[The Earl of Chesterfield]

These threads always end in the same stalemate the country's suffering.

Brexit was sold as an improvement, however even those doing so then can no longer make that claim now.

But they won the vote, so leaving has become a circular argument amongst those who agreed with them.

Why do you want to leave? Because we voted for it. Why did you vote for it? Because we want to leave. Why do you want to leave...

..and of course every fact or figure proving how damaging it'll be is dismissed as project fear peddled by a metropolitan elitist establishment.

Even when that metropolitan elitist establishment is me, a bloke from Birdholme.

And those calling me as much are former public school millionaires like Farage, Reece-Mogg and Johnson.

Backed by billionaires running the media.

Well I can only repeat what I've said before.

Okay, democracy dictates an exit.

However let that exit be the best possible one for Britain.

No more red lines, no more deadlines, no more jingoism or hiding behind the Union Flag or references to WW2.

No more lies.

Just a genuinely cross party group overseeing it and if it takes years then it takes years.

The EU isn't our enemy - the real enemies are those insisting ordinary people pay for their profits!

[Wooden Spoon]

I’m still of the opinion that a Norway deal, us joining them, Iceland etc is the easiest way of leaving, an off the shelf kit that can, as with Liechtenstein, can have caveats to suit the particular nation. I said it over the years ago and still think that.



I also think the cross party thing should have been the way forward at the start... but now I’m not so sure. They have shown, all of them, on both sides of the house that getting it done isn’t the agenda, party politics, self interest and petty points scoring is.





I’m disgusted with our MPs. On all sides.

[dim view]

DEATH, on 19 October 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

I’m disgusted with our MPs. On all sides.

Hee hee, delicious.
It looks like the EU might not reply to Boris's delay letter until November 1st.

This post has been edited by dim view: 19 October 2019 - 08:09 PM

[dart in the crossbar]

Mr Mercury, on 19 October 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

To be honest if you read my posts you'll see that my stance is not so much anti EU but now more anti Parliment and MPs, if we'd have voted to stay then so be it, no big deal. I voted to leave because I thought we'd be better off on a world stage at our own devices, but it was no massive sway in my life, In fact I'd never really given any thought to leaving until Cameron decided to have a vote. But now we've voted to leave it must be honoured, you cannot live in a democracy then try and change the result because those that lost shout the loudest. At every turn you see pompous self appointed people telling us that the leave voters have no idea what they're on about, that we're closet racists that we're ill educated thugs. Regardless of our vote they going to do their very best to stop the result.
Most of the anger now being directed is from leave voters not against the EU but MPs who have blatantly ignored the will of their own constituents in many cases, some MPs leaving parties yet still having the gall to stand under a different banner and not have a by election yet at the same time calling for a people's vote.
You've got the Lib dem leader actually openly campaigning to stop Brexit altogether regardless of the 52% who voted for it, the Scottish Nationals, who lost a once in a lifetime, yeah right! Vote to leave the UK and therefore should accept the result of the Brexit vote, openly calling for another Nationalist vote for the Scots. What do we do, keep voting until they all get the result they want..
Like I've said I've no real grief with the EU, I'm not anti EU, it probably won't make much difference in the long run whether we stay or leave, I honestly don't know, my anger now is directed at those who attempt to stifle what people voted for and blatantly try everything to prevent Brexit happening.
That's my honest and trueful answer.

5% hit on the economy, Yellow Hammer and/or whatever the government's secret dossier says is...

... 'difference in the long run whether we stay or leave'

[Mr Mercury]

dart in the crossbar, on 19 October 2019 - 09:32 PM, said:

5% hit on the economy, Yellow Hammer and/or whatever the government's secret dossier says is...

... 'difference in the long run whether we stay or leave'

The post wasn't an arguement or a discussion point, it's simply my reasons for wanting to leave as asked to state by a previous poster.

[Cheshunt Spireite]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 19 October 2019 - 06:19 PM, said:

I like how people go on about tell us what benefits being out the eu brings etc but can someone please tell me how we are better off staying in?

