Brexit

Brexit, Stay or Leave.

  • Stay

    Votes: 28 59.6%

  • Leave

    Votes: 19 40.4%
  • Total voters
    47
At various times its been presented as "every household will be £XXX better off". This is clearly designed to invite us to think we get it. We won't. Boris has probably been only slightly less dishonest when he's tried to frame it through the NHS. I'd be amazed if it ends up there. It'll most likely be used in the management of the deficit and no one will see any tangible gain. It might also be used of course to pay off the over-spends on HS2! or the fortification of Gibraltar!! There is a reason why we've invited the USN to dock their Ohio class submarine there I suspect, as you don't need to be a genius to foresee a flashpoint here
 
According to my research the net cost of involvement in the EU is £7bn (Telegraph), 0.38% of UK GDP.

The current national deficit is £96bn.

The cost of exporting/importing to and from the EU would need to rise by 2% to wipe out the benefit of leaving.

This, of course, doesn't take into account any other factors, such as the fact that the EU is essentially a great big exercise in continent-wide socialism, or that Romanians don't like the smell of curry.

But it's nice to have some facts for a change.


I was reading the Wikipedia article on the 1975 EEC Referendum yesterday and found it interesting that the positions have changed in an almost polar fashion - Labour, SNP and the other progressives wanted out in '75, the Tories wanted to stay in.
 
I take no notice of the better off worse off figures but whichever way you look at it, it's cost saving. It's not as big an amount as it sounds as simmo points out but to me it is a fringe benefit rather than the driver.

in reality, when voting for this, its not what you save tomorrow but where we will be in ten years time. Free of old Europe and it's un democratic clueless lazy dictators and sluggish economy
 
Point is simmo is that taking it as a fraction of gdp is very misleading. It's dead money. A cost with very debatable if any benefit.
 
The change in politcial party affiliations is logical. In 75 the eu was seen as a basis for opening up markets and not as a hopeless superstate. Labour back then wanting to protect our world class industrial giants such as British leyland

should be remembered that many in the far left in labour really don't buy into the Eu and would much prefer our economy linked to Venezuelas.
 
clivex said:
Point is simmo is that taking it as a fraction of gdp is very misleading. It's dead money. A cost with very debatable if any benefit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it wouldn't take much of a rise in the cost of importing or exporting (or both), to negate the benefit of withdrawal.

I'd be more inclined, however, to vote stay on the international socialism front - that £7bn currently gets distributed amongst other parts of the EU such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, Greece and Portugal. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing imo.
 
clivex said:
.......Free of old Europe and it's un democratic clueless lazy dictators and sluggish economy...........
Click to expand...

.......to be replaced by the UK political class; who have demonstrated time-and-again that they have far greater interest in feathering their nests (and those of their friends) than they have about exercising democracy.

The suggestion that Brexit will lead to some democratic nirvana in the UK, is frankly laughable.

As to cost/benefit/saving, there hasn't been a dicky-bird from Leave about the cost of replacing functions currently carried-out by EU institutions.

These bureaucracies will have to be replaced by UK equivalents; either by extending the scope of current functions, or creating new. Unless, of course, the intention is to enter a completely de-regulated phase; in which case we can probably kiss goodbye to many of the positive provisions that the EU affords us (e.g. climate protection legislation, Employee Benefits protection, etc).

As Simmo states, even if you go with the £7Bn figure as a net, guaranteed benefit, it is a piffling amount in the grand scheme of things (see my earlier stat on the Welfare budget). Leave are promising frothy pints on the back of what is, in reality, a dripping-tap.

The only, only, positive I can see being gained from EU Exit, is that we probably could secure our borders in a more robust fashion, than we do at present. But even this would likely have a significant downside in terms of how we trade with the EU. And it would also consume a significant chunk of that £7Bn. Doubling the Border Agency budget, for example, would consume about 30% of it. And if there is a downturn in the economy on the back of Brexit, all departmental budgets will come under pressure anyway.

When I weigh-up the limited benefit of securing our borders (the suggested gain in terms of enhancing our security is largely bogus, imo), against all of the downside associated with Brexit, the case for staying is massively overwhelming, in my view.

As is probably obvious, I will be voting Remain.
 
