I had a friend who has now decided to become a Brexit Party parliamentary candidate. There are some things friendship cannot survive. But I did try to work out what the advantages of his fervent No Deal enthusiasm might be, since the speech he showed me that he proposes to deliver on the stump only referred to deals we can already do with China and the USA, and what I consider to be some rather nasty racist tropes. So I drew myself a table. This is what I came up with in about fifteen minutes. Please feel free to add suggestions for both columns*.
| Costs of No Deal | Benefits of No Deal |
| 1. Trade will be harder, and cost more, so prices will rise | 1. There will be peace in the Conservative Party for a week or so |
| 2. Holidays will be harder to arrange and will cost more | 2. The Brexit Party may cease to have a purpose |
| 3. Many skilled people will leave the UK at cost to us all | 3. President Trump will be happy, for a week or so |
| 4. Millions of EU citizens who have lived in the UK for years will face stress, having their family lives disrupted and the risk of deportation | 4. We can ignore EU law, so long as we do not want to trade with them in any significant way |
| 5. Many EU citizens will face the risk of significantly increased costs for living here | 5. We can make our own trade deals, so long as they are more favourable to other countries and migration than those the EU offers |
| 6. Many British citizens living in the EU might lose their jobs or their right to live in the countries where they live, work, have families or have retired | 6. We can be a tax haven, so long as we can face losing the trade deals that this will cause |
| 7. Multinational companies will leave the UK, most especially in the manufacturing sector, but also in finance | 7. We can promote tax abuse so long as we can face the loss of international cooperation that follows from doing so |
| 8. The NHS will be short staffed | |
| 9. UK agriculture will be disrupted by staff shortages | |
| 10. Many of our universities will fail because of a shortage of students | |
| 11. We will spend years, and maybe decades, trying to negotiate new trade deals | |
| 12. New trade deals will reduce consumer safety standards | |
| 13. New trade deal will require that we lose control of migration from many countries | |
| 14. Delivering the Green New Deal will be much harder | |
| 15. Worker protection will be reduced | |
| 16. The burden of tax will be shifted from companies onto employees | |
| 17. Inequality will increase | |
| 18. The UK will become a tax haven - making it much harder to do trade deals | |
| 19. In the short term many companies will go bust because of trade disruption that will destroy their cash flows | |
| 20. Unemployment will increase because companies will fail | |
| 21. There's a real risk to people's health because drugs may not be available in the UK | |
| 22. Our costs of government administration will increase because we can't share costs with other EU member states | |
| 23. We will lose the protection of the European Court of Human Rights | |
| 24. We will probably lose our seat at the UN | |
| 25. There is a very good chance that the UK will break up | |
| 26. There is a real risk of renewed strife in Northern Ireland |
* My former friend is not invited to comment: those promoting racist views, or who accuse me of racism for supporting Remain (apparently the EU is a white Christian conspiracy to which I subscribe) for are not welcome on this blog.
I add this in case it is easier to read (click on it for a larger version):
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Losing a seat at the UN?
I’d be in favour of that as it’s a talking shop for all manner of crackpot anti-vapers to dynastic dictators – but seriously Richard – you are suffering Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
There are 10 independent territories in Europe that were never communist nor EU members and they are all absolutely functional places with a few ups and downs.
The great advantage of devolved government, and I include Scottish independence as desirable here, is that if you mess up your own system, then you can fix it without having to hire lobbyists to go to Brussels to get 27 other countries with different cultures to do it the same way as you. It’s about respecting our right to be different.
Your claim re 10 locations proves how utterly ridiculous your thinking is
None are like the U.K. for a start
None have tried Brexit
For heaven’s sake stop being so callously indifferent now
You said that None are like the U.K. for a start actually reinforces my main point
All the countries and territories are different. As a result it is absurd that we should design and secede to a federal system which insists there are common European values such as being in an organisation whose primary fiscal purpose is centralised subsidies to large farmland owners.
All the countries of Europe are different, and that is what makes this a wonderful continent, just. Trying to impose a system that says we are alike is a non-finisher, as implied by your reply that we are not all alike.
The EU is not federal
Why make this stuff up?
You claim that the “EU is not federal”
There are many definitions of federal – I like this one “relating to or denoting a centralised government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation”
Taking the EU’s number one budget item which you surely know, what is your problem with devolving this to Member States?
