The UK will be worse off in EVERY Brexit scenario

[Deleted]

Your housing market, your job market, your NHS are a mess because your political class is morally bankrupt and shortsighted

I agree

What do you mean by local democracy? You already have different levels of public offices taking care of things at their own level. You elect city councils, your regional and local governments I imagine? Do you only want to keep city councils?
There is the same logic with the EU. It intervenes only in the fields where lawmakers allow it. And guess what? The lawmakers and people giving the big political orientations in the EU are also elected by you. Hell, even the commissioners at the EC are appointed by the Council, and confirmed by the Parliament. There is one per member state to keep everyone happy.
I think what you really mean is a better mandate and funding for local administrations and needs. The EU's job is not to build your roads, houses and hospitals

You misunderstand my point, but have illustrated it in your response. Of course I'm not talking about who decides what day the binmen are going to come, I am saying that 1 person out of 28 on the European commission will not be be able to represent the nuanced interests of an entire country. As you said he is not elected, or accountable to the people of said country, he is nominated by the current government. It is also worth noting that only 3 of those 28 countries put money into the EU, the rest spend it, so our interests are inevitably voted down anyway.

The currency union is not working as it should because somehow member states decided that a common currency without common fiscal and economic policy was a good idea. "Yay sovereignty"
.

I'm not sure what your point is here, I will just say I value sovereignty very highly, and the idea that all states that use the euro should share the same fiscal and economic policy seems equally unworkable and frankly tyrannical. Their economies are hugely different, as are their workforce's needs and desires. Do you think that people in the hottest parts of Spain and Greece would be able to compete with industrial Germany? They do not have the infrastructure, they do not share the same work culture.

Yes you are a net importer. In which world does it make more sense to leave the EU which has sold you everything you need, from your energy, your food, all the way to your cars barrier free, in the simplest and cheapest possible way, in the hope you might get better deals outside?
If you prefer indian cars and gmo beef, go ahead.

If there is a market for Indian cars then lets let the market decide, since we should be able to import them without the protectionist regulations and tariffs. And its up to the consumer if they want to eat GMO beef, idiots who don't research what they eat can die of colon cancer for all I care. Also the government will have MORE power to legislate against certain food types if they want to. I will concede that the EU makes trade easier within it, and if they want to make life hard for us simply to teach us a lesson, then I am sure that other nations will quickly fill that gap. Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer after all, or has socialist Europe already forgotten that fact?

Your public services being under strain is not due to immigration. It might not help, but you should be looking at solutions to reform the systems in place and increase the capacity instead of blaming the poor and the foreigners for it.

All you need is a bit of political honesty and courage, but considering your government's inability to decide what kind of brexit it wants (besides its name and color ...), I'd not bet on it.

Its a complex issue, but immigration numbers are a large factor.

I agree on your last point but a part of me does wonder if perhaps politicians were working for the people and not just waiting for the EU gravy train to deliver their payoffs, sorry pensions, then we might improve things at least a bit. However yes the Tories and Labour are awful and I won't hold my breath either.

[Demolitia]

You misunderstand my point, but have illustrated it in your response. Of course I'm not talking about who decides what day the binmen are going to come, I am saying that 1 person out of 28 on the European commission will not be be able to represent the nuanced interests of an entire country. As you said he is not elected, or accountable to the people of said country, he is nominated by the current government. It is also worth noting that only 3 of those 28 countries put money into the EU, the rest spend it, so our interests are inevitably voted down anyway.

I think it is a matter of timing. In the history of every country or region there is a time where one area is more prosperous and takes care of the others, then things change. Mining regions in France, Belgium, Germany used to be extremely wealthy, then the mining industry died off and the service industry in other places took over in other places. London and Scotland are rather prosperous and throwing money at Wales and Northern Ireland and you find this perfectly normal. The UK benefited greatly from joining the EU (with some help from Thatcher a few years later). The same happens at the EU level. I would argue that the UK is doing rather well, and can afford helping other countries develop. Who knows, you might need their help in 40 years.

