EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[anme]

Let's see what this actually means in practice.

"Replicate our current obligations" could well just mean that we will not impose new protectionist tariffs and quotas that aren't there now.

I haven't seen anything which suggests that we will not remove tariffs, now or in the future.

Are you in favour of protectionist tariffs and other practices, as Donald Trump seems to be? Or are you more of a Thatcherite/Reaganite free trade enthusiast?

Few people seem to appreciate just how far apart these positions are, but let's be very clear - the UK will have to choose between them in the next few years. I remain astonished that so few people in the UK think they should have a say in this choice.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you in favour of protectionist tariffs and other practices, as Donald Trump seems to be? Or are you more of a Thatcherite/Reaganite free trade enthusiast?

Few people seem to appreciate just how far apart these positions are, but let's be very clear - the UK will have to choose between them in the next few years. I remain astonished that so few people in the UK think they should have a say in this choice.

There's a good argument to say that people should not be given a choice, because they simply don't understand the two choices on offer. I could not explain the pros and cons of either approach.

 

[anme]

There's a good argument to say that people should not be given a choice, because they simply don't understand the two choices on offer. I could not explain the pros and cons of either approach.

What's your opinion of the referendum held in the UK earlier this year? I don't think anyone reading this forum would believe that the electorate was well informed about the choice they had to make.

I'm still astonished that British people have so little interest in their own future.

 

[AlterEgo]

What's your opinion of the referendum held in the UK earlier this year? I don't think anyone reading this forum would believe that the electorate was well informed about the choice they had to make.

I'm still astonished that British people have so little interest in their own future.

I thought it was a terrible exercise. Ultimately, most of the public, including me - a Remain voter - voted on gut feel, long-standing personal principles, and so on. I still feel I voted correctly. My principle was that the EU is a great idea on paper, but was beset by waste, inefficiency, and had lost its way. Regardless of that, the best way to change something is from the inside, rather than throwing petrol bombs at it from afar. Even outside the Union, the EU will still exist and continue to greatly affect the UK, including with migrants turning up at the door, yet the Brexiteers have ensured Britain will have NO SAY. Well done lads.

I would say that I care deeply about Britain's future - I am a committed republican and my job means I visit Parliament committees regularly to cover them. I didn't pay too much attention to the campaigns - so much noise, ill-temper, and downright lies from both camps. Though, IMO the Leave camp(s) has their amps turned all the way up to eleven with the rhetoric.

Asking people to determine whether the UK should adopt a Trumpian or Thatcherite approach to international trade is asking for massive trouble. It's not a question for the ordinary man, who does not understand it. I work for a competition regulator and couldn't honestly tell you which would be better for us!

 

[Barn]

Are you in favour of protectionist tariffs and other practices, as Donald Trump seems to be? Or are you more of a Thatcherite/Reaganite free trade enthusiast?

Few people seem to appreciate just how far apart these positions are, but let's be very clear - the UK will have to choose between them in the next few years. I remain astonished that so few people in the UK think they should have a say in this choice.

I'm a free trade enthusiast.

On your second paragraph, once we have 'taken back control' (to use a cliché), international trade policy will once again fall within the competence of our Westminster parliament.

People can vote for parties based, in part, on their international trade policy, as populations in other sovereign countries do. You raise the example of United States presidents, which highlights that the American population has been able to make these decisions where we have not. We will have to get used to asking these questions of our MPs, and they will have to get used to developing answers to them.

This doesn't have to be a binary, once-in-a-lifetime choice. Whilst I obviously wouldn't want the UK to be flip-flopping all over the place, we need to understand that we are developing new freedoms to set our own policy according to the democratic will of the people. This is exciting, and people will develop more of an interest when they realise that our democratic power increases.

In my view, the point you raise about choice and democratic involvement is an argument in favour of a harder Brexit. The more we re-commit to EU structures, the more this becomes a once-in-a-generation choice. With a looser arrangement, we can develop our trade policy democratically, through general election manifestos.

 

[northwichcat]

It seems Paul Nuttall has written to most of the North West newspapers claiming Corbyn is trying to block what the public wants over Brexit. Yet Corbyn said he would vote to trigger article 50 subject to an amendment so that trade deals are protected so Mr Nuttall is trying to win support by misleading the public - very fitting for the leader of UKIP.