I asked that previously on another thread but no one answered.

I also want to know all the doomongers saying it will blow the eceonomy...on what evidence? Someone's say so, experts that have previously got it wrong on so many occasions.

What happens if we remain and the EU collapses? Let's have a doomongering scare story on that one.

These are fair questions and I will try to answer them in an balanced way.

The economic benefits of the EU are hard to calculate exactly, because over 40+yrs our economy has become so intertwined with it. The Confederation of British Industry estimates the economic benefit of remained to be £91 billion per year, against a cost of membership (in 2018) of £11 billion. This cost is after various rebates and our membership paying for British institutions (it's wordy to explain).

In 2018 46% of our exports were to the EU, around £290 billion. This is all (mostly) frictionless trade without export paperwork, additional inspections or crucially export/import tax on it. If this is hit costs of exporting goes up, so EU customers will naturally look for cheaper alternatives. Estimates vary wildly but this will cost jobs, even leading brexiteers cost that, the dispute is how many. It's also worth noting that £270billion is only the direct value of exports, not the services around it. For example when a big factory closes and its employees lose their jobs, industries supplying that factory and those workers also suffer. Again, it's very hard to calculate but it's not disputed that there will be a negative hit here.
It's also worth noting that 7.2% of our economy is services to the EU, which again it isn't disputed that it will be hit, it's just how hard that's disputed.

Looking at imports, in 2018 54% (£345billion) of UK imports come from the EU. As with everything else in statistics, this number creates a divide depending on how you look at it. Brexiteers look at it as 'the EU need those exports for their own economies', but others will point out that that's produce and materials the country needs. 70% of our building material is from the EU, 30% of our food comes from the EU (we make 50% of our own), and the country doesn't have many raw materials anymore so our manufacturing sector is hugely dependent on the EU. With import taxes, delays to delivery and increased bureaucracy- Brexit will increase bureaucracy at border points- food prices will go up. Again, this isn't really disputed by either side, just the extent. Plans for rationing have legitimately been drawn up by the government, it's that serious a threat.

The Department for Exiting the EU on Friday produced estimates that Johnson's Brexit deal would make every individual in the UK £150 worse off per year and hit the economy by 6.7% in the next 15yrs. These are forecasts but it's forecasts that make decisions, and this is the Brexit department making these claims, not remainers.

Farmers are genuinely terrified, and there are plans for mass culls of animals and the government buying hundreds of millions of pounds of farming produce but for it not to be consumed just to keep the farming industry going.

There's other areas of impact as well, such as migrants. The simple fact is that the UK has both an aging population and a large amount of 'born & bred Brits' that don't want to do the jobs that need doing such as farm labouring and care work. Care centres in particular will suffer hugely because it's a grim job. I won't hide my bias here, I used to help run care homes for the elderly and severely disabled- the hours are appalling, the wage is a disgrace and the treatment of employees is shambolic. By on large it's done by people from poorer economies who are more willing to put up with those conditions. We simply don't have enough young people in this country for our economy, and too many people who need additional assistance. On that note, I'll say that 0.3% (zero point three) of the NHS budget goes on EU migrants, around £350m, the vast majority of whom are paying UK tax, and their own governments are meant to pay the NHS for them being treated (the UK only pursues about £50m worth a year though). For comparison, the UK pays over £650m to other EU governments for our citizens being treated. These migrants also won't be leaving the UK, so demand on it won't fall because of Brexit, but other countries may withdraw the medical assistance they provide to our expats which will increase demand as our expats are generally retirees and thus more in need of services.

There are areas of the UK that the UK government for various reasons has pretty much completely ignored, such as Liverpool, Hull, the north east, Cornwall. The UK government is very London centric, whereas the EU has put money into places regardless of the politics. Looking at the East Midlands specifically, between 2007 and 2013 the EU put £190m into the region (matched by the UK government). That's £190m minimum of investment that wouldn't have happened without the EU, and that's assuming the UK government would still have invested. Look at industrial parks, educational facilities and major infrastructure works that have occurred in Chesterfield in the last 20 years and you'll almost without exception find EU funding at least some of it.

