Voting for Brexit

[Cyberman]

What it will do, however, is make us poorer.  Cautious forecasts estimate a 2.5% hit on GDP - that takes about £50 billion out of the economy.

If the Tories are still in power, I wonder which section of the population will feel the -2.5% hit the most?

[Dave]

Melancholy, stusmith asked you to describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU. You replied:

- the ability to make one's own laws, 100%, fully driven by, and accountable to, Parliament - which is fully elected and accountable to the UK electorate.
- a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court
- the return of our fishing stocks and the ability to manage them as we wish
- the ability to trade with whomever we wish whenever we wish

stusmith and marplexile have dealt with much of that already.  Each member state of the EU has its own laws, and those form the vast majority of law in each country. EU law applies only to trans-national issues - treaties, elections to the European Parliament, directives and regulations relating to the Single Market (Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement).  Since 1999, when records became available for the first time in an accessible format, the UK has voted “no” to legislation on 57 occasions. It has voted “yes” 2,474 times and abstained from voting 70 times. This translates into the UK opposing 2% of legislation, abstaining on 3% of it, and supporting 95% of it.

Above all, leaving these aspects of the EU behind will in no way make your life or your children's better, melancholy, Can you seriously imagine your son or daughter saying on 1 February next year, if the Tories have managed to wrench us out of the EU, 'oh mummy, mummy,  I'm so happy that we now have a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court '   

What it will do, however, is make us poorer.  Cautious forecasts estimate a 2.5% hit on GDP - that takes about £50 billion out of the economy. 

[stusmith]

MF - the recent points made by various contributors about trade are valid - if we want to continue trading with our largest trading partner we will need to meet the standards they require - no ifs no buts. We should then get a trade deal and going forward but we'll always have to adhere to rules that we will have little or no influence over  - that is not a plus.

You refer to making our own laws and not being subservient to a 'supranational court' - trade disputes between countries are settled by an international court or the WTO - so in this area we remain 'subservient'.

as for an independent and fully accountable judicial system - what do you think we have now? Perhaps you can explain how the judicial system is neither independent or accountable. Our system is not perfect but it is certainly independent and accountable.

I also fail to understand what you mean when you write that we can trade with who we wish - we do that now !!! The EU has over 100 trade deals giving UK importers and exporters preference to markets all over the World, These vanish when we leave - you cannot think that's a good thing - or can you?

as for your 'wrong' comments earlier in this thread - as an example I refer to those re foot and mouth.  Both outbreaks you refer to had nothing to do with the EU or EEC.

Finally, If you don't know what's on the other side of a closed door but it might not be as good as what you have now - which is pretty damn good - why would you open the door and go through.

Basically, you have no idea if any kind of Brexit will work. What we do know is that what we currently have works for UK Trade and the vast majority of the population. Remember, the majority of the electorate did not vote to leave !!

[marpleexile]

Hard Brexit:
- the ability to make one's own laws, 100%, fully driven by, and accountable to, Parliament - which is fully elected and accountable to the UK electorate.

Well, we will as long as we're not making a law that impacts upon any trade or business we'd like to do with the EU or the US, in which case we'll have to do what they tell us to do or we won't be able to trade with them. So kinda like it is now, except without the ability to influence the EU laws that we'll have to follow anyway, or the ability to tell the US where to stick it as part of the EU trading block.

- a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court

Good point, I long for the day when my employer can mercilessly exploit me, and my government can abuse my human rights with impunity.

- the return of our fishing stocks and the ability to manage them as we wish

I'm pretty sure that it was the British government that unnecessarily sold out the fishing industry, but even if it wasn't, it is such an insignificant part of the British economy (0.1% of our GDP) that it's just not even worth talking about. Which is probably why all the little Englanders won't shut up about it!

- the ability to trade with whomever we wish whenever we wish

We can do that now.

What you mean is the ability to *try* and negotiate a better trade deal than the one that the EU has negotiated (where it has one). Obviously there will be individual cases where for a specific sector, we can negotiate a better deal in a specific market, but the reality is that we'll just have to take the s***y end of the stick in every market that matters, as we'll no longer have the bulk bargaining power of the EU behind us.