 

[anme]

Asking people to determine whether the UK should adopt a Trumpian or Thatcherite approach to international trade is asking for massive trouble. It's not a question for the ordinary man, who does not understand it. I work for a competition regulator and couldn't honestly tell you which would be better for us!

So just to confirm - you're fine with leaving the biggest decisions the UK has faced for several decades in the dubious hands of May, Fox, Johnson and Davis - bearing in mind that the UK's future outside the EU was not even mentioned in the conservative's - or any other party's - manifesto at the last election?

I'm not specifically having a go at you, but at the UK in general. As I've said before, I find this attitude utterly astonishing.

 

[AlterEgo]

So just to confirm - you're fine with leaving the biggest decisions the UK has faced for several decades in the dubious hands of May, Fox, Johnson and Davis - bearing in mind that the UK's future outside the EU was not even mentioned in the conservative's - or any other party's - manifesto at the last election?

I'm not specifically having a go at you, but at the UK in general. As I've said before, I find this attitude utterly astonishing.

I would prefer to have a choice. I would vote for free trade given the choice.

I would prefer the dubious May, Fox, Johnson and Davis over the British electorate any day. The electorate voted for Brexit! I am certain the electorate would also vote for protectionism and tariffs, cementing our status as the local pariahs.

What makes you think the electorate will be any more informed or rational than the (woeful) Tories?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It seems Paul Nuttall has written to most of the North West newspapers claiming Corbyn is trying to block what the public wants over Brexit. Yet Corbyn said he would vote to trigger article 50 subject to an amendment so that trade deals are protected so Mr Nuttall is trying to win support by misleading the public - very fitting for the leader of UKIP.

Paul Nuttalls of the Ukips.

 

[anme]

I would prefer to have a choice. I would vote for free trade given the choice.

I would prefer the dubious May, Fox, Johnson and Davis over the British electorate any day. The electorate voted for Brexit! I am certain the electorate would also vote for protectionism and tariffs, cementing our status as the local pariahs.

What makes you think the electorate will be any more informed or rational than the (woeful) Tories?

I'm not saying the electorate would be better informed - although "have cake and eat it" is probably the most moronic policy statement of the new millennium. I just thought they might be interested. But apparently not.

To me, all options for the UK now look bad (although some are worse than others). My advice remains to get out if you can, while you still can.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm a free trade enthusiast.

On your second paragraph, once we have 'taken back control' (to use a cliché), international trade policy will once again fall within the competence of our Westminster parliament.

People can vote for parties based, in part, on their international trade policy, as populations in other sovereign countries do. You raise the example of United States presidents, which highlights that the American population has been able to make these decisions where we have not. We will have to get used to asking these questions of our MPs, and they will have to get used to developing answers to them.

This doesn't have to be a binary, once-in-a-lifetime choice. Whilst I obviously wouldn't want the UK to be flip-flopping all over the place, we need to understand that we are developing new freedoms to set our own policy according to the democratic will of the people. This is exciting, and people will develop more of an interest when they realise that our democratic power increases.

In my view, the point you raise about choice and democratic involvement is an argument in favour of a harder Brexit. The more we re-commit to EU structures, the more this becomes a once-in-a-generation choice. With a looser arrangement, we can develop our trade policy democratically, through general election manifestos.

Believe me, you will not be flip-flopping all over the place. Trade deals between countries typically take decades to be negotiated and approved, and last more or less indefinitely. That's why the choices made now are so critical.

BTW, members of this forum will no doubt be aware that any international agreement, including trade deals, will include a mechanism to resolve disputes over interpretation, violations, etc. This will be, in effect, a court or tribunal whose decisions are binding over the UK and the other party(s), and therefore will be supreme over parliament. Are you OK with the UK giving up such sovereignty?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not saying the electorate would be better informed - although "have cake and eat it" is probably the most moronic policy statement of the new millennium. I just thought they might be interested. But apparently not.

To me, all options for the UK now look bad (although some are worse than others). My advice remains to get out if you can, while you still can.

I agree that all current options for the UK look harmful in varying degrees.

The English public (and I specifically use the term English) as a whole have rarely been interested in their own destiny. This is partly why we were one of the few countries to retain our monarchy after WWI. Successive World Wars where Britain managed, by luck or judgement, not to be invaded, only entrenched English mentality that we could be entirely self-sufficient. This is an attitude that permeates to this day; our retrospectives on war and Remembrance, I believe, are didactic and inextricably linked to this mentality. We have cared little for our perception overseas, we've poorly addressed colonial issues, we forgot we fought a war in our own backyard for 30 years in NI, we have an unearned sense of moral superiority (see: "British Values"...erm, no, not uniquely British at all and they are mostly Greek and Englightment Christian Values!).

That said, for all its faults, Britain remains an excellent place to live and work, and I am grateful to come home after my travels. Which is why I worry so much about Brexit. Brexit was generally voted for by lower-income white people with poor employment prospects who live in communities vastly changed by immigration. I'm afraid it's these people who also stand to lose most from Brexit.

Brexit has brought home to roost two key realities. First, we're paying the price for never having had a sensible debate about immigration - I used to be firmly pro-immigration but I am having second thoughts about this. Secondly, we're devoid of a national unity. The UK is massively Balkanised with two mainstream and mutually exclusive separatist movements currently ongoing. The gap between rich and poor, north and south, educated and vocational, is unacceptable.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know it's not a "red white and blue" Brexit.

 

[miami]

On your second paragraph, once we have 'taken back control' (to use a cliché), international trade policy will once again fall within the competence of our Westminster parliament.

Assuming the government of the time doesn't decide it falls under royal prerogative.

In the EU tarrifs are subject to the
1) democratically elected EU parliament (where the makeup actually reflects the population, rather than having a party representing the views of 34% of those that voted having all the power)
2) a commission (the executive), appointed by each member government, in the same way that ministers are appointed, and no-less democratic than having Boris Johnson as foreign secretary.
3) the council of the EU, which comprises the head of government of each country (in our case May)

People in the UK can vote for the EU parliament based, in part, on their international trade policy, they can also vote for their own country's government based, in part, on their international trade policy.

So your point seems to come down to it's ok to have a common policy for disparate economies such as the banking sector in london, the fishing sector in Cornwall, and the boat building sector in Glasgow, but it's not ok to incorporate the rest of europe into those policies - despite the similarities the fishing sector in Cornwall has to the fishing sector on the other side of the channel.

I refuse to believe your argument is that we don't have a democratic say in the EU, just that what's good for the EU as a whole isn't necessarily good for the UK. That argument of course works in the UK too -- what's good for the UK as a whole isn't necessarily good for Wales. That argument of course works in Wales too -- what's good for Wales as a whole isn't necessarily good for Bangor.

This was exemplified in March when Wales was struggling with Chinese steel being dumped on the world market at tiny rates. We decided as a country that it would be better for the UK (but worse for parts of Wales) to allow this dumping to continue. Democracy.

As it happens the rest of the EU was also struggling with this dumping, and the EU attempted to bring in tarrifs, but failed because of Osborne's "love affair with China" meaning that Cameron managed to block the tariffs (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...es-steel-industry-to-curry-favour-with-china/ for the story)

In a post-UK EU, the EU would have brought these tarrifs in, and the UK would have not had the tarriffs. This would mean the UK could buy steel cheaply from China. But then what? We could sell that steel to europe, working around the EU tarrifs, and taking a cut. That would be great, but I don't think the EU would be happy with that, so would presumably also put tarrifs on UK steel. OK, so we don't re-export it. Instead we use it to build cars cheaper than France can (as the steel would be cheaper). How would the EU respond to our undercutting there? They'd have to put a tarrif on our car exports that use steel from china and are exported into the EU. Perhaps we retaliate with tarrifs on crappy Italian wine, and then the EU retaliates with tarrifs on our food exports.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

 

[anme]

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

The argument that the EU is undemocratic (often put forward by the elected MEP Nigel Farage) is obvious nonsense only believed by people too stupid to read Wikipedia.

You make many good points. In the end, the idea of the EU is that the European countries are stronger, more prosperous and more peaceful when working together than when divided - noting that European countries are much much smaller than the world's current and emerging powers - the US, China, India and to some degree Russia. Divided we fall indeed. Well, we shall see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My principle was that the EU is a great idea on paper, but was beset by waste, inefficiency, and had lost its way.

