Brexit , the negatives

Adi_Dem

Well-known member
Don't boil it down, then. Taking things to a logical conclusion isn't always the right thing to do, it goes further than an opposing position is intended.

It exposes the opposing position for what it is. We are going to have to agree to disagree, rare as it is for me to disagree with you. I’ve read your posts and linked articles and really thought about it. I just can’t agree that something we could have always done pre-Brexit is a benefit of Brexit. We can debate whether we would have influenced the EU policy, whether we would have adopted our own approach or towed the party line but what can’t be debated is that we had the very same choices both pre and post Brexit.
 
Last edited:

Kosovo

Well-known member
If we were able buy vaccines independently would’ve we still had to wait for the EU to approve them before being able to administer any.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
Don't boil it down, then. Taking things to a logical conclusion isn't always the right thing to do, it goes further than an opposing position is intended.



This 👆 is the better argument.

I think this 👇, from a recent interview with UK Vaccine supremo Kate Bingham in the FT, is relevant. Warning, you won't like it. Neither did I. It has taken some effort to fight a massive Remainer instinct of mine not to ignore it. The question is, can you?

View attachment 16567

Brexit definitely was relevant to us not joining the EU vaccine procurement scheme. The question is whether, had we not left, having that seat at the table and the other flexibility would have led us to do everything as successfully as now. Theoretically it could have, realistically, I don't think it would.

I'm not sure the quote from Kate Bingham says what you seem to be reading into it.

My take is that we 'could' have followed the EU route but, because we'd have had no real say, AND, because we thought our way was 'better', we couldn't justify joining the EU programme just to go our own way regardless.

Basically, shes backing the position that, had we been fully in the EU across the whole process we'd have used our influence to drive the procurement programme. As we couldn't do that we decided it was easier just to go our own way from the off - because we were allowed to under EU rules,

Brexit only comes into it because she says that as a remainer she would've been happy working with the EU, but only if she was allowed to influence the decisions.

Brexit prevented us from taking the lead on the EU response. It wasn't necessary for us to go our own way
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
If we were able buy vaccines independently would’ve we still had to wait for the EU to approve them before being able to administer any.
We were able, as Germany have proven. And no we wouldn't have to wait for the EU to approve
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
I'm not sure goodwill is a reasonable replacement for critical analysis. Almost everything you've posted as a possible positive either has nothing to do with Brexit (in so far as we could do it before anyway) or misrepresents how the changes are having an effect. As far as I can tell, the only possible positive so far is that we moved more quickly on vaccines than the EU did, but the truth seems to be that we could have done that anyway.

we are now free to do own trade deals - how is this a benefit when we're geographically tied to the EU? How do e.g. shellfish businesses sell anywhere else?
General point - We only left a few months ago, its like asking someone in April 1973 how joining the EEC has made a difference to the UK.

I agree around 65% of our physical trade is done with EU countries but we do run a large trade deficit with EU countries we should aiming to eliminate this deficit which could be helped by a different trade deal with the EU. More importantly the UK can now frame trade terms from the UK prospective with non EU countries, before we were just part (20%) of the EU. For example offer lower tariffs on imported food in return for lower taxes on say UK exported alcohol and pharma goods which the UK is strong on. I agree with you on UK shell fish and I have put this down as a cost to the UK from leaving the EU. I also agree overall there may be no overall benefits and an overall loss, but there could be benefits on doing own trade deals. I am happy to withdraw this listed benefit as its very much potential. It depends if Jam69 wants only guaranteed benefits listing or wants potential ones as well.



over time we will stop giving payments to the EU (£8.6bn per year at last count) - those 'payments' came with a huge amount of benefits attached (worth more to the UK than the payments themselves)
How many of these benefits (you are thinking of) would the UK not get if the UK was a net receiver of EU funds. For example we can export goods without tariffs and quotas to EU countries without been a net contributor. The benefit of the EU are benefits to all member nations be they contributor or receiver.

