set it up in their image). The surprise is more that we actually did choose a divorce - especially as from outside of the UK, the advantages of EU membership seem enormous. It is a shame that a biased rich foreign press duped so many people. I also think the EU has managed to change a number of referendum verdicts previously and thought the UK was too intelligent to walk away.
I will assume that there is nobody on here prepared or able to answer Cologne's challenge and show us how leaving the EU benefits the UK. I am famously able to argue black is white and to support the underdog but I am unable to set out tangible benefits for the UK. As Mod I appoint myself undemocratically as auctioneer in chief. This is post 2566 - if by post 2600 there has not been a display of the benefits of leaving I will bring the hammer down on Cologne's bid of no benefits
Seems to me that you have already discounted Scotland then?
Surely that will be one of the 'overlooked' benefits - no longer having to subsidise us. Or are you a tad wary that that will turn out to be an alternative fact?
- I would like to say it was because the maths was easier 50 and 500 had a ring to it.No -as others have said the benefit is Scotland for Eurovision -they take the High Road.
No BAGPIPES
I'm sure the main reason that TM is 'courting' both USA and Australia is that both countries have bagpipes in abundance - probably more so than Scotland & Ireland.
So she won't miss them when we go...
On my infrequent trips these days to the UK, on the outskirts of Dieppe is a large Nestlé factory that fabricates coffee. The smell of the beans being roasted is very similar to Banbury where I worked for 35 years, and also has a plant doing the same thing. The plant in Dieppe is being expanded, while there is talk of the one in Banbury having it's production reduced. Nestlé have warned today that it is looking at their facilities in the UK , and can quite easily move out if there is lack of access to the single market. Seeing as the Banbury site employs about 500 people, it would be a major blow to the local economy if the plant closed.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
All very worrying......
I guess the BREXITERS will come up with some rationale that ignores it...
Especially worrying that Nestlé 'fabricate' coffee. What on earth do they use if not coffee beans?
I am sorry that I stressed the damage to Britain's reputation Leo. I will now proceed to balance this. Britain has gained in reputation in.........Russia, North Korea, amongst supporters of Islamic State, and amongst American growers of gene manipulated products, ok ? Elsewhere it was seen how a PM. of an advanced democracy made a massive cock up in calling a first past the post referendum which was unnecessary, and was only done for inner party reasons. Normally leaders of countries offer referendums offering a direct choice between preserving the status quo or initiating a change which they, the government, want. Nobody dragged Britain into the EU. Leo, they voted to do it, and then shared in the 'good' years ie. profitted immensely from access to the markets which were offered. Was it really 'made in France's image' ? It evolved as a joint plan between consenting democracies - the first of its kind. There is hardly one law in the EU. which the British did not vote for - they were part of creating the EU. as it is now. The position of the Brexiters is a double game which does not wash - on the one hand they present Britain as a 6 stone weekling having sand kicked in its face by Brussels, and apparently not able to exert influence there (despite being the second/third biggest economy there) and, on the other hand, as a vibrant competitive force which can compete (and be sovereign) on the bigger World stage. The 2 pictures do not fit together. In the eyes of many in the World, Britain was fully prepared to use the advantages of the EU. for many years, but ran away as soon as it was asked to bear responsibilities in times of difficulty. What type of picture does this send abroad ?I will buy some of that. I think Cologne overstates the damage to our reputation; the UK has famously been the reluctant bride to use his analogy. To be honest we have never fitted properly into the EU (- we should not have allowed the French to set it up in their image). The surprise is more that we actually did choose a divorce - especially as from outside of the UK, the advantages of EU membership seem enormous. It is a shame that a biased rich foreign press duped so many people. I also think the EU has managed to change a number of referendum verdicts previously and thought the UK was too intelligent to walk away.
I will assume that there is nobody on here prepared or able to answer Cologne's challenge and show us how leaving the EU benefits the UK. I am famously able to argue black is white and to support the underdog but I am unable to set out tangible benefits for the UK. As Mod I appoint myself undemocratically as auctioneer in chief. This is post 2566 - if by post 2600 there has not been a display of the benefits of leaving I will bring the hammer down on Cologne's bid of no benefits
I can only list in order of importance the reasons why I consider the UK leaving the EU is overall a positive move.
1, The ability for the UK to control its own borders is a right enjoyed by most countries in the world. The present uncontrolled system is unsustainable, many areas of the UK are experiencing huge problems with services and the whole culture has been changed without any regard for indigenous inhabitants. The problem is most 'remainers' do not live in these effected areas so cannot fully understand the negative effects.
2, Sovereignty. It is a right also enjoyed by most countries around the world, the EU has evolved from a sensible common market into an undemocratic dictatorial hierarchy for the benefit of the few controlling eurocrats. There is growing widespread opposition to this outcome throughout the EU, manifesting in worrying political extremes.
3, The vast sums the UK sends to Brussels could be better spent in the UK. With the UK's present, and growing, debt mountain I cannot accept we should continue to borrow money to then fund projects in mainly Eastern European countries.