By this definition, the EU is absolutely not a federal state
You know how little it does spend, I presume?
How many of those 10 independent nations have agreed to harmonisation of their laws with the EU?
And how many pay to have access to EU markets?
Those are major contributory reasons, why those states do okay.
And if you’ve listened to Brexiters at all, you’ll know that both are anathema to them.
Any hint of paying a fee for market access, or aligning with EU rules, is denounced as ‘surrender’, ‘slavery’, ‘vassalage’, ‘treason’, or other hyperbole.
Given that inflammatory language, Brexiters have painted themselves into a corner, from which they cannot move, without incurring the wrath of the same mob they intended to set upon their opponents.
So, your assertion, that the UK can succeed after a No-Deal exit, is dependent on Brexiters carrying out a 180-degree reversal of everything they have said and done since the refetendum, and appealing to the mercy of their own ‘betrayed’ followers.
@Mr Feather
How many of those 10 independent nations have agreed to harmonisation of their laws with the EU?
None have agreed to harmonise all their laws.
And how many pay to have access to EU markets?
None of them. Google ‘Norwegian Ambassador Reveals Norway Doesn’t Pay for EU Single Market Access’
And if you’ve listened to Brexiters at all, you’ll know that both are anathema to them.
That is not true. E.g. I am a Brexiteer. It’s not anathema to me. Dr Kristian Niemietz is a Brexiteer – it is not anathema to him. The referendum result was pretty close to 50:50 with a lot of Brexiteers landing marginally on the leave side of the argument on balance.
Any hint of paying a fee for market access, or aligning with EU rules, is denounced as ‘surrender’, ‘slavery’, ‘vassalage’, ‘treason’, or other hyperbole.
This is denounced by some – but this is by the sort of people that are in a minority. The nuanced middle ground ( rejected by our host ) doesn’t make this claim. The UK public simply voted not to be a EU member. Remember that there are multiple versions of a No-Deal Brexit of which some are sub-optimal but not disastrous according to the Bank of England. The one that results in a 2007 recession has already been averted. Hence my claim that our host suffers from Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Let’s be clear: no EU state has harmonised all its laws with the EU
You are making this up
And I have said I can live with a middle ground
But at the same time I realise you are using a false identity in the sense that you also post under others and are as such a troll
Your game here is up
BDS says:
“Losing a seat at the UN?”
You might if you can’t find somewhere to park your nukes…(?)
Indeed, in the latter stages of the Scottish IndyRef the British Navy did a proper study of where they could move Trident to in the event of us voting Yes. Sensible forward planning for a possible event.
They concluded there was nowhere since it would present an unacceptable risk to put it or near Plymouth (meaning people in Plymouth are apparently more valuable than people in Helensburgh or Glasgow). So unless the govt wants to evict at least one and probably two or more established Devon or Cornwall fishing villages there is nowhere.
Note they cannot be sited on the North Sea Coast or Irish Sea Coast as they are too shallow to allow the subs to ‘disappear’. Only out along the SW peninsula are there accessible deep waters.
They are also in Faslane and Coulport as at least back then the steepness of the loch sides made a direct hit by a nuke harder. The lands around the coves in Devon and Cornwall are not as high so the protection will be lesser.
Two coves are required at least, one to base the subs and one where the warheads can be removed and refitted with bunkers to store spare warheads. This process is inherently risky and dangerous. The third stage fuel tanks are packed around the warhead and are filled with hydrazine.
The LibDem idea to put them on cruise missiles is pretty much the only viable option to retaining both a first strike and retaliatory capacity.
Peter, an informed member of Scottish CND.
This is an addendum to Peter’s post about the siting of UK’s nuclear subs and warheads:
In my view there is no greater reason for Scotland becoming independent than the ending of this abomination. Faslane and Coulport are some 30 miles to the west of Scotland’s largest city and the whole of Scotland’s central belt lies downwind of them. The population of the Central Belt is in excess of 3 million people who live in daily danger of nuclear wipeout or radiation sickness. We’ve had to live with this threat for 50 years and, in addition, our roads are regularly used to transport radioactive materials en route to/from Faslane in high-speed convoys, which significantly adds to the risks.
The people of Scotland, naturally enough, don’t fancy this in the slightest, but we weren’t given a say in the UK Gov’s decisions, so the ending of this nightmare scenario through independence can’t come quickly enough.