UK Government has more flexibility to provide subsidies to internal businesses - will they do that though? All evidence so far suggests the UK Govt will let businesses flounder (no pun intended)
We honestly don't know at present, but there is more flexibility to do so.


we have a more competitive exchange rate - with who? How is it competitive (import vs export)? And how is that tied to Brexit?
EU and USA two examples - pound dropped in value against Euro and dollar (around 14%) after EU referendum result in June 2016, although is less than 14% now as the pound has recently appreciated with higher vaccine level in the UK. A lower pound helps UK exporters and help domestic producers against overseas importers.


there is no pressure on the UK to joining the Euro or join our monetary and fiscal policies with the EU - what pressure was there? We had, and always would have had, a veto

There will be as the EU becomes more federal with a tighter Union. Just as the EEC became the EU. Most Europeans want a tighter bonding, countries join the Euro they don't leave it.



we are able to import more freely from non EU countries - which ones? How do rules of origin affect other supply chains?

we are able to impose conditions on the movement of people into the UK from the EU - we could do that already. We chose not to.

Free movement of people within the EU is a fundmental principle of the EU, restrictions will be only temporary otherwise the whole ethos of the EU will be lost.



We now have the freedom to accept EU laws or reject them on UK affairs, before we had to adopt them. - not true. We were always able to say no and push the formulation of rules back to the EU for amendment - the main reason we rarely did that was because we were instrumental in formulating most of the rules in the first place

Any use having a EU law if member states can say No to the law (after amendments have been discusssed)? The bigger the Club the harder it is to have rules that everyone is happy with.



The UK government appears more interested in helping economically deprived regions of the UK and the Tees Valley with significant OK promises at present - more interested than the Millions the EU spent? Really??
Yes really, the Tees Valley has seen more proposed projects in the last few months than for years previously. I don't blame the EU, but that appears to be a consequence of leaving the EU which is what Jam69 invited posts for?

support for steel manufacturers - you mean like how the Tory Govt let Redcar steel-making die by vetoing the EU plans to limit Chinese dumping and refusing to give legal state aid?
Scrote you might be right. I was very upset what happened to Redcar in 2015 I was the one posting about Chinese dumping but very few backed me, I was told by many on here that SSI Redcar could not compete because people in China earn peanuts. Also energy costs in the UK were very high and to me this was crippling high energy users like SSI Redcar. Energy is a bigger cost than labour in steel making. Cameron was very keen to get Chinese funds for Hinkley Point C and I had my suspicions Redcar was sacrificed to some degree as he did everything at the time for Chinese money. A lot of SSI steel was exported to Asian markets, can the EU stop dumping there?
I was thinking of Govt support after June 2016, rates relief and reduced energy costs for Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, taking over the assets of asset stripper Greybull (owned Skinningrove) before finding a buyer. All these actions were state aid to some degree and other EU steel producers could complain of unfair competition.



Some large multinationals have been stopped from moving profits (through dubious charges and transfer pricing) out of the UK for tax purposes to areas of the EU they have done special low tax deals with like Republic of Ireland and Luxembourg. - Not seen anything on this one so won't comment.
Apple did a special corporation tax deal of 2% with the ROI Government, so Apple funnelled profits into the ROI from other EU countries including the UK. Now we are longer in the EU, this practice can more easily be stopped. The EU was against Apple's strategy but nothing happened to stop it so far. It seems to take a long time to get things done when lots of different countries are involved. I thought there was something in a recent UK Budget about increasing taxes on multinationals. It definitely happens in the USA.

The price of some food stuffs has dropped for example grapes from South Africa in Lidl are now £1.09 used to be more like £1.79 per punnet five years ago I suspect import taxes are now lower. (one of the prime objectives of the EU is to protect EU food producers in this example Spanish grape producers). - without actual facts and figures as to why these prices have changed, again I can't comment. However, much of Africas fruit produce was zero-tax rated in the EU already. The EU/EEC was created in part to protect its agricultural communities,
European grown sugar beet can't compete with sugar cane (it takes more energy to process sugar beet) without tariffs on imported non EU sugar cane. Some African products will be hard to grow in Europe so I would hazard a guess those are treated as Zero rated as they are not a threat to European growers. Our supermarkets are full of winter flowers from East Africa - its very hard to grow roses in Europe in January so winter flowers from East Africa are not a threat.

