'The UK has provided a total of €6.5bn (£5bn) via the EU for two bailouts: €3bn for Ireland in November 2010 and €3.5bn for Portugal in May 2011. With both Ireland and Portugal now out of their bailout programmes, the UK has not lost any money supporting them at the peak of the crisis. The UK has not made a contribution via the EU for the other eurozone bailouts: the three Greek ones, in 2010, 2012 and 2015 and for the Spain and Cyprus bailouts in 2012. The UK has made further contributions, not because it was forced to do so by the EU, but because the IMF too provided loans for some of the bailouts. The UK's share of whatever the IMF provides is around 4.5% of the total. It amounts to around €4.5bn for all seven bailout mentioned. In addition, in 2010, the UK provided €3.9bn in bilateral bailout loans to its neighbour and important trading partner - Ireland. What has happened since? In 2011 the EU leaders agreed that the UK and other EU countries which are not in the eurozone, should not be part of any future eurozone bailouts. The eurozone has subsequently established a new bailout fund, paid for by, and benefiting, eurozone countries only. In 2015, when the third Greek bailout was agreed, Greece was also given a short term bridging loan of €7bn from an EU-wide fund which can provide loans to any EU country in financial difficulty. The fund is financed by borrowing against the EU Budget. The UK would have been indirectly liable for around €855 million (£598m) of the loan, through its share in the EU Budget.'
I give you the perfect analogy and you call it nonsensical.
Only because it was.
What EU law don't I like ? EU emissions, the German and French motor industry needs to make more money so lets bring about a law change and force everybody to get a newer model of car or pay for catalytic converters.
We appear to be wishing to go further than the EU on emissions, particularly in London, to reduce the number of deaths and ill health caused by air pollution.
Working hours directives (which helped bring about zero hours contracts). If a company says its working week is 48 hours then that's what it is. Nobodies forcing the employee to take the job
What if the job started at 40 hours, and became 60 hours with no choice or enhanced overtime payments?
How about the one that says the U.K. has to take a certain % of refugees from each international disaster. YES of course we should help peoples afflicted in other countries but only because we WANT to and we CAN not because we are TOLD to.
Whether this is decided by the EU or the government of the day, you will not get a say.
Or the one that says if we wish to trade with an American manufacturer we have to trade within certain parameters to prevent an unfair advantage over other member nations. Why should I give a hoot if a Portuguese industry collapses. Its called Capitalism and market forces. At the end of the day nobody came galloping over the hill to save British industries. Fishing, Coal, Steel, Textile, Shipbuilding and Automotive all gone since we joined. Co-incidence ???
I am happy that they set standards and am not relishing the thought of chlorine washed chicken, hormone fed beef, and gm crops coming in from the USA.
How about a system that pays farmers to produce and then destroy wheat, milk, meat etc. Whilst we as a nation are fed constant t.v. appeals for money to ease starvation and hunger in stricken areas. Or says that fish stocks can be fished to within a season of extinction in British waters but we cant export our beef because it prevents other members from having a viable industry.
Mr Rees-Mogg was on telly this week saying we can get sirloin steak for half price from the USA, that would probably finish our farmers off.
In fact NAME ONE EXAMPLE WHERE WE AS A NATION HAVE BEEN A BENEFICIARY OF EU POLICY AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER FULL MEMBER.
I am not sure this question makes sense. If it is a club, why would the club rule in favour of one member, to make another member worse off.
The financial bailouts were only viable after extra money was forthcoming from member nations and were not financed through the annual payments. Oh and as for the rebates can you tell me why our rebate was smaller than most when our contributions were larger than most.
We did the bailouts earlier. Wales for instance gets £650m a year off them. The rebate is over £5billion.
The only reason other nations want to become members is because of the financial assistance that's forthcoming. Its a European begging bowl with nations wanting to assume positions that their GDP and their economy just cant sustain.
There are many reasons for the smaller countries wanting to become members, some financial help is just one of them.