The commission is just the executive arm of the EU. they implement what the Council and Parliament decide

I'm not sure what your point is here, I will just say I value sovereignty very highly, and the idea that all states that use the euro should share the same fiscal and economic policy seems equally unworkable and frankly tyrannical. Their economies are hugely different, as are their workforce's needs and desires. Do you think that people in the hottest parts of Spain and Greece would be able to compete with industrial Germany? They do not have the infrastructure, they do not share the same work culture.

My point was that currency, fiscal and economic policy go hand in hand. We can argue whether it would be unworkable and tyrannical, but I think we agree that a single currency alone can't work too well.

If there is a market for Indian cars then lets let the market decide, since we should be able to import them without the protectionist regulations and tariffs. And its up to the consumer if they want to eat GMO beef, idiots who don't research what they eat can die of colon cancer for all I care. Also the government will have MORE power to legislate against certain food types if they want to. I will concede that the EU makes trade easier within it, and if they want to make life hard for us simply to teach us a lesson, then I am sure that other nations will quickly fill that gap. Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer after all, or has socialist Europe already forgotten that fact?

I disagree here. You can't expect everyone to be a car safety expert, or chemists, or biologists. When it comes to consumer protection you need professionals to assess that kind of stuff at the market level. Since the EU is a single market, that's why the EU is also the authority on this. Having a single market and leaving safety standards to each member state would be unworkable (and it's way cheaper and more efficient to have 1 institution doing it for 28 member states). Without it we might still be eating mad cows.
And when it comes to competition, no member state alone would be able to stand up to google, or apple.
When it comes to trade deals, the EU would have to firepower to impose safety regulations on Indian cars or food safety for exemple, because it is such a big market. The UK is tiny compared to China, the US, India or the EU and I would be surprised if it managed it.

Its a complex issue, but immigration numbers are a large factor.

I agree on your last point but a part of me does wonder if perhaps politicians were working for the people and not just waiting for the EU gravy train to deliver their payoffs, sorry pensions, then we might improve things at least a bit. However yes the Tories and Labour are awful and I won't hold my breath either.

The EU "gravy train" is another questionable statement. Staff costs represent 1% of the EU budget. Less people work for the EU than for the city of Paris. Well there are three main institutions. the Council consists of heads of states so they should have your interests at heart. The Parliament are people who represent you and are elected by you. If instead of voting for sensible, hard working people who could make a change, you decide to send Farage who just bitches at everything and insults people, and did absolutely nothing constructive in all his time at the EP, then it's on you. I'm not being entirely fair here. There is little interest for EU parliamentary elections and that means not the best people end up there.
As for the commission, they are like public servants in your various administrations, except they speak 2 or 3 languages. Many are experts in fields where they would earn similar or better salaries in the public sector, others could find jobs at other international organisations such as the UN or NATO. Are the salaries very high compared to national administrations? Sure. But if they were not competitive with other similar organisations it wouldn't attract anyone. Nobody wants to live in Brussels unless there is a good incentive (and you can buy Belgian beers anywhere in Europe so that's not one of them)

[Unholyground]

Yes, and I dismissed your assertion that "they are all terrible" because you have made the assertion without proof.
No need to go to the second claim where you pretend to have proof when we are still discussing your first one.
You were the one who put your signature there, how about it? Don't you agree with it?

I thought intelligent people knew religion was bad, I guess you are not one of them.

[Demolitia]

I thought intelligent people knew religion was bad, I guess you are not one of them.

You asserted something without giving any proof for it. He merely did, ironically, what your signature says. He dismissed your statement because you provided no evidence to support it.
Again, you got the quote wrong. You should double check.

[Unholyground]

You asserted something without giving any proof for it. He merely did, ironically, what your signature says. He dismissed your statement because you provided no evidence to support it.
Again, you got the quote wrong. You should double check.

Sweet shit!