I can't say South African grapes price drop is all due to BREXIT and there is likely several factors, but there seems to be more and more South African grapes and less Spanish and Italian grapes. I have seen grapes from India in Tesco's in the last few years. At the same time the prices of grapes has definitely dropped in UK shops. LIDL are selling 500g for £1.09

My gut feeling is BREXIT will not be good news for UK food growers, but good for food consumers. Like the Corn Laws in the 19th century protected UK food producers from World producers, but resulted in higher UK food prices for consumers. You can't do both.

Having a gang on here all saying BREXIT is great and another gang saying the EU is great is not helpful in finding our best route.

I do appreciate European close co-operation has stopped France and Germany fighting each other in very costly wars - 1815, 1870, 1914 and 1939 and the UK in 1914 and 1939. To me this is the biggest benefit of EEC/EU. I hope 76 years on this is no longer a threat, but a break up of the EU would concern me if it ever happened. The EU has promoted democratic governments, Spain was not allowed in till it had free elections. I like the higher idea of Regional Aid, but some projects have appeared dubious and not value for money Getting rid of internal customs barriers is a benefit to me, but in theory we don't need the EU to have this. I like the mixing of people from different countries say through Erasmus programmes, but this can take place without the EU, Wales recently signed up for Erasmus plus. Free unrestricted movement of people all over the world would increase world wealth, but there are social consequences that I think no country in the world is willing to try (to my knowledge).

I understand the vote almost forced people into two opposing camps but is there anyone else willing to give their pro and cons. allowing say a ten year view.

Having left can we take some of the postives of the EU and leave behind the negatives. Cynics might call it being semi detached, and say its impossible. but I feel to me, its a sensible route.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
General point - We only left a few months ago, its like asking someone in April 1973 how joining the EEC has made a difference to the UK.

I agree around 65% of our physical trade is done with EU countries but we do run a large trade deficit with EU countries we should aiming to eliminate this deficit which could be helped by a different trade deal with the EU. More importantly the UK can now frame trade terms from the UK prospective with non EU countries, before we were just part (20%) of the EU. For example offer lower tariffs on imported food in return for lower taxes on say UK exported alcohol and pharma goods which the UK is strong on. I agree with you on UK shell fish and I have put this down as a cost to the UK from leaving the EU. I also agree overall there may be no overall benefits and an overall loss, but there could be benefits on doing own trade deals. I am happy to withdraw this listed benefit as its very much potential. It depends if Jam69 wants only guaranteed benefits listing or wants potential ones as well.


How many of these benefits (you are thinking of) would the UK not get if the UK was a net receiver of EU funds. For example we can export goods without tariffs and quotas to EU countries without been a net contributor. The benefit of the EU are benefits to all member nations be they contributor or receiver.

We honestly don't know at present, but there is more flexibility to do so.

EU and USA two examples - pound dropped in value against Euro and dollar (around 14%) after EU referendum result in June 2016, although is less than 14% now as the pound has recently appreciated with higher vaccine level in the UK. A lower pound helps UK exporters and help domestic producers against overseas importers.


There will be as the EU becomes more federal with a tighter Union. Just as the EEC became the EU. Most Europeans want a tighter bonding, countries join the Euro they don't leave it.


Free movement of people within the EU is a fundmental principle of the EU, restrictions will be only temporary otherwise the whole ethos of the EU will be lost.



Any use having a EU law if member states can say No to the law (after amendments have been discusssed)? The bigger the Club the harder it is to have rules that everyone is happy with.

Yes really, the Tees Valley has seen more proposed projects in the last few months than for years previously. I don't blame the EU, but that appears to be a consequence of leaving the EU which is what Jam69 invited posts for?


Scrote you might be right. I was very upset what happened to Redcar in 2015 I was the one posting about Chinese dumping but very few backed me, I was told by many on here that SSI Redcar could not compete because people in China earn peanuts. Also energy costs in the UK were very high and to me this was crippling high energy users like SSI Redcar. Energy is a bigger cost than labour in steel making. Cameron was very keen to get Chinese funds for Hinkley Point C and I had my suspicions Redcar was sacrificed to some degree as he did everything at the time for Chinese money. A lot of SSI steel was exported to Asian markets, can the EU stop dumping there?
I was thinking of Govt support after June 2016, rates relief and reduced energy costs for Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, taking over the assets of asset stripper Greybull (owned Skinningrove) before finding a buyer. All these actions were state aid to some degree and other EU steel producers could complain of unfair competition.