Richard I teach History and Govt and Politics at sixth form.. the thing I drill home to my students is always identify the source bias when reading any sort of information. I am a personally voted to remain but I am well aware of the flaws of EU membership not only at this point in time but with an eye as to how the institution might evolve into a federal state with fiscal as well as monetary union and how the terms might change as a consequence..The bias in your article here so so one way I hope it is made partly “tongue in cheek”??
I wish it was
It isn’t
Tell me what the benefits are – I’m happy to add real ones
Chris Dickson says:
” an eye as to how the [EU] might evolve into a federal state with fiscal as well as monetary union and how the terms might change as a consequence.”
Well, to believe the EU can survive with the Eurozone at its core with only monetarist mechanisms to control the economy is optimistic. In fact by now it ought to be fairly obvious that it borders on absurdity and there needs to be fiscal levers in place to stabilise the Eurozone.
But given that the UK is not part of the Eurozone, and not likely to be in the foreseeable future there is considerable flexibility, the internal organisation of the monetary union is not (IMO) a direct and immediate threat to the UK economy and not a reason for bailing out of the EU as a trading bloc. and loose political union with a multitude of common aims and interests.
If you seriously think Richard’s list of pros and cons is tongue in cheek you have been invited to supply some advantages which might flow from a ‘No Deal’ Brexit. All I’ve heard in three or so years is fantasy claims about sovereignty, which we are not lacking, and ‘taking back control’ which is a meaningless empty phrase. Indeed when our sovereign parliament has sought to take back control of a wayward government under a maverick Boris Cummings agenda, all we’ve heard from some quarters is bleating; with no rational explanation of why.
I’m not content with Boris Johnson stamping his foot and saying ‘because I say so’. I’d like a bit more detail……
It’s not a very balanced list is it ?
I wonder if anyone can think of some pros for No Deal ?
The only one I can think of is that some people won’t believe it is a really bad idea until they’ve tried it and can actually see the chaos around them. 🙁
I really tried to come up with Pros
I really can’t
When Andy Crow asked”I wonder if anyone can think of some pros for No Deal ” I assumed he meant for ordinary people (the Many), and couldn’t. Of course there are MANY benefits for the Few, and especially their vulture and spiv wing. Loads. Disaster capitalsim usually gets to pick-over very poor or politicaly volatile countries, but Dominic Cummings and thirty odd years of neoliberal austerity has gifted the Disaster Capitalists the fifth/sixth(?) largest economy in the world.
“The parties with the most gain never show up on the battlefield.”― Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
That I accept
Imagine. If every week after brexit Jim Bowen appeared in the tv and said to the Leavers, “Everybody loves a bit of Bulley, but here’s what you coulda won and still had if you’d not voted to leave”.
It was blogger Chris Dillow who put that idea in my head (stumbling and mumbling blog) and it wasn’t brexit, but the political *choice* of the regressive neoliberal *political class*, austerity, that he was writing about.
“The costs of austerity crept up on us gradually rather than as a sudden shock, so voters became accustomed to them. And we never see the road not taken. There’s no Jim Bowen telling us “here’s what you could have won.” The costs of austerity are underweighted because there’s no clear contrast in the public mind between actual policy and the feasible alternatives.”
And so it will be in post-Brexit Britain. Unless of course the GE gives us a Labour victory and we’re saved from little england isolationism at the very last moment (brexitus interruptus).
Qwerti Boi beat me to it – there are indeed benefits to the few who have bet against the British economy and whom will make a mint out of the chaos (credit default swaps I believe).
I’ve had a go at some other benefits too, just to make up for any perceived lack of objectivity from our host (who always seem balanced to me if I am honest):
1) Holders of CD swaps will make loads of money and this will be recorded on GDP figures (?) either giving them a boost or making the appalling pre and post GDP figures look slightly better than utter shite. As a result, sales of British made luxury cars and yachts undergo a renaissance.
2) Many may well benefit from seeing that they have made a really bad mistake in supporting Leave as the quality of their lives deteriorates, holidays take longer at ports and airports, food queues start happening in a non-communist country and friends and relatives start to die as medicines either dry up or we have to buy dodgy medicines from under regulated countries like China and the USA. Also, those dead immigrant bodies washing up along our eastern coastal shores really ruin our breakfasts since Calais now refuses to protect ‘our borders’ (yawn!) like they used to. The questions becomes ‘Why did we leave again?’ ‘Whose idea was that’? .