4, The European Common Agricultural Policy was originally designed to fund small farmers in France. No other sector is subsidised in this way. The CAP has a massive negative effect on third world countries because they find it extremely difficult to compete with the subsidies issued to European farmers.
5, Probably the weakest argument, but impossible to quantify, is replacing free trade with the EU for external business. Certainly in the short term there will undoubtably be many problems but I am reasonably confident there is sufficient opportunities for the UK to flourish.
Sarcasm - not your usual strategy C
. I will agree that our conduct of the referendum made us a joke.I stand by my comments. People outside the UK may doubt our reasoning ability - why did we leave - but you suggested somehow we had become a less worthy trade partner. Quote: "If Britain can turn its back on one partner then it can run away from others as well". I am saying that our history within the EU was always to be the partner that quibbled. Nobody was in any doubt that we dragged our feet all the time. Apart from the fact that we appear to have commited economic suicide we were always seen as negative - so leaving a club we were not happy in is not so surprising. Trade and other business deals work best when both parties are happy.
You abridge history too. We did not join the EU - we joined the EEC. At each further change we were never at the forefront. We looked for rebates, opt outs etc. Many in the EU were thoroughly fed up with our approach and the deals we got as well as our refusal to join the Euro. Back to "made in France's image". Yes it was. We declined to be one of the original 6. As Germany at that stage deferred to others in the immediate post war era it meant France set out the basic format and institutions. They are pretty appalling. I am sure had the UK been a founding father the structure of the EU would have been vastly different. Not least because the key initial factor for the EU was the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). That was designed to help the inefficient French farmers to thrive and has been the major source of spend ever since. Had we been there at the outset it would not have been like that. Unfortunately the high external tariffs with the rest of the world that ensued has blighted the EU ever since. Britain is essentially a free trade loving nation - that is at odds with the EU ethos.
If you are in a club whose rules no longer suit you then the simple answer is to try to have those rules changed and if you cannot then you put up with them or leave. No sensible country would view the UK's choice to leave if it felt it was better off as anytihing other than logical. I do not buy Britain was prepared to use the advantages - are you saying the poor 6 stone weakling EU allowed the UK to bully it. No of course not. Membership suited both sides and apparently (thanks to brexiters) it no longer suits the UK
In the latest YouGov poll since the PM's major speech last week the majority of people support leaving the single market (57%) and the custom union (56%).
The majority also agreed with May's statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' 48% for, 17% against.
The majority also agreed with May's statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' 48% for, 17% against.
This argument would carry more weight if it were not for non-EU immigration. If services were so badly affected the government could have terminated the immigration that was under its own control. That is more than half the immigration. The fact that we chose not to either means we cannot - which does not bode well for the future or that it was not really a problem. The problems you refer to could have been solved by policies under the UK's control. a) implement EU style bank accounts for immigrants to receive any payment. b) build more houses, schools, hospitals etc with the money generated by our growing economy which was helped by a rise in population. Also this is at best an argument against poor control - it does not say how the UK actually benefits from future migration levels.
Show me who in the UK knows what sovereignty is and is affected by sovereignty in their daily life. It is just a concept. The reality is that every time we do an international deal or join an international organisation we lend or pool sovereignty. Being in the EU meant that we allowed joint EU wide sovereignty of the aspects we had signed up to. I am afraid "undemocratic dictatorial hierarchy for the benefit of the few controlling eurocrats" is just a phrase. Sounds good if you don't like the EU. Tell me how "regaining" sovereignty is going to affect anyone's daily life.
Vast sums? A net £8 billion. A teardrop against defense spending, foreign aid, swings on currency markets or the size of the UK's GDP etc. You do not leave a club because it costs £100 per annum if you earn £100,000.
Agree CAP was and is appalling. It was worse when we joined. We have actually restrained increases in its funding. Is your argument that leaving the EU was necessary to help third world countries? If so how does reducing the population of the EU by 65million out of 500 million make much difference to them- it does not change CAP. Did we really leave the EU to help the third world - tell that to UKIP.
The one argument that would be valued - if a positive benefit was likely and could be quantified. Instead we have to hope we can do enough new trade deals on advantageous terms to offset those we lose with the EU. Possible but no economists argued in its favour. Time will tell on this one.
I am afraid your arguments have not convinced me that I should not have voted Remain.
Last edited:
Excellent - then you will be happy if we put those to a second referendum when a deal is done. It will bolster our democracy by confirming that last year's referendum result was not flawed by lies and misrepresentations.
I am not trying to convince anybody because the contest is over and was won by the majority with similar views to myself.
£8 billion would make a massive difference to the NHS and social care, it is not an insignificant sum. The fact that we have to borrow this amount leaving future generations to pick up the bill, in my view is irresponsible.
Sovereignty is a basic right that countries rightly go to war for regardless of how it affects any individual.
Non European immigration is primarily only offered to those that have proved they would benefit the UK. Uncontrolled EU migration allows all and sundry.
No, democracy was served last June with a clear instruction to leave the EU. Any interference in this process would be a denial of democracy. The government has also backed this view, they will not allow any amendment or interference that prevented this outcome.