Brexit View

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The French Customs are doing a work to rule in

> > order to show us what life will be like after

> > Brexit

> >

> > "Fortunately, I only had to declare to the

> zealous

> > customs officer the number of clothes in my

> bag.?

> > (Evening Standard)

>

> Ha ha. You mean to get more money and better

> working conditions from their government!

> Remember Operation Stack?

> I think their message is directed towards their

> French paymasters, it's not to 'show' the UK what

> Brexit will be like. That's a misrepresentation of

> the facts (again).

I'm past caring to be honest - it's deeply depressing if I think about this mess - It will all come out in the end assuming there will be an inquiry.

I've been told civil servants are taking notes of everything they are being asked to do.

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > JohnL Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > > Here's a more interesting two liner without

> a

> > > > link. Today's bribe to the North and

> > Midlands

> > > who

> > > > voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money

> tree'.

> >

> > > Or

> > > > as quite well put by the Labour

> spokesperson

> > -

> > > > throwing money at the problem rather than

> > > solving...

> > > ...The EU budget for the same area in a

> similar

> > time

> > > frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near

> matching

> > > it.

> > >

> > Just to be clear - was the quoted sum of ?11 bn

> > from the EU given for free, or were there costs

> > involved in getting that amount which should be

> > factored into the equation?

> >

> > In other words, given that the UK is a NET

> > contributor (it pays more of its money to the

> EU

> > than it receives back) do you think that is

> > anything to be taken into account when

> assessing

> > the merits of a particular course, or should it

> be

> > ignored?

> >

> > Say I buy a new car for ?60k. Can I validly

> claim

> > my assets have increased by ?60k because now I

> > have a new car, or would that be a nonsense,

> > because I shelled out ?60k of my money to

> acquire

> > it in the first place? What if I overpaid, so

> I

> > paid ?60k to receive a car with a value of

> ?40k?

> > Did I benefit by ?60k? Or did I suffer a net

> loss

> > of ?20k because I paid out more than I

> received?

> >

> > Just wondering...

>

>

> There's obviously costs in any form of admin. We

> were/are a net contributor but my argument has

> always been we gain more from the EU in other ways

> and leAvers argue we don't (or we do but the

> pooling of sovereignty is not worth it).

>

> But IMHO the EU is effectively taking from London

> or the central pot and giving to the poorer areas

> in the north/wales etc. It's doing some kind of

> wealth redistribution. That won't be matched IMHO

> - in the valleys of south wales there's EU signs

> everywhere.

>

> I think more money that went to poorer areas will

> now go to the central pot (which could include NHS

> or policing so not all necessarily bad - depends

> how it's done - but this government doesn't do

> things well :))

John, those are fair points which I mostly agree with. The distribution/redistribution of wealth should be an internal UK matter though. I don't see it as a Brexit issue.

I think Jenny just missed my point.

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > robbin Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > JohnL Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > > Here's a more interesting two liner

> without

> > a

> > > > > link. Today's bribe to the North and

> > > Midlands

> > > > who

> > > > > voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money

> > tree'.

> > >

> > > > Or

> > > > > as quite well put by the Labour

> > spokesperson

> > > -

> > > > > throwing money at the problem rather than

> > > > solving...

> > > > ...The EU budget for the same area in a

> > similar

> > > time

> > > > frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near

> > matching

> > > > it.

> > > >

> > > Just to be clear - was the quoted sum of ?11

> bn

> > > from the EU given for free, or were there

> costs

> > > involved in getting that amount which should

> be

> > > factored into the equation?

> > >

> > > In other words, given that the UK is a NET

> > > contributor (it pays more of its money to the

> > EU

> > > than it receives back) do you think that is

> > > anything to be taken into account when

> > assessing

> > > the merits of a particular course, or should

> it

> > be

> > > ignored?

> > >

> > > Say I buy a new car for ?60k. Can I validly

> > claim

> > > my assets have increased by ?60k because now

> I

> > > have a new car, or would that be a nonsense,

> > > because I shelled out ?60k of my money to

> > acquire

> > > it in the first place? What if I overpaid,

> so

> > I

> > > paid ?60k to receive a car with a value of

> > ?40k?

> > > Did I benefit by ?60k? Or did I suffer a net

> > loss

> > > of ?20k because I paid out more than I

> > received?

> > >

> > > Just wondering...

> >

> >

> > There's obviously costs in any form of admin.

> We

> > were/are a net contributor but my argument has

> > always been we gain more from the EU in other

> ways

> > and leAvers argue we don't (or we do but the

> > pooling of sovereignty is not worth it).

