The UK will be worse off in EVERY Brexit scenario

[Deleted]

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

edit :
unless you were referring to him as a fascist, as his post was about me. if so, sorry for the confusion. I thought you were calling me a fascist. Even so I would be careful with the use of that word. The previous post was calling me a neofascist so I was being too defensive.

I only have one account and the confusion could be on my side.

[Demolitia]

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.

Actually it's free movement of people (persons AND workers). The conditions under which they are allowed to work and get social benefits are up to each member state but should be the same as the native's.
I don't think your social benefits are what is drawing people to the UK. Many other member states have equal or better social welfare and health systems. What's attractive is the language and the fact that there is a high demand for less qualified workers.
We had a discussion elsewhere about housing so I won't go into details now. But I doubt your problem with housing is immigrants. In London it's speculation. Outside London it's local councils being spineless. Many other member states have a higher net immigration per capita and nobody is complaining about housing. You have space, and you have money. You just need to build more. And you should have started 30 years ago.

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.

We don't NEED the EU for this, but somehow countries don't cooperate unless there is a forum to do so.
I'll use an analogy with the UN here because there is shared criticism between the two. World leaders could work together towards peace and big issues but somehow didn't until the UN was created. Now people complain about the UN being powerless to enforce things, while legaly it's only mandate is being a discussion forum.
I think the same goes with the EU. It was created as a pooling together of coal and steel between france and germany, and quickly grew to have free movement of everything. This was decided to ensure both countries would be so intricately bound together they could not reasonably attack one another anymore. I can't agree with the statement that the EU was first merely an FTA. The main reason behind it was political. Money and trade were just the most efficient way to go about it.
As for bureaucracy, the EU has managed to come up with positions and arguments that 27 member states agree with for Brexit negotiations when the UK still hasn't.
I guess that makes the gravy train lazy overpaid people more efficient than your government.

- - - Updated - - -

edit :
unless you were referring to him as a fascist, as his post was about me. if so, sorry for the confusion. I thought you were calling me a fascist. Even so I would be careful with the use of that word. The previous post was calling me a neofascist so I was being too defensive.

I only have one account and the confusion could be on my side.

They were referring to him

[Kallisto]

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.

The problem with this is that simply put an EU citizen simply can not just move to the UK from another EU country and claim benefits. They simply were not entitled to it and there was no way they can do that without working first. Here's the kicker, they need to be working full time for 3 full months before they got even the meagerest of benefits (As in they have to pay in before they get out.)

Also under EU law any EU citizen that goes to another EU country that can not prove they can support themselves are kicked out and put back in their home country after 3 months. The whole benefits argument was bullshit from the start and no matter how many times those saying "They come here and steal our benefits." was proven false, people just didn't seem to get it.

[Noradin]

The problem with this is that simply put an EU citizen simply can not just move to the UK from another EU country and claim benefits. They simply were not entitled to it and there was no way they can do that without working first. Here's the kicker, they need to be working full time for 3 full months before they got even the meagerest of benefits (As in they have to pay in before they get out.)

Also under EU law any EU citizen that goes to another EU country that can not prove they can support themselves are kicked out and put back in their home country after 3 months. The whole benefits argument was bullshit from the start and no matter how many times those saying "They come here and steal our benefits." was proven false, people just didn't seem to get it.

The problem is people overestimating their own cleverness, they are convinced they are the first person ever to think of these problems.
Thus it is inconceivable to them that anyone might have come up with a solution and implemented it already.

[Demolitia]

In International Relations there is a political theory known as Constructivism. Constructivism claims that by forcing leaders to come into direct contact in different fora they establish personal relations and it makes it more likely that they will seek a consensus in their larger state community in decision making since they can more easily acknowledge other states as stakeholders when they've sat down and had lunch with the leaders of those states.

The UN does not much succeed in doing that. States send their diplomats there and the actual political class barely ever gets involved.
The common example stated before the EU on this was the lines of communication between the USSR and the USA's highest offices that kept the Cold War from escalating. The fact that each side could get the other on the phone helped personalize the struggle.
But the EU is probably the greatest example. In the EU state leaders as well as multiple ministers, members of the political class send to the EP all come into contact with each other frequently and personally. They all know each other.

Indeed, this is also how most regulatory agencies and joint undertakings work. there are representatives of each member state on the governing board most of the time. Their job, if they don't have a mandate to decide directly, is to enhance cooperation and getting the regulators from each member state to work together towards one goal. It's not only at the Council and Parliament level.

