[Politics] Brexit

[Hamilton]

What I actually voted for was to leave the European Union Parliament which I would like to see systematically dismantled, a profligate waste of money on a monumental scale, one that has to have 3 seats of power, one in Brussels, one in Strasbourg just to satisfy the French and another in Luxembourg, an organisation that ridiculously has to relocate from one location to the other on a regular basis which could save somewhere in the region of 115 million euros a year (small change compared to the 1.8 billion euros it cost to run in 2015!) . It is a monstrously expensive gravy train that has grown out of control and does not serve my interests or I believe those of Britain at all well. I'm happy to have an economic union with Europe, I'm happy for the freedom of movement to continue I just don't believe this overblown self serving organisation deserves to continue with British support. I voted to get rid of this:

View attachment 76190

and this:

View attachment 76191

1.8 billion euros a year to run the EU. That's disgraceful.

You do realize we spend that much every 10 days of UK defence. Every 10 days.

We spend the same amount on Health every 3 days.

I've no idea how much we spend on running the UK government. Lots.

I agree the multiple locations are totally wasteful. You're right. It needs changing. Everything can go into Brussels and we can shut Strasbourg and Luxembourg. I say we, but we aren't part of it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(

 

[Seagull58]

Looks like you're getting tarred because of my comment.

The comment I made [MENTION=15777]c0lz[/MENTION] was that on average the UK tends to succeed in 97% of the legislation that it votes on. The claim made by the Leave camp that we lost 72 out of 72 appeals was correct, but out of context i.e. taking into account all of the other voting that happens in the EU, it was misleading.

To give balance, in this debate I also took Remain to task on the claim that every household would be £4,300 worse off. Whilst true as an average, it was misleading to suggest that every household would be affected equally. Some would suffer greater losses than others.

It's misleading claims like these (the £350m a week claim was another convenient misleading comment) that have poisoned the debate. But, the facts were all there. They have all been debunked by experts. However, the electorate wanted to ignore these explanations and voted on the perceived and real injustice i.e. we have failed to redistribute wealth, invest in the right infrastructure, create jobs, support those on low incomes etc. Unfortunately, this is all the responsibility of our UK Parliament, not the EU.

Hey ho, we've bitten our noses off. Smitten our faces. Better get on with it now.

I've just finished a great business meeting in Brussels with a new potential client. I reckon I can win the work, but I've realised that I'll probably need to employ a French consultant. The great thing is, I'll probably be able to do so as I very much doubt freedom of movement rules will change. It's what the markets are suddenly banking on. They are thinking that business will be protected by freedom of movement and access to the single market. The only stuff that will change for the UK will be EU regulations around stuff like climate change, security, and workers right. That's why they are all holding the breath. They'll also be hoping that London agrees to whatever measures are required to retain its status as the clearing house for EU trade - which I guess it could do so inside a single market. All things we're working out. Of course we would have known this in advance if the Leave campaign had had a PLAN.

All the while we can watch out for a post Brexit government to peel back workers rights, implement further austerity measures that cut redistribution of wealth to those in need further. What we should have been doing is demanding more of our MPs. They should have been building a fairer Britain, not the EU.

Anyhow, now I reckon we need a 5 year plan. Retain access to the single common market and protect freedom of movement. Years 1-2 establish confidence in the pound and complete projects like HS2 that will provide access to the Northern Powerhouse. Agree to the expansion of Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. Cut all corporate taxes for Pharmaceutical, Technology and R&D firms. Provide regional stimulus for firms investing in UK Plc off the back of such cuts. Freeze the living wage for 5 years. Years 3-5, invest in significant business parks in Wales, Scotland and Manchester - replicate some of the great work in this area that has been done in areas like Cambridge. Reintroduce working tax credits at 2008 levels and increase tax receipts across the board - high incomes especially, corporate and capital (especially the latter). And, I hate to say this, but I think we may have no choice - and this goes against all my principles - fast track privatisation of the NHS and Education - with a massive focus on the latter, attracting STEM businesses to drive that agenda.

This last paragraph is just me shooting from the hip, but I've heard sod all from either the Leave campaign members or the Remain campaign members on what the answer is now that we find ourselves where we are. Caveat to all this is my answer would have been different had we chosen to Remain, which should go without saying.

You and others keep on going on about freedom of movement and how it won't change. Cameron briefed the EU ministers yesterday and briefed the House today. He stated explicitly that, in his view it was uncontrolled migration that was the primary reason for Leave winning. He believes that immigration control is the top requirement. He recognises that it will be very difficult to achieve since the EU historically links freedom of movement to open access to the single market but he expects that to be the negotiating starting point.