3) BREXIT is so bad an experiences that the Tory party loses the next election – whenever that it is – and become unelectable for generations (fingers crossed).
4) There is a funding and manpower crisis in Adult Social Care and because so many of our elderly carers have been immigrants who are no longer welcome, the Government of the day bites the bullet and starts having to pay well above minimum wage to get people to do this undervalued and vital work for once (fingers crossed).
5) The penny drops with the British people that they are in fact a rather small country who actually relied on the EU rather than the other way around and there is a growth in those wanting to go back in asap (this could happen – a bit like Withnail’s ‘We’ve gone on holiday by mistake’ scenario in Withnail & I).
For example the loss of regional development grants from the EU are not replaced by domestic ones. Folk begin to look back at those heady EU days and want them back.
As you can tell I am really struggling to think of any more benefits. So having had a go, I think Richard is right. How can you be biased in a situation that is just so wrong, so unnecessary, so ill informed and mal-conceived?
What is that line by David Bryne the song ‘The Facts of Life’: ‘If chimpanzees are smart then we can close our eyes; and let our instincts guide us – OH OH OH No-oo-oo!!!
It may take years but I think we will regret leaving the EU in the final analysis and my only fear is that they will not let us back in. We’ll be like scared children banging on our parents bedroom door to be let in after having had a nightmare.
Pilgrim, your No5 reason mentions the potential loss of EU regional development grants without Westminster replacing them. On the basis of prior experience I’d say it’s a racing certainty that the WM Gov will not replace them and, if it does, they won’t be to the value of the former EU grants. The reason Scotland, Wales and NI (and I’m sure parts of England like Cornwall too) benefited from the EU grants was that WM had consistently failed to invest in improvements in amenities in these areas.
We should bear in mind too that the amenity improvements related to factors which urban dwellers take for granted (e.g. safe drinking water, non-polluting disposal of sewage and waste water, safe roads and piers, community centres and services etc, etc) but which had been lacking in rural areas. In other words services which are rightly regarded as essential rights for all citizens, but were seen as non-essential by successive UK Gov’ts.
Agreed
@Ken Mathieson
I wish I could accuse you of exaggerating the failure of UK governments to support their out of town regions. 🙁
If populations of the said regions didn’t believe the shite in the MSM they might see it, but clearly they do not.
Andy,
We’re obviously on the same side here, but, if anyone anywhere has to be persuaded about the value of the EU’s investment in the UK’s regions, they only have to look around in these areas and take note of the signs with EU badging showing precisely what they’ve invested their money in. If that doesn’t convince them that the EU has cared about their amenities and helped them to achieve living standards which successive WM Govs couldn’t give a toss about, they’re either blind or stupid.
@Ken Mathieson says:
“….. they’re either blind or stupid.”
I’m inclined to think ‘stupid’. On the other hand I’ve heard it alleged that EU badging of projects has been less assiduous in England than it has been in Scotland…..(?)
Turning the biggest trade blog in the world into a “rival” competitor: lets not laugh out loud at the hugely serious potential consequences of that….oh and of course a massive increase in smuggling leading to a consequent loss of revenue and increase in criminality …because you have neither the means nor ability to monitor your ports and borders properly.
I can see this working well!
“The government set out in the Customs Bill White Paper (published October 2017) that Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR) will not be extended to goods entering the UK from the EU. This note confirms that if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement then LVCR will no longer apply to any parcels arriving in the UK, this aligns the UK with the global direction of travel on LVCR. This means that all goods entering the UK as parcels sent by overseas businesses will be liable for VAT (unless they are already relieved from VAT under domestic rules, for example zero-rated children’s clothing).
For parcels valued up to and including £135, a technology-based solution will allow VAT to be collected from the overseas business selling the goods into the UK. Overseas businesses will charge VAT at the point of purchase and will be expected to register with an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) digital service and account for VAT due.
The digital service is an online registration, accounting, and payments service for overseas businesses. On registration, businesses will be provided with a Unique Identifier which will accompany the parcels they send in to the UK. They will then declare the VAT due on those parcels and pay this via their online account. This ensures the process of paying VAT on parcels does not become burdensome for UK consumers and businesses. To give overseas businesses sufficient time to familiarise themselves with their new obligations, the online service will be available for businesses to register in early 2019, before the UK leaves the EU”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-for-businesses-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/vat-for-businesses-if-theres-no-brexit-deal
And the next part!