As for what happens if the EU collapses, it's not going to happen in the forseeable future, the UK leaving is the only sign of the EU being weaker than it appears an even then, they're looking much more competent in the process than the UK is. The EU is popular in most of Europe, with some outliers in Greece, Italy, Hungary and to a lesser degree the Netherlands, and even in those support for the EU is far greater than support for leaving. But let's say in 5yrs time everything has gone to pot, the EU is failing and more members are leaving, then the UK is actually in a better position to leave because we won't be fighting a unified block. The EU is strong because it's such an economic powerhouse (23% of the world's GDP, 20% without the UK) all on the same platform. It's why they dominate Brexit negotiations, however big people think the UK government and influence is, the EU's is far bigger- our 3% of the world's GDP vs their 20%. By negotiating with much smaller blocks it makes it easier to get deals and our size is much more impressive.
Brexit only works if the EU is collapsing, but while it has its issues it's still the biggest economy in the world, and the biggest trading bloc in the world. Countries want a deal with the EU as a whole, not individuals within it.

I don't make a pretence of the EU being amazing, and I criticise it heavily. There are many, many elements of it which I don't like. Ultimately though, I do believe that when you look at the real facts and not what's spouted by Farage, Robinson, Rees-Mogg, Johnson or in the Express/ Mail (random fact, the Mail openly supported Hitler and facism for many years so it's ironic when they say the EU is like the Nazis). I understand why people voted for Brexit, even if I don't agree. I do struggle to understand the fanatical devotion to it even when hearing the damage likely to be caused and that people could die. I think people were promised a Eutopia by leaving and don't like being told that it's not going to be that way, that it's going to be hard, that people are going to suffer.

I'd love everything to turn out ok, but I just don't see it being that way. The evidence is too overwhelming. People say Project Fear and I always wonder- how are they going to feel if people do start dying because they can't get medication? If thousands do lose jobs? Suicide rates go up with economic downturn, is that ok? Food prices are already going up, what if they go up dramatically? Will Brexiteers say it's an acceptable price to pay? What are we getting for that cost? When people say freedom from the EU, what do they mean? In what way does the EU negatively affect someone day to day to be so fanatical about leaving, regardless of the evidence presented before them?

I've tried to give an unbiased answer to a question you claim you couldn't get an answer to, and I would genuinely like an answer to some of mine. I'm here for a discussion, not an argument.

[isleaiw1]

Cheshunt Spire, that's a very calm and measured response for any questions on Brexit! I havent read it all in great detail but one line that did stand out was about the EU failing as not very likely.... I dont study this in any great detail (frankly I am bored with it and being British we will get on and make the best of whatever we have...) but I am told but those whose opinions I trust that the EU is in a real mess (mainly due to letting people join the Euro who should never have met the qualification criteria so it is killing their economies - which is in turn killing the EU) - and we know they are already engaged in Quantative Easing to try and avoid a downturn in the Euro zone....

So the question is should we get out now and forge our own way in the world or wait for the issues to intensify in the EU and then be scrambling around with many others and have our economy damaged by the eurozone issues (I am told the Greece issue is nothing compared to what is to come..).

Now it could be another example of Project Fear, but its worthy of consideration....

As for the EU being better at these negotiations than we have been, well they are effectively trying to save their baby as if the UK leaves and prospers the EU will die more quickly...

I'm 55 - in reality and for personal reasons I should want what protects house prices, share prices and my retirement for the next ten years. My concern is that leaving now will cause an immediate drop but recovery could come in time. But if we dont leave we may be heading headlong into a calamitous financial mess when retirement is way too close for there to be any chance of recovery..

If only we could see the future and not have to listen to a bunch of self serving people guessing it....

[dart in the crossbar]

Cheshunt Spire

nah mate

you'd be better off listening to 5 live et al.

There was a bloke on this morning who imports food from the EU telling the world that Boris is doing a great job getting that Brexit done - cos the EU needs us more than we need them.