[Deleted]

I think it is a matter of timing. In the history of every country or region there is a time where one area is more prosperous and takes care of the others, then things change. Mining regions in France, Belgium, Germany used to be extremely wealthy, then the mining industry died off and the service industry in other places took over in other places. London and Scotland are rather prosperous and throwing money at Wales and Northern Ireland and you find this perfectly normal. The UK benefited greatly from joining the EU (with some help from Thatcher a few years later). The same happens at the EU level. I would argue that the UK is doing rather well, and can afford helping other countries develop. Who knows, you might need their help in 40 years.

The commission is just the executive arm of the EU. they implement what the Council and Parliament decide


My point was that currency, fiscal and economic policy go hand in hand. We can argue whether it would be unworkable and tyrannical, but I think we agree that a single currency alone can't work too well.


I disagree here. You can't expect everyone to be a car safety expert, or chemists, or biologists. When it comes to consumer protection you need professionals to assess that kind of stuff at the market level. Since the EU is a single market, that's why the EU is also the authority on this. Having a single market and leaving safety standards to each member state would be unworkable (and it's way cheaper and more efficient to have 1 institution doing it for 28 member states). Without it we might still be eating mad cows.
And when it comes to competition, no member state alone would be able to stand up to google, or apple.
When it comes to trade deals, the EU would have to firepower to impose safety regulations on Indian cars or food safety for exemple, because it is such a big market. The UK is tiny compared to China, the US, India or the EU and I would be surprised if it managed it.



The EU "gravy train" is another questionable statement. Staff costs represent 1% of the EU budget. Less people work for the EU than for the city of Paris. Well there are three main institutions. the Council consists of heads of states so they should have your interests at heart. The Parliament are people who represent you and are elected by you. If instead of voting for sensible, hard working people who could make a change, you decide to send Farage who just bitches at everything and insults people, and did absolutely nothing constructive in all his time at the EP, then it's on you. I'm not being entirely fair here. There is little interest for EU parliamentary elections and that means not the best people end up there.
As for the commission, they are like public servants in your various administrations, except they speak 2 or 3 languages. Many are experts in fields where they would earn similar or better salaries in the public sector, others could find jobs at other international organisations such as the UN or NATO. Are the salaries very high compared to national administrations? Sure. But if they were not competitive with other similar organisations it wouldn't attract anyone. Nobody wants to live in Brussels unless there is a good incentive (and you can buy Belgian beers anywhere in Europe so that's not one of them)

You make good points, but I do think it is a fundamental disagreement on the political beliefs we hold. These are often not reconcilable, which is why governments often change hands and elections are fairly close in most countries. You only have to look at the recent US elections or Germany / Italy which are permanent coalitions, not to mention the brexit referendum itself at 48% / 52%. I consider myself centrist and leaning more towards a libertarian system than an authoritarian one, which is why I don't feel represented by the political parties in the UK, and even less by the socialism I see in Europe. This belief in libertarianism also applies to world trade, I would like to see every country on the planet have to compete on a level playing field with no single markets or protectionism, with regulations being agreed on a global scale to protect the environment and all the world's citizens (so no more farming out manufacturing to Chinese wage slaves), however this is just Utopian dreaming on my part.

I certainly agree that the UK entered the EU as the the 'sick man of Europe' but I believe this to be due to the overly socialist policies of the 1970's Labour government. That being said, I am all for social policies, particularly healthcare, and regulations to protect the environment and consumers (one of the things the EU has been a huge benefit for, I'm not an absolutist I think the EU has been a benefit in many ways). If the EU was just a trading block then I would have no problems with it, even if it was a little protectionist, but what they are working towards far outreaches these areas, and is a power grab as I see it. The most obvious parts of this are the single currency and irresponsible migration laws, but now we hear talk of an EU army, of taxes being set by Brussels, and the way we have been treated in the negotiations only go to show the petty nature of the EU when it comes to resolving this in a beneficial way for both parties.

