Brexit View

[alex_b]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> But most reasonable remain voters

> who I have spoken to would acknowledge there are

> at least a couple of rational and reasonable

> reasons to Leave the EU, even if on balance they

> are strongly against it overall. And frankly, I

> refuse to believe that you cant see even one good

> reason, unless you really just would prefer not

> to.

I can certainly see that there are costs to being a member, from my perspective those are massively outweighed by the benefits but sure for the sake of argument I?ll agree others might not reach the same conclusion. However I?ve never heard a single leaver make an honest case (in my view) of the trade offs of costs and benefits. Nor have I seen any realistic proposal for an end state that removes the costs and achieves meaningful benefits.

I?ve asked you on a few occasions on what end state model you favour, what you expect the benefits to be and what the costs of that are likely to be. Can you answer that please or are you just anti EU without having a destination in mind?

[cella]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> My decision to vote to leave had NOTHING to do

> with immigration.

>

> Long before there was any inkling of Brexit I

> supported the idea of Turkey joining the E.U. (60

> million)

> to the extent that way back in 2000-2002 (3

> years) I went to Evening Classes to learn the

> Turkish Language.

>

> I was just fed up with the EU telling me I could

> no longer buy Potatoes by the pound.

> and all the other trivial rules and regulations.

>

>

> My vote was a protest vote. I never thought for

> one minute Brexit would ever actually happen.

> If there were to be a second referendum I would

> not take part.

>

> DulwichFox

Frightening that this sort of reasoning and voting had the result we are now all struggling with.

[JoeLeg]

Don?t worry, Foxy?s already admitted he was just trolling.

He?s too good to take part in discussions with people like us. He thinks it?s all a laugh.

[TE44]

https://news.sky.com/story/new-shipping-routes-needed-for-no-deal-brexit-medicine-supplies-11614963

Are the government preparing for no deal or is it just forshow, they have gagging orders on the pharmy comps, have they spoke to the public, considering how many people depend on medication,

Will a six week stockpile be sufficient.

[Alan Medic]

I like this EU myths site. It includes potatoes and sex toys among many other things:

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/suns-imperial-up-yours-to-brussels-falls-down-on-the-facts/

[TheCat]

alex_b Wrote:

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

>

> I?ve asked you on a few occasions on what end

> state model you favour, what you expect the

> benefits to be and what the costs of that are

> likely to be. Can you answer that please or are

> you just anti EU without having a destination in

> mind?

Okay Alex_b. Let me give you the most detailed answer you're going to get from me...if its not enough for you then we'll just have to call it a day:)

I dont think I'm going to give you exactly what you're after...as I've mentioned briefly earlier in this thread, lets remember that the vote was nearly 3 years ago now, and I'll be frank that I did not have a detailed map in my mind of the exact deal that I would have wanted - I really don't think that was practical or possible at the time. Yes, I voted on a number of issues (more on that later), and (just like you would vote for most things) placed trusts in the elected officials to work out many of the key details in the right spirit (you can reasonably accuse me of misplaced faith in Government, and the past 3 years have shown I was perhaps wrong to take that stance). but I consdier it similar to voting in a general election - most voters will have their broad brush idea of the policies or politicians which they like, but wont have a detailed map of the full legislation agenda for the term of the government. Again if you want to say I should have had a clear, exact vision in my head of the Brexit agreement, then that's your view, but I had perhaps naively hoped that there would be a constructive public debate on the exact roadmap following the referendum - instead of this ridiculous division and 'shouting on both sides that we've seen since June 2016.

So all in all, I think that at the time of the vote, that level of detail was enough.

So...for completeness...let me re-hash a post (below) I made on a social media site in the days leading up to the vote which i think pretty comprehensively outlined my thought process. Of course many people on here will disagree and pick holes in certain things, but at least it offers people the opportunity to understand that there was a little thought that went into my decision!

So....from 2016...

8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE

So this EU debate has been a shambles on both sides. One of the worst public campaigns I?m old enough to remember. Poor presentation of facts, and mud-slinging all round. The Leave camp in particular is tarred with the brush of Farage?s banner of brown immigrant faces, and accusations of bigotry, which are frustrating for those of us that try to look at this from a more informed viewpoint.

I will be voting to Leave. And shock, horror, I?m not racist/bigot/xenophobe/little Englander just pining for the ?way things used to be? (I actually don?t even know how things used to be here, because I?m an immigrant myself), and I don?t think a foreigner has stolen my job.

There?s no doubt that there are those sort of people supporting the Leave campaign, but to tar all those considering Leaving with the same brush is displaying almost as much ignorance of the issues as the racists themselves.