And they then had this person on who voted remain. but naaah she's just bored of the Brexit and wants it to get sorted aaart like.

I should also point out that you also sound dangerously like an expert - so there's no need to hear any of your clever expert words.

leave it to the food importer bloke and the bored remainer to safeguard our future

'This country'

[Cheshunt Spireite]

Isleaiw1, it's a fair point about letting in countries that shouldn't have been allowed in. I'm on mobile so can't give as extensive an answer as before, but will give a shorter summary.

This is a really complicated question, there are several hundred people (directly employed by the EU) paid to try and answer & resolve it!

Firstly a clarification- what you're saying refers to the eurozone, not the EU as a whole. The eurozone is countries that adopted the Euro, currently 19/29 have it and 7 more are obliged to adopt it once they meet the criteria. It's part of the EU but doesn't exclusively serve the EU, as 6 non-eu countries have the euro (although only 4 of them are part of the eurozone- told you it was complicated!).

As they're different I'll distinguish between the EU and eurozone.

The UK and Denmark aren't part of the eurozone and have no obligation to join. There was a much publicised report we would have to join as part of the treaty of Lisbon- complete lies.

It's definitely true that some countries, notably Greece, fudged the books in order to join the EU and eurozone. That this wasn't spotted given how extensive and long the joining process is I'd definitely a failing, and putting my cynical hat on it's because the EU wanted to expand too fast.

There are others, Italy and Spain in particular, who also have big issues but have been in longer (Italy is much more complex than just the EU, they have real ingrained corruption, poor economic geographical spread among other bits).

However, the UK is almost entirely shielded by this because we aren't in the eurozone, and quite rightly so- the idea of the euro, to greater tie European economies together to strengthen the bloc- is great in theory but when you get problems it hits everyone, the larger economies have to prop up the smaller, more vulnerable ones to protect the value of the currency. The bailouts Greece had were almost entirely french and German funded.
Of the £270 billion spent to bail out Greece, and further 10s of billions to help out Ireland and Portugal, none of it came from the UK taxpayer (if I'm being 100% honest we do contribute to the international monetary fund which did help, but that's a global, entirely non- EU institution).

To summarise on your question, the issues you pointed out are eurozone, not EU as a whole. The UK isn't in the eurozone and is not going to join the eurozone. This protects us from the negative affects of joining the euro while being able to utilise the benefits of EU membership.

In regards to your 2nd point about the EU trying to save their baby, that's true. It's taken a lot of effort to get the EU to where it is, starting as a coal & iron agreement between France and Germany in the aftermath of WW2.
But it's also oversimplified. The EU has been better at negotiations for many reasons. The two key ones to me are:

- that the UK has never clarified what it wants from a deal/ leaving, only what it doesn't want

- the UK is in a bad position for negotiation. You need leverage to get a favourable deal, and we simply don't have enough of it compared to the EU. Our economy is service based, we don't make anything anywhere else can't make cheaper, we rely on young immigrants for our economy to work, we rely on free trade for imports and we've built up a unique position of being where non- EU companies do business purely because of our frictionless access to the EU. The EU has trade deals with major economies, we lose those and the same economies are openly saying they're going to get better terms for themselves in any trade deal with the UK, and we aren't in a position to say no.

There's also a third point that we're now their economic rivals, of course they want to take business from us. Every business wants to take customers away from its rivals.

You asked if the EU is going to die- it isn't. The eurozone might (I emphasise might) in 10-15yrs, although I expect it to be reorganised. I also think the EU will face a structural change soon, it's got to a point where it's both too big and too small, needs to define itself better.

I respect your concerns for your personal circumstances. I would counter that it's a matter of how much time it takes to recover from a drop. Our economy has been intertwining with the EU for 40+yrs, it's become reliant on it. Even Rees mogg is saying it could take 50yrs for the benefits to come through.
If the EU goes to pot then it's better for the UK to leave then as we won't be against a unified bloc. Leaving now, with minimal negotiating leverage or a clear position, is self harm.

