Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Who exactly is going to benefit from Brexit?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 68 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Daniel Finkelstein, a remainer, explained the benefits of leaving in The Times yesterday:

    There are four broad arguments for leaving, the first of which is the strongest. The EU is determined to create a superstate and if we remain members we will become merely a province of Brussels. We may have secured opt-outs and guarantees but these will provide little long-term protection against the federalising instinct.


    So by leaving, Britain avoids being swallowed up as the EU changes. The longer we remain, the more danger we are in. The accumulated treaties of the EU and the behaviour of its institutions, particularly its court, mean that resisting federalism on the inside is very difficult. So we need to be out of the political structures of the EU and no longer subject to the rulings of its court.
    If you accept this argument then Brexit has this obvious benefit: we will still be Britain. This advantage may be a little abstract but it is undeniably important and leads some to argue that economic questions are secondary. However, if this advantage to Brexit was enough by itself, there wouldn’t be so many Brexit supporters spending months condemning Mrs May’s deal as Brexit in name only.


    The row we have been having is because there are three other advantages, at least as they see it, that Brexit supporters hope to gain from leaving. There is immigration, of course. By leaving the EU, Britain will “take back control” of its borders and be able to set its own immigration policy. For some this is a constitutional issue only, for others it is about the numbers and how many people from European countries are able to live, work and claim benefits in Britain.


    Then there is the opportunity to leave the institutions of the single market. For many Brexiteers, who are free-market Conservatives, the idea has always been to liberate Britain from overregulation by unaccountable “Eurocrats”.


    Together with the fourth advantage of Brexit — that we leave the customs union — Brexit will set the country free from the old continent and its backward ways. A low-tax, low-regulation country, no longer held back by its neighbours, will look outward to the world.
    So the four bolded texts are:
    The EU superstate: The UK has an agreement that they wont have further EU integration, so that's not a concern.

    Border Control: For non EU immigration theres zero change. For EU immigrants the UK could turn away any EU citizen that couldn't support themselves or failing that had a permanent job. So no sponges there, only people contributing.

    Over regulation: what ?? The UK is prob one of the strongest regulated EU countries, and that's a really good thing. BS standards are used and known globally, I doubt very much the UK will go backward in that regard.

    Outward looking: The UK is leaving trade agreements with the EU PLUS 60 global countries, to possibly trade under punitive WTO terms, close its borders and that's looking outwards !!

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    9,458
    Thanks
    1,768
    Thanked 1,632 Times in 1,178 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry T View Post
    So the four bolded texts are:
    The EU superstate: The UK has an agreement that they wont have further EU integration, so that's not a concern.

    Border Control: For non EU immigration theres zero change. For EU immigrants the UK could turn away any EU citizen that couldn't support themselves or failing that had a permanent job. So no sponges there, only people contributing.

    Over regulation: what ?? The UK is prob one of the strongest regulated EU countries, and that's a really good thing. BS standards are used and known globally, I doubt very much the UK will go backward in that regard.

    Outward looking: The UK is leaving trade agreements with the EU PLUS 60 global countries, to possibly trade under punitive WTO terms, close its borders and that's looking outwards !!
    You've convinced me now Gerry. There's absolutely no argument for Brexit.
    17,410,742 people said LEAVE!

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    3,121
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 267 Times in 227 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry T View Post
    So the four bolded texts are:
    The EU superstate: The UK has an agreement that they wont have further EU integration, so that's not a concern.

    Border Control: For non EU immigration theres zero change. For EU immigrants the UK could turn away any EU citizen that couldn't support themselves or failing that had a permanent job. So no sponges there, only people contributing.

    Over regulation: what ?? The UK is prob one of the strongest regulated EU countries, and that's a really good thing. BS standards are used and known globally, I doubt very much the UK will go backward in that regard.

    Outward looking: The UK is leaving trade agreements with the EU PLUS 60 global countries, to possibly trade under punitive WTO terms, close its borders and that's looking outwards !!
    What don’t you understand about th term OVEREGULATED Gerry?.....with emphasis on the first 4 letters. Plus of course, the absence of ANY credible justification for utilising a political entity, and the payment of a multi- billion subsidy to access so Calle free trade.......no wonder such a ridiculous conception has not been replicated in nearly 5 decades.....
    We should be thankful, (UK citizens that is), for finally being given the opportunity to stop being so stupid..........however, our self serving politicians may yet undo the ‘people’ s vote....( yes, the ‘people’ have already had their vote - and knew exactly what they were voting for!)