[Melancholyflower]

That's a completely fatuous comparison. Brexit is more akin to Manchester United deciding they don't want to play in the Premier League any more and withdrawing, only to start trying to negotiate a series of matches against individual clubs

I was using it to point out how futile it is to even begin to demonstrate how something can progress when nothing has yet been agreed or decided.
How is it fatuous?

In essence, Russia. You may have see it mentioned in the news if you've been paying attention. If you haven't seen that, I wonder what else you've missed

I was asking a question because I was genuinely flummoxed by the suggestion. Now you've mentioned Russia, I've seen a lot of rhetoric about the so-called Russian menace and a "new Cold War" but no actual evidence. Show me some, and specifically how it threatens freedom and democracy.

It isn't the only bastion, as you well know, but don't say as it does't serve the point you're trying to make.

Which point do you think I *was* trying to make?

So using each of those two scenarios as the basis for your answers, can you deal with stusmith's question: please describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU.

Hard Brexit:
- the ability to make one's own laws, 100%, fully driven by, and accountable to, Parliament - which is fully elected and accountable to the UK electorate.
- a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court
- the return of our fishing stocks and the ability to manage them as we wish
- the ability to trade with whomever we wish whenever we wish

Those are just some of the areas which would, in my view, have a direct positive impact on me and my descendants.

Soft Brexit - well, again, it depends how soft, and how committal. I'll have to give you my preferred soft brexit. 
- With Labour's set-up (i.e we'd be half-out instead of half-in as we are now), nothing much would change, we'd probably pay a little less but have no influence over the rules that came down from on high (though what influence we have had in the past is debatable)
- The Norway option (membership of the EEA) would be a reasonable compromise to enable a gradual progress to full independence.

I will qualify all the above by saying:
- I have no confidence in our current political class to deliver this, or develop it
- Our whole governmental and political system has become so closely intertwined with the EU it will make exit more difficult than it could or should have been (certainly in 1975 when the first referendum was held, or even in 1992 when a second referendum *should* have been held)
- Therefore, I favour a long-term gradual movement away

And now, I would invite stusmith again to please to show how my earlier points were wrong.

[Dave]

The difference could be between a complete severance - whereby you have 100% control over the borders and 100% control over any trade agreements you make, and 100% control over any laws that you make (an actual nation state in the true sense), or a lower vassal hanging on like a limpet, still stuck in the single market and customs union (which seems to be what Labour wants) and basically still following EU rules.

OK Melancholy, fair enough. Those are two possible variants of Brexit - if you like, the hardest and the softest, and of course there are many others in between. So using each of those two scenarios as the basis for your answers, can you deal with stusmith's question: please describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU.

Why is the EU any better at freedom and democracy than anywhere else?

Because we invented it, and spread it all round the world.  Democracy, from the Greek 'demos' - the people. The people elect the government.  It's not perfect, but as Churchill said, ' democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest'.

Sadly we're still at "opinion" stage because of the incompetence of our political class and the way they have behaved. That's basically because they didn't want it.

Agreed that they have been extraordinarily incompetent.  But that's not because they didn't want Brexit. On the contrary, they eventually got around to voting for it on 21 October!  But Prime Minister Johnson then pulled the bill and called a General Election. 

The problem isn't that MPs don't want Brexit. The problem is that they can't agree on the sort of Brexit they want, and they will not compromise.  That's why we are where we are.   

[nbt]

as usual all we get is the mantra and no actual thought. what rules do you want to set? why can you not set them now? what happens when the rules "we" set mean  we can;t trade with our current markets?

[amazon]

That's a completely fatuous comparison. Brexit is more akin to Manchester United deciding they don't want to play in the Premier League any more and withdrawing, only to start trying to negotiate a series of matches against individual clubs

We have control over our borders already. Show me how we don't? Remember, freedom of movement doesn't mean freedom to stay - under current EU lesgislation, we are permitted to require people to return to theor ountry of origin after a certain perdion of time if they are not empliyed and contributing to society. The fact that the UK government have chosen not to implement these rules (unlike, say,  Austria), is a problem with OUR government, not the EU.