I could understand the hysteria of the remainers if there was a current precedent that painted a gloomy picture yet countries like Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand all have thriving economies, sensible immigration policy, better welfare and education, less social problems and manage to trade all over the world without having to worry about what 26 other nations might think.
The EU trades with all the above countries. Has a trade deal with Canada, and is in negotiations with Japan and New Zealand. We will obviously get better deals, ...........yawn. That brings us back to Waitrose getting better deals from their suppliers than Tesco.
I fully take on board the points about the views of the snowflake generation raised in the gentrified era of the Europhile, they probably wanted us to join the single currency, but consider this. a poll was conducted in 1975 asking people if they could go back and vote on joining the common market what would they do 62% said they would have voted to not join. So maybe it was a huge mistake in the first place that's taken some 40 + years to rectify.
Few people in this country would ever support joining the Euro.
The Common Market was set up initially to help European Countries' conglomorates and Nationalised Industries strengthen their share of markets and protecting them from aggressive rest of the world strategies regarding such things as raw materials / import tariffs/ quotas etc.
It was nothing to do with countries that had common aims and goals joining together.
It was never designed to become the Good Old U.S of E which is pretty much the purpose it serves now.
Surely it's no good criticising EU rules when WE were part of the EU when the rules were made. WE could have vetoed what we didn't agree with or voted to change the rules.
Surely it's no good criticising EU rules when WE were part of the EU when the rules were made. WE could have vetoed what we didn't agree with or voted to change the rules.
Ha.
Wins the thread in one short post.
WP @tai-gar , thank goodness not everyone belongs to the Cake & Eat It Club.
I’m guessing you have to actually attend meetings and vote to make a difference in the EU The architect of the “Get Britain Out” , Mr. Nigel Farage apparently attended ONE meeting in the 3 years he was on the ‘Fisheries committee “ as part of his MEP duties ( fact courtesy of Mr Google and Greenpeace)
I’m guessing you have to actually attend meetings and vote to make a difference in the EU The architect of the “Get Britain Out” , Mr. Nigel Farage apparently attended ONE meeting in the 3 years he was on the ‘Fisheries committee “ as part of his MEP duties ( fact courtesy of Mr Google and Greenpeace)
Funny how he was throwing dead fish in the Thames the other day as a protest then.
Surely it's no good criticising EU rules when WE were part of the EU when the rules were made. WE could have vetoed what we didn't agree with or voted to change the rules.
Do you mean WE as a country or WE as a population ?
We as a country get to vote yes, but as a population we don't get a say.
In local and General elections we can change the status quo every so often if we really don't like the job that the elected officials are doing but in Europe only the Government has the power of veto. Unfortunately so do all the others, so when we try to veto something we don't like or want we are quietly reminded that there may be a time when we are blocked in an attempt to get certain guarentees , concessions etc.
The only time we as a population got a vote we used it and, oh dear some people didn't like the outcome and want to do it all over again. Protesting loudly whilst presumably sitting on their Swedish furniture, drinking French coffee from their Italian Tassimo, before getting into their German car, driving on the EU subsidised bypass to an Irish themed bar where they will drink Belgian beer and eat Spanish Tapas and Austrian smoked cheese before their Swiss watch tells them its time to go and watch Portuguese football on their Euronics t.v..
Surely it's no good criticising EU rules when WE were part of the EU when the rules were made. WE could have vetoed what we didn't agree with or voted to change the rules.
Do you mean WE as a country or WE as a population ?
We as a country get to vote yes, but as a population we don't get a say.
In local and General elections we can change the status quo every so often if we really don't like the job that the elected officials are doing but in Europe only the Government has the power of veto. Unfortunately so do all the others, so when we try to veto something we don't like or want we are quietly reminded that there may be a time when we are blocked in an attempt to get certain guarentees , concessions etc.