Apple did a special corporation tax deal of 2% with the ROI Government, so Apple funnelled profits into the ROI from other EU countries including the UK. Now we are longer in the EU, this practice can more easily be stopped. The EU was against Apple's strategy but nothing happened to stop it so far. It seems to take a long time to get things done when lots of different countries are involved. I thought there was something in a recent UK Budget about increasing taxes on multinationals. It definitely happens in the USA.



European grown sugar beet can't compete with sugar cane (it takes more energy to process sugar beet) without tariffs on imported non EU sugar cane. Some African products will be hard to grow in Europe so I would hazard a guess those are treated as Zero rated as they are not a threat to European growers. Our supermarkets are full of winter flowers from East Africa - its very hard to grow roses in Europe in January so winter flowers from East Africa are not a threat.

I can't say South African grapes price drop is all due to BREXIT and there is likely several factors, but there seems to be more and more South African grapes and less Spanish and Italian grapes. I have seen grapes from India in Tesco's in the last few years. At the same time the prices of grapes has definitely dropped in UK shops. LIDL are selling 500g for £1.09

My gut feeling is BREXIT will not be good news for UK food growers, but good for food consumers. Like the Corn Laws in the 19th century protected UK food producers from World producers, but resulted in higher UK food prices for consumers. You can't do both.

Having a gang on here all saying BREXIT is great and another gang saying the EU is great is not helpful in finding our best route.

I do appreciate European close co-operation has stopped France and Germany fighting each other in very costly wars - 1815, 1870, 1914 and 1939 and the UK in 1914 and 1939. To me this is the biggest benefit of EEC/EU. I hope 76 years on this is no longer a threat, but a break up of the EU would concern me if it ever happened. The EU has promoted democratic governments, Spain was not allowed in till it had free elections. I like the higher idea of Regional Aid, but some projects have appeared dubious and not value for money Getting rid of internal customs barriers is a benefit to me, but in theory we don't need the EU to have this. I like the mixing of people from different countries say through Erasmus programmes, but this can take place without the EU, Wales recently signed up for Erasmus plus. Free unrestricted movement of people all over the world would increase world wealth, but there are social consequences that I think no country in the world is willing to try (to my knowledge).

I understand the vote almost forced people into two opposing camps but is there anyone else willing to give their pro and cons. allowing say a ten year view.

Having left can we take some of the postives of the EU and leave behind the negatives. Cynics might call it being semi detached, and say its impossible. but I feel to me, its a sensible route.
There are a lot of ifs and buts in that one. I've yet to see any evidence of any of it. In theory the UK can do this, can do that etc.. lots of which it probably could have done as a member of the EU.

In practice:
Exports to the EU have practically stopped. Given this is our biggest market this is a big problem.
Freedom of movement for UK nationals has been curtailed. To such an extent that many are being kicked out of their homes in the EU.
The troubles have returned to Northern Ireland.

These are actual facts. Things that have occurred. I'm not sure how many "we could do this, we could do that" are going to repair the damage that has already happened.
 

bear66

Well-known member
There are a lot of ifs and buts in that one. I've yet to see any evidence of any of it. In theory the UK can do this, can do that etc.. lots of which it probably could have done as a member of the EU.

In practice:
Exports to the EU have practically stopped. Given this is our biggest market this is a big problem.
Freedom of movement for UK nationals has been curtailed. To such an extent that many are being kicked out of their homes in the EU.
The troubles have returned to Northern Ireland.

These are actual facts. Things that have occurred. I'm not sure how many "we could do this, we could do that" are going to repair the damage that has already happened.
13 April a big date to see the February trade figures. January was a disaster and we need to find out if things have improved at all.
 

Muttley

Well-known member
In 2018 Patrick Kielty wrote this in a series of Tweets, it is as good a summary of the crisis looming in Northern Ireland as I have read anywhere.