[Demolitia]

That's the impressive part of the EU though. The Heads of State meet regularly. Most such forums or communities have diplomats take care of the interactions with the Heads of State only meeting rarely to sign something and for a photo op. The EU has a lot more meetings though so they all get used to each other. Which can of course also backfire if someone is a complete asshole . . .

I think the geographical closeness helps a lot. It's fairly easy for Germany, the UK, France or Italian leaders to meet for just a lunch. Hell, it can pull off stupid things such as relocation the Parliament every month
You were talking about the UN before. I think people's expectations and the mandate are at odds here. It really only is a discussion forum. Same goes with the G forums (lost track of the numbers and formats). I don't think they are just photo ops. I wouldn't underestimate informal face to face meetings between world leaders. I solve most issues at work on smoke breaks with other colleagues

[Omega10]

The problem with this is that simply put an EU citizen simply can not just move to the UK from another EU country and claim benefits. They simply were not entitled to it and there was no way they can do that without working first. Here's the kicker, they need to be working full time for 3 full months before they got even the meagerest of benefits (As in they have to pay in before they get out.)

Also under EU law any EU citizen that goes to another EU country that can not prove they can support themselves are kicked out and put back in their home country after 3 months. The whole benefits argument was bullshit from the start and no matter how many times those saying "They come here and steal our benefits." was proven false, people just didn't seem to get it.

I did not know this. I often thought that Brexit was sold on a lie. I never realized just how dishonest it was

[Demolitia]

I did not know this. I often thought that Brexit was sold on a lie. I never realized just how dishonest it was

EU citizens have the same rights and obligations as locals. A foreigner coming to the UK can't just ask for benefits if he hasn't worked. Just like a UK citizens only get access to unemployment benefits, healthcare and such if they don't work. And the conditions differ from one member state to the next. But usually you can stay 3 months as a tourist doing nothing, if you want to stay longer as a temporary or permanent resident, you need to show that your rent a flat/house and have a job.

One thing that can be exploited is healthcare to some degree, If you go to the ER at the hospital, they will treat you anywhere whether you can pay or not. But the impact of this is very limited.

edit: Quite frankly, if people were after social benefits or healthcare, they would go to Scandinavia, Spain, Gemany or France where they'd get better conditions overall. People come to the UK because you have a big shortage in healthcare, hospitality and seasonal workers. And Because english is one of the easiest languages to learn and virtually everybody learns it.

[Omega10]

EU citizens have the same rights and obligations as locals. A foreigner coming to the UK can't just ask for benefits if he hasn't worked. Just like a UK citizens only get access to unemployment benefits, healthcare and such if they don't work. And the conditions differ from one member state to the next. But usually you can stay 3 months as a tourist doing nothing, if you want to stay longer as a temporary or permanent resident, you need to show that your rent a flat/house and have a job.

One thing that can be exploited is healthcare to some degree, If you go to the ER at the hospital, they will treat you anywhere whether you can pay or not. But the impact of this is very limited.

Sounds like a well thought out policy to me. Thank you for posting this.

[Demolitia]

Sounds like a well thought out policy to me. Thank you for posting this.

I think it works overall. There are always cases where people will abuse the system, but usually people don't leave their country, family and friends to sit on their asses and wait for their unemployment paycheck to arrive.

[Deleted]

Actually it's free movement of people (persons AND workers). The conditions under which they are allowed to work and get social benefits are up to each member state but should be the same as the native's.
I don't think your social benefits are what is drawing people to the UK. Many other member states have equal or better social welfare and health systems. What's attractive is the language and the fact that there is a high demand for less qualified workers.
We had a discussion elsewhere about housing so I won't go into details now. But I doubt your problem with housing is immigrants. In London it's speculation. Outside London it's local councils being spineless. Many other member states have a higher net immigration per capita and nobody is complaining about housing. You have space, and you have money. You just need to build more. And you should have started 30 years ago.

Again, I am a bit annoyed that I let myself get drawn into the immigration debate, I said from the start that I do not know enough about it to make a proper argument, and I don't think my uninformed generalisations are particularly helpful to anybody. My view is biased from living in South London, and what I see on a daily basis, which is not representative of Britain as a whole. What I will say is that a selfish part of me does not want to see a population increase where I live, the roads are already gridlocked for hours everyday, I don't want to choke down the car fumes everyday. I don't want to see homeless people sleeping in the park on my way to work in the morning. For example, near my parent's house in Surrey there where 40+ men living in a makeshift campsite in the woods where my mum walks her dog every day, and they may be the nicest people in the world, but it doesn't stop me from worrying for her safety. I don't want green belts to be destroyed for more housing estates, I want to preserve our green and pleasant land. I know this is all personal experience and very anecdotal, but I can't get behind the idea that we should not be able to control our immigration numbers as a sovereign nation, like the US does, like Canada does, like Australia does. It all comes back to the fundamental point, that for all the benefits of the EU, I do not want to relinquish any political power to a large superstate, I want that power to lie in the hands of the British Parliament who are answerable to the British people only. You said earlier you were trying to understand why we want to leave, the same is true for me, I wonder why do people want to remain in the EU, given the huge overreach we have seen in the last decade? Why would you want to give them any power over your nation?

