Brexit Benefits Log

[hstripes]

You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.

Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.

[SydneyRover]

You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.

Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.

Yes you have won you are a right champ.


And just for the record I'll put my whole comment up

You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.

Added: I suggest if you wants to discuss the benefits on a whole host of stuff, which you didn't want to before then you show proof not just fisheries etc did this or that, show what the results are, show if the fishermen are happy, what the benefits are exactly, how the catch changed, who owns the boats and the licences, this has all been discussed, not just your version, put some proof on the table.

[SydneyRover]

400 businesses and between 5000 & 7000 jobs have moved to the EU, are we having fun yet?

[hstripes]

You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.

Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.

Yes you have won you are a right champ.


And just for the record I'll put my whole comment up

You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.

Added: I suggest if you wants to discuss the benefits on a whole host of stuff, which you didn't want to before then you show proof not just fisheries etc did this or that, show what the results are, show if the fishermen are happy, what the benefits are exactly, how the catch changed, who owns the boats and the licences, this has all been discussed, not just your version, put some proof on the table.

TBF I initially responded before you added the last paragraph to your post.

You're trying to reel me in to making comments on short term benefits/costs which I've already stated is a pointless exercise given IMO this is a long term decision which should be analyzed and concluded on in the long term. You won't catch me out.

Anyhow we've already established that I agree with you that short term overall there has been a net cost to the decision.

Quite why you can't come to terms with the very basic notion that the more democratic a nation is the more successful it is and the happier its peoples are is totally beyond me however.

[SydneyRover]

you're David Davis and I demand my £5

[hstripes]

you're David Davis and I demand my £5

Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.

[belton rover]

Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.

[SydneyRover]

you're David Davis and I demand my £5

Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.

For someone that can confuse Rome and a democracy and a fishing agreement and democratic reform, my money is on you being David Davis now pay up.

[wilts rover]

Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.

And the mad myopic Brexiteers believe that unless you worship at the cradle of Brexit and praise every decision the glorious Johnson has ever made - you are a remoaner.

Good luck.

[BillyStubbsTears]

A question for you Hstripes.

Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.

[hstripes]

you're David Davis and I demand my £5

Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.

For someone that can confuse Rome and a democracy and a fishing agreement and democratic reform, my money is on you being David Davis now pay up.

You really need to study history before accusing others of confusion starting I suggest with the attached https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic. Also the UK is now an independent coastal state following our withdrawal from the EU who has subsequently come to a fishing agreement with the EU.

If ignorance is bliss I envy your supreme levels of happiness.

[belton rover]

Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.

And the mad myopic Brexiteers believe that unless you worship at the cradle of Brexit and praise every decision the glorious Johnson has ever made - you are a remoaner.

Good luck.

Are you saying that all Brexiteers are mad myopics or that it’s only the Brexiteers who are mad myopics who think this way?

[selby]

  The mad pack  disciples  out hunting one again I see. Six years of hurt.

[hstripes]

A question for you Hstripes.

Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.

Sorry but this is a preposterous question. When and why would a UK government (historically all pro EU) announce things it wanted to do but couldn't because EU law prevented it?

I can answer your point another way by stating some of the things I would propose were I a politician. (Like a politician note how I am changing the point of reference of the question to suit myself)

1) Pursue an international trade strategy based on liberal free trade and an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs as opposed to a protectionist strategy pursued by the EU for most of its existence
2) Pursue free trade deals based solely on British interests i.e. financial services rather than centred on German Engineeing or French and Italian farm produce
3) Positively pursue a free trade deal with the US something the EU has spectacularly failed on over 40 years with our closest ally and the biggest economy in the world
4) Even more importantly pursue a free trade deal with India in conjunction with encouraging UK firms to have their products manufactured in the Indian democracy where workers van vote to improve their rights as opposed to in a despotic Communist regime in China
5) Remove unfair VAT on things such as feminine hygiene products and domestic gas and electric supplies
6) Have a wholescale review of which VAT band all products are placed in again for fairness but in relation to food to help encourage a better diet and a reduction to the obesity epidemic that is crippling the NHS
7) A worldwide focussed immigration policy that doesn't encourage companies to prioritise workers from the EU on administrative cost grounds and therefore encourages the employments of the best from around the world improving economic outcomes.
8) An immigration policy which doesn't incentivise low skilled workers to migrate into areas of relatively low wages and high unemployment such as Doncaster where they are not needed and their presence artificially dampens wages and puts pressure on public services in our poorest areas.
9) An agricultural policy better at encouraging farmers to carry out 'good' for the environment from flood protection, maintenance of hedgerows and protection of wildlife habitats - as opposed to one based on grants per acre of land held
10) A fisheries policy which better protects our fish stocks for the long term with a ban on 'factory ships' for instance
11) Allow the dredging and clearance of riverbeds where it will prevent potential flooding
12) Oh and of course saving 1,000s of lives by acting soon as possible in the procurement of vaccines or other drugs during a medical crisis including actively supporting the pharmaceutical industry in both it's development of any medicine and in bolstering its supply chains

And that's off the top of my head without doing any deep thinking or external studying.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm not asking what YOU would like to see happen that's entirely irrelevant to the question I asked.