 

[SK1NT]

We all had our reasons. Sovereignty, the wish for unlimited immigration, the wish for zero immigration, immigration somewhere in the middle, EU beaurocracy, the environment etc etc.
Mine happened to be the low wage economy caused by incentivising unskilled immigration. Pure economic argument motivated by the impact on workers. I understand the issues of Remain voters and agree with some of them but unlimited freedom of movement causes distortions in the regional economy if you happen to be a region. This is made worse by having two different currencies as the sterling economy is attracting unmanageablle levels of unskilled immigration.

I wonder if you heard that Merkel said if we want new trade agreements with the EU it will be on the proviso that we allow free movement of people...

I wonder if you heard that most immigration is from outside of the EU and only 0.5% is within the EU

I wonder is once we will leave the EU France will stop their immigration checks at Calais

I wonder if there will be issues from people cross from EU ireland into non EU N ireland

Doubt much will change mate

 

[Seagull58]

So the EU have stated there must be freedom of movement for access to the single market.

This is going well.

Of course, that is their negotiating start point, just as the UK negotiating start point is that we must have controlled migration. As Cameron said in the House today, there are many definitions of "freedom of movement".

 

[SK1NT]

Obviously I can understand why so many leavers are scared of another referendum, in the form of an endorsement of any negotiated deal - they'd be absolutely trounced now that facts are coming out, and some of the leavers have backtracked on their promises. No, £350m per week won't be going into the NHS. And no, leaving the EU will not make a blind bit of difference to immigration levels.

But I just wish they'd stop insisting anyone who wants this vote is "undemocratic". It really isn't. Firstly, this isn't a general election where we can boot out the wrong decision in 5 years time. Secondly, Farage himself was insisting this wasn't over if the result was close. Are we supposed to ignore that, now that it turns out the close result was the other way? Thirdly, we are a parliamentary democracy. There was clearly an assumption that a straight forward referendum would be respected, but this is ridiculously tight and would change our position FOREVER. Finally, the entire campaign on both sides has been built on lies and mis-truths rather than fact. That is why we have a parliamentary democracy.

I'd have thought that the simple solution is to allow senior pro-Brexit chiefs to do the negotiating, then they should be the ones to put their case to the electorate on their own terms. i.e. when they want, at a point they themselves are happy with the deal. If they can convince everyone that this is the way forward, now that we know what we're voting for, I think that really would put this sorry mess to bed.

This

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Right. Let's just say for a minute we manage to get access to the market without freedom of movement, what do you think other countries are going to do? France would be next to go while Norway and Iceland would most likely leave the EEA. What would be the point in them staying when they can cherry pick the good bits?

What is the big issue in the EU reforming free movement, so each individual country can control the numbers. If it benefits business and the EU gets their membership fee every week, then everyone is happy. What is the big deal here.
The reason the EU doesn't want to do this is because they are undemocratic control freaks.

It is just this attitude of not reforming by the EU that drove me to vote Leave.

 

[Hamilton]

You and others keep on going on about freedom of movement and how it won't change. Cameron briefed the EU ministers yesterday and briefed the House today. He stated explicitly that, in his view it was uncontrolled migration that was the primary reason for Leave winning. He believes that immigration control is the top requirement. He recognises that it will be very difficult to achieve since the EU historically links freedom of movement to open access to the single market but he expects that to be the negotiating starting point.

That is his observation yes, but it is just his observation, not his recommendation nor a detailed analysis of why immigration became the target for voter outrage.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your views on the 5 year plan. What is the constructive way in which we build growth, remain a player on the global stage and redistribute wealth. What in detail has to change?


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(

 

[Seagull58]

I knew that would happen anyway, so where do we go from here? There will be no article 50, the only way they can get out of this is to run another referendum, which has happened in other countries.

You just got to look at Douglas Carswells tweets.
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell

You can define freedom of movement in many ways. For example; any EU citizen came live and work in the UK but they will get no access to free healthcare, no access to free education for their dependents, no access to free or subsidised housing, no unemployment benefit, no child allowance, and they will be put on an emergency tax code for the first 2 years whereby all their earnings are taxed at 40%. That is still free movement of labour. Of course, those rules would not necessarily be applied to all EU immigrants. You can make it attractive for some and deeply unattractive for others.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Right. Let's just say for a minute we manage to get access to the market without freedom of movement, what do you think other countries are going to do? France would be next to go while Norway and Iceland would most likely leave the EEA. What would be the point in them staying when they can cherry pick the good bits?