Also I think Nigel Farage is awesome he did one constructive thing, and that is in the title of this thread, I just hope it is a start of European devolution, and stripping powers from the EU and stop their overreach.

[Deleted]

The crushing predictability of the guy claiming to be libertarian actually being neo-fascist....

I dont think you understand what fascism is.

[Demolitia]

You make good points, but I do think it is a fundamental disagreement on the political beliefs we hold. These are often not reconcilable, which is why governments often change hands and elections are fairly close in most countries. You only have to look at the recent US elections or Germany / Italy which are permanent coalitions, not to mention the brexit referendum itself at 48% / 52%. I consider myself centrist and leaning more towards a libertarian system than an authoritarian one, which is why I don't feel represented by the political parties in the UK, and even less by the socialism I see in Europe. This belief in libertarianism also applies to world trade, I would like to see every country on the planet have to compete on a level playing field with no single markets or protectionism, with regulations being agreed on a global scale to protect the environment and all the world's citizens (so no more farming out manufacturing to Chinese wage slaves), however this is just Utopian dreaming on my part.

I certainly agree that the UK entered the EU as the the 'sick man of Europe' but I believe this to be due to the overly socialist policies of the 1970's Labour government. That being said, I am all for social policies, particularly healthcare, and regulations to protect the environment and consumers (one of the things the EU has been a huge benefit for, I'm not an absolutist I think the EU has been a benefit in many ways). If the EU was just a trading block then I would have no problems with it, even if it was a little protectionist, but what they are working towards far outreaches these areas, and is a power grab as I see it. The most obvious parts of this are the single currency and irresponsible migration laws, but now we hear talk of an EU army, of taxes being set by Brussels, and the way we have been treated in the negotiations only go to show the petty nature of the EU when it comes to resolving this in a beneficial way for both parties.

Also I think Nigel Farage is awesome he did one constructive thing, and that is in the title of this thread, I just hope it is a start of European devolution, and stripping powers from the EU and stop their overreach.

Sure, and that's fine. I am happy to have a honest chat. Coalitions are bound to happen in countries with more than 2 political parties. France kind of solved the issue by having a two round election for the head of state and government. doesn't mean a parliamentary majority at all times but at least forming a government is easy. I'm fine with having more than two flavours represented in a parliament as long as the whackos only get few seats.

World trade has been increasingly big businesses eating smaller ones to the point where some companies are richer and more powerfull than most countries. There is some serious need to keep that in check, and that comes with international cooperation.
The EU is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but on the market side I think it is trying to achieve exactly what you say. Open markets, make sure competition is fair and that consumer rights are respected.
I also think your view of China is a bit outdated. It still has a long way to go but it's making alot of progress. When I was a kid, China was making textile, not TVs and Iphones. There alot of inequalities and problems with China but they will catch up with western standards at some point.
We also obviously disagree on what the EU does and how it gets mandates. From the coal and steel community to now, what power the EU has grabbed were given willingly by member states and citizens (through parliament) where they thought it would make sense and be efficient.
There have been talks of EU army for ages (actually there are joint armies already but mostly as multilateral agreements between member states). you might not like it but since you're talking about immigration, wouldn't it be useful to have a simple way to get a bunch of soldiers to go help watch the seas and outer borders of Europe?
I mean we already have this for Police cooperation with Europol, Judicial cooperation with Eurojust, European arrest warrants that can be issued without a police officer asking a prosecutor to ask the minister of justice to ask the minister of justice of the other member states to ask his prosecutor to ask a police officer to share info on a case. What's so different about have part of your military put at the disposal of the EU? Heads of states would still decide together what to do with it.
I also disagree that the UK has been treated badly. From our perspective you're leaving for reasons we still don't understand, we have no idea what kind of relationship you want. We have 4 basic freedoms of movement which are a basic requirement. if you want total freedom with one, you take the other three. If you find it unfair I'm sorry, but if I went to the UK, asked to live there and get a citizenship but demanded the right to drive on the right side of the road, not pay income tax in the UK, and have people talk to me in French, you'd find it cute at best, but also most likely bloody deluded. We kind of feel the same. We still like you guys though.
Finally, I think the contribution you send to Brussels is not that huge, compared to the work it does for you, what you get from the single market, and what it actually is vs your annual budget.

edit: As for Farage, he did get you out of the EU. I doubt it marks the downfall of the EU you're hoping for. If anything there seems to be a political will across the board to speed up the integration.