As the campaigning started, I was in a genuinely neutral position, and wanted to find out more before coming down on either side. Please vote whichever way you like, but at least understand that there are real reasons for voting to Leave other than bigotry. So, for those that are perhaps interested in how I reached my decision, a few comments on the debate as I see it?.

1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? Well, having had some time on my hands of late, I?ve taken it upon myself to read a number of the economic reports published on the issue from cover to cover (e.g. PwC report, IMF report) and yes, they all basically say we would be ?worse off? under Brexit. However, digging a little deeper, most economists are referring to the next 3-4 years, when the uncertainty generated by Brexit would likely cause a slowdown, perhaps even a recession. But as we look out further, towards 2025-2030 most forecasts have a Brexit scenario seeing the UK GDP/Capita somewhere between 0.5% and 4% lower than under a Remain scenario. Now for me, I?m making the decision for the long term, not the next 3-4 years, and as far as I?m concerned a differential of a few percent on a 15 year forecast is well within rounding error. So the simple conclusion for me is that 15 years out, there is very little to separate the economic outlooks under each scenario. Of course, if you?re not prepared to wear a slowdown for the next few years then vote the other way, but for the benefits in other areas, I think it?s a price worth paying. As an aside, I would flag that most economists? forecasts for Brexit assume we would lose trade with the EU, and not gain at all outside the EU, which is probably an overly pessimist assumption, so I think there is some upside to many Brexit economic forecasts. All that being said, to be clear, the economic argument is the weakest that Brexit has, and I wont deny that, but I think that longer term Brexit will actually be beneficial for the UK overall, as discussed below.

2. Immigration: Aha! You cry. This is where you catch me out as the racist I really am!!! Well, my thoughts here are simple, I hope the UK will still continue to welcome people from all over the world, of all races and religions. But the ability to control these numbers for the sake of being able to PLAN public infrastructure surely is crucial. With an aging population, having more migrants strengthens our economy, so I?m all for immigration. But being able to plan the numbers and communicate this information to those departments that invest in our schools, hospitals, roads, housing etc etc so the appropriate forward planning can be done surely makes sense. Also, going back to the economic reports which I mentioned earlier, how is it actually possible for economists to accurately make longer term GDP forecasts when there is very little visibility on the size of the population? Finally, a controlled immigration system is not just about attracting doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure visas are issued to the people the UK requires to do this.

3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the European Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The European Council and the European Commission make most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not elected bodies. So for example, if you think the British government should support British steel works or that the railways should be nationalised again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally bans countries from nationalising certain industries.

4. One size does not fit all: The German economy and the Greek economy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. For years, the Germans saved their money, balanced their books, and grew their economy. And for years, the Greeks borrowed money, ran deficits, and their economy has shrunk. Now the Germans must extend the Greeks credit to keep the country functioning, and the Greeks have to go on paying that debt forever unless they want to leave. If the Greeks were independent, their problems would be none of Germany's business. You can see why they're enraged by each other. But the two economies are yoked together, despite their mismatched sizes and fiscal policies. The UK as a large, strong economy is more toward the German end of the spectrum.

5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and Spain all voted-in governments in the last few years who?s plans/election promises have been over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but the EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed onerous austerity. Doesn?t sound democratic to me. Furthermore, while there is uncertainty of Leaving, I think there is also uncertainty of staying in. Who knows what the EU will decide to impose next. Say, Italy defaults, then the EU ask for another few billion in contributions, there is very little the UK can do about it, other than comply. At least by Leaving, our uncertainty is our own, not the uncertainty of 27 other countries as well. The counter argument to this would be the strength in combining resources, well, I take the view that the UK is one of the stronger parties in the EU, so will more often than not be the giver, rather than the receiver of the benefits of the pooled resources of the EU.

6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are they seriously saying that if we are not in the EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will still trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on things like security (do we not share intelligence with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how is it that other developed economies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all manage to play their part on the world stage without being part of the club?

7. Losing workers? rights: So apparently if we leave the EU all those workers rights which we cherish (like annual leave, paid maternity leave, unions etc) are at risk. Yes, many of the workers rights in UK law were originally driven by the adherence to the Social Chapter of the EU Maastricht treaty, but they are now written into UK law, the law will not disappear if we Leave. I personally just can?t see any reasonable government trying to repeal these sorts of basic rights without risking a huge backlash at the following election. It just seems rather far fetched to me that any government could get voted in again after repealing paid maternity leave, for example. The question I ask to people who may be worried about this issue, is ?Would you be less worried if left-wing Jeremy Corbyn was the Prime Minister today?? If the answer is ?yes? then I think you might be conflating two separate issues of long term EU membership with who?s in government right now.

