Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Jebus_lives]

Your first paragraph I honestly dont care one way or another. Your second one is mainly where I sit. Some would say its a bit feeble, but on balance, the EU aint THAT bad. Its just annoying at times.

No I realise most don't care, but I find it really odd. Just serves to illustrate the lack of understanding.

 

[roydo]

No I realise most don't care, but I find it really odd. Just serves to illustrate the lack of understanding.

I meant that Brexit isnt a Left/Right issue.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Nicely put.

As I've stated, it's a very odd situation when you have the left arguing for a Capitalist entity like the EU. It's become a liberal panacea in the eyes of some, in their eyes exhibiting all of their own values - the reality is that it is not fully understand by many on either side if the debate, which is why misinformation on both sides has been allowed to dictate.

My position is arrived at by looking at the financial implications of leaving vs staying and partly as a result of the things that I like about the EU that people want to eradicate - like free movement.

I prefer to think we are stronger inside the single market and stronger as a union.

That for me is the biggest shame of all this, as the human impact of this decision seems to have been lost entirely. You'll get some BS platitudes about workers rights that no one can name, yet they're happy to demolish the biggest freedom of all because they don't like people speaking Polish at their local Tesco.

 

[peteblue]

Been following this exchange, on and off, today, and fwiw, as a "soft" remainer, perhaps my perspective might shed some light on your frustrations. Which I share to some extent.

Leavers, for a variety of reasons, either dont like the EU full stop, and/or have a specific beef with it. Either way, they must believe we are better off not in it.

Edit. And vice versa, obvs.

Remainers, again, for a variety of reasons, would prefer the status quo, as in they a dead keen on the EU, and/or, they are not sure if the sound bites that seemed to sway the result, are in any way realistic. Thats Me btw. Most, imo, are in the camp that I am in. I didnt believe the tripe served up by either sides, and on balance, reckoned staying was preferable to the utter unknown.

And thats before the shambles the MPs have made of it.

So, in a way you are correct. I cannot fathom, other than a pretty narrow few reasons, why so many folk voted for something they didnt have a clue what It actually will be.

Sometimes, as in all life and business, you have to go with what you believe will provide the best outcome for those you love. For me, I believe we are better off out of the Eu, and I’ve stated my reasons ad nauseum, for the benefit of my children and granddaughter, as well as for the people of the U.K. I accept that things may be tough for a while, and I’ve said so on numerous occasions, but I’ve always taken the long view in life and I still do so with Brexit. We will be better off outside.......

 

[WageezWavz]

Sometimes, as in all life and business, you have to go with what you believe will provide the best outcome for those you love. For me, I believe we are better off out of the Eu, and I’ve stated my reasons ad nauseum, for the benefit of my children and granddaughter, as well as for the people of the U.K. I accept that things may be tough for a while, and I’ve said so on numerous occasions, but I’ve always taken the long view in life and I still do so with Brexit. We will be better off outside.......

Nissan going, Honda gone, Toyota about to wave good bye...Ford pulling the plug saying ' they;ll do everything in their power to protect the brand...'

You really haven't thought things through have you....

 

[Jebus_lives]

Sometimes, as in all life and business, you have to go with what you believe will provide the best outcome for those you love. For me, I believe we are better off out of the Eu, and I’ve stated my reasons ad nauseum, for the benefit of my children and granddaughter, as well as for the people of the U.K. I accept that things may be tough for a while, and I’ve said so on numerous occasions, but I’ve always taken the long view in life and I still do so with Brexit. We will be better off outside.......

See, I can accept this, it is grounded in at least some sort of logic. We are the 5th largest economy in the world and the likelihood is that we will be able to still hold a strong position in the world stage.

I disagree that we will get better off out of the single market and the EU, but I can accept your decision. It's a hopeful one.

What I refuse to accept is the complete refusal to believe that Brexit will cause any problems (in the same way that I have little time for people wanting to lay the blame for anything at the doors of Brexit).