The only time we as a population got a vote we used it and, oh dear some people didn't like the outcome and want to do it all over again. Protesting loudly whilst presumably sitting on their Swedish furniture, drinking French coffee from their Italian Tassimo, before getting into their German car, driving on the EU subsidised bypass to an Irish themed bar where they will drink Belgian beer and eat Spanish Tapas and Austrian smoked cheese before their Swiss watch tells them its time to go and watch Portuguese football on their Euronics t.v..
Yours in debate
mark
I am not sure what you are trying to argue here? Is it that making the choices that enrich our lives is wrong. Are you saying we should not buy Swedish furniture, or eat tapas. If you like French coffee wouldn't you buy a French coffee machine rather than an Italian one? More importantly many European companies have set up in the UK to sell their goods, including Swedish furniture, to the UK population. These companies provide thousands of jobs for our people. Many manufacturers from all over the world have set up factories in the UK with a view to supplying their goods to all the EU countries. If these manufacturers are faced with difficulties like tariffs and delivery delays, more bureaucracy etc, they could well decide to relocate to elsewhere in Europe, losing the UK many thousands of jobs. There seem to be disadvantages and difficulties with leaving the EU uncovered almost on a daily basis. The Brexiteers to a man use the same old quotes, one of which is that we all knew what we were voting for. As an argument against this I would refer you back to the quote that started this thread.
Ok tbh that last post was a bit of fun with a serious point in that none of those things benefits British industry or manufacturing.
To answer your point about the quote that started this thread. It wasn't difficult to understand what we were voting for. In fact it was a very simple choice Remain in the EU or leave the EU.
I wasn't voting on whether the myriad complexities of leaving would impact negatively on this country or even whether remaining would, within a couple of generations, strip this Nation of its remaining identity and uniqueness and submerge it completely in autonomous subjugation to a Eurocratic overlord.
No it was simple Leave or Stay. To be honest I don't care what problems the result may cause. When the Tories swept to power people weren't voting on the reformation of the health service or the destruction of the trade unions or education. No it was simply the fact that Thatcher promised council house owners the right to buy at discounts of up to 50%. As a miner and a trade union representative at the time I could see that many people within the Industry had just voted for their own destruction and so it proved.
Maybe Brexit will prove to be similar maybe it wont. BUT, and here's the really important bit, A bit like the protest vote that saw Trump into the White House, hopefully the Government will never take the British public for granted again because maybe for the first time in decades it was shown that the ballot box really can send shockwaves through Continents.
The last post shows the issues. Leaving the EU is extremely complicated but lots of people that voted Brexit wont accept it and just seem to think if they keep shouting brexit means brexit all these issues suddenly disappear.
The obvious point is that stores selling for example, Swedish furniture in this country do create many thousands jobs, as do Japanese car manufacturers. Any adverse changes to the conditions of trade in regard to either that was caused by Brexit may result in the loss of those jobs. The quote that started the thread is clear. The question is that how could any Brexiteer know what they voted for when 2 years later, we still don't know what it is going to be? We could crash out with no deal. We could just remain in the Customs Union, and get a trade deal. We could just remain in the single market. and have a technical border arrangement. We could just get a trade deal, and a new customs arrangement. We could stay in the Customs Union and the single market. We could negotiate a new Customs partnership, There are more options. Which one did you vote for? What was your plan for the Irish border? As a remain voter I know exactly what I voted for.
The intricacies of Brexit were always going to be unknown because it was decision that did not have a precedent. Therefore arguing that we shouldn't have left because the outcome was uncertain is irrelevant. That's a bit like saying we should never leave the house because we don't know what will happen when we walk out into the street.
It's also missing the point of what Brexit was about. Brexit was about an ideal, about putting the foundation in place to create a stronger and more independent nation that, whilst able to work with others, would do so on its own footing rather than be bullied into having to do things merely because it was part of an elitist club.
To do that was always going to be a challenge because inevitably other members of the club who like having the UK in a controllable position would not respond well to it. Does that mean we shouldn't have gone ahead with Brexit? I don't think so.