[godofthunder]

The crushing predictability of the guy claiming to be libertarian actually being neo-fascist....

This poster is a marxist, badly disguised.

[Deleted]

This poster is a marxist, badly disguised.

ah to be a centrist, where both sides think you are the other, because their IQs are lower than their shoe size.

[godofthunder]

ah to be a centrist, where both sides think you are the other, because their IQs are lower than their shoe size.

Being a centrist is like abstaining from work and then bragging about it as others keep you fed.

[Demolitia]

Being a centrist is like abstaining from work and then bragging about it as others keep you fed.

Or being a centrist is accepting the benefits of both worlds and trying to find a balance instead of being labeling people as fascists, marxists or lazy.

[godofthunder]

Or being a centrist is accepting the benefits of both worlds and trying to find a balance instead of being labeling people as fascists, marxists or lazy.

Centrists abstain from processes because it's easier to keep your mouth closed and be presumed smart, rather than open your mouth and confirm ignorance.

[Demolitia]

Centrists abstain from processes because it's easier to keep your mouth closed and be presumed smart, rather than open your mouth and confirm ignorance.

I don't know which country you're from, but center parties in Europe tend to be simply more measured in their approach. They are not popular because they don't promise the moon (usually broken promises) just to get elected.

[Deleted]

Sure, and that's fine. I am happy to have a honest chat. Coalitions are bound to happen in countries with more than 2 political parties. France kind of solved the issue by having a two round election for the head of state and government. doesn't mean a parliamentary majority at all times but at least forming a government is easy. I'm fine with having more than two flavours represented in a parliament as long as the whackos only get few seats.

World trade has been increasingly big businesses eating smaller ones to the point where some companies are richer and more powerfull than most countries. There is some serious need to keep that in check, and that comes with international cooperation.
The EU is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but on the market side I think it is trying to achieve exactly what you say. Open markets, make sure competition is fair and that consumer rights are respected.
I also think your view of China is a bit outdated. It still has a long way to go but it's making alot of progress. When I was a kid, China was making textile, not TVs and Iphones. There alot of inequalities and problems with China but they will catch up with western standards at some point.
We also obviously disagree on what the EU does and how it gets mandates. From the coal and steel community to now, what power the EU has grabbed were given willingly by member states and citizens (through parliament) where they thought it would make sense and be efficient.
There have been talks of EU army for ages (actually there are joint armies already but mostly as multilateral agreements between member states). you might not like it but since you're talking about immigration, wouldn't it be useful to have a simple way to get a bunch of soldiers to go help watch the seas and outer borders of Europe?
I mean we already have this for Police cooperation with Europol, Judicial cooperation with Eurojust, European arrest warrants that can be issued without a police officer asking a prosecutor to ask the minister of justice to ask the minister of justice of the other member states to ask his prosecutor to ask a police officer to share info on a case. What's so different about have part of your military put at the disposal of the EU? Heads of states would still decide together what to do with it.
I also disagree that the UK has been treated badly. From our perspective you're leaving for reasons we still don't understand, we have no idea what kind of relationship you want. We have 4 basic freedoms of movement which are a basic requirement. if you want total freedom with one, you take the other three. If you find it unfair I'm sorry, but if I went to the UK, asked to live there and get a citizenship but demanded the right to drive on the right side of the road, not pay income tax in the UK, and have people talk to me in French, you'd find it cute at best, but also most likely bloody deluded. We kind of feel the same. We still like you guys though.
Finally, I think the contribution you send to Brussels is not that huge, compared to the work it does for you, what you get from the single market, and what it actually is vs your annual budget.