I should clarify: I am not anti immigration, I believe it is not only desirable, but necessary, and on a personal level I like being surrounded by different cultures and ideas. It's not always perfect, but what is?

[Kallisto]

Again, I am a bit annoyed that I let myself get drawn into the immigration debate, I said from the start that I do not know enough about it to make a proper argument, and I don't think my uninformed generalisations are particularly helpful to anybody. My view is biased from living in South London, and what I see on a daily basis, which is not representative of Britain as a whole. What I will say is that a selfish part of me does not want to see a population increase where I live, the roads are already gridlocked for hours everyday, I don't want to choke down the car fumes everyday. I don't want to see homeless people sleeping in the park on my way to work in the morning. For example, near my parent's house in Surrey there where 40+ men living in a makeshift campsite in the woods where my mum walks her dog every day, and they may be the nicest people in the world, but it doesn't stop me from worrying for her safety. I don't want green belts to be destroyed for more housing estates, I want to preserve our green and pleasant land. I know this is all personal experience and very anecdotal, but I can't get behind the idea that we should not be able to control our immigration numbers as a sovereign nation, like the US does, like Canada does, like Australia does. It all comes back to the fundamental point, that for all the benefits of the EU, I do not want to relinquish any political power to a large superstate, I want that power to lie in the hands of the British Parliament who are answerable to the British people only. You said earlier you were trying to understand why we want to leave, the same is true for me, I wonder why do people want to remain in the EU, given the huge overreach we have seen in the last decade? Why would you want to give them any power over your nation?

I should clarify: I am not anti immigration, I believe it is not only desirable, but necessary, and on a personal level I like being surrounded by different cultures and ideas. It's not always perfect, but what is?

Why I want to be in the EU.

A) I don't give a shit where everyone is from. To claim someone is inferior and not deserving just because where they are born is simply put a legalized version of prejudice that is still considered allowed. That is how nation states run. (As in over the decades and centuries each region should start emulating the EU and allow for people to basically move where the hell they want. Not confined to lines on map)

B) Nearly anyone educated in economics, business, science etc etc are for remaining. That alone should point out that people in the know actually are all on the same side here. This isn't educated vs educated. It was educated vs man in pub. The latter sensible people always ignore.

C) There is no loss of personal sovereignty by remaining in the EU. The EU parliament and the Council of Europe are both elected and hold the power. The commission is nothing more than what each nation has in the civil service. They are answerable to the elected parts of the EU.

D) We are an importing area of the world. Staying in the EU would have kept the pound strong and costs down. Right now the £ is about $1.40 and that's mostly due to Trump being nuts. A small look at petrol prices is key here. If we remained in the EU the costs would be around £1` a litre. Not £1.20 (more for diesel). These costs will add up as lorries deliver. The companies are not going to foot the bill, that will go to the prices of goods.

E) When it comes to international diplomacy and trade deals size and power are key. In every way shape or form the EU is bigger, stronger and louder than the UK. 60 million can not compete with 500 million. The US, Aus, Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc etc etc are going to go to the EU before the UK to make their deals. Countries like US, China, India, other BRICS will be the ones bending the UK over to get the deals they want over deals we want simply due to their size advantage and having better resources.

F) Working together within the EU allows us to influence from within. Get the things we need and work with other EU countries to do so. Being outside we're generally going to be at best a country they sometimes ask for opinion, at worst "This is what we're doing and you will oblidge if you want to deal with us."

G) I simply do not trust the conservative party on things like worker rights, human rights, the benefits system and other things that are enshrined in EU law, even if we have had opt outs.

H) No one has ever answered to me why a small nation is so superior dyuper awesome over a larger entity. Some vague "Politics at home blah di blah" which has zero meaning.

J) Cultures are not people, not worth saving

I) Green belt is land that could be used for something better than being irrelevent pleasing to the eye. We're going to need more homes anyway. Might as well build enough for 80 million people to live solo.

[Deleted]

Why I want to be in the EU.