Of course, having a strong leadership was always going to be necessary to implement Brexit effectively and to hold down the hatches against the inevitable fire coming across the bow. This is the real problem with Brexit - the lack of a strong, united, determined and undeterred leadership.
There is no political party in this country strong enough to undertake Brexit successfully and this is why leaving was a mistake. It was the right decision but at the wrong time and with the wrong people at the helm.
The intricacies of Brexit were always going to be unknown because it was decision that did not have a precedent. Therefore arguing that we shouldn't have left because the outcome was uncertain is irrelevant. That's a bit like saying we should never leave the house because we don't know what will happen when we walk out into the street.
I don't think that the fact that this was unprecedented had a bearing. The politicians failed to inform the public of the full effect of the decision. I think it is fairly straightforward to assess the advantages of being a member of any club, as well as the disadvantages of leaving. It is now much easier 2 years later to recognise what we lose by leaving, as well as the gains from remaining. I would only argue against leaving because it was clearly the wrong decision. It was probably too complex a decision for a referendum.
It's also missing the point of what Brexit was about. Brexit was about an ideal, about putting the foundation in place to create a stronger and more independent nation that, whilst able to work with others, would do so on its own footing rather than be bullied into having to do things merely because it was part of an elitist club.
Brexit was clearly about different things for different people. I don't think that we were ever bullied in the EU. We along with France, and Germany were the leading members.
To do that was always going to be a challenge because inevitably other members of the club who like having the UK in a controllable position would not respond well to it. Does that mean we shouldn't have gone ahead with Brexit? I don't think so.
I don't think we were ever controlled either. Giving the decision to mostly uninformed members of the public was probably a mistake. It should have probably been left to the politicians.
Of course, having a strong leadership was always going to be necessary to implement Brexit effectively and to hold down the hatches against the inevitable fire coming across the bow. This is the real problem with Brexit - the lack of a strong, united, determined and undeterred leadership.
The real problem with Brexit it that it has split the country, both houses of parliament, and the cabinet, and that we will have less trade, less jobs, and as a result less money, when we leave.
There is no political party in this country strong enough to undertake Brexit successfully and this is why leaving was a mistake. It was the right decision but at the wrong time and with the wrong people at the helm
Neither of the main two parties are anywhere near to agreement on how Brexit should look, dont seem like they ever will, and it has been 2 years since the referendum.
Ok tbh that last post was a bit of fun with a serious point in that none of those things benefits British industry or manufacturing.
To answer your point about the quote that started this thread. It wasn't difficult to understand what we were voting for. In fact it was a very simple choice Remain in the EU or leave the EU.
I wasn't voting on whether the myriad complexities of leaving would impact negatively on this country or even whether remaining would, within a couple of generations, strip this Nation of its remaining identity and uniqueness and submerge it completely in autonomous subjugation to a Eurocratic overlord.
No it was simple Leave or Stay. To be honest I don't care what problems the result may cause. When the Tories swept to power people weren't voting on the reformation of the health service or the destruction of the trade unions or education. No it was simply the fact that Thatcher promised council house owners the right to buy at discounts of up to 50%. As a miner and a trade union representative at the time I could see that many people within the Industry had just voted for their own destruction and so it proved.
Maybe Brexit will prove to be similar maybe it wont. BUT, and here's the really important bit, A bit like the protest vote that saw Trump into the White House, hopefully the Government will never take the British public for granted again because maybe for the first time in decades it was shown that the ballot box really can send shockwaves through Continents.
The obvious point is that stores selling for example, Swedish furniture in this country do create many thousands jobs, as do Japanese car manufacturers. Any adverse changes to the conditions of trade in regard to either that was caused by Brexit may result in the loss of those jobs. The quote that started the thread is clear. The question is that how could any Brexiteer know what they voted for when 2 years later, we still don't know what it is going to be? We could crash out with no deal. We could just remain in the Customs Union, and get a trade deal. We could just remain in the single market. and have a technical border arrangement. We could just get a trade deal, and a new customs arrangement. We could stay in the Customs Union and the single market. We could negotiate a new Customs partnership, There are more options. Which one did you vote for? What was your plan for the Irish border? As a remain voter I know exactly what I voted for.