 

[peteblue]

Nissan going, Honda gone, Toyota about to wave good bye...Ford pulling the plug saying ' they;ll do everything in their power to protect the brand...'

You really haven't thought things through have you....

Looks like we won’t be buying cars in the U.K. in future. Or maybe you haven’t thought things through.......

 

[Barnfred 55]

I didn't defend it, it wasn't misleading so much as a projection of what would've been allocated.

Now you might argue that it won't ever be allocated as we are leaving, but that's besides the point. It would've been available and allocated as described in that tweet.

You're both correct for different reasons.

I wasn't questioning the projection of EU funding. In fact, as you will recall I even acknowledged this was fair based on the last allocation.

What I referred to as inaccurate and misleading, as you well know because I must have repeated it 3 or 4 times, was the tweet openly said that the £1.6b stronger town fund is a direct replacement for the projected 13b euro EU structural funding. This statement is incorrect for the following reasons.

• The stronger towns funding is completely independent and will run alongside EU funding or equivalent.
• The EU funding for the current cycle will continue until the cycle finishes at the end of 2020 if we leave with a deal. If we leave with no deal the government has pledged to replace the planned funding.
• From 2021, the government has pledged to replace EU structural funding with a new UK shared prosperity fund.

All of the above is fact and indeed outlined in a link you yourself posted. When I asked you directly whether you condoned such misleading posts you defended it, as you have done above again. You have no tangible evidence to support your view, just your belief that the government will renege on its promises.

 

[WageezWavz]

Looks like we won’t be buying cars in the U.K. in future. Or maybe you haven’t thought things through.......

Oh we'll be buying cars in Uk....only they won't be built in UK so I guess you haven't checked out the bigger picture.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I wasn't questioning the projection of EU funding. In fact, as you will recall I even acknowledged this was fair based on the last allocation.

What I referred to as inaccurate and misleading, as you well know because I must have repeated it 3 or 4 times, was the tweet openly said that the £1.6b stronger town fund is a direct replacement for the projected 13b euro EU structural funding. This statement is incorrect for the following reasons.

• The stronger towns funding is completely independent and will run alongside EU funding or equivalent.
• The EU funding for the current cycle will continue until the cycle finishes at the end of 2020 if we leave with a deal. If we leave with no deal the government has pledged to replace the planned funding.
• From 2021, the government has pledged to replace EU structural funding with a new UK shared prosperity fund.

All of the above is fact and indeed outlined in a link you yourself posted. When I asked you directly whether you condoned such misleading posts you defended it, as you have done above again. You have no tangible evidence to support your view, just your belief that the government will renege on its promises.

Well can debate the facts: which is that inside the EU we would be due the allocation that is listed in the tweet as 13b, which can be calculated against the EFS and EDF. Currently the UK has pledged 1.6b over the same 7 year period.

So technically the tweet, which compares the EU funding to the stronger towns is correct. However, it doesn't compare other commitments the government has made, including the ones you set out above. I posted a link, which you have acknowledged, to evidence that. But the entire point if the tweet was to counter those saying that the stronger towns fund is an adequate substitute in itself.

The rest, as you have rightly pointed out, is purely opinion on my part. Although, the government has said it will provide additional funding, but hasn't given any further details. Until I see those I can only speculate, as can you.

 

[Barnfred 55]

See, I can accept this, it is grounded in at least some sort of logic. We are the 5th largest economy in the world and the likelihood is that we will be able to still hold a strong position in the world stage.

I disagree that we will get better off out of the single market and the EU, but I can accept your decision. It's a hopeful one.

What I refuse to accept is the complete refusal to believe that Brexit will cause any problems (in the same way that I have little time for people wanting to lay the blame for anything at the doors of Brexit).

Fair do's.

