BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
0 -
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?0 -
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.0 -
Yet they refuse to accept that we've saved at least £120bn, and likely a lot more from not having to participate in the EU's C19 bailout programsspatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together0 -
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.0 -
yeah, you're right , that loophole will be getting closed soon enough!kingstongraham said:
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer. 0 -
The withdrawal agreement was a unilateral breeze.kingstongraham said:
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.0 -
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
0 -
If we hadn't had one, and hadn't agreed an extension last year, we'd still have left.TheBigBean said:
The withdrawal agreement was a unilateral breeze.kingstongraham said:
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.0 -
With the no fly zones, blockades etc. I've said before, I have no idea why you persist with this purely theoretical argument. The campaign was based around "take back control" not "take back sovereignty" and you accept that point of view.kingstongraham said:
If we hadn't had one, and hadn't agreed an extension last year, we'd still have left.TheBigBean said:
The withdrawal agreement was a unilateral breeze.kingstongraham said:
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.0 -
Except that that control is now in the process of being removed from parliament and placed solely in the hands of ministers. It's becoming apparent that they didn't mean 'our' control.TheBigBean said:
With the no fly zones, blockades etc. I've said before, I have no idea why you persist with this purely theoretical argument. The campaign was based around "take back control" not "take back sovereignty" and you accept that point of view.kingstongraham said:
If we hadn't had one, and hadn't agreed an extension last year, we'd still have left.TheBigBean said:
The withdrawal agreement was a unilateral breeze.kingstongraham said:
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Because people keep saying that we couldn't leave the EU. I'm not saying it would be easy or painless, because we get benefits from being a member of (or aligned with) the EU.TheBigBean said:
With the no fly zones, blockades etc. I've said before, I have no idea why you persist with this purely theoretical argument. The campaign was based around "take back control" not "take back sovereignty" and you accept that point of view.kingstongraham said:
If we hadn't had one, and hadn't agreed an extension last year, we'd still have left.TheBigBean said:
The withdrawal agreement was a unilateral breeze.kingstongraham said:
I think we've proved fairly conclusively that we can leave the EU via a unilateral decision by the UK and this does not need any approval from the other members of the EU.spatt77 said:
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.0 -
So, Brexiters, are you happy with where the agreement is likely to end up?
The proposal in the original EU FTA, which is 'access for anything aligned and EU tarrifs on anything that isn't", and a hard border in the North sea.
0 -
The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.0
-
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
0 -
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
0 -
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.0 -
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.0 -
Argh not truuuuue.TheBigBean said:
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.
e.g. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/740983/Campo_Forte_Portes__2018_.pdf0 -
In your opinion. Why build a self-operating car wash machine when you can employ a few people on minimum wage?rick_chasey said:
Argh not truuuuue.TheBigBean said:
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.0 -
You're operating on the 'lump of labour' fallacy.TheBigBean said:
In your opinion. Why build a self-operating car wash machine when you can employ a few people on minimum wage?rick_chasey said:
Argh not truuuuue.TheBigBean said:
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.0 -
Not that again. I don't think you understand the theory.rick_chasey said:
You're operating on the 'lump of labour' fallacy.TheBigBean said:
In your opinion. Why build a self-operating car wash machine when you can employ a few people on minimum wage?rick_chasey said:
Argh not truuuuue.TheBigBean said:
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.
1 -
Well in your example, what does reducing low wage immigration do that increasing the minimum wage doesn't?TheBigBean said:
Not that again. I don't think you understand the theory.rick_chasey said:
You're operating on the 'lump of labour' fallacy.TheBigBean said:
In your opinion. Why build a self-operating car wash machine when you can employ a few people on minimum wage?rick_chasey said:
Argh not truuuuue.TheBigBean said:
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.0 -
Your approach would work, but only to the extent that you able to introduce minimum wages by sector/job type, so that every employer of relatively low paid labour is forced into a capital investment decision. Note also the impact that employment rights have on this as well. France is extremely productive, but every French employer will do everything they can to avoid hiring anyone hence the higher unemployment rates.rick_chasey said:
Well in your example, what does reducing low wage immigration do that increasing the minimum wage doesn't?TheBigBean said:
Not that again. I don't think you understand the theory.rick_chasey said:
You're operating on the 'lump of labour' fallacy.TheBigBean said:
In your opinion. Why build a self-operating car wash machine when you can employ a few people on minimum wage?rick_chasey said:
Argh not truuuuue.TheBigBean said:
And one of the reasons for that has been the almost unlimited supply of low income labour.rick_chasey said:
Hadn't noticed it.TheBigBean said:
You didn't bang on about those 2030 GDP forecasts which included increased growth due to a higher population?rick_chasey said:
Same sh!t. GDP per head is productivity. This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while.john80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
But re productivity the UK has basically seen zilch growth since the crash , and I've said that over and over and over again.