“On goods worth more than £135 sent as parcels VAT will continue to be collected from UK recipients in line with current procedures for parcels from non-EU countries, guidance on these procedures can be ​found here​ in HMRC notice 143. VAT will also continue to be collected in line with current procedures for all excise goods sent as parcels and potentially in cases where their supplier is not compliant with HMRC’s new parcels policy. HMRC is working with the relevant industry stakeholders and will provide further information in due course!
That may need to be blogged….
For a pro, how about isolation of U.K. brexiteers away from the rest of Europe? Can the costs of no deal be considered as the bad side effects of chemotherapy preventing the spread of cancer?
You COULD add the potential breakup of the UK to the ‘benefits’ column …okay, joking, but I’m an SNP member… (smiley emoticon here)
The only real advantage of Brexit would be the ability to more easily prevent the free movement of Capital. http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/to-which-questions-is-brexit-the-answer
Ironically this is an advantage which Brexiters are woefully unlikley to suggest as desirable!
And that speaks volumes
Good one
@BDS
“The UK public simply voted not to be a EU member.”
Is this a naive assertion? Right out of Rees-Moggs sleepy dopy mouth…?
The UK public, the small percentage that voted Leave out of the whole voting population, voted for, or rather against, a variety of issues in that fraudulent and misleading excuse for a ref, as well you know if you’re at all in the campaigning loop.
Most of the Leavers I’ve talked to in the last 3 and 1/2 years (in their hundreds by now) just want a better lot. They don’t know how to get it, but they just want a better life, and just believed the Leave campaign. They wanted to kick the government’s austerity out, and “forinners”…even when there were only a dozen in their town of 10 000 or more…just swallowing the Daily Mail from start to finish.
Why pretend otherwise? Are you interested in short-changing something too?
One thing is certain, plenty of those pushing for no deal are doing just that right now, making the most of this disaster for “the UK public”.
As for those more interested in power than in wealth, they’re also preparing a zombie society, where the great “UK public” will just put up and shut up, while being fed games and BS by MSM infusions.
After all, the Leave campaign proved a success, a great trial run, they’ll have all the leisure to carry on with zombifying “the UK public”…what will be left of it anyway…unfettered by EU laws.
Good luck with that. I’ll be off. We’ll leave you to it.
But not until we’ve tried our best for “the UK public” and our children.
Just one minor point on cost of No Deal – no. 23 European Convention on Human Rights. The convention has nothing to do with the European Union. It was agreed through the Council of Europe which is not the same as the European Council. There is a European Court of Human Rights which is not the same as the European Court of Justice. Of course Parliament could repeal the Human Rights Act which incorporated the convention in UK law.
I am aware – but do not think the other side are
Richard,
I have evangelical Christian “friends” who claim the reason they voted leave was because the EU is an Anti-Christian organisation- presumably to do with the reach of the Roman Catholic Church – so calling you out as a Christian shows how hopelessly inconsistent the anti EU people are and they will use anything to twist the argument
I did find that accusation very bizarre
Good morning!
I’m still hoping for the U.K. not to leave the EU or, if it does, that it comes back as soon as it can.
It is very easy to destroy, much easier than building up something (as imperfect it maybe).
Thank you Mr. Murphy for not giving up this fantastic blog, and all my support for facing those trolls.
Thank you
Add to costs
Retired British citizens living in the EU may lose their right to paid health cover and thus may be forced back to UK to take up lower cost housing and put further stress on the NHS.
I have come back just in time!
Benefits of No Deal –
1. A perceived notion of independence and free will in dealing with the outside world,
2. A sudden desire on the part of Government to make promises of large amounts of additional public funding on Health, Education and Policing.
Costs of No Deal –
1. A realisation that when trading with the EU there is no independence as the UK will have to abide by the rules and regulations of the bloc irrespective of whether the UK is in or out of the EU. Any trade agreements with any other part of the world will require the UK to follow the rules of the stronger partner. Still at least we have a deal with the Faroes.
2. The sudden withdrawal of the promises to provide additional funding on Health, Education and Policing once the electorate has been conned into re-electing a Pro-Brexit coalition of Farage and Johnson on the grounds that the government has to make tough decisions because of the collapsing economy.