> >

> > But IMHO the EU is effectively taking from

> London

> > or the central pot and giving to the poorer

> areas

> > in the north/wales etc. It's doing some kind

> of

> > wealth redistribution. That won't be matched

> IMHO

> > - in the valleys of south wales there's EU

> signs

> > everywhere.

> >

> > I think more money that went to poorer areas

> will

> > now go to the central pot (which could include

> NHS

> > or policing so not all necessarily bad -

> depends

> > how it's done - but this government doesn't do

> > things well :))

>

> John, those are fair points which I mostly agree

> with. The distribution/redistribution of wealth

> should be an internal UK matter though. I don't

> see it as a Brexit issue.

>

> I think Jenny just missed my point.

LOL -I've just been told I need a tooth removed so I won't comment much today or draw any similarities.

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > JohnL Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The French Customs are doing a work to rule

> in

> > > order to show us what life will be like after

> > > Brexit

> > >

> > > "Fortunately, I only had to declare to the

> > zealous

> > > customs officer the number of clothes in my

> > bag.?

> > > (Evening Standard)

> >

> > Ha ha. You mean to get more money and better

> > working conditions from their government!

> > Remember Operation Stack?

> > I think their message is directed towards their

> > French paymasters, it's not to 'show' the UK

> what

> > Brexit will be like. That's a misrepresentation

> of

> > the facts (again).

>

> I'm past caring to be honest - it's deeply

> depressing if I think about this mess - It will

> all come out in the end assuming there will be an

> inquiry.

>

> I've been told civil servants are taking notes of

> everything they are being asked to do.

But John, you can't stop caring - you are by far the most regular poster on all things Brexit 'related'! This thread would die a death without you.

I hope your tooth gets taken care of without too much discomfort. If it's scheduled for the 29th that might actually be a blessing?

[Jenny1]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I think Jenny just missed my point.

Did I Robbin? I suspect not.

Your point seemed to be that UK contributions to the EU could only be classified as having benefited the UK if they led to the same amount, or more, money being paid by the EU to deprived areas of the UK. You did not appear to understand that the main economic benefit to the UK of EU membership, and of making these payments, lies in giving our businesses access to the largest free market in the world. Any EU grants for deprived areas of the UK are an added bonus, not the economic 'point' of the exercise.

[robbin]

No - as I said, you missed my point.

[Jenny1]

Ah. So what was your point, Robbin?

[malumbu]

I assume that you had a vote about whether to have the tooth removed or not John, even though it was reasonably healthy. Even though you were advised by someone who knew more about dentistry than you to keep it as it was, you considered that it would be better to go back to the 1950s when teeth were worse but we were all happier, so you voted to do yourself a massive bit of self harm.

Your dentist tried to come up with a deal where the tooth was saved but painted black, not as good as before but would give some semblance of life after after the end of rationing, but you thought that your dentist was just trying to save face and more interested in their own career so on the advice of a traditionalist old Etonian you yanked it out yourself.

The amount of self harm is difficult to judge. There are those oral health moaners who says you will also lose a lot of blood and possibly never function properly again. But the traditionalist believe it is a price worth paying for giving the experts, and particularly the do-gooders, one in the eye. And you delivered the result of your own vote.

[Alan Medic]

robbin Wrote:

>

> John, those are fair points which I mostly agree

> with. The distribution/redistribution of wealth

> should be an internal UK matter though. I don't

> see it as a Brexit issue.

>

Do you not see it as one of the reasons the vote to leave occured? People were told they would be much better off by leaving the EU, thereby blaming the EU for the inequality of wealth in the country.

[JoeLeg]

The irony being that those parts of the country which are worst off will stand to lose the most under Brexit.

The City has made sure it?s ok, so that?s all the govt cates about.

The South West, North East and parts of Wales etc aren?t going to see improvements. The money from the Stronger Towns fund comes nowhere near matching what they would?ve got under the EU. But then they say they medium term pain is worth it.

They will see in the long term that nothing changes. As I keep saying, the problems those areas face are long-term, systemic issues, nothing to do with the EU. There?s a debate to be had about immigration for sure, but the decline of those parts of the U.K. has far more to do with the policies of successive govts since the 80?s than anything decided in Brussels.

But it?s so much easier to hear ?Take Back Control!? isn?t it? Not that Leave ever defined what that actually meant, because then they would?ve had to live up to a promise.

[Alan Medic]

Money,borders and laws is the PMs mantra.If you've ever had a breakdown of where your taxes have been spent, the amount on the EU is miniscule. Borders...UK chose not to implement laws regarding EU citizens already in place. Immigration is larger from outside EU anyway. Laws, oh yeah...bananas.