Patrick Kielty @PatricKielty
Sep 28, 2018
1. Northern Ireland is made up of a majority of Unionists (as in the Conservative and Unionist Party) and, believe it or not, a rather large minority of Nationalists (as in Irish Nationalists)
2. These Irish Nationalists don’t see themselves as British but rather inconveniently as Irish (who knew?)
3. For over 30 years we killed each other because of these differences which means Northern Ireland is nothing like Camden or Westminster.
4. The Good Friday Agreement ended that violence by the following devious magic -
Unionists were guaranteed that Northern Ireland would be part of the UK until the majority voted otherwise.
The Irish was border was removed and the island linked so Nationalists could pretend they were already living in a United Ireland (yes, Tony Blair did slight of hand much better than you)
5. Some of these Nationalists then accepted being part of the UK as their day to day lives were essentially Irish.
6. This cunning plan was sold to us on the basis that we were all part of the EU therefore fixation on nationality was so last World War.
7. Implementing the Good Friday Agreement was torturous (think Brexit with actual bombs, not metaphorical suicide vests) but we finally made peace. Yet 20 years later NI remains a divided society.
8. Thanks to your glorious Brexit vision Northern Ireland will become more divided as some form of economic border checks will become part of daily lives.
9. If those checks take place between NI and Ireland, the Nationalists who were once happy being part of the UK will change their mind.
10. If they take place in the Irish Sea some Unionists will be livid. However, they'll still support being part of the UK (the clue is in the Unionist bit)
11. Your Brexit lies have opened a Pandora’s box for Northern Ireland. It's one reason why the majority of people in NI voted to remain in the EU (almost as if they knew more about the fragile equilibrium of their politics than you)
12. Barely mentioned before Brexit, a border poll is now inevitable thanks to your monumental ignorance.
13. When that poll is eventually held the Nationalists who were once content being part of a Northern Ireland within the UK and EU will vote to leave the UK to feel as Irish and European as they did before Brexit.
14. The poll will be much closer thanks to your Brexit folly and could easily be lost by Unionists, breaking up the UK.
15. Any break-up of the Union will be your fault (a tad inconvenient as a member of the Conservative and er, Unionist party)
16. The EU is not responsible for your blundering lack of foresight. Like most people in Northern Ireland, they were happy with the status quo.
17. By the time the penny drops that you can’t preserve the Union you want without the one you don’t, it will be too late.
18. You will be remembered not as the Churchillian visionary you delude yourself to be but the ignoramus who triggered the break-up of the UK.
19. If there’s any justice all this will come to pass when you're Prime Minister so you can finally swim in the constitutional sewage you've created (though we all know you’ll be in Nice with your trotters up)
20. Meantime, if you’re so concerned about keeping Northern Ireland totally aligned with the rest of the UK where’s your support for our same sex marriage and women’s right to choose? Your silence is deafening.
Capture.JPG
 

Scrote

Well-known member
General point - We only left a few months ago, its like asking someone in April 1973 how joining the EEC has made a difference to the UK.
I appreciate you're trying to show that you're looking at the pros and cons but we've already lost our freedom of movement. We've already lost years of progress towards free, unhindered movement of goods. In 1973 you were allowed to choose not to use any of your newly-realised options. You didn't lose anything you already had. In fact you could happily fill in 50 forms to get your cabbages exported if you really wanted to - no one else would care about them but there was nothing stopping you from doing it.

The rest of your response is at best conjecture and in places just factually incorrect. I can't be bothered going over it line-by-line again. You either care enough to investigate and learn or you don't. Anything I post here isn't going to change your mind, or your opinions.
 

Adi_Dem

Well-known member
General point - We only left a few months ago, its like asking someone in April 1973 how joining the EEC has made a difference to the UK.

This isn't the right way to look at it. We left the EU a few months ago and still benefit from a number of grace periods that run through the agreement. Despite that the results have been disastrous, trade has slumped,, businesses are failing, entire industries are being decimated and violence has started in Ireland. This isn't going to get any better. It's going to get worse.

I agree around 65% of our physical trade is done with EU countries but we do run a large trade deficit with EU countries we should aiming to eliminate this deficit which could be helped by a different trade deal with the EU. More importantly the UK can now frame trade terms from the UK prospective with non EU countries, before we were just part (20%) of the EU. For example offer lower tariffs on imported food in return for lower taxes on say UK exported alcohol and pharma goods which the UK is strong on. I agree with you on UK shell fish and I have put this down as a cost to the UK from leaving the EU. I also agree overall there may be no overall benefits and an overall loss, but there could be benefits on doing own trade deals. I am happy to withdraw this listed benefit as its very much potential. It depends if Jam69 wants only guaranteed benefits listing or wants potential ones as well.