For example, I think some fruit pickers are paid more than the minimum wage, so to get farmers to spend on capital, they would need the new rate to be higher than the current pay not just higher than the current minimum wage.0 -
productivity growth is widely seen as a driver of GDP growth. You are right that I see it as the be all and end all because with it you are distributing a larger cake. If you look at Blair's Govt it is a good example of a rising tide lifting all boats. Bizarrely it is this that will make the biggest difference to peoples lives as it is those most dependent upon the state who will see the greatest gainsjohn80 said:The main issue with GDP increases as a measure of success as often they are not linked to any benefit for the working population. For example if we all worked and extra 10 hours for the same pay but our companies sold more stuff we would not regard that as a good policy personally but it would boost GDP. Likewise if we had a large immigration plan which boosted GDP but did not invest any of the that money on essential services then most people would not see that as an amazing success. Those that think in terms of GDP such as Surrey Commuter often overlook metrics such as productivity as it does not suit their agenda. I personally would like less GDP growth and more productivity growth as this is what actually boosts standards of living and makes a difference to peoples lives.
0 -
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!0 -
well, were gonna have to wait and see Rick, as always the devil will be in the detail!rick_chasey said:So, Brexiters, are you happy with where the agreement is likely to end up?
The proposal in the original EU FTA, which is 'access for anything aligned and EU tarrifs on anything that isn't", and a hard border in the North sea.0 -
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.0 -
Can you show me where i agreed with you? just because i didn't comment on the other 5 doesn't mean i agreed with you! How can you extrapolate that from my answer?surrey_commuter said:
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.0 -
None of them are an economic upside for the UK.spatt77 said:
Can you show me where i agreed with you? just because i didn't comment on the other 5 doesn't mean i agreed with you! How can you extrapolate that from my answer?surrey_commuter said:
So you gave me six reasons why leaving could be good for the UK economy, I pointed out they were nonsense and you agreed with me.spatt77 said:
#6 "use our veto" Ill think you`ll find the EU has gone over to qualified majority voting due to the troublesome, UK,Hungary and Poland!surrey_commuter said:
so you gave me 6 reasons why leaving will be an economic successspatt77 said:
1. We are not going to stop trading with the EU , it might just be more difficult.surrey_commuter said:
Yep for me it is all about the economy so why don’t you tell me the reasons why you think that Brexit could/will be an economic success.spatt77 said:
John, your wasting your time with Rick and SC, , its all about pounds and pence with them! Im sure if we are all richer after Brexit they`ll come on her and tell us they were actually Brexiteers and they we just giving us the other view point!john80 said:
That is some creative accounting right there.rick_chasey said:https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together
I suspect that like John you will not be able to.
Is there an economic cost that you do not think justifies the extra sovereignty?
2. The growth in the EU is slowing compared with the rest of the world.
3. The EU is a protectionist bloc, trading with 2nd/3rd world countries might help lift them out of poverty.
4. The ease of trade doesn't outweigh the rest of the FOM,ECJ and ever closer union in my book.
5. Just because you do not place any value on sovereignty does not mean it doesn't have any value.
6. What happens if in your world we get to "The United States of Europe" and then you find out there even worse than the UK government? what would be the mechanism to get rid of it?
I suspect like many you wont be able to answer #6 as I've asked before and you haven't given me a answer.
1. is actually a reason why there is an economic downside to leaving
2. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
3. no relevance to uk economic performance post-Brexit
4. that is sovereignty not economics
5. you are agreeing with me
6. nothing to do with economics but i would use our veto
so you can not give a single reason to back up your belief that there will be an economic upside to leaving the EU. in fairness you are not alone as you will not be able to find anything from senior leavers saying there will be.
but as always SC you're only interested in money!
So you can not think of a single reason to back up your assumption that Brexit will be good for the UK economy.
Can you post a link to when the veto was scrapped in favour of QMV for all decisions, ideally one that would state we could not veto the change.
I will rephrase the question. What will Brexit change that could result in an economic upside for the UK.
Surely you can find something that Farage, Gove, Boris or JRM has said?0