I don't know the answer to the highlighted bit. It is something only time will tell, and even then a lot of it will be subjective. I always believed that a preferential trade agreement between the UK and the EU was doable because it would suit both parties. It doesn't have to a free trade single market on everything, but one that would be mutually beneficial and protected our respected industries. It would then enable us to strike trade deals with other nations specific to our own needs rather than the collective needs of the 28 EU member states.

Having an element of control over our borders would also enable us to have a more structured approach to immigration. As a nation we rely on immigration to make sure our services and certain industries run smoothly. Our immigration policy should not be based around numbers or percentages, it should be based on need. We should be bringing in people to meet demand for jobs to be filled. Control over immigration from the EU will open the door for more immigration from the rest of the world, on which there are currently severe restrictions.

I didn't count on our government messing things up quite as much as they did.

 

[tim cahill]

Fair do's.

I don't know the answer to the highlighted bit. It is something only time will tell, and even then a lot of it will be subjective. I always believed that a preferential trade agreement between the UK and the EU was doable because it would suit both parties. It doesn't have to a free trade single market on everything, but one that would be mutually beneficial and protected our respected industries. It would then enable us to strike trade deals with other nations specific to our own needs rather than the collective needs of the 28 EU member states.

Having an element of control over our borders would also enable us to have a more structured approach to immigration. As a nation we rely on immigration to make sure our services and certain industries run smoothly. Our immigration policy should not be based around numbers or percentages, it should be based on need. We should be bringing in people to meet demand for jobs to be filled. Control over immigration from the EU will open the door for more immigration from the rest of the world, on which there are currently severe restrictions.

I didn't count on our government messing things up quite as much as they did.

I don’t understand why people think we could get better trade deals as a separate entity to the EU.
My understanding is that the EU has the upper hand when negotiating deals because they’re massive. The U.K. in isolation is pretty small and won’t have the same sort of bargaining power, surely?!

 

[Barnfred 55]

However, it doesn't compare other commitments the government has made, including the ones you set out above. I posted a link, which you have acknowledged, to evidence that. But the entire point if the tweet was to counter those saying that the stronger towns fund is an adequate substitute in itself.

This is precisely why the tweet is misleading. It gives the impression that the £1.6b is the only funding planned to replace the EU structural fund. Which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Fair do's.

I don't know the answer to the highlighted bit. It is something only time will tell, and even then a lot of it will be subjective. I always believed that a preferential trade agreement between the UK and the EU was doable because it would suit both parties. It doesn't have to a free trade single market on everything, but one that would be mutually beneficial and protected our respected industries. It would then enable us to strike trade deals with other nations specific to our own needs rather than the collective needs of the 28 EU member states.

Having an element of control over our borders would also enable us to have a more structured approach to immigration. As a nation we rely on immigration to make sure our services and certain industries run smoothly. Our immigration policy should not be based around numbers or percentages, it should be based on need. We should be bringing in people to meet demand for jobs to be filled. Control over immigration from the EU will open the door for more immigration from the rest of the world, on which there are currently severe restrictions.

I didn't count on our government messing things up quite as much as they did.

This might be if interest regarding immigration:

Britain doesn’t need to ‘take back control’ of immigration. We already have it | Karan Bilimoria

Why doesn’t the public know that other countries use an EU directive to repatriate thousands of individuals, asks crossbench peer Karan Bilimoria

www.theguardian.com

As for the financially better off, I tend to follow the government's own predictions regarding EU exit, that states that any form of Brexit will leave us is a worse position than we currently are, economists who almost all think it's a poor decision and the Bank of England.

I tend to value the opinion of experts. I think a large part of the government 'messing it up' is due to the complexity of the task - exacerbated by the cretins that have been in charge of it Raab, Davis et al

 

[Jebus_lives]

This is precisely why the tweet is misleading. It gives the impression that the £1.6b is the only funding planned to replace the EU structural fund. Which clearly isn't the case.

I take the point, but it's the only funding that's been announced.