So having just agreed a trade deal you're saying that it is a benefit of Brexit that we need to do a different one? The only 'trade deal' that will go any way to fixing the problems is one that sees us re-join the single market and customs union. So that means the 'benefit' you're putting forward essentially relies upon us re-joining.

The trade deficit argument is well worn and debunked. Firstly we have a trade surplus in services (by far the bigger part of our economy) and the new agreement doesn't really cover services. That is going to cause huge and significant economic damage. Secondly, the trade deficit in goods is precisely because of our economy being built on services. Doing a different trade deal with the EU to try and help eliminate the deficit doesn't make any sense at all. The reason we had that deficit is because of the way our economy is built, not because of any trade agreement with the EU. The only way to reduce that deficit is to invest in manufacturing in this company and actually start making stuff again. The problem is that it will take decades to re-build that infrastructure and resource. In that time, the damage will have already been done. And ironically, re-investing in manufacturing would have made a lot more sense whilst members of the EU to take more advantage of being a member of the single market. It would fly in the face of the evidence to suggest that the trade deficit had anything to do with being a member of the single market and the customs union.

It has been proven many, many times over that no matter what trade deals we do with non-EU countries it is simply not possible to replace the trade we do with the EU. Trade and geography go hand in hand. There are simply no trade deals that will benefit us to the extent that they will replace what we have lost. There is absolutely no doubt that there is going to be a massive loss to our economy because of Brexit.

How many of these benefits (you are thinking of) would the UK not get if the UK was a net receiver of EU funds. For example we can export goods without tariffs and quotas to EU countries without been a net contributor. The benefit of the EU are benefits to all member nations be they contributor or receiver.

I'm not sure what the point being made here is. This is about Brexit benefits. The net membership fee was dwarfed by the net benefits to the economy by being a member state. That is indisputable. If you're saying it would have been better to be a net receiver (i.e. no 'membership fees') and still have all the benefits of being a member then that is undoubtedly true albeit fanciful and unrealistic but it still cannot be characterised as a benefit of Brexit.

We honestly don't know at present, but there is more flexibility to do so.

This is wrong. Post-Brexit we have an obligation to jointly put in place a transparent subsidy and enforcement scheme that respects the key principles of the EU State Aid rules and follows common principles. If we don't then there are sanctions. We do not therefore have any more flexibility.

EU and USA two examples - pound dropped in value against Euro and dollar (around 14%) after EU referendum result in June 2016, although is less than 14% now as the pound has recently appreciated with higher vaccine level in the UK. A lower pound helps UK exporters and help domestic producers against overseas importers.

Currency devaluation as a beenfit? Really? A weaker pound is not a good thing for us. Imports are more expensive and inflation rises. For that to be a benefit you have to increase exports on the opposite side because in theory they become cheaper. We have just closed off our biggest market and so we don't have anything like the same sized market to sell into and therefore we cannot increase our exports. The net effect is economic damage.

There will be as the EU becomes more federal with a tighter Union. Just as the EEC became the EU. Most Europeans want a tighter bonding, countries join the Euro they don't leave it.

That old chestnut. We were in a unique position in the EU. A member state with more concessions and rights than any other. We had veto rights over any major, key decisions many of which required referenda should we decide not to use them. We had a seat at the table. We were driving a lot of the policy and law making. This fictional move towards a federal Europe not only is absent any real evidence but also conveniently forgets our position and our rights. The idea that we were moving to a single federal state with central government in Brussels is just hyperbolic nonsense not borne out by any evidence. And it certainly isn't a benefit of leaving.

Free movement of people within the EU is a fundmental principle of the EU, restrictions will be only temporary otherwise the whole ethos of the EU will be lost.

Again incorrect. We always had the right to remove EU citizens if they were a burden i.e. if they didn't have employment and didn't have appropriate insurances so as not to be a burden on the welfare state. We chose never to implement because the costs of doing so heavily outweighed the benefits. Brexit will not improve and in fact ironically is likely to make reducing immigration more difficult.

Yes really, the Tees Valley has seen more proposed projects in the last few months than for years previously. I don't blame the EU, but that appears to be a consequence of leaving the EU which is what Jam69 invited posts for?