Don't get me wrong I love the European populace too. My desire is for devolution and self determinism, but also cooperation. From my perspective it is the protectionism and authoritarianism of the EU that has prevented the first part of that and is now preventing the second post-brexit. I think if the EU was just a trading block, the vast majority of the British would have no problems with it at all. The last thing we want is some strange sort of cold war across the channel.

With the risk of being called a marxist again, I will say it is hard to defend end stage Capitalism from the position of an ordinary citizen, without regulation it does end with huge monopolistic corporations that we are seeing today, that can consolidate and buyout their competition, with far too much power over governments. This is the globalism that we read about, and I really think it will end badly for the average citizen. So I fully agree that this international cooperation that you mention is sorely needed.

As for the 4 freedoms of movement, it is defined as workers, goods, services and capital. In theory I have no problem with these, though free movement of capital can be problematic if you have a large immigrant population, who often send money back to their countries of origin which is clearly detrimental to the overall economy of the original state, that that is a can of worms that I won't pretend to have an answer to. However there is a 5th part, which is people who are not 'workers'. In a country with one of the most generous benefits programs in the world, this is a huge draw to the UK over other nations. When you consider the cost of the housing market, child support etc. this can be a huge expense if immigration is not controlled.

As with all these things, I am no expert, just trying to explain my position as a layman. I don't actually see why the EU is needed for these 4 freedoms to exist. If a there is a need for a worker, and a worker available for that position, there should be very little bureaucracy needed to make that happen, but it should be managed and the worker should be able to support himself in their new country.

[Dizzeeyooo]

However there is a 5th part, which is people who are not 'workers'. In a country with one of the most generous benefits programs in the world, this is a huge draw to the UK over other nations. When you consider the cost of the housing market, child support etc. this can be a huge expense if immigration is not controlled

depends on your definition of "huge expense" I guess - Only 2.4 per cent of those claiming out-of-work benefits in 2013-14 were EEA migrants, and the figure declined to 1.9 per cent in 2015-16, according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ report.

[Deleted]

depends on your definition of "huge expense" I guess - Only 2.4 per cent of those claiming out-of-work benefits in 2013-14 were EEA migrants, and the figure declined to 1.9 per cent in 2015-16, according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ report.

out of work benefits are the tip of the iceberg, as are EEA migrants. To be honest I said earlier I wanted to avoid discussing the immigration issue as I do not know enough specifics to make statements about such a thorny issue, so anything I say would be fuzzy at best. Also I cant read that link.

[Mormolyce]

This poster is a marxist, badly disguised.

As opposed to a fascist, not even disguised?

[Deleted]

As opposed to a fascist, not even disguised?

I realise that the definition of fascism has changed recently, but by the old and new definition I am not a fascist or a marxist. both are authoritarian, I consider myself to lean towards libertarianism (the opposite if you need it spelled out for you).

from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ection/510668/

Fascism originated in 1920s Europe, mostly among the radical collectivists of the left. But it developed by synthesizing command economics with the racism and nationalism of the radical collectivists of the right. Historians now discount the once-popular Marxist interpretation that fascism was the child of capitalism and imperialism. But they are not unanimous about whether the rivalry of fascism and communism was a sibling rivalry. Like the communists, the fascists were radically unprincipled opportunists, contemptuous of democratic norms.
...
Most fascist economies followed Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism as the corporatist control of private industry by government,

the modern definition is much more broad and simplified: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control



I strongly stand against:

corporatist control of private industry by government

[exalting] nation and often race above the individual

centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader

severe economic and social regimentation

forcible suppression of opposition

autocratic or dictatorial control


so I would suggest you use words more carefully, I may have opinions you do not agree with but that does not make me a fascist.

[Mormolyce]

so I would suggest you use words more carefully, I may have opinions you do not agree with but that does not make me a fascist.

... Did you just post on the wrong account?