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 68 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    You've convinced me now Gerry. There's absolutely no argument for Brexit.
    Good man, still shouldn't stop you leaving if that's what you want

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 68 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevlin View Post
    What don’t you understand about th term OVEREGULATED Gerry?.....with emphasis on the first 4 letters. Plus of course, the absence of ANY credible justification for utilising a political entity, and the payment of a multi- billion subsidy to access so Calle free trade.......no wonder such a ridiculous conception has not been replicated in nearly 5 decades.....
    We should be thankful, (UK citizens that is), for finally being given the opportunity to stop being so stupid..........however, our self serving politicians may yet undo the ‘people’ s vote....( yes, the ‘people’ have already had their vote - and knew exactly what they were voting for!)
    I'm not bothered picking through your post to point out the mistakes, other than to say if you don't like it leave. Your not being held against your will, nor will you be punished for leaving. Why don't you ask yourself why have the UK politicians put the brakes on leaving, what is it their not telling you about a hard brexit.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Gerry T For This Useful Post:

    thomas (15-03-2019)

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevlin View Post
    What don’t you understand about th term OVEREGULATED Gerry?.....with emphasis on the first 4 letters. Plus of course, the absence of ANY credible justification for utilising a political entity, and the payment of a multi- billion subsidy to access so Calle free trade.......no wonder such a ridiculous conception has not been replicated in nearly 5 decades.....
    We should be thankful, (UK citizens that is), for finally being given the opportunity to stop being so stupid..........however, our self serving politicians may yet undo the ‘people’ s vote....( yes, the ‘people’ have already had their vote - and knew exactly what they were voting for!)

    Stevelin, part of the money member states pay for access to the single market is invested in the economies of the poorer member states. The result is that the economies of these poorer member states now develop to the point where they can afford to purchase the products produced and sold by the other, richer, member states. For instance, Ireland's economy was developed with funds from the other member states. It is now a net contributor (though not a major contributor, I believe) and has become one of the major markets for UK produced goods. The UK is richer for developing Ireland's economy through its contributions for access to the single market. The same applies to member states that are currently not net contributors. EU investment funded by member state contributions will develop their economies so that they will eventually become net contributors themselves with healthy economies that will purchase from the other member states, thus enriching those member states. Thus, the money paid for access to the single market is, in part at least, an investment that maximises wealth for all members. In other words, member state contributions work to create markets for goods produced by the member states that would not otherwise exist. If the UK were permitted access to the single market without paying contributions it would be able to take advantage of trade with member states that would not be able to afford the products produced by the UK were it not for the contributions of the other member states; hardly a fair situation.

    Sorry if you are already aware of this or have discussed this previously.

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,238
    Thanks
    636
    Thanked 616 Times in 527 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyr View Post
    Stevelin, part of the money member states pay for access to the single market is invested in the economies of the poorer member states. The result is that the economies of these poorer member states now develop to the point where they can afford to purchase the products produced and sold by the other, richer, member states. For instance, Ireland's economy was developed with funds from the other member states. It is now a net contributor (though not a major contributor, I believe) and has become one of the major markets for UK produced goods. The UK is richer for developing Ireland's economy through its contributions for access to the single market. The same applies to member states that are currently not net contributors. EU investment funded by member state contributions will develop their economies so that they will eventually become net contributors themselves with healthy economies that will purchase from the other member states, thus enriching those member states. Thus, the money paid for access to the single market is, in part at least, an investment that maximises wealth for all members. In other words, member state contributions work to create markets for goods produced by the member states that would not otherwise exist. If the UK were permitted access to the single market without paying contributions it would be able to take advantage of trade with member states that would not be able to afford the products produced by the UK were it not for the contributions of the other member states; hardly a fair situation.

    Sorry if you are already aware of this or have discussed this previously.
    But pyramid schemes are often illegal.
    17,410,742 people said LEAVE!