With WHOM are we going to form trade agreements ? Our biggest trading partner is the EU, they're right on our doorstep and we already have a zero tax agreement with them, that we're now hoping to rip up in the vain hope that as a single player we MIGHT be able to get a better deal than a major bloc - oh and don't forget that given we will have to continue trading with the EU when brexit does happen (there's no way we could afford to stop trade), we will have to continue abiding by the rules and standards they set, but we will have no longer have any say. It beggars belief, truly.


In essence, Russia. You may have see it mentioned in the news if you've been paying attention. If you haven't seen that, I wonder what else you've missed

It isn't the only bastion, as you well know, but don't say as it does't serve the point you're trying to make.
Of course they can, but as the saying goes - together we stand, divided we fall. It's much better to stand united and support each other as part of a single group than it is to try to meet separately for each minor point

You still haven't pointed out the actual concrete benefits, but have  - again - highlighted some negative points

Out Out Out we can set our own rules then

[nbt]

How will Manchester United perform after they sign several as yet unknown players in the January window?

That's a completely fatuous comparison. Brexit is more akin to Manchester United deciding they don't want to play in the Premier League any more and withdrawing, only to start trying to negotiate a series of matches against individual clubs

The difference could be between a complete severance - whereby you have 100% control over the borders and 100% control over any trade agreements you make, and 100% control over any laws that you make (an actual nation state in the true sense), or a lower vassal hanging on like a limpet, still stuck in the single market and customs union (which seems to be what Labour wants) and basically still following EU rules.

We have control over our borders already. Show me how we don't? Remember, freedom of movement doesn't mean freedom to stay - under current EU lesgislation, we are permitted to require people to return to theor ountry of origin after a certain perdion of time if they are not empliyed and contributing to society. The fact that the UK government have chosen not to implement these rules (unlike, say,  Austria), is a problem with OUR government, not the EU.

With WHOM are we going to form trade agreements ? Our biggest trading partner is the EU, they're right on our doorstep and we already have a zero tax agreement with them, that we're now hoping to rip up in the vain hope that as a single player we MIGHT be able to get a better deal than a major bloc - oh and don't forget that given we will have to continue trading with the EU when brexit does happen (there's no way we could afford to stop trade), we will have to continue abiding by the rules and standards they set, but we will have no longer have any say. It beggars belief, truly.

Who is threatening freedom and democracy in Europe?

In essence, Russia. You may have see it mentioned in the news if you've been paying attention. If you haven't seen that, I wonder what else you've missed

Why is the EU the only seeming bastion against this threat?

It isn't the only bastion, as you well know, but don't say as it does't serve the point you're trying to make.

Cannot countries negotiate together without an overarching bureaucracy? 

Of course they can, but as the saying goes - together we stand, divided we fall. It's much better to stand united and support each other as part of a single group than it is to try to meet separately for each minor point

You still haven't pointed out the actual concrete benefits, but have  - again - highlighted some negative points

[Melancholyflower]

Melancholyflower makes several points that are basically wrong.

stusmith, then you'll be able to show - factually and without opinion - how and why my points are wrong?

Can you explain how we are going to be better off after Brexit - only facts please, not opinions or hopes.

Facts are impossible without knowing what kind of Brexit we will get. How will Manchester United perform after they sign several as yet unknown players in the January window?

Sadly we're still at "opinion" stage because of the incompetence of our political class and the way they have behaved. That's basically because they didn't want it.

The difference could be between a complete severance - whereby you have 100% control over the borders and 100% control over any trade agreements you make, and 100% control over any laws that you make (an actual nation state in the true sense), or a lower vassal hanging on like a limpet, still stuck in the single market and customs union (which seems to be what Labour wants) and basically still following EU rules.