I'll be brutally honest, if excrement hits the fan the economy will need government protection. They will protect London. They don't give a damn about the rest of the country when things are going well, when it's going badly they will not help places like chesterfield for years. Think of how long it took to get economic revival after the pits closed, it'll be the same. That's how this country has always worked.

I'll sign off with this- the EU is going to affect us heavily regardless of whether or not we're a member. To trade with them we have to meet their standards and follow their rules. While we're in we have a large amount of power and influence to make it so things are better for us, if we're out we have no say whatsoever in anything they do and as such are more vulnerable.

[Wooden Spoon]

The UK government lent a huge amount of money to the Republic of Ireland unilaterally. It’s not true to say the Irish bailout was EU funded without money from the UK. £3,259,000,000.Loans to Ireland act of Parliament 2010.

[Cheshunt Spireite]

I intentionally left the loan from the UK to Ireland out because it wasn't obligatory, our government chose to. That loan was 4% of their bailout, will be paid off by 2021 and make the UK £400m surplus in interest.

It was paid to bail out the Irish banks which have stakes in the UK, not because they were eurozone. There was no treaty or legal obligation to give them a loan.

I also left out that the UK government chose to sign up to the European financial stabilization agreement because we, unlike the rest in the eurozone, are guaranteed our money back regardless of the receiving governments ability to pay. It's an agreement with the EU that neither hurts nor harms us financially so I chose not to complicate what was already a complicated answer.

[Search & Destroy]

If the EU was made of countries with similar social and economic structure it’d be fine, in 1992 when Maastricht was signed, and offered free movement there were 12 member states,
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.

We didn’t get a referendum, a few did and won very, very narrowly

[Wooden Spoon]

dim view, on 19 October 2019 - 08:08 PM, said:

<br />Hee hee, delicious.<br />It looks like the EU might not reply to Boris's delay letter until November 1st.<br />

From Magna Carta, via watt Tyler, the chartists, Emily Pankhurst, right to the representation of the people act 1969, universal suffrage, people’s vote and representation in parliament has been a hard road. This was my main anti EU reasoning. The members of the House of Parliament are a disgrace. They have treated the people’s will, and 800 years worth of suffrage evolution with utter contempt.












Delicious? It makes me want to puke.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Here's how I see it.

There's now a majority for a deal. However it won't be a 'dead in a ditch' deal. A 'do or die' deal. It won't be a blind, blagged, bluffed, blustered and blundered through Brexit.

It could - and absolutely should - be an EU exit that's discussed, debated and delivered in a way that makes the best of the baddest of jobs.

And as our friend 'DEATH' has said, there's already an 'off the shelf' compromise to consider in Norway's case.

[Wooden Spoon]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 22 October 2019 - 09:16 PM, said:

<br />Here's how I see it.<br /><br />There's now a majority for a deal. However it won't be a 'dead in a ditch' deal. A 'do or die' deal. It won't be a blind, blagged, bluffed, blustered and blundered through Brexit. <br /><br />It could - and absolutely should - be an EU exit that's discussed, debated and delivered in a way that makes the best of the baddest of jobs. <br /><br />And as our friend 'DEATH' has said, there's already an 'off the shelf' compromise to consider in Norway's case.<br />

Indeed there is. It allows the uk to do trade deals, allows the current trade benefits with the EU to remain, removes the UK from the political element of the EU, can be done in a matter of days. No long winded political declarations , no need for a complex withdrawal bill. It meets the terms of the referendum. Why don’t these oafs in Westminster, all of them on both sides do the flipping sensible thing?












What’s not to like about it?

[mr. smith]

DEATH, on 22 October 2019 - 07:57 PM, said:

From Magna Carta, via watt Tyler, the chartists, Emily Pankhurst, right to the representation of the people act 1969, universal suffrage, people’s vote and representation in parliament has been a hard road. This was my main anti EU reasoning. The members of the House of Parliament are a disgrace. They have treated the people’s will, and 800 years worth of suffrage evolution with utter contempt.

theres a majority for the latest deal all they want is more time to discuss it properly (maashtricht & the treaty of rome both took ove 20 days to discuss, Johnson wants this doing in 3). if its such a good deal whats the problem? 3yrs to get here, would 2-3mths make that much difference? we wouldn't be out the eu any quicker as we are still tied in til dec 2020 anyway with the withdrawal negotiations.