🙂
I think EU reform would be preferable, but arguably there’s a potential pro in the possibility of replacing the current agricultural subsidies with some that encourage a more sustainable model of farming – rather than giving money to already rich landowners.
Not that I expect the Tories would ever do anything so useful.
CAP reform is vital, I agree
I am not a blinkered enthusiast
but but but … blue passports….
🙂
Hi Richard,
I do believe that if we continue to have neo-liberal governments in the UK, that there are some benefits to the lowest skill-level workers in ending free movement (in terms of reducing the supply of labour and competition for housing).
I stress that this is only a potential benefit as a result of the poor policies followed in the UK and would also probably be overwhelmed by the negative impact on the economy as a whole.
It is also true that this is a “benefit” to leaving the single market rather than no-deal specifically – so maybe I have argued myself out of this one!
One of the “advantages” that is often quoted of no-deal is that we won’t have to pay the EU anything – but this is again only true if we don’t want to trade with them in future.
You’re not making a great case
@Richard
“You’re not making a great case”
That’s the trouble with trying to play devil’s advocate – the lack of belief shines through 🙂
🙂
I can’t think of anything pro about leaving the EU.
Rather than asking people to provide that (although I would be interested and note that nobody has come forward so far with any serious suggestions of perceived benefits), can I repeat a plea to anyone in favour of leaving the EU, whether that be with or without a deal… please answer this question.
[b]What, either personally or nationally, do you believe we will be able to do once we’ve left the EU that we cannot already do as members?[/b]
Please, just tell me one thing. Because in all honesty, nobody I’ve ever spoken to so far has been able to.
Quite so
Just one thing? Easy. Decide what subsidy policy we have, if any, with respect to environmental programmes and hand outs to farmland owners. Likewise fishing policy.
The CAP is the biggest item in the EU budget after all. Throw in ‘rural support’ which is basically supporting the same sort of rent seeker, then you are closing in on 4/9ths of the EU budget incident on or going to owners of qualifying farmland. Also note that over half the EU land area gets a CAP subsidy. This is a really big deal, and CAP reform is not in the Remain prospectus I’m afraid.
If this corner of the internet was the only source of guidance you had, you would think that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway were really rubbish places. They’re not of course. All are more prosperous on the standard measures than their nearest EU neighbours.
So that’s enough to trash the whole of the economy?
And let’s not mention oil in Norway. free energy in Iceland and tax havens in Switzerland
That would not do
So, we can re-define the financial side of our farming industry. That sounds attractive, but it’s really a specious argument.
We import more than 50% of our vegetables from the EU. If we leave, we need to ensure that we are still competitive and, importantly, maintain good relationships with European trading partners. If we redesign subsidies to a model which EU countries decide offers an unfair advantage to UK farmers over their own… let’s call it protectionism, cos that’s what it would be (and wouldn’t Mr Trump be proud), I bet you a penny to a pound that prices of EU exports to us will rise to make up the difference. That’s if they continue to trade with us at all (that’s right, France, I’m looking at YOU).
So, having the freedom to play with Agri Policy is a real double edged sword. Given how reliant we are on imported vegetables, I would advise caution. I like potatoes, but I don’t want to be stuck with just potatoes because there’s a trade war with Europe.
Much better to reform the CAP (and it does seriously need looking at) from within. We’re too closely intertwined for a unilateral solution.
just because we [i]can[\i] do a thing… 🙂
Thank you
Well said
I asked the Brexit Party candidate, as suggested here:
“What, either personally or nationally, do you believe we will be able to do once we’ve left the EU that we cannot already do as members?”
The answer was:
“DIRECTLY elect those at the top level of the political engine of the legislature, and not have to rely on several levels of agency. ( As an economist, you should be aware of the “Hazard of Agency”).
Hmm, Actually, it is probably the ability to get rid of them directly through elections”
That was it
So apparently it’s to improve democracy
I think we have a vastly bigger issue at home
But the answer is inidcative of the absolute pausity of reasons for Brexit
So your Leave supporting (ex) friend seems to believe that, if we leave the EU, we will somehow be able to directly elect members of the House of Lords? Cos that meets the description of “the top level of the political engine of the legislature” (obviously not counting Her Maj).
Really?
It’s breathtaking, isn’t it?
Yes
He also thinks that the EU is our government….
he is standing as an MP
Bloody Hell – he believes THAT? And he wants to be an MP?
We’re doomed. Goodness me. Too many of the ones we’ve got now are well below par.