And your response to my question really stretches credibility. Are you REALLY saying that no Govt in the 45 years from 1975 to 2020 EVER had to do something that it really didn't want to because the EU insisted, without any hint of displeasure being released? Really? Only in my experience, Governments seem eager to pin the blame for ANY unpalatable decision on anyone they can.

But I'll play along. Let's try an easier question.

Can you give me an example of any policy that a British Govt has been forced into by the EU against the will of Parliament?

[selby]

  I knew it would happen hstripes, anyone who thinks for themselves are like a new kill for the pack, I can see the next few days being entertaining, your every word will be being checked and dissected as we type all over the world.
 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Not at all Selby.

Hstripes is perfectly at liberty to claim the EU overrode our democracy. I am at liberty to ask for examples.

You could join in. I'm sure Mike Graham has told you plenty of examples.

[hstripes]

Guter Gott!

My response was entirely relevant to the discussion. I have opined that winning back democratic powers will allow the government to make rules and laws in the better interest of the country. You have queried this, albeit crack-handedly, by querying in effect 'how' through asking the question you did originally. I explained quite clearly why this was a preposterous question (you may disagree but that is hardly going to encourage me to answer no matter how you reword or make it 'easier' for someone apparantly like me to understand). I then gave a quite a detailed list of specifically how and what laws the government could introduce to do this underlining the central theme of my argument.

I do wonder if you simply don't like my detailed response and so respond back in the manner that you do in order to suggest some base lack of intelligence in me in order to bolster your own viewpoint? Note I clearly stated why I felt your question was silly and why I wasn't responding to it directly.

You do understand that under the EU our democratically elected politicians in Parliament did not have the power to approve or disapprove of EU Regulations decided on by unelected politicians in Brussels?? (Important to ask this as your latest question suggests you may have been at a misapprehension on this matter).

[drfchound]

  I knew it would happen hstripes, anyone who thinks for themselves are like a new kill for the pack, I can see the next few days being entertaining, your every word will be being checked and dissected as we type all over the world.
 

….with more condescending tone and questions too I bet.

[Glyn_Wigley]

A question for you Hstripes.

Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.

Sorry but this is a preposterous question. When and why would a UK government (historically all pro EU) announce things it wanted to do but couldn't because EU law prevented it?

I can answer your point another way by stating some of the things I would propose were I a politician. (Like a politician note how I am changing the point of reference of the question to suit myself)

1) Pursue an international trade strategy based on liberal free trade and an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs as opposed to a protectionist strategy pursued by the EU for most of its existence
2) Pursue free trade deals based solely on British interests i.e. financial services rather than centred on German Engineeing or French and Italian farm produce
3) Positively pursue a free trade deal with the US something the EU has spectacularly failed on over 40 years with our closest ally and the biggest economy in the world
4) Even more importantly pursue a free trade deal with India in conjunction with encouraging UK firms to have their products manufactured in the Indian democracy where workers van vote to improve their rights as opposed to in a despotic Communist regime in China
5) Remove unfair VAT on things such as feminine hygiene products and domestic gas and electric supplies
6) Have a wholescale review of which VAT band all products are placed in again for fairness but in relation to food to help encourage a better diet and a reduction to the obesity epidemic that is crippling the NHS
7) A worldwide focussed immigration policy that doesn't encourage companies to prioritise workers from the EU on administrative cost grounds and therefore encourages the employments of the best from around the world improving economic outcomes.
8) An immigration policy which doesn't incentivise low skilled workers to migrate into areas of relatively low wages and high unemployment such as Doncaster where they are not needed and their presence artificially dampens wages and puts pressure on public services in our poorest areas.
9) An agricultural policy better at encouraging farmers to carry out 'good' for the environment from flood protection, maintenance of hedgerows and protection of wildlife habitats - as opposed to one based on grants per acre of land held
10) A fisheries policy which better protects our fish stocks for the long term with a ban on 'factory ships' for instance
11) Allow the dredging and clearance of riverbeds where it will prevent potential flooding
12) Oh and of course saving 1,000s of lives by acting soon as possible in the procurement of vaccines or other drugs during a medical crisis including actively supporting the pharmaceutical industry in both it's development of any medicine and in bolstering its supply chains

And that's off the top of my head without doing any deep thinking or external studying.