Last edited:
And you really think that eu Eurocrats don't act in self interest? Perhaps you would like to see the perks and benefits when are way in excess of those allowed at westmimster

perhaps we should get some detail ?? Or just stop there shall we

you talk about democracy. You are clueless. I will say it again and again. And it is not just a joke

the eu would not be able to join the Eu.

if Westminster MPs do as you allege they can be thrown out. There's these things called elections Got that? It's happened time and again.

So so how do you remove a overpaid corrupt Eurocrat? Perhaps you would like to tell us

i would also like to know what sort of bureaucracy that is in mind that's going to cost £1 billion a month. We really are into big state leteveryoneelsepay terrority now aren't we?
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
Perhaps, but it wouldn't take much of a rise in the cost of importing or exporting (or both), to negate the benefit of withdrawal.

I'd be more inclined, however, to vote stay on the international socialism front - that £7bn currently gets distributed amongst other parts of the EU such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, Greece and Portugal. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing imo.
Click to expand...

yes it is . In the case of Greece and Portugal most definitely.

i would suggest that if we are to aid overseas we aid countries suffering disasters that are not of their own making. Greece can go and fck off frankly
 
clivex said:
And you really think that eu Eurocrats don't act in self interest? Perhaps you would like to see the perks and benefits when are way in excess of those allowed at westmimster

perhaps we should get some detail ?? Or just stop there shall we

you talk about democracy. You are clueless.

if Westminster MPs do as you allege they can be thrown out. There's these things called elections Got that? It's happened time and again.

So so how do you remove a overpaid corrupt Eurocrat? Perhaps you would like to tell us
Click to expand...

A fair point, perhaps, though I view all these impostors just the same. When we 'throw them out", we tend to replace them with exactly the same type of individual.

I do concede that the removal of the Commission would improve/increase accountability to a degree. I just question whether that would make any material difference to our day-to-day lives. We already adopt the vast majority of EU legislation (presumably because we believe it is logical or somehow good for us), which begs the question; just how 'bad' has the Commission been for the UK?

The 'corrupt behemoth' argument is an inaccuracy, in my view. The EU is certainly inefficient, but then exactly the same is true of most 'governmental' institutions, and indeed, for many large corporates. In my view, these are not sufficient reasons to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
I think this is a fair summation of the current situation:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-has-unleashed-its-inner-farage-a7048641.html

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the difference in regional attitudes. If you look at the main representatives of Leave, I'd guess the 5 most quoted are Johnson, Gove, Farage, IDS and Redwood. These all represent constituencies in south east England and, from my experience, are probably in tune with the majority of their constituents. However, as the campaign has gone on their claims have become wilder and their responses to Remain arguments more hysterical and abusive and, together with the unspoken implication that they know best and everyone else is stupid not to see that, this is alienating many in other parts of the country.
 
archie said:
I think this is a fair summation of the current situation:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-has-unleashed-its-inner-farage-a7048641.html

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the difference in regional attitudes. If you look at the main representatives of Leave, I'd guess the 5 most quoted are Johnson, Gove, Farage, IDS and Redwood. These all represent constituencies in south east England and, from my experience, are probably in tune with the majority of their constituents. However, as the campaign has gone on their claims have become wilder and their responses to Remain arguments more hysterical and abusive and, together with the unspoken implication that they know best and everyone else is stupid not to see that, this is alienating many in other parts of the country.
Click to expand...

thats bollocks.

The highest remain vote is in London and I believe the south east

Many and maybe most of the constituencies with the highest leave votes are in the north and midlands
 
clivex said:
thats bollocks.

The highest remain vote is in London and I believe the south east

Many and maybe most of the constituencies with the highest leave votes are in the north and midlands
Click to expand...
I think that tone of response proves my point, Clive, as does the swing in the poll on here in the last couple of weeks.

I meant to except London from the general south east because the general immigration hype failed miserably in the mayoral election. There are hotspots around the country where immigration is an issue but not immigration from the EU.
 
Grasshopper said:
A fair point, perhaps, though I view all these impostors just the same. When we 'throw them out", we tend to replace them with exactly the same type of individual.

I do concede that the removal of the Commission would improve/increase accountability to a degree. I just question whether that would make any material difference to our day-to-day lives. We already adopt the vast majority of EU legislation (presumably because we believe it is logical or somehow good for us), which begs the question; just how 'bad' has the Commission been for the UK?