Can I ask what *exactly* you think is wrong with the EU? What do you base your claim that it's "beset by waste [and] inefficiency" on? The European Commission employs around 55,000 people for a block of 500 million people. For comparison, Birmingham City Council employs approximately 48,000 people.

 

[Barn]

In a post-UK EU, the EU would have brought these tarrifs in, and the UK would have not had the tarriffs. This would mean the UK could buy steel cheaply from China. But then what? We could sell that steel to europe, working around the EU tarrifs, and taking a cut. That would be great, but I don't think the EU would be happy with that, so would presumably also put tarrifs on UK steel. OK, so we don't re-export it. Instead we use it to build cars cheaper than France can (as the steel would be cheaper). How would the EU respond to our undercutting there? They'd have to put a tarrif on our car exports that use steel from china and are exported into the EU. Perhaps we retaliate with tarrifs on crappy Italian wine, and then the EU retaliates with tarrifs on our food exports.

Hate to break it to you, but you're not developing a novel thought here. Rules of origin provisions are a very well-established part of international trade and FTAs the world over deal with these issues every day.

In the end, the idea of the EU is that the European countries are stronger, more prosperous and more peaceful when working together than when divided - noting that European countries are much much smaller than the world's current and emerging powers - the US, China, India and to some degree Russia

Lovely thought. In reality, shepherding 28 nations each with their own distinct protectionist instincts makes for very difficult international trade negotiations which (as you say above) can take decades.

Nimble little Chile, by contrast, has concluded FTAs with the US, China, EU, EFTA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, South Korea and many, many others. Tariff free access to a far, far, far bigger market than the EU has achieved. It is currently working on India.

 

[AlterEgo]

Can I ask what *exactly* you think is wrong with the EU? What do you base your claim that it's "beset by waste [and] inefficiency" on? The European Commission employs around 55,000 people for a block of 500 million people. For comparison, Birmingham City Council employs approximately 48,000 people.

The EU is a bureaucratic behemoth. Its response to the migrant crisis was slower than an oil tanker trying to turn around - this crisis was/is probably the most serious threat to the EU ever.

Comparing the EU to Birmingham City Council is like apples and oranges. The council runs basic services like libraries, social services and so on, the EU does not. 55,000 is a large number of people to administer a huge volume of laws. The biggest problem with the EU is its scale, which should lead to significant economies, but doesn't. The accounts haven't been signed off for years. The CAP paid farmers to produce goods nobody wanted. Members of the parliament can abuse their allowance and expenses on a large scale. There is much to criticise the EU on when it comes to inefficiency.

 

[Howardh]

The EU is a bureaucratic behemoth. Its response to the migrant crisis was slower than an oil tanker trying to turn around - this crisis was/is probably the most serious threat to the EU ever.

OK, what SHOULD they have done then?
For that matter, what should WE have done??

 

[AlterEgo]

OK, what SHOULD they have done then?
For that matter, what should WE have done??

It does not really matter what they *should* have done in terms of policy.

Anyone who knows even basic leadership knows that no decision is worse than the wrong decision. As it was, the confusion on the ground was such that opportunist Eurosceptic parties were able to easily seize on the authority vacuum, claim that the EU were useless and a threat to the working man, and whip up anti-immigrant sentiment. It is precisely this which formed the threat to the EU's existence, rather than the migrants themselves.

My criticism is of the speed of the decision rather than what the decision ended up being. The EU is not an agile being and suffers from this, much more than single-nation superpower assemblies like Russia or America, which act very quickly.

 

[Howardh]

It does not really matter what they *should* have done in terms of policy.

Anyone who knows even basic leadership knows that no decision is worse than the wrong decision. As it was, the confusion on the ground was such that opportunist Eurosceptic parties were able to easily seize on the authority vacuum, claim that the EU were useless and a threat to the working man, and whip up anti-immigrant sentiment. It is precisely this which formed the threat to the EU's existence, rather than the migrants themselves.

My criticism is of the speed of the decision rather than what the decision ended up being. The EU is not an agile being and suffers from this, much more than single-nation superpower assemblies like Russia or America, which act very quickly.

OK, what would the RIGHT decision have been, and when should it have been made?

Meaning - politics is a doddle this side of the keyboard.

 

[AlterEgo]

OK, what would the RIGHT decision have been, and when should it have been made?

Meaning - politics is a doddle this side of the keyboard.

I've no idea what the right decision should have been. I'm conflicted on what the right thing to do was, but as I've said, the decision should have been made more quickly, the parliament didn't recognise the existential threat posed by the crisis, and it's to their discredit I'm afraid.

Just because I don't know what the parliament should have done doesn't mean my point about speed of movement is invalid.

 

[anme]

Lovely thought. In reality, shepherding 28 nations each with their own distinct protectionist instincts makes for very difficult international trade negotiations which (as you say above) can take decades.

Nimble little Chile, by contrast, has concluded FTAs with the US, China, EU, EFTA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, South Korea and many, many others. Tariff free access to a far, far, far bigger market than the EU has achieved. It is currently working on India.

This misses the point. Chile has a very different economy to the UK. Are countries going to be so keen to sign free trade deals with the UK, which for example heavily subsidises its agriculture, has large portfolios of intellectual property, has a huge and predatory banking sector, etc? It will be much more complicated. BTW, did Chile really secure full tariff free access for *all* goods and services with all those countries? A "free trade agreement" doesn't necessarily cover everything.

You also miss a more important point. Tariffs are a trade barrier, but they are often not the most important. Differing regulations between countries can be a bigger barrier - that's why EU-wide regulations are so critical to prosperity especially in a region where countries are relatively small.

 

[northwichcat]

Nimble little Chile, by contrast, has concluded FTAs with the US, China, EU, EFTA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, South Korea and many, many others. Tariff free access to a far, far, far bigger market than the EU has achieved. It is currently working on India.

South Korean design for a Japanese multi-national built in Chile and sold to the US allows a cheap high quality product to be sold to the American market. Just like Japanese owned Panasonic design some items in Germany, build them in Slovakia and sell them to the UK.

 

[miami]

I've no idea what the right decision should have been. I'm conflicted on what the right thing to do was, but as I've said, the decision should have been made more quickly, the parliament didn't recognise the existential threat posed by the crisis, and it's to their discredit I'm afraid.

Had the result been slightly different in June I trust you would have used this as a way to vote for someone else in parliament in 2020?

Just because I don't know what the parliament should have done doesn't mean my point about speed of movement is invalid.

I don't accept your premise that "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done". Action is often worse than no action.

 

[anme]

The EU is a bureaucratic behemoth. Its response to the migrant crisis was slower than an oil tanker trying to turn around - this crisis was/is probably the most serious threat to the EU ever.

Comparing the EU to Birmingham City Council is like apples and oranges. The council runs basic services like libraries, social services and so on, the EU does not. 55,000 is a large number of people to administer a huge volume of laws. The biggest problem with the EU is its scale, which should lead to significant economies, but doesn't. The accounts haven't been signed off for years. The CAP paid farmers to produce goods nobody wanted. Members of the parliament can abuse their allowance and expenses on a large scale. There is much to criticise the EU on when it comes to inefficiency.

Could you provide some evidence to back up these criticisms?
BTW as someone who has worked for large exporting companies in the private sector, I can assure you that the single market and common regulation provides MASSIVE economies of scale.

 

[AlterEgo]

Had the result been slightly different in June I trust you would have used this as a way to vote for someone else in parliament in 2020?

The next Euro elections are in 2019.

I have always intentionally spoiled my ballot paper with Euro candidates because I have no idea what any of them stood for in Europe, except Ukip. None of candidates have ever canvassed me, and therefore I don't vote for any of them.

I don't accept your premise that "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done". Action is often worse than no action.

It's up to you whether you accept the premise or not, but it remains a fundamental cornerstone of leadership theory. Try attending Officer and Aircrew Selection at RAF Cranwell, do the leaderless exercise, then the led ones, and observe how much more gets done with *any* leadership rather than no leadership.

Certainly when faced with an existential threat it is better to do something than nothing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could you provide some evidence to back up these criticisms?
BTW as someone who has worked for large exporting companies in the private sector, I can assure you that the single market and common regulation provides MASSIVE economies of scale.

Massive economies of scale when it comes to trade, perhaps. I'm talking about the economies of scale within the EU and Commission itself at a bureaucratic level. It is extremely slow and unwieldy. 20% of the staff (that's nearly 200 people) who work for my department, an economic regulator, are designated to work on simply interpreting EU legislation and interweaving it with policy. With Westminster, we have just four people working on it.