[keano77]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

...If you've ever had a breakdown of where your taxes have been

spent, the amount on the EU is miniscule...

Can?t comment on the accuracy of any breakdown you received Alan. What I would question is why we?ve agreed to pay the EU a ?39 Billion (probably double that if the truth be known) divorce payment when headteachers in schools are mopping out toilets and parents are being asked to pay for books, pencils, teachers?s pensions etc etc.

I?ll be pleased to read your attempt at justification.

[Jenny1]

What I would question k77 is why we're planning on tanking our economy by leaving the EU, thus leaving us with much less cash to pay for public services for the foreseeable future.

[Jenny1]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Money,borders and laws is the PMs mantra.If you've

> ever had a breakdown of where your taxes have been

> spent, the amount on the EU is miniscule.

> Borders...UK chose not to implement laws regarding

> EU citizens already in place. Immigration is

> larger from outside EU anyway. Laws, oh

> yeah...bananas.

Yes. I think that's a fair assessment of her priorities.

It would be interesting to try and identify any politicians who actually believe that Brexit will lead to any benefit for the average UK citizen. I doubt there are any.

I think you can categorise pro-Brexit MPs broadly as follows.

There's the Johnson/Gove types who never really believed in it as a project, only as an opportunistic mechanism for their own advancement, but were savvy enough to see from an early stage just how far it might promote their careers.

Then there's the Rees-Mogg/Liam Fox types who actively want to tank the economy so they can profit from the ensuing fire sale and build a purer form of capitalism and shrink the welfare state to almost nothing.

And perhaps the biggest group now are the MPs who are just scared of saying 'no' to the project for fear it will jeopardise their careers.

[Jenny1]

...and of course when I say 'I doubt there are any' - I mean 'I doubt there are any politicians', because I KNOW there aren't any benefits....

[Jenny1]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The irony being that those parts of the country

> which are worst off will stand to lose the most

> under Brexit.

>

> The City has made sure it?s ok, so that?s all the

> govt cates about.

>

> The South West, North East and parts of Wales etc

> aren?t going to see improvements. The money from

> the Stronger Towns fund comes nowhere near

> matching what they would?ve got under the EU. But

> then they say they medium term pain is worth it.

>

> They will see in the long term that nothing

> changes. As I keep saying, the problems those

> areas face are long-term, systemic issues, nothing

> to do with the EU. There?s a debate to be had

> about immigration for sure, but the decline of

> those parts of the U.K. has far more to do with

> the policies of successive govts since the 80?s

> than anything decided in Brussels.

>

> But it?s so much easier to hear ?Take Back

> Control!? isn?t it? Not that Leave ever defined

> what that actually meant, because then they

> would?ve had to live up to a promise.

Yes, I'd broadly agree with that assessment. I wouldn't go along the implication that our immigration policy needs to change though. Every report I've seen on immigration makes it clear that it's of economic benefit. What we need is politicians with the guts to say so, rather than this lily-livered bunch who pander to counter-factual 'fears'.

As to the wider economic picture. If our politicians (both male and female) remain unable to locate their 'cojones' and Brexit does go ahead then yes, already deprived areas will be the hardest hit.

[Alan Medic]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> ...If you've ever had a breakdown of where your

> taxes have been

> spent, the amount on the EU is miniscule...

>

> Can?t comment on the accuracy of any breakdown you

> received Alan. What I would question is why we?ve

> agreed to pay the EU a ?39 Billion (probably

> double that if the truth be known) divorce payment

> when headteachers in schools are mopping out

> toilets and parents are being asked to pay for

> books, pencils, teachers?s pensions etc etc.

>

> I?ll be pleased to read your attempt at

> justification.

I can't justify something when I don't know how it's broken down. One thing I'm sure of is that includes Farage's pension.

You don't pay tax Keano?

[JoeLeg]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> ...If you've ever had a breakdown of where your

> taxes have been

> spent, the amount on the EU is miniscule...

>

> Can?t comment on the accuracy of any breakdown you

> received Alan. What I would question is why we?ve

> agreed to pay the EU a ?39 Billion (probably

> double that if the truth be known) divorce payment

> when headteachers in schools are mopping out

> toilets and parents are being asked to pay for

> books, pencils, teachers?s pensions etc etc.

>

> I?ll be pleased to read your attempt at

> justification.

Again I would say that the EU has had nothing to do with us trashing our schools.

While I believe that you want the best for our schools and children, I?ll be pleased to hear how you feel the EU is responsible for the state they are in.