Those are all very good points and probably more workable than whatever the Brexit team are trying to negotiate at the moment BUT any deal or arrangement has to be in OUR favour and OUR benefit, before any other consideration.
Unfortunately the welfare of Britain has never been a EU priority. Had it been so or had those tasked with minding our affairs within the EU grown a pair every so often instead of being cowed into trade offs then the whole debacle wouldn't have raised its head.
I'm not going to post any more on the subject after this Haysie but I would like to thank you for the spirited debate and for the fact that you never got personal.
However when the likes of hhyftrftdr and dragon1964 start with the snidey oneliners whilst failing to contribute then its time to call it a day. I'd love a battle of wits with them but I fear they're unarmed.
I suppose I've not been very successful in trying to get across my reasons for voting leave but hey at least I had the balls to front up and try eh? and at the end of the day despite what many reamainers think, for me it wasn't about trade, the customs union, freedom of travel, quotas, quangos or even immigration it was simply the fact that I resented the British Government being dictated to by a bunch of Suits in Brussels.
The British Government also shoulders the responsibility for the current situation so I suggest that your angst be directed at them. The first rule of an election or a referendum should be, if you're not sure of the right result don't call it until you are and then, you'd better be right.
In signing off I offer a caveat. We were around trading etc for 1,000 years before the EU. Trust me life will go on after we leave. IF we ever leave.
One of the major advantages of living in a democratic country, even after leaving the EU, means that nobody will be able to force you read or get involved in a thread that you have no interest in.
The "Leave" bus promising the savings we make on our EU contributions has been widely criticized for being a big lie, but if you take into account some of the payments we have to make it becomes a much bigger lie. For the sake of round figures if you said that our net average contribution to the EU is £10billion per year. Michael Gove has initially promised our farmers £10 billion to make up for the subsidies they will lose. Equivalent to 1 years contribution, providing he doesn't continue paying them. So just taking some of our increased costs into account, if you go from the referendum, Article 50 period - 2 years normal contributions. Transition period - 2 years normal contributions. Settling our bills - 4 years normal contributions(around 40 billion equivalent to 4 years) Farmers - 1 year normal contributions
So without taking into account any other costs for technology, or administration jobs that will be created through leaving, it will take 9 years before we see any savings at all. The "Leave" bus didn't say £350 million per week to the NHS in 10 years time, funnily enough.
Comments
'The UK has provided a total of €6.5bn (£5bn) via the EU for two bailouts: €3bn for Ireland in November 2010 and €3.5bn for Portugal in May 2011.
With both Ireland and Portugal now out of their bailout programmes, the UK has not lost any money supporting them at the peak of the crisis.
The UK has not made a contribution via the EU for the other eurozone bailouts: the three Greek ones, in 2010, 2012 and 2015 and for the Spain and Cyprus bailouts in 2012.
The UK has made further contributions, not because it was forced to do so by the EU, but because the IMF too provided loans for some of the bailouts. The UK's share of whatever the IMF provides is around 4.5% of the total. It amounts to around €4.5bn for all seven bailout mentioned.
In addition, in 2010, the UK provided €3.9bn in bilateral bailout loans to its neighbour and important trading partner - Ireland.
What has happened since?
In 2011 the EU leaders agreed that the UK and other EU countries which are not in the eurozone, should not be part of any future eurozone bailouts.
The eurozone has subsequently established a new bailout fund, paid for by, and benefiting, eurozone countries only.
In 2015, when the third Greek bailout was agreed, Greece was also given a short term bridging loan of €7bn from an EU-wide fund which can provide loans to any EU country in financial difficulty. The fund is financed by borrowing against the EU Budget. The UK would have been indirectly liable for around €855 million (£598m) of the loan, through its share in the EU Budget.'
TheEdge949 Posts: 95Member
May 14
I give you the perfect analogy and you call it nonsensical.
Only because it was.
What EU law don't I like ? EU emissions, the German and French motor industry needs to make more money so lets bring about a law change and force everybody to get a newer model of car or pay for catalytic converters.
We appear to be wishing to go further than the EU on emissions, particularly in London, to reduce the number of deaths and ill health caused by air pollution.
Working hours directives (which helped bring about zero hours contracts). If a company says its working week is 48 hours then that's what it is. Nobodies forcing the employee to take the job
What if the job started at 40 hours, and became 60 hours with no choice or enhanced overtime payments?
How about the one that says the U.K. has to take a certain % of refugees from each international disaster. YES of course we should help peoples afflicted in other countries but only because we WANT to and we CAN not because we are TOLD to.
Whether this is decided by the EU or the government of the day, you will not get a say.
Or the one that says if we wish to trade with an American manufacturer we have to trade within certain parameters to prevent an unfair advantage over other member nations. Why should I give a hoot if a Portuguese industry collapses. Its called Capitalism and market forces. At the end of the day nobody came galloping over the hill to save British industries. Fishing, Coal, Steel, Textile, Shipbuilding and Automotive all gone since we joined. Co-incidence ???
I am happy that they set standards and am not relishing the thought of chlorine washed chicken, hormone fed beef, and gm crops coming in from the USA.
How about a system that pays farmers to produce and then destroy wheat, milk, meat etc. Whilst we as a nation are fed constant t.v. appeals for money to ease starvation and hunger in stricken areas. Or says that fish stocks can be fished to within a season of extinction in British waters but we cant export our beef because it prevents other members from having a viable industry.
Mr Rees-Mogg was on telly this week saying we can get sirloin steak for half price from the USA, that would probably finish our farmers off.
In fact NAME ONE EXAMPLE WHERE WE AS A NATION HAVE BEEN A BENEFICIARY OF EU POLICY AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER FULL MEMBER.
I am not sure this question makes sense. If it is a club, why would the club rule in favour of one member, to make another member worse off.
The financial bailouts were only viable after extra money was forthcoming from member nations and were not financed through the annual payments. Oh and as for the rebates can you tell me why our rebate was smaller than most when our contributions were larger than most.
We did the bailouts earlier. Wales for instance gets £650m a year off them. The rebate is over £5billion.
The only reason other nations want to become members is because of the financial assistance that's forthcoming. Its a European begging bowl with nations wanting to assume positions that their GDP and their economy just cant sustain.
There are many reasons for the smaller countries wanting to become members, some financial help is just one of them.
I could understand the hysteria of the remainers if there was a current precedent that painted a gloomy picture yet countries like Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand all have thriving economies, sensible immigration policy, better welfare and education, less social problems and manage to trade all over the world without having to worry about what 26 other nations might think.
The EU trades with all the above countries. Has a trade deal with Canada, and is in negotiations with Japan and New Zealand. We will obviously get better deals, ...........yawn. That brings us back to Waitrose getting better deals from their suppliers than Tesco.
I fully take on board the points about the views of the snowflake generation raised in the gentrified era of the Europhile, they probably wanted us to join the single currency, but consider this. a poll was conducted in 1975 asking people if they could go back and vote on joining the common market what would they do 62% said they would have voted to not join. So maybe it was a huge mistake in the first place that's taken some 40 + years to rectify.
Few people in this country would ever support joining the Euro.
The Common Market was set up initially to help European Countries' conglomorates and Nationalised Industries strengthen their share of markets and protecting them from aggressive rest of the world strategies regarding such things as raw materials / import tariffs/ quotas etc.
It was nothing to do with countries that had common aims and goals joining together.
It was never designed to become the Good Old U.S of E which is pretty much the purpose it serves now.
It makes the country better off in than out.
WE could have vetoed what we didn't agree with or voted to change the rules.
Wins the thread in one short post.
WP @tai-gar , thank goodness not everyone belongs to the Cake & Eat It Club.