The EU is a poorly governed and badly-thought out organisation. The concept is sound, I firmly believe we should have voted to Remain, but it is no use pretending the EU is fabulous when it isn't.

 

[Howardh]

I've no idea what the right decision should have been. I'm conflicted on what the right thing to do was, but as I've said, the decision should have been made more quickly, the parliament didn't recognise the existential threat posed by the crisis, and it's to their discredit I'm afraid.
.

The speed issue is a valid criticism, but the EU shouldn't be criticised fo the decisions it makes if those criticising haven't got an alternative.

Boils down to a twitter conversation when a leaver was asked to list all the negative things the EU had done to their lives.
"Oh, far too many to list here"
"Well, just list one then"
"Er..."

I'll miss the EU because of all the positive impacts on my life. Seamless travel with just my passport, cheaper roaming rates, contingency plans should my flights be delayed or cancelled, the EHIC card, and to a certain extent safety/compatability of electrical goods (ie I've bought plugs etc in the EU safe in the knowledge they are safe there and here).

Will all of the above carry on in future? Maybe, but they certainly would if we'd remained in.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding referendums as a country we rejected the proposal to move to the Alternative Vote system. Yet the Conservatives implemented this for PCC elections anyway following parliamentary votes on whether we should have PCCs and how they should be elected. Yet more people seem to object to having PCCs than to how they are elected.

I have always intentionally spoiled my ballot paper with Euro candidates because I have no idea what any of them stood for in Europe, except Ukip. None of candidates have ever canvassed me, and therefore I don't vote for any of them.

The parties always produce manifestos which are available online or in libraries. Of course in the Euro elections you vote for a party not a candidate and the ones most likely to rebel against their official party policy are the ones at the end of the list who would only get elected is everyone voted for the same party.

You say you know where UKIP stands, here's where the Greens stand on Europe: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/European Manifesto 2014.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's up to you whether you accept the premise or not, but it remains a fundamental cornerstone of leadership theory. Try attending Officer and Aircrew Selection at RAF Cranwell, do the leaderless exercise, then the led ones, and observe how much more gets done with *any* leadership rather than no leadership.

Certainly when faced with an existential threat it is better to do something than nothing.

I wonder if I may relinquish my recently self-imposed exile from this thread as military matters are quoted above. In the Great War, the standard of military strategy on the British side led to what is now referred to as "questionable" decision making that led to the deaths of a great many British soldiers. The phrase of "Lions led by donkeys" is attributable to that particular military episode and the military leadership of those like Haig was called into question.

Would a different non-leadership strategy had led to a different death toll?

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder if I may relinquish my recently self-imposed exile from this thread as military matters are quoted above. In the Great War, the standard of military strategy on the British side led to what is now referred to as "questionable" decision making that led to the deaths of a great many British soldiers. The phrase of "Lions led by donkeys" is attributable to that particular military episode and the military leadership of those like Haig was called into question.

Would a different non-leadership strategy had led to a different death toll?

Are you asking us to compare an army led by generals, even stupid ones, with an army which has no leadership structure at all?

If so, I'd point out that every army in the world has a leadership structure, and that's for a good reason.

 

[anme]

The EU is a poorly governed and badly-thought out organisation. The concept is sound, I firmly believe we should have voted to Remain, but it is no use pretending the EU is fabulous when it isn't.

This is another good example of a "false premise" argument, where someone claims someone else thinks something they don't, and then disagrees with it. No one has claimed the EU is "fabulous". I'm not saying it can't be improved. What thing created by man can't be improved? I'm saying that I simply don't accept that the EU is wasteful and inefficient in comparison to other bureaucracies.

And as I said, the benefits of the EU to the economy and society as a whole are enormous - I think we agree on that.

 

[AlterEgo]

And as I said, the benefits of the EU to the economy and society as a whole add enormous - I think we agree on that.

Yes, agreed, and we are probably looking at the EU through different sets of binoculars that see different parts of the complicated picture, but coming up with a shared conclusion that being inside it is a better thing.

 

[anme]

"Ryanair boss O’Leary favors ‘really hard’ Brexit"
http://www.politico.eu/article/ryanair-boss-oleary-favors-really-hard-brexit/

This story gives a good view on how the rest of Europe sees the UK.