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Sheepy For This Useful Post:

    cassie (15-03-2019)

  10. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    3,121
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 267 Times in 227 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry T View Post
    I'm not bothered picking through your post to point out the mistakes, other than to say if you don't like it leave. Your not being held against your will, nor will you be punished for leaving. Why don't you ask yourself why have the UK politicians put the brakes on leaving, what is it their not telling you about a hard brexit.
    That has nothing to do with your fatuous comment about EU regulations.... in fact last year, The House of Commons estimated that ministers could have to import 19,000 EU rules and regulations into the statute book.....and as the Telegraph commented last year -

    Some of the repatriated regulations are laws that we would have passed anyway, whether we were in the EU or not. There is an irritating conceit among some Remainers that Europe has civilised the UK, that without our membership we would still be sending children down pits. On the contrary, Britain has been the originator of a great deal of progressive legislation.

    Incidentally, the UK politicians have 'put the brakes on Brexit' as you put it, BECAUSE, they are largely Europhiles.....and it will take a much more cogent person than yourself to point out the 'so called mistakes' in my post - so it is little wonder that you haven't attempted to...



  11. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    3,121
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 267 Times in 227 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyr View Post
    Stevelin, part of the money member states pay for access to the single market is invested in the economies of the poorer member states. The result is that the economies of these poorer member states now develop to the point where they can afford to purchase the products produced and sold by the other, richer, member states. For instance, Ireland's economy was developed with funds from the other member states. It is now a net contributor (though not a major contributor, I believe) and has become one of the major markets for UK produced goods. The UK is richer for developing Ireland's economy through its contributions for access to the single market. The same applies to member states that are currently not net contributors. EU investment funded by member state contributions will develop their economies so that they will eventually become net contributors themselves with healthy economies that will purchase from the other member states, thus enriching those member states. Thus, the money paid for access to the single market is, in part at least, an investment that maximises wealth for all members. In other words, member state contributions work to create markets for goods produced by the member states that would not otherwise exist. If the UK were permitted access to the single market without paying contributions it would be able to take advantage of trade with member states that would not be able to afford the products produced by the UK were it not for the contributions of the other member states; hardly a fair situation.

    Sorry if you are already aware of this or have discussed this previously.
    I realise that Satyr - however, such an imposition should absolutely NOT be a requirement to enter a so called mutually advantageous trading bloc.....we have an overseas aid program for that , (at yet another ridiculous commitment of contributing 0.7% of GDP), irrespective of our economic situation - and the establishment of a supranational Parliament ism yet another absolutely unnecessary, and fatuous commitment.....Incidentally, the UK, unlike Eire, is far from being 'richer' as you egregiously claim - which is why the UK now has a near £2 trillion debt, costing nigh on £1 billion per WEEK in servicing charges.... now THAT, is an absolute waste of money - and totally unsustainable.....especially as we are adding to it year by year....

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    3,121
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 267 Times in 227 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyr View Post
    Stevelin, part of the money member states pay for access to the single market is invested in the economies of the poorer member states. The result is that the economies of these poorer member states now develop to the point where they can afford to purchase the products produced and sold by the other, richer, member states. For instance, Ireland's economy was developed with funds from the other member states. It is now a net contributor (though not a major contributor, I believe) and has become one of the major markets for UK produced goods. The UK is richer for developing Ireland's economy through its contributions for access to the single market. The same applies to member states that are currently not net contributors. EU investment funded by member state contributions will develop their economies so that they will eventually become net contributors themselves with healthy economies that will purchase from the other member states, thus enriching those member states. Thus, the money paid for access to the single market is, in part at least, an investment that maximises wealth for all members. In other words, member state contributions work to create markets for goods produced by the member states that would not otherwise exist. If the UK were permitted access to the single market without paying contributions it would be able to take advantage of trade with member states that would not be able to afford the products produced by the UK were it not for the contributions of the other member states; hardly a fair situation.

    Sorry if you are already aware of this or have discussed this previously.
    Really Satyr?.......are you really suggesting that those non-EU member countries that have a FTA with the EU actually PAY a premium for that ?? I don't think so....... that is why a FTA, ( such as a Canada plus deal would be far more preferable.)

Similar Threads

  1. Benefit fraud.
    By thomas in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 30-12-2018, 02:10 PM
  2. EU and economic benefit (or not)
    By scott777 in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 17-10-2015, 01:05 AM
  3. 'No UK trade benefit' in being in EU
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-2014, 08:00 PM
  4. HS2 will benefit UK, says minister
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21-10-2013, 07:47 PM
  5. The benefit of the crown.
    By Durzo Blint in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25-11-2010, 02:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •