EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[HSTEd]

Many remainers would be more accepting of Brexit if anyone could come up with some real positives and benefits to this country compared to what we have now in the EU.

I've been asking for over two years and I still haven’t heard of one concrete reason. Plenty of headline rallying calls and misunderstandings but not one reason.

Because it will allow a future left wing government to finally reverse the excesses of Thatcherism with regards to infrastructure and transport without having to beg the likes of the Germans for permission that they are never going to give?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Because it will allow a future left wing government to finally reverse the excesses of Thatcherism with regards to infrastructure and transport without having to beg the likes of the Germans for permission that they are never going to give?

Which specific excesses would you like to see removed and why would we need the permission of "the likes of the Germans" to do that?

 

[Howardh]

Many remainers would be more accepting of Brexit if anyone could come up with some real positives and benefits to this country compared to what we have now in the EU.

I've been asking for over two years and I still haven’t heard of one concrete reason. Plenty of headline rallying calls and misunderstandings but not one reason.

It would be interesting if, for Brexit to go ahead, the government offered shares in Brexit, so if our economy improves after we leave, shareholders can get a nice dividend, and if Brexit fails then their shares they have bought become worthless. In other words, put money where their beliefs are. Just wonder how many shares the public would buy? Could we raise £10bn??
If that sounds a bit flippant, well the financial reality of a declining economy is we get much less in tax, so we can't fund health, education, defence etc so we have to raise taxes, meaning people have less to spend to boost the economy etc. A downward cycle. The one plus is that Sterling would collapse thus benefitting our tourist industry...which we would be putting off by insisting on visa-waivers, long queues at immigration...
If shares were available today for the country if we remained, I'd lob a couple of grand right now!

 

[Howardh]

Because it will allow a future left wing government to finally reverse the excesses of Thatcherism with regards to infrastructure and transport without having to beg the likes of the Germans for permission that they are never going to give?

Could you please back that up with evidence? Thanks!

 

[Bromley boy]

But the Leave side did not tell us that we might be poorer. It was £350 million a week for the NHS and forward into the land of golden opportunities — no word about a possible down side with much less attractive features. And what when the jobs that go are those of the very people who strongly supported Brexit? I trust they will acept the outcome as a result of their choice for freedom from the EU and not start demanding support and subsidies that would be paid out to a significant ewxtent by the areas the voted to stay.

The remain side certainly assured as we would be, through project fear. In fact we were assured the world would end if we voted leave, and were promised a “punishment budget” by George Osbourne.

 

[Bromley boy]

What exactly do you mean by "determine its own future" and how is that a benefit, especially as you admit you may be poorer?

Many remainers would be more accepting of Brexit if anyone could come up with some real positives and benefits to this country compared to what we have now in the EU.

I've been asking for over two years and I still haven’t heard of one concrete reason. Plenty of headline rallying calls and misunderstandings but not one reason.

I don’t want policies dictated by Brussels affecting my daily life, I don’t want the EU to have any influence over the governance and legal system of this country.

You may not agree with that but I can assure you it is very much a concrete reason for myself and many others!

 

[thejuggler]

We are still waiting for the 'dictators' evidence list.

 

[HSTEd]

Which specific excesses would you like to see removed and why would we need the permission of "the likes of the Germans" to do that?

The rewriting or outright abolition of the Electricity Directive, the directives relating to telecoms unbundling and essentially all of the recent rail directives, for a start.
These mandate that the current structure for the railways, the telecoms and electricity systems essentially be maintained forever.

Since I don't agree with any of those structures as they are essentially Thatcherite constructs.....

And getting them rewritten would be essentially impossible given the ascendency of Thatcherites across Europe. It would be essentially impossible to win the vote over the replacement directives.

Could you please back that up with evidence? Thanks!

Go to the EU law website and read the likes of the Electricity Directive.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don’t want policies dictated by Brussels affecting my daily life, I don’t want the EU to have any influence over the governance and legal system of this country.

You may not agree with that but I can assure you it is very much a concrete reason for myself and many others!

Care to give us examples of policies dictated to by Brussels affecting your everyday daily life?
Apart from the fact that the UK used to be a major player within the EU when it comes to legislation and directives (which means that many things eurosceptics love to complain about, the British actually had a hand in creating, meaning that those certainly weren't "dictated by Brussels"), how many EU directives and laws actually negatively affect you on a daily basis?

 

[dosxuk]

I don’t want policies dictated by Brussels affecting my daily life, I don’t want the EU to have any influence over the governance and legal system of this country.

You may not agree with that but I can assure you it is very much a concrete reason for myself and many others!

But even in the event of a no-deal Brexit, they will still have a large amount of influence over your daily life. They're a large trading block, that means they get to set the rules if we want to trade with them, which we will. Our products will still be made to meet EU regulations, regulations which we will no longer have any say in setting, but will affect us none the less.

When even countries with the trading power of China are enacting EU regulations in order to make that trade easier, how anyone can even start to entertain the idea that we will just do as we want after a no deal is completely beyond me.

 

[Howardh]

The rewriting or outright abolition of the Electricity Directive, the directives relating to telecoms unbundling and essentially all of the recent rail directives, for a start.
These mandate that the current structure for the railways, the telecoms and electricity systems essentially be maintained forever.

Since I don't agree with any of those structures as they are essentially