Dave - I'm glad you're saying that everyone is in danger of taking peace for granted, and not just people who voted for Brexit, for example!  Yes, there were strong impulses against war from many people after 1945, but not just from Jean Monnet and the Benelux "founding fathers".   *No-one* wanted more war.

Who is threatening freedom and democracy in Europe? Why is the EU the only seeming bastion against this threat? Cannot countries negotiate together without an overarching bureaucracy? 

Why is the EU any better at freedom and democracy than anywhere else? Given its track record of ignoring "negative" referenda results against the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties for example (until they curiously came up with results that it approved), given the bullying of Greece so it wouldn't leave the Eurozone, given the Council pushes decisions through QMV even if some countries don't agree with them, and given the EU Directives that flood into this country, how is that democratic?

[stusmith]

Melancholyflower makes several points that are basically wrong.

However, what Melancholyflower hasn't done is answer the most pertinent point raised:

 Insert Quote

it is interesting that Brexit supporters cannot explain or describe how their lives or those of their children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU

Can you explain how we are going to be better off after  Brexit - only facts please, not opinions or hopes.

[Dave]

Explain who is taking it for granted, and how?

'It' in Melancholy's question refers to peace. I had written 'those of us who were born in the years following WW2 have lived out our entire lives in the longest continuous period of peace between the countries of Western Europe for 2,000 years. We must never ever take that for granted.'

To answer Melancholy's question, I think we are all in danger of taking peace for granted. The vast majority of the UK population have never known anything different, so it's hardly surprising.

But our parents and grandparents lived though the most terrible times. Mine never talked about it much - maybe blotting it out is a good way to cope. But you've only got to read about the Nazi genocide in the 1930s and early 40s, or of the astonishing loss of life in WW1, to realise how powerful and heartfelt was the motivation of the EU's founding fathers.  Nearly 20,000 young British soldiers (some barely out of their teens) were killed on just one day, 1 July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Never again!

But as one of those founding fathers (Winston Churchill) famously said, 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.  There are wars going on all over the world, right now - in Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan, of course, but also in several Africa countries. And we in Europe could so easily find ourselves sliding into war again.  So we should never take peace for granted. 

The European values of freedom and democracy, which are under threat from elsewhere in the world and even, to a lesser extent, from parts of the EU itself, are so important, and breaking up the EU would be a real threat to our capacity to uphold them.   

I would urge anyone who still wants Brexit to reflect on one question: why do Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin want Brexit? 

[andrewbowden]

Absolutely nothing to do with the EU.  It was domestic decision taken at the time.

Just for the state of clarity, whilst the EEC had measurement directives from the early days, we were already heading to metric when we joined.  The first EEC directive on measurements was completely inline with existing UK government policy of moving to metric.  We'd made that decision. 

When the pace of metrication began to slow down in the late 1970s, the UK asked - and got - several exemptions that it wanted on the process.  Which is why we still buy beer in pints, and have road signs in yards and miles.

If we hadn't been in the process of converting to metric, it's quite possible that the EEC's measurement directives would have been worded differently.  Because we had say in these things...

[andrewbowden]

The comment I'd like to make would just cause hassle for the moderators.

I'm amazed at what gets people wound up - have things really gone so wrong for people that they are scared of millimetres?

#MarpleMetricResistance .

Here's a fun fact.  Imperial measurements in this country are officially defined in metric and have been since 1985.  For example, all imperial lengths are defined in terms of the Yard.  But the yard itself is defined as 0.9144 metres.

It was also this act that made metric the default in retail, and that stopped the use of things being sold in pints apart from beer, cider and re-usable milk bottles.

Absolutely nothing to do with the EU.  It was domestic decision taken at the time. 

[andy+kirsty]

The comment I'd like to make would just cause hassle for the moderators.

I'm amazed at what gets people wound up - have things really gone so wrong for people that they are scared of millimetres?

#MarpleMetricResistance .
 

The ability to allow labelling of products in Imperial units only is very important. For me, getting rid of compulsory use of the hated metric system (born of the French Revolution and the ideas which inspired it), would be reason enough to leave the EU.