Will you stay in touch do you think?
Not sure…..
Savid Javid is promising a significant policy response in the event of a no deal. The BBC correspondent Norman Smith says this could be tax cuts.
Brexit will, by almost all accounts, reduce government revenue, and we shall see a widening of the deficit which the Conservatives claim credit for reducing over the last nine years.
I am wondering if I am losing the plot or they are.
They’re losing their plot….
That’s the key point
I’ve rarely come across a more prejudiced summary of Brexit than yours. Well done for that.
I invite you to offer the advantages as I can’t find them
That is an unhelpful post. Can you not give us some tangible positive effects for which you hope? Please do not just say “sovereignty” which is meaningless in the modern world.
Well, if Richard’s article is biased, please provide an alternative view. I would be genuinely interested in hearing a calm description of the benefits of Brexit without all the usual hyperbole. Really, please, educate me.
Thank you Richard. If a few politicians could speak with such calm eloquence to explain why Brexit is not a good idea, the vote may have gone differently and we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. The fundamental problem is that people have confused genuine concerns about what is wrong with the EU with a kind of teenage reaction to what to do about it (throw a tantrum).
I really would.like to hear from someone with as much eloquence explain the pro-Brexit position. All I see in this thread is the same bluster we hear from Boris and Farage. Someone? Anyone?
The North Sea fishing stocks and Cod can be protected and recover from reckless overfishing and exploitation by country’s trading their influence when then have no connection to the sea. Belgium Holland France and trawlerd may need to pay proper dues for our fish stocks or quid pro quo give up some of their crops of paella, tulips, sauerkraut in the return. The return of healthy fish like herring to the diet.
Green New Deal will with mass implementation allow local reinvestment across the country in those neglected communities.
The Uk could in the exceptional turbulence market conditions intervene with state aid or protection to allow febrile markets to settle. Mr Markets temporary insanity allowed to settle.
The remove of unwanted views until there is only an echo chamber of the blogger can …… sorry leaving the EU won’t fix that.
Crops of paella?
What sort of drivel is this?
When I read Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’ (about the Britain’s involvement in the EU’s formative years) I think it mentions that Britain shared its fishing grounds under great pressure from the EU, leaving the negotiating team feeling as if they had given away too much ground in the treaty to our disadvantage.
Even if this is indeed case, why could the UK not go back in and renegotiate? Or, when the UK got its rebate, why not use that in some constructive way for its fishing industry?
In fact, if the UK knew that our fisheries might suffer as a result of membership, what exactly has it done to help our fishing industry?
I wager that it has not done much. Why? Because the prevailing culture in most of the EU membership (but especially the UK) is not to interfere in the running of markets – to let things fail sort of naturally and bugger the social consequences.
This is where things get really confused about Europe in the public’s eye.
Our failure to get a reasonable fisheries deal is portrayed or felt of as a defeat to the ‘overbearing’ EU – not a UK failure. As the very Neo-liberal British Government lets its productive capacities wain and we think it OK to import more, the EU still gets the blame – even though we know that supporting your industrial base is not banned by EU rules actually at all.
This infernal ‘logic’ has badly polluted our views on our closest neighbours.
The other thing to say about our fisheries is that when I hear fishermen on the radio, most if not all of them can’t wait to leave – even though the damage to our fisheries has already been done (what have they got left except years of light fishing to get the stocks back up – if they ever do)? And as our seas warm and as the cod moves further North – what then? Ouch.
But it seems that our fisherman expect us to leave just because of them and their concerns – there seems to be no interest in the consequences for other forms of business. It’s so short sighted – but what can you expect from poor domestic policy over the years where we don’t seem to value what fisherman do because of rampant price competition in retailing and the economic race to the bottom?
Nice to see a Leaver make such a well argued, literate, intelligible argument for the benefits of leaving the EU, eh?
Crops of paella and sauerkraut? Assuming your drivel isn’t just a feeble mickey take, perhaps you’d like to make another attempt at explaining the benefits of leaving the EU?
A short example of Brexit .
Buy a British machine before Brexit and ord
er a spare part after Brexit . The UK supplier
cannot supply the spare part with the label:
” Certificate Eropean” because it is not made in the EU ! And, the customs people will not let it through anyway!
That’s just one of the minor problems
A short definition of Brexit:
The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.
🙂
I have to say ‘Well done that man’ – very good indeed.