Proposed projects without much substance and which have precisely nothing to do with Brexit.

Any use having a EU law if member states can say No to the law (after amendments have been discusssed)? The bigger the Club the harder it is to have rules that everyone is happy with.

Again this is just not an argument. As above we had a privileged position within the EU and a powerful seat at the table. We had veto rights in relation to certain key changes, we were directly responsible for proposing and creating huge amounts of EU law. And I bet you can't name a single law that you were unhappy with and that you are now glad we don't have to abide by. As Scrote said, you're just plain wrong.

Scrote you might be right. I was very upset what happened to Redcar in 2015 I was the one posting about Chinese dumping but very few backed me, I was told by many on here that SSI Redcar could not compete because people in China earn peanuts. Also energy costs in the UK were very high and to me this was crippling high energy users like SSI Redcar. Energy is a bigger cost than labour in steel making. Cameron was very keen to get Chinese funds for Hinkley Point C and I had my suspicions Redcar was sacrificed to some degree as he did everything at the time for Chinese money. A lot of SSI steel was exported to Asian markets, can the EU stop dumping there?
I was thinking of Govt support after June 2016, rates relief and reduced energy costs for Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, taking over the assets of asset stripper Greybull (owned Skinningrove) before finding a buyer. All these actions were state aid to some degree and other EU steel producers could complain of unfair competition.

No they weren't. The government hid behind state aid rules as a reason not to help. In truth there was nothing stopping them help other than politics. Moreover, as above we are still effectively within the EU state aid rules and so, again, this is not a benefit of BRexit.

Apple did a special corporation tax deal of 2% with the ROI Government, so Apple funnelled profits into the ROI from other EU countries including the UK. Now we are longer in the EU, this practice can more easily be stopped. The EU was against Apple's strategy but nothing happened to stop it so far. It seems to take a long time to get things done when lots of different countries are involved. I thought there was something in a recent UK Budget about increasing taxes on multinationals. It definitely happens in the USA.

This one did make me smile. That you think we are going to get tough on the big tax dodging entities that government continues to receive funding from and with whom we continue to do sweetheart tax deals is funny. Again though this practice could have been stopped whilst a member of the EU. We choose not to do these things. Not a benefit of Brexit.

I can't say South African grapes price drop is all due to BREXIT and there is likely several factors, but there seems to be more and more South African grapes and less Spanish and Italian grapes. I have seen grapes from India in Tesco's in the last few years. At the same time the prices of grapes has definitely dropped in UK shops. LIDL are selling 500g for £1.09

Grapes. Fcuking grapes. You don't know whether it's BRexit related but are offering up grapes. I can't intelligently comment on the price of grapes to be honest. If only that was on the side of the bus.

Having a gang on here all saying BREXIT is great and another gang saying the EU is great is not helpful in finding our best route.

That isn't at all what is happening on any of these threads. To characterise it in that way is disingenuous. Not one remain voter I have interacted with believes the EU is perfect or infallible. This isn't about that though. It is about whether we are better off in the EU or out of it. Leave voters were challenged to offer up some benefits of Brexit and they never stand up to scrutiny. As has been demonstrated here they simply fall apart under the slightest challenge.

I understand the vote almost forced people into two opposing camps but is there anyone else willing to give their pro and cons. allowing say a ten year view.

There are no pros. That is the point. Whenever anybody is challenged to provide them, they can't. I will give you my ten year view: in ten years we might just be starting to recover from the damage. We will by then be a smaller, weaker, poorer country and the UK is likely to have broken up. There will have been a decade of violence in Ireland. And still Leav voters will be denying reality and telling everyone else that they lost and that they need to move on and get over it.

Having left can we take some of the postives of the EU and leave behind the negatives. Cynics might call it being semi detached, and say its impossible. but I feel to me, its a sensible route.

This sums it up. It is a feeling not based on any evidence or facts, just a feeling. Hope and nothing more. The truth is this: there are no benefits to Brexit. None. We will all suffer the consequences of leaving and, as has been shown throughouth the last 5 years, you cannot cherry pick and have some of the positives of the EU and leave behind the negatives. That isn't how it works.

1617871123842.png
 
Top
X