The architect of the “Get Britain Out” , Mr. Nigel Farage apparently attended ONE meeting in the 3 years he was on the ‘Fisheries committee “ as part of his MEP duties ( fact courtesy of Mr Google and Greenpeace)
We as a country get to vote yes, but as a population we don't get a say.
In local and General elections we can change the status quo every so often if we really don't like the job that the elected officials are doing but in Europe only the Government has the power of veto. Unfortunately so do all the others, so when we try to veto something we don't like or want we are quietly reminded that there may be a time when we are blocked in an attempt to get certain guarentees , concessions etc.
The only time we as a population got a vote we used it and, oh dear some people didn't like the outcome and want to do it all over again. Protesting loudly whilst presumably sitting on their Swedish furniture, drinking French coffee from their Italian Tassimo, before getting into their German car, driving on the EU subsidised bypass to an Irish themed bar where they will drink Belgian beer and eat Spanish Tapas and Austrian smoked cheese before their Swiss watch tells them its time to go and watch Portuguese football on their Euronics t.v..
Yours in debate
mark
Is it that making the choices that enrich our lives is wrong. Are you saying we should not buy Swedish furniture, or eat tapas.
If you like French coffee wouldn't you buy a French coffee machine rather than an Italian one?
More importantly many European companies have set up in the UK to sell their goods, including Swedish furniture, to the UK population. These companies provide thousands of jobs for our people.
Many manufacturers from all over the world have set up factories in the UK with a view to supplying their goods to all the EU countries.
If these manufacturers are faced with difficulties like tariffs and delivery delays, more bureaucracy etc, they could well decide to relocate to elsewhere in Europe, losing the UK many thousands of jobs.
There seem to be disadvantages and difficulties with leaving the EU uncovered almost on a daily basis.
The Brexiteers to a man use the same old quotes, one of which is that we all knew what we were voting for. As an argument against this I would refer you back to the quote that started this thread.
To answer your point about the quote that started this thread. It wasn't difficult to understand what we were voting for. In fact it was a very simple choice Remain in the EU or leave the EU.
I wasn't voting on whether the myriad complexities of leaving would impact negatively on this country or even whether remaining would, within a couple of generations, strip this Nation of its remaining identity and uniqueness and submerge it completely in autonomous subjugation to a Eurocratic overlord.
No it was simple Leave or Stay. To be honest I don't care what problems the result may cause. When the Tories swept to power people weren't voting on the reformation of the health service or the destruction of the trade unions or education. No it was simply the fact that Thatcher promised council house owners the right to buy at discounts of up to 50%. As a miner and a trade union representative at the time I could see that many people within the Industry had just voted for their own destruction and so it proved.
Maybe Brexit will prove to be similar maybe it wont. BUT, and here's the really important bit, A bit like the protest vote that saw Trump into the White House, hopefully the Government will never take the British public for granted again because maybe for the first time in decades it was shown that the ballot box really can send shockwaves through Continents.
Yours in debate
Mark
The quote that started the thread is clear.
The question is that how could any Brexiteer know what they voted for when 2 years later, we still don't know what it is going to be?
We could crash out with no deal.
We could just remain in the Customs Union, and get a trade deal.
We could just remain in the single market. and have a technical border arrangement.
We could just get a trade deal, and a new customs arrangement.
We could stay in the Customs Union and the single market.
We could negotiate a new Customs partnership,
There are more options.
Which one did you vote for?
What was your plan for the Irish border?
As a remain voter I know exactly what I voted for.
It's also missing the point of what Brexit was about. Brexit was about an ideal, about putting the foundation in place to create a stronger and more independent nation that, whilst able to work with others, would do so on its own footing rather than be bullied into having to do things merely because it was part of an elitist club.
To do that was always going to be a challenge because inevitably other members of the club who like having the UK in a controllable position would not respond well to it. Does that mean we shouldn't have gone ahead with Brexit? I don't think so.