A) I don't give a shit where everyone is from. To claim someone is inferior and not deserving just because where they are born is simply put a legalized version of prejudice that is still considered allowed. That is how nation states run. (As in over the decades and centuries each region should start emulating the EU and allow for people to basically move where the hell they want. Not confined to lines on map)

B) Nearly anyone educated in economics, business, science etc etc are for remaining. That alone should point out that people in the know actually are all on the same side here. This isn't educated vs educated. It was educated vs man in pub. The latter sensible people always ignore.

C) There is no loss of personal sovereignty by remaining in the EU. The EU parliament and the Council of Europe are both elected and hold the power. The commission is nothing more than what each nation has in the civil service. They are answerable to the elected parts of the EU.

D) We are an importing area of the world. Staying in the EU would have kept the pound strong and costs down. Right now the £ is about $1.40 and that's mostly due to Trump being nuts. A small look at petrol prices is key here. If we remained in the EU the costs would be around £1` a litre. Not £1.20 (more for diesel). These costs will add up as lorries deliver. The companies are not going to foot the bill, that will go to the prices of goods.

E) When it comes to international diplomacy and trade deals size and power are key. In every way shape or form the EU is bigger, stronger and louder than the UK. 60 million can not compete with 500 million. The US, Aus, Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc etc etc are going to go to the EU before the UK to make their deals. Countries like US, China, India, other BRICS will be the ones bending the UK over to get the deals they want over deals we want simply due to their size advantage and having better resources.

F) Working together within the EU allows us to influence from within. Get the things we need and work with other EU countries to do so. Being outside we're generally going to be at best a country they sometimes ask for opinion, at worst "This is what we're doing and you will oblidge if you want to deal with us."

G) I simply do not trust the conservative party on things like worker rights, human rights, the benefits system and other things that are enshrined in EU law, even if we have had opt outs.

H) No one has ever answered to me why a small nation is so superior dyuper awesome over a larger entity. Some vague "Politics at home blah di blah" which has zero meaning.

J) Cultures are not people, not worth saving

I) Green belt is land that could be used for something better than being irrelevent pleasing to the eye. We're going to need more homes anyway. Might as well build enough for 80 million people to live solo.

excuse the brevity but I'm not trying to write too much here, its a forum post not a dissertation

A) I don't think anyone said they were inferior, and I fundamentally disagree with the idea that people should be able to move wherever they want. To equate that with prejudice seems ridiculous to me, but I guess this is just an impasse. As I said before I don't want to get into immigration again.

B) *people that get airtime. The UK will be fine in all these areas.

C) I have already been through my thoughts on big government. Again another fundamental impasse between our political opinions.

D) well it certainly didn't keep the pound strong for the last 10 years. The euro was a mistake, and only Germany benefit from it that I can see. I only see it getting worse after British contributions stop.

E) we will see, I think there is truth in what you say that bigger is better in some ways, but also more unwieldy. I have no real fear that we will rise to the occasion in these matters.

F) In such a large system we have very little influence really

G) you are right to not trust the Tories, but they are not really that terrible. Better the devil you know. Also they are currently the only option IMO, comrade Corbin would be such a mistake in these troubled times.

H) i have been through this earlier too. It is because they are answerable to their constituents, to a greater degree.

J) Again I cannot disagree enough, I would even say culture is more important. 'People' are 10 a penny in today's world, chewing up the planet and spitting it out, whether they do it consciously or not. Culture is what we are working towards, all creativity, ideology, science, the arts, this is who we are as groups of people, that persists long after death. Culture is our humanity, without it we are just pigs fattening up for the slaughterhouse.

I) To me nature is more important than anything. It is hardly irrelevant, it is what sustains you, but if you want to pave it all over, I can't stop it. I just hope influenza or something can put a dent in humanity's virus like growth before it's too late. It may sound bleak but perhaps it is time for nature to rise again, it might just be our salvation.