8. Its not about the individuals: My decision has absolutely nothing to do with liking or disliking Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. It?s got nothing to do with whether I like this Tory Government or think they?re Tory scum. Because this decision has very little to do with the politicians of the moment, and much more to do with the next 20-30+ years for the UK. Farage will be a humorous footnote in Wikipedia by the time we reflect on this decision in 30 years, no matter which way we vote.

So to quote from an article I?ve read. ?Yes, leaving the EU might hurt economically in the short term. But in the long term, something more important is at stake: whether our democracy should be real. The UK recently devolved power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and it continues to devolve power to its larger cities and regions. There is broad agreement that this has been a good thing. This is the best argument for Brexit: We should extend that devolution of power to our entire nation, too? And by devolving power, this doesn?t mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland no longer ?talk? to each other, just as the UK would still be an active member of the European continent, even if not in the European Union.

Neither Leave nor Remain are perfect. Each has its respective positives and negatives. Leaving is not the ?silver bullet?, but on balance it?s where I?m leaning. If you want to Remain, that?s cool, I respect that view and see how that makes sense to some people. Either way I just hope the majority of people are considering all the issues and not getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults of this terrible campaign.

[JohnL]

The EU isn't perfect but it was a base to built on going forward and I believed. I don't trust the Tories on workers rights - the next Tory leader will be very right wing (the membership ensures that) and is most likely to be PM. It's also being played down but the Headquarters of many companies leaving UK means decisions at board level will be made abroad.

I always supported an eventual EU Federal state before the campaign - however, if we exit we need a top down re-write of the UK constitution IMHO.

[edcam]

would purport to be 'better' than", which I think speak for themselves really.

Yes, I've read all the "reasons" to leave and I'm not convinced by any of them. I do think reform is needed though.

TheCat Wrote:

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

> edcam Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Believe me, I've looked very hard indeed,

> almost

> > constantly since the referendum was announced,

> yet

> > still no good reasons that I've seen. I have

> > however seen many similar posts to yours.

> Angry

> > and defensive.

>

>

> nice deflection there, painting me as the bad guy

> for calling attention to your narrow focus, rather

> than actually attempting to debate the numerous

> 'good reasons' which i've posted across the pages

> of this very thread.

>

> If you disagree with those reasons, then that's

> your opinion. But most reasonable remain voters

> who I have spoken to would acknowledge there are

> at least a couple of rational and reasonable

> reasons to Leave the EU, even if on balance they

> are strongly against it overall. And frankly, I

> refuse to believe that you cant see even one good

> reason, unless you really just would prefer not

> to.

[alex_b]

So essentially you had no view of where you wanted to get to, the vote was simply a negative vote about not liking the status quo (or the direction the status quo was heading)? That's fine (if in my opinion incorrect), but it's hardly surprising that Brexit is such a mess when the vote was purely about "not being here" rather than "being over there". The fundamental problem with everything I've read by all of the leavers I've seen is that they cannot state what they actually want and certainly can't paint a vision that would be remotely acceptable to our trading partners.

At least in a general election that manifesto has a series of policy proposals that will form a future government's legislative agenda, they won't all occur or be 100% honest but at least you are voting for a destination.

[TheCat]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> So essentially you had no view of where you wanted

> to get to, the vote was simply a negative vote

> about not liking the status quo (or the direction

> the status quo was heading)? That's fine (if in my

> opinion incorrect), but it's hardly surprising

> that Brexit is such a mess when the vote was

> purely about "not being here" rather than "being

> over there". The fundamental problem with

> everything I've read by all of the leavers I've

> seen is that they cannot state what they actually

> want and certainly can't paint a vision that would

> be remotely acceptable to our trading partners.

>

> At least in a general election that manifesto has

> a series of policy proposals that will form a

> future government's legislative agenda, they won't

> all occur or be 100% honest but at least you are

> voting for a destination.

At some point I need to do some work, to keep this economy humming:) SO you'll excuse me if I exit this debate for a bit. Anyway, I've given all I can give in my 2000 words above!

but just quickly....