I would also say that I am sceptical in the extreme that if we were to exit on No Deal, our schools (and other sorely underfunded public services) would somehow see the benefit. Excuse my cynicism, but I doubt it somehow.

[JoeLeg]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> There?s a debate to be had

> > about immigration for sure

I

> wouldn't go along the implication that our

> immigration policy needs to change though. Every

> report I've seen on immigration makes it clear

> that it's of economic benefit. What we need is

> politicians with the guts to say so, rather than

> this lily-livered bunch who pander to

> counter-factual 'fears'.

>

>

My badly explained point is that one of the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest things the Remain campaign did was allow the extremes of their supporters to paint anyone who had issues with immigration as a racist, which in turn allowed Leave to claim a moral high ground on that issue without having to actually engage in the debate.

There?s a lot of people who do have a problem with immigration, and a lot of that is based on incorrect information, hearsay and assumptions - and assumption is the parent of all f?-ups. There are also some Remainers who don?t want to listen to facts about problems with immigration, such as that in some cases it does drive down wages. We needed a proper, national discussion on the issue and we got nothing of the sort.

This country has had a problem with immigration for hundreds o years. We forget that within living memory there was ?no dogs, no blacks, no Irish?. We need to listen to people with genuine concerns and defeat prejudice with hard fact. We?ve done neither lately.

[Jenny1]

I certainly agree that we needed, and didn't get, a proper national discussion on this issue. But then we didn't get a proper national discussion on any of the issues related to Brexit. As I've said - at rather tedious length - before, I think that was because the referendum was not called by Cameron in a genuine spirit of 'OK, let's roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the UK's relationship with the EU'. In other words we had nothing like the citizens' assemblies that promoted thorough public debate prior to the referendum on abortion in Ireland.

I would have a slightly different starting point on this issue though.

Historical antipathy to immigration in the UK isn't unique to this country. What is noticeable is that most cultures become more 'anti immigrant' - sometimes to an extreme degree - at times of economic downturn (like the crash of 2007-8). When people's backs are against the wall, it's human nature to turn on outsiders. And, if allowed to fester, that promotes racism, discrimination and everything hideous that goes with it. But, as the latest LSE report on immigration has shown (and it's not the only one), the big fall in wages post 2008 is due to the global financial crisis and the weak economic recovery that followed it, not immigration. So, while I agree that we need to pull all the available data on immigration out into the open so that people can examine and debate it, we also need to acknowledge that there's a very long history globally, not just in the UK, of scapegoating immigrants for economic problems which are really down to poor government management. And if we're not clear about that, we allow politicians to cynically use anti-immigrant sentiment to distract us from their own culpability.

[malumbu]

So it may be dumb to paint out all people who voted leave as racist.

But a proportion are. And I'm not going to start hugging a racist now and tell them I understand. Fine that we are in our metropolitan bubble. But when I visit some of my family and they start offering their views up unsolicited (I'm talking before referendum now) about Muslims and eastern Europeans (they've moved onto being equal opportunity racists now and its not just Jamaicans).

We are a polarised nation - and 8 years of austerity have simply made things worse. Underlying causes etc etc not simply leave the EU.

Tom Robinson not Tommy Robinson.

[malumbu]

Got hailstones sliding down my windows and flashes of thunder. Look I am really sorry if I have upset someone. The hailstones are truly of biblical proportion. Talk about the end of the world......

[robbin]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...and of course when I say 'I doubt there are

> any' - I mean 'I doubt there are any politicians',

> because I KNOW there aren't any benefits....

THIS is why there's no point 'debating' anything with you Jen - it is the unwavering absolute belief that you are right to the exclusion of any other view (as your post amply demonstrates, your opinions have morphed into 'facts').

BTW, I personally know several people whose businesses have already benefitted from the referendum vote and are looking forward to Brexit if it was a no deal scenario, because they will make more profit and take on further staff as a consequence. Before you suggest it, no, they are not market speculators, but medium sized businesses that export substantial amounts to several EU countries and to non-EU countries also. I don't know if you personally have had discussions with people running their own businesses, but if you did, you may be surprised to find that it's not all black and white, good v evil, as you seem convinced it is.

Do you yourself export or import anything to the EU or beyond? Is that what is informing your entrenched views?

[Jenny1]

I have to admit Robster (as we're getting informal) that my main source of information on the effects of all of this on business comes from friends who manage a high spec, but reasonably small engineering company in the West Midlands. They, of course, have been trading internationally for decades and have found EU membership of great benefit. Which sectors are your friends who say Brexit has been beneficial working in?

[Jenny1]

..and when I say 'internationally' I do of course mean to the US, India and China AND the EU.