[Crispin]

Again, I am a bit annoyed that I let myself get drawn into the immigration debate, I said from the start that I do not know enough about it to make a proper argument, and I don't think my uninformed generalisations are particularly helpful to anybody. My view is biased from living in South London, and what I see on a daily basis, which is not representative of Britain as a whole. What I will say is that a selfish part of me does not want to see a population increase where I live, the roads are already gridlocked for hours everyday, I don't want to choke down the car fumes everyday. I don't want to see homeless people sleeping in the park on my way to work in the morning. For example, near my parent's house in Surrey there where 40+ men living in a makeshift campsite in the woods where my mum walks her dog every day, and they may be the nicest people in the world, but it doesn't stop me from worrying for her safety. I don't want green belts to be destroyed for more housing estates, I want to preserve our green and pleasant land. I know this is all personal experience and very anecdotal, but I can't get behind the idea that we should not be able to control our immigration numbers as a sovereign nation, like the US does, like Canada does, like Australia does. It all comes back to the fundamental point, that for all the benefits of the EU, I do not want to relinquish any political power to a large superstate, I want that power to lie in the hands of the British Parliament who are answerable to the British people only. You said earlier you were trying to understand why we want to leave, the same is true for me, I wonder why do people want to remain in the EU, given the huge overreach we have seen in the last decade? Why would you want to give them any power over your nation?

I should clarify: I am not anti immigration, I believe it is not only desirable, but necessary, and on a personal level I like being surrounded by different cultures and ideas. It's not always perfect, but what is?

But you do, as do other EU countries, there's a huge difference on how many immigrants different EU countries are taking



Facts > your anecdotes

[Deleted]

I) Green belt is land that could be used for something better than being irrelevent pleasing to the eye. We're going to need more homes anyway. Might as well build enough for 80 million people to live solo.

Green belts are what keep cities from sprawling and becoming an unsustainable spread of suburbs. Abandoning density translates to higher commute times, higher maintenance cost for infrastructures, higher carbon footprints, and overall decreased living standards. Things which ultimately create a massive vector for inequality to fester further.
If you are pro-immigration you need to be pro urban density and pro greenbelts.

J) Cultures are not people, not worth saving

There's no reason to "save" people if you don't conserve the things they like.


These two stances you show are profoundly anti-European, and entirely against the EU project.

- - - Updated - - -

F) In such a large system we have very little influence really

It was very large, considering the Eastern expansion was spearheaded at the whims of the UK.
Whatever the actual size, it's infinitely larger than 0, which is where the UK is headed today.
And that's alright: the UK is looking inward to make sense of their national struggle. The rest of the world will keep playing, naturally, and the UK will simply be dragged along where their interests meet (which essentially amounts to most of the time).

[Spectral]

The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

Just for clarity, this isn't saying that the UK economy will be 2-8% smaller, it's saying that the rate of growth over a period would be 2-8% smaller. Putting aside that everyone should be pretty skeptical of macroeconomic claims that have any sort of high precision and just considering these numbers at face value, they imply that the total GDP would be something in the ballpark of ~1% lower a decade out with Brexit than without. That's not nothing, but it's also not very much - it's very easy to see how a reasonable person could conclude that the sovereignty gain outweighs that.

[Spectral]

I'd argue that in a globalized world, forfeiting your chair in one of the largest organizations is ceding sovereignty, not gaining any.

I don't think I'd find your argument plausible; it's certainly not appealing on its face. Go ahead though?

[Deleted]

But you do, as do other EU countries, there's a huge difference on how many immigrants different EU countries are taking



Facts > your anecdotes

this graph only tells one tiny part of the story. For one it is about asylum applications, and Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled so of course the UK gets low application numbers.

if we look at the last 10 years NET migration has totaled 2.7 million people. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics

[Omega10]

I don't think I'd find your argument plausible; it's certainly not appealing on its face. Go ahead though?

Here is his original quote:

I'd argue that in a globalized world, forfeiting your chair in one of the largest organizations is ceding sovereignty, not gaining any.

What he seems to arguing is that in the past, UK had a LOT of power over how the EU did business with the rest of the world. With Brexit, UK has lost that power.

Maybe this is more important than the restrictions that UK had to abide by in order to keep that power, maybe not. But you seem to be completely dismissing this loss of power, while I would argue that this loss of power is not so insignificant.

[Spectral]

Here is his original quote:

I'd argue that in a globalized world, forfeiting your chair in one of the largest organizations is ceding sovereignty, not gaining any.

What he seems to arguing is that in the past, UK had a LOT of power over how the EU did business with the rest of the world. With Brexit, UK has lost that power.

Maybe this is more important than the restrictions that UK had to abide by in order to keep that power, maybe not. But you seem to be completely dismissing this loss of power, while I would argue that this loss of power is not so insignificant.

That's not what sovereignty means though. Even if it's a loss of absolute power to withdraw (which, obviously, is debatable), it seems like a clear gain in domestic sovereignty to withdraw from the EU. Whether that's worth it is also obviously debatable. I frankly don't have any real opinion on the matter since it seems complicated, I haven't studied it much, and can see upsides and downsides, but it's not obvious to me that Brits shouldn't prefer domestic control to international reach.