Of course, having a strong leadership was always going to be necessary to implement Brexit effectively and to hold down the hatches against the inevitable fire coming across the bow. This is the real problem with Brexit - the lack of a strong, united, determined and undeterred leadership.
There is no political party in this country strong enough to undertake Brexit successfully and this is why leaving was a mistake. It was the right decision but at the wrong time and with the wrong people at the helm.
I don't think that the fact that this was unprecedented had a bearing. The politicians failed to inform the public of the full effect of the decision. I think it is fairly straightforward to assess the advantages of being a member of any club, as well as the disadvantages of leaving. It is now much easier 2 years later to recognise what we lose by leaving, as well as the gains from remaining. I would only argue against leaving because it was clearly the wrong decision. It was probably too complex a decision for a referendum.
It's also missing the point of what Brexit was about. Brexit was about an ideal, about putting the foundation in place to create a stronger and more independent nation that, whilst able to work with others, would do so on its own footing rather than be bullied into having to do things merely because it was part of an elitist club.
Brexit was clearly about different things for different people. I don't think that we were ever bullied in the EU. We along with France, and Germany were the leading members.
To do that was always going to be a challenge because inevitably other members of the club who like having the UK in a controllable position would not respond well to it. Does that mean we shouldn't have gone ahead with Brexit? I don't think so.
I don't think we were ever controlled either. Giving the decision to mostly uninformed members of the public was probably a mistake. It should have probably been left to the politicians.
Of course, having a strong leadership was always going to be necessary to implement Brexit effectively and to hold down the hatches against the inevitable fire coming across the bow. This is the real problem with Brexit - the lack of a strong, united, determined and undeterred leadership.
The real problem with Brexit it that it has split the country, both houses of parliament, and the cabinet, and that we will have less trade, less jobs, and as a result less money, when we leave.
There is no political party in this country strong enough to undertake Brexit successfully and this is why leaving was a mistake. It was the right decision but at the wrong time and with the wrong people at the helm
Neither of the main two parties are anywhere near to agreement on how Brexit should look, dont seem like they ever will, and it has been 2 years since the referendum.
Unfortunately the welfare of Britain has never been a EU priority. Had it been so or had those tasked with minding our affairs within the EU grown a pair every so often instead of being cowed into trade offs then the whole debacle wouldn't have raised its head.
I'm not going to post any more on the subject after this Haysie but I would like to thank you for the spirited debate and for the fact that you never got personal.
However when the likes of hhyftrftdr and dragon1964 start with the snidey oneliners whilst failing to contribute then its time to call it a day. I'd love a battle of wits with them but I fear they're unarmed.
I suppose I've not been very successful in trying to get across my reasons for voting leave but hey at least I had the balls to front up and try eh? and at the end of the day despite what many reamainers think, for me it wasn't about trade, the customs union, freedom of travel, quotas, quangos or even immigration it was simply the fact that I resented the British Government being dictated to by a bunch of Suits in Brussels.
The British Government also shoulders the responsibility for the current situation so I suggest that your angst be directed at them. The first rule of an election or a referendum should be, if you're not sure of the right result don't call it until you are and then, you'd better be right.
In signing off I offer a caveat. We were around trading etc for 1,000 years before the EU. Trust me life will go on after we leave. IF we ever leave.
Yours in debate
Mark
For the sake of round figures if you said that our net average contribution to the EU is £10billion per year.
Michael Gove has initially promised our farmers £10 billion to make up for the subsidies they will lose. Equivalent to 1 years contribution, providing he doesn't continue paying them.
So just taking some of our increased costs into account, if you go from the referendum,
Article 50 period - 2 years normal contributions.
Transition period - 2 years normal contributions.
Settling our bills - 4 years normal contributions(around 40 billion equivalent to 4 years)
Farmers - 1 year normal contributions
So without taking into account any other costs for technology, or administration jobs that will be created through leaving, it will take 9 years before we see any savings at all. The "Leave" bus didn't say £350 million per week to the NHS in 10 years time, funnily enough.