Freedom of movement is open to interpretation. At the moment that right is absolute. It could be changed to only apply above a certain income level which would prevent local unskilled labour being undercut. That's just an example and it is all open to negotiation. Both sides will want to come to an agreement that suits all economies. I am reserving judgement.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

We did all have our reasons but you've indicated that you voted for a secondary reason rather than what was on the ballot paper. As much as I find it an attractive vision, I won't be holding my breath until it's implemented.

Very fair comment.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

What is the big issue in the EU reforming free movement, so each individual country can control the numbers. If it benefits business and the EU gets their membership fee every week, then everyone is happy. What is the big deal here.
The reason the EU doesn't want to do this is because they are undemocratic control freaks.

It is just this attitude of not reforming by the EU that drove me to vote Leave.

I'm not really sure you have grasped the concept, tbh.

How on earth could 'each country control the numbers it allows' as it suits them at the time? This will by definition negatively affect other countries, whose nationals need to work in that country for whatever reason. Those other countries have all paid their 'membership fee' too, remember.

 

[CHAPPERS]

You just got to look at Douglas Carswells tweets.
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell

Do I have to?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I wonder if you heard that Merkel said if we want new trade agreements with the EU it will be on the proviso that we allow free movement of people...

I wonder if you heard that most immigration is from outside of the EU and only 0.5% is within the EU

I wonder is once we will leave the EU France will stop their immigration checks at Calais

I wonder if there will be issues from people cross from EU ireland into non EU N ireland

Doubt much will change mate

All fair points and they illustrate how tough the negotiations will be.

 

[Seagull58]

Quite so, it's all in the EU Treaties so it's law. And, like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, we would have to implement any legislation relevant to the single market nationally.

You are simply stating a negotiating position as fact. It's not fact that we will have it. It's a negotiating position.

 

[Hamilton]

What is the big issue in the EU reforming free movement, so each individual country can control the numbers. If it benefits business and the EU gets their membership fee every week, then everyone is happy. What is the big deal here.
The reason the EU doesn't want to do this is because they are undemocratic control freaks.

It is just this attitude of not reforming by the EU that drove me to vote Leave.

I guess the issue is quite practical. Access to a wider pool of skills and talent is good for business. If you live in say Lille and work in Ghent then you don't want to be cracking your passport out every day to get to work.

This isn't the only reason, but it's certainly an understandable one. After all, we wouldn't put in border controls between Wales, England and Scotland would we?


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(

 

[Seagull58]

1.8 billion euros a year to run the EU. That's disgraceful.

You do realize we spend that much every 10 days of UK defence. Every 10 days.

We spend the same amount on Health every 3 days.

I've no idea how much we spend on running the UK government. Lots.

I agree the multiple locations are totally wasteful. You're right. It needs changing. Everything can go into Brussels and we can shut Strasbourg and Luxembourg. I say we, but we aren't part of it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(

1.8 billion euros is the administrative cost. You cannot compare that with delivering the NHS or maintaining the defence of the nation.

 

[biddles911]

1.8 billion euros is the administrative cost. You cannot compare that with delivering the NHS or maintaining the defence of the nation.

Since the EU accounts haven't been signed off by the auditors for some 20 years, it's probably anyone's guess how accurate any of their figures are......!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

You just got to look at Douglas Carswells tweets.
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell

Like this one that, er, isn't going to happen any more?

[TWEET]735775001350017026[/TWEET]

 

[Seagull58]

That is his observation yes, but it is just his observation, not his recommendation nor a detailed analysis of why immigration became the target for voter outrage.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your views on the 5 year plan. What is the constructive way in which we build growth, remain a player on the global stage and redistribute wealth. What in detail has to change?


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(

I'm not sufficiently informed to give a detailed view on continuing to build growth or redistributing wealth but I will say that mutually beneficial trade agreements with the nations and regions with which we want to trade are a key element. Free movement of labour is not a pre-requisite, although it is currently the stated position of the EU for free access to their market. Regarding remaining a player on the world stage; we are the fifth largest economy in the world, in NATO, in the G7, in the G20 and a permanent member of the UN security council.

 

[Hamilton]

1.8 billion euros is the administrative cost. You cannot compare that with delivering the NHS or maintaining the defence of the nation.

The point is that figures can be twisted out of context. It's an argument I have made on both sides.


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(