As you keep using the phrase 'free trade deal', I'd like to know what you consider what that consists of.

[hstripes]

Glyn see point 1  'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'

[selby]

  I think they have got their hands full with this lad Hound, the call will be going out for the reserves to be brought up, oops here we go again too late.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn see point 1  'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'

I don't know what quotas you're talking about so I can't comment on that.

You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance.

Oh, and as for India, as they are a GSP country they already get non-reciprocal import preference. I can't see them throwing that away for the sort of reciprocal trade agreement that you're proposing.

PS Would you also be wanting to get rid of Anti-Dumping Duty?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hstripes.

Forgive me if this sounds condescending (I do get accused of that) but I think you are making a fundamental error of definition here.

Your long list of what you believe to be benefits of being outside the EU is fine. Folk will have different opinions on them and that also is fine.

But in every case, (apart from one or two which are simply wrong) these were policies that we voluntarily agreed to. They were not imposed upon us by an undemocratic behemoth.  They were agreements that we made because our Parliament judged that the benefits flowing from the EU more than balanced the costs of collective agreements.

So I'll ask again. Has the EU ever imposed a requirement on us either to act or not to act that our Parliament was against? Because if it hasn't, the argument that "we had to leave the EU to restore democracy" looks a bit threadbare.

[hstripes]

Glyn see point 1  'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'

I don't know what quotas you're talking about so I can't comment on that.

You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wish

Oh, and as for India, as they are a GSP country they already get non-reciprocal import preference. I can't see them throwing that away for the sort of reciprocal trade agreement that you're proposing. India's GSP status was revoked in June 2019. GSP status is hardly a significant barrier to agreeing trade deals regardless

[Glyn_Wigley]

The government seems to think India is a GSP country!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trading-with-developing-nations

Imports from these countries have reduced rates of import duty on certain goods outlined in the UK GSP tariff rates.

Algeria
Congo
Cook Islands
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Kenya
Micronesia
Nigeria
Niue
Syria
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam

[hstripes]

Hstripes.

Forgive me if this sounds condescending (I do get accused of that) but I think you are making a fundamental error of definition here.

Your long list of what you believe to be benefits of being outside the EU is fine. Folk will have different opinions on them and that also is fine.

But in every case, (apart from one or two which are simply wrong) these were policies that we voluntarily agreed to. They were not imposed upon us by an undemocratic behemoth.  They were agreements that we made because our Parliament judged that the benefits flowing from the EU more than balanced the costs of collective agreements. These were things our parliament may or may not have agreed with. If they disagreed with then they were signed up to for what they considered 'the greater good'. A judgement with which the people in a democratic vote rejected.

So I'll ask again. Has the EU ever imposed a requirement on us either to act or not to act that our Parliament was against? Because if it hasn't, the argument that "we had to leave the EU to restore democracy" looks a bit threadbare.As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so of course by leaving the EU we are restoring our democratic rights in these areas. Your thought process is exceptionally muddled here I'm afraid

[Glyn_Wigley]

You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wish

So what you're wanting isn't free trade agreements but preferential trade agreements - or is it something else? Just trying to understand what you're wanting to get.

[hstripes]

What I find fascinating about the responses to me on this thread is that my original post (post 1093 on the thread) was entirely neutral and I thought fairly uncontroversial simply stating Brexit was a long term decision and we should wait till the longer term before assessing its success or failure. Nowhere have I expressed how I voted or how perhaps I would vote now in hindsight.

And yet I'm getting queried quite aggressively (at times) and insistently by people who are clearly dyed-in-the-wool remainers who cannot seemingly accept even a neutral viewpoint on this subject. This has led me down a rabbit warren of defending why Brexit may be a success long term where again I have initially expressed only neutral views. Leading to further queries and on and on ad nauseum.

There is a strange unhealthy bitterness and lack of respect for democracy and people's collective and individual views that afflicts certain Remain voters which goes beyond plain understandable disappointment at the outcome of the vote.

This bitterness is unhealthy for our country and our democracy as this very affliction is what led the Labour Party to commit political suicide at the last election with its ridiculous 2nd referendum policy. A death by suicide which may last for the next one or two elections and is not healthy in a country with effectively a 2 party system. A death by political suicide that can even seemingly survive the cataclysmic way the Tories have dealt with the pandemic.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so."

Yes. Of course. Because having left the EU and lost the benefits which came with membership, we will now judge in a different light  the costs and compromises which were the corollary to that.

In simple terms, you are confusing apples with oranges.

Just as you are confusing "choosing to accept collective policies" with "having those policies undemocratically imposed on us."