Sure, I get your point. But I think that perhaps you're asking for too much granularity - on what is an already complicated issue - at the time of the vote. SO agree to disagree on that I suppose. As mentioned, if the reaction to the vote on both sides wasn't so extreme, then we could have had a decent public debate to focus on these specifics that you're after. But yes, at the time my future thinking was 'conceptual'

Playing devil's advocate..you say a vote for remain is for the 'status quo'...but do you have a detailed map as to exactly how the EU will evolve over the next 50 years? Do you just like what you see right now, but have no destination in mind? Of course I'll concede that the changes and risks are likely to be significantly lower for the 'status quo'...but just making the point that I think you are perhaps being somewhat over-expectant in your requirements for how people thought about things at the time of the vote. I agree with you that over the past 3 years this should have been sorted out by good government and constructive public debate...but unfortunately it has not...and we are where we are....

Anyway. TheCat. Out.

[JohnL]

TheCat Wrote:

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

>

> if the reaction to the vote on both

> sides wasn't so extreme, then we could have had a

> decent public debate to focus on these specifics

> that you're after. But yes, at the time my future

> thinking was 'conceptual'

That was Theresa May's immediate use of the term "People of Nowhere" and a few other choice comments that almost certainly came from her advisers (Nick and Fiona).

(Actually the quote is ?If you believe you?re a citizen of the world, you?re a citizen of nowhere. You don?t understand what the very word ?citizenship? means.?) and below was a response at that time (late summer 2016) - that comment infuriated me and made me a "remoaner"

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-mays-citizen-of-the-world-speech-comment_uk_57fbae0de4b04e1174a53cdf

Before calling A50 she should have looked at what consensus could be gathered - but way too late now.

[JoeLeg]

Farage told Peston that a second referendum is preferable to May?s Deal.

(Caveat, I haven?t seen the whole interview)

Not sure how he squares that circle? Only last week he said he would be forming a new Brexit party if we didn?t Leave on the 29tb Mar h. I thought he was all about No Deal? There?s a lot of brinkmanship going on right now.

[JohnL]

Macron tears into Brexit - and mentions the great unmentionable within the UK - that it was all false promises.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-emmanuel-macron-says-eu-divorce-has-torn-british-society-apart-and-cant-be-a4048421.html

"included Leavers and Remainers screaming at each other in the streets outside Parliament."

I take issue with that - never heard SODEM screaming :)

[Hemingway]

Is that Macron President of a country whose 'yellow vests' protests have resulted in 10 deaths, over a thousand arrests and billions of euros of damage lecturing us on civil disorder? Surely not.

[rendelharris]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> Is that Macron President of a country whose

> 'yellow vests' protests have resulted in 10

> deaths, over a thousand arrests and billions of

> euros of damage lecturing us on civil disorder?

> Surely not.

No: if you actually read the article he said nothing about civil disorder - the quote John mentions is written by the journalist as a linking paragraph.

[Hemingway]

Ok - 'torn British society apart'* for the semantically pedantic..

*in french though

[rendelharris]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> Ok - 'torn British society apart'* for the

> semantically pedantic..

>

> *in french though

It's not pedantic (he said pedantically) to point out that you were mocking him and his right to comment on the basis of something he didn't say.

[Hemingway]

My point was/is it's a bit rich coming from him..not sure that (accusing someone of being somewhat of a hypocrite) is mocking. but either way it stands - should get his own house in order I'd suggest before enlightening on us on the state of the UK.

[Hemingway]

Away from Twitter and the Guardian Online, not seen much firm evidence of Britain tearing itself apart

[rendelharris]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> My point was/is it's a bit rich coming from

> him..not sure that (accusing someone of being

> somewhat of a hypocrite) is mocking. but either

> way it stands - should get his own house in order

> I'd suggest before enlightening on us on the state

> of the UK.

On that basis no world leader would ever be able to make any comment about events anywhere else in the world - nobody has their own house totally in order.

[Hemingway]

er, he can comment as much as he wants, as I can point out he's a bit hypocritical and personally I'll not be too worried about his remarks - which I'm sure are actually aimed at his countrymen anyway. France looks in as least as much turmoil as us right now, plus ca change

[diable rouge]

Hemingway Wrote:

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

> not seen much firm evidence of Britain tearing itself apart

> France looks in as least as much turmoil as us right now

Make up your mind...

[Hemingway]

"in as least as" - personally, and for the absolute clarity you and RendelH seem to seek, I think France has more problems right now than we do. Away from Social Media and the polarised positions of the 'Brexitremist' and 'FBPE(?) Remoaners' (in paranthesis to be clear I'm referring to what they call each other, not my views before yopu strta jumping around) I really see very little evidence that we are 'tearing ourselves apart' may well change but right now? nah

[Hemingway]

and Macron is a deeply unpopular French President faced with proper social unrest at home, although this does tend to go with the territory of 'French President'

[teddyboy23]

Agree