Delicious? It makes me want to puke.

[Wooden Spoon]

DEATH, on 22 October 2019 - 07:57 PM, said:

<br />From Magna Carta, via watt Tyler, the chartists, Emily Pankhurst, right to the representation of the people act 1969, universal suffrage, people's vote and representation in parliament has been a hard road. This was my main anti EU reasoning. The members of the House of Parliament are a disgrace. They have treated the people's will, and 800 years worth of suffrage evolution with utter contempt. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Delicious? It makes me want to puke.<br />

<br /><br /><br />well there are clearly 2 people who don’t care about democracy. Maybe they should live in North Korea for a while, they might then think differently about the right to be able to choose your leadership.

[Wooden Spoon]

SMIG





Nothing wrong with wanting time to digest the deal, my concern would be a raft of amendments that then turn the deal into something completely different, which would then require re negotiations with the EU and so on and so on. Any reason or excuse to not implement the result of the referendum. Delay it, block it, change it, stop it. Labour had a manifesto pledge to implement it. They now, via Thornberry
, say they want to revolt article 50.








Putting them in the “ Bolsover question”










If you have got a majority for a deal, then there shouldn’t be the need for amendments and the process to be dragged on and on. Either vote for the deal, or debate a different option. They have done this, they have had managed many votes, amendments have been tabled and rejected over months. This is the first deal that actually got through, so flipping well get it through. There isn’t any reason now to keep dragging this **** on and on and on.

[Mr Mercury]

DEATH, on 22 October 2019 - 10:20 PM, said:

SMIG





Nothing wrong with wanting time to digest the deal, my concern would be a raft of amendments that then turn the deal into something completely different, which would then require re negotiations with the EU and so on and so on. Any reason or excuse to not implement the result of the referendum. Delay it, block it, change it, stop it. Labour had a manifesto pledge to implement it. They now, via Thornberry
, say they want to revolt article 50.







Putting them in the “ Bolsover question”










If you have got a majority for a deal, then there shouldn’t be the need for amendments and the process to be dragged on and on. Either vote for the deal, or debate a different option. They have done this, they have had managed many votes, amendments have been tabled and rejected over months. This is the first deal that actually got through, so flipping well get it through. There isn’t any reason now to keep dragging this **** on and on and on.

Labour are no longer a long term issue. At the moment the parlimentery party are a dog running after the wheels of a moving car, trying to nip and snap at the driver and whilst attempting to alter the course all they can do is aggravate it.
They are finished as a major political force for years to come, Corbyn and his London elitiests closely observed by the sinister Momentum group have seen to that. The next election will decimate them in their North Midlands and Northern heartlands, it's back to the early 80's and their years wandering in the post Foot wilderness, and it could all so easily have been avoided but once again Labour has become dogged in extremism and it forgets where it's real roots lies.
Can any genuine Labour supporter tell me they'll win the next election?

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 22 October 2019 - 10:49 PM

[Cheshunt Spireite]

The Norway model doesn't work because it crosses too many of the 'red lines' that were set out, and what most people seemingly voted for, namely:

- freedom of movement has to be allowed
- we have to pay, heavily, into the EU budget without the rebate so it would possibly cost more
- we have to oblige by almost every EU rule without representation or power of veto

Rules it's excempt on are agriculture (mostly), home affairs and justice. They aren't part of the customs union but also don't have a Northern Ireland style situation so it simplifies it. They can make deals with other countries but are constrained in those deals by the rules they have to follow from the EU.

It's also worth noting that Norway has, relative to its population size, a huge amount of natural resources and cash reserves so is in a position to be fussy. We don't have these.

A Norway style Brexit is still being a member of the EU but on worse terms because we're still following most of the rules without a say on them. I'd accept that over May's or Boris' deals, and definitely over no deal, but it'd still be a downgrade on what we've got.