The 'corrupt behemoth' argument is an inaccuracy, in my view. The EU is certainly inefficient, but then exactly the same is true of most 'governmental' institutions, and indeed, for many large corporates. In my view, these are not sufficient reasons to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

eu is far more inefficient than most governement and most definitely corporations. A corporation. That had two duplicate head offices within a few miles of each other that cost £600m a year to shift the staff backwards and forwards from would be seen as insane.

Its not where we are now but the mission creep towards the idealistic superstate. For all the talk of vetoes how long do we want to be continually pushing back. Get out whilst we can

it may be that it will start to unravel with the shitwen agreement falling apart and the record of economic credibility that matches Robert mugabes.

We we are up against old Europe. Unless we find more alliances (Poland Netherlands and Denmark possibly) then it's constant isolation. The alternative is that we remind them about a few matters with certain manoeuvres in certain areas. They should be reminded that once the cheese eating surrender monkeys have surrendered, we have nukes and Germany doesn't.
 
Last edited:
archie said:
I think that tone of response proves my point, Clive, as does the swing in the poll on here in the last couple of weeks.

I meant to except London from the general south east because the general immigration hype failed miserably in the mayoral election. There are hotspots around the country where immigration is an issue but not immigration from the EU.
Click to expand...

Well you can hardly say south east and consider London as an afterthought can you?

the mayoral election was won by a reasonable candidate against a rank bad one. Khan impressed me on a number of levels although I voted for the lib dem. London would usually be labour regardless but have suffered a disgusting bigoted candidate previously who is genuinely hated by many with leftish sympathies
 
'The Sky data is calculated by looking at the demographics of each region and the numbers who fall in to categories most likely to vote to leave the EU, such as older retired people or younger people struggling to find work.'
Rubbish in, rubbish out?
 
clivex said:
if Westminster MPs do as you allege they can be thrown out. There's these things called elections Got that? It's happened time and again.

So so how do you remove a overpaid corrupt Eurocrat? Perhaps you would like to tell us
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't had any dealings with local councils in the UK, which are run exclusively by unelected bureaucrats with little or no regard to elected officials (who are told to obey the party line - where the party line comes from the unelected Chief Executive of the council).

Having your life dictated to by unelected bureaucrats is nothing new in this country. We are exceptional at it.
 
clivex said:
eu is far more inefficient than most governement and most definitely corporations. A corporation. That had two duplicate head offices within a few miles of each other that cost £600m a year to shift the staff backwards and forwards from would be seen as insane.

Its not where we are now but the mission creep towards the idealistic superstate. For all the talk of vetoes how long do we want to be continually pushing back. Get out whilst we can

it may be that it will start to unravel with the shitwen agreement falling apart and the record of economic credibility that matches Robert mugabes.

We we are up against old Europe. Unless we find more alliances (Poland Netherlands and Denmark possibly) then it's constant isolation. The alternative is that we remind them about a few matters with certain manoeuvres in certain areas. They should be reminded that once the cheese eating surrender monkeys have surrendered, we have nukes and Germany doesn't.
Click to expand...

The EU is completely unique, in that it governs a half-billion constituents, and over 4 million square km of land; and therefore bears unique costs and runs a unique framework. When scale is accounted for, it very likely is no more or less efficient than the examples given.

The threat of a 'Super-State' is zero. And even if this ever looks like coming to pass, we can choose to leave the EU at that stage. We should not base this decision on what might happen.

The EU is almost certainly going to change in the medium-term, because the migrant crisis has exposed the flaws in Schengen. Given change is almost certainly in the offing, now is not an appropriate time to leave.

I have no idea what you are dribbling-on about in your last sentence.
 
Thanks for that link, simmo. It's a shame that there are no details about sample size and polling method but I note that the article is dated 12th May. I'm fairly sure that there's a more recent poll showing changes to some of those figures but I'd be happy to concede that the Leave group's strength is in the shires rather than just the home counties.
 
Grass. The Eu does not frankly govern anything because every state can quite adequately run its own affairs and dorange . The idea that it is essential is total nonsnse
 
clivex said:
Grass. The Eu does not frankly govern anything because every state can quite adequately run its own affairs and dorange . The idea that it is essential is total nonsnse
Click to expand...

If you are going to have an EU in the first place, then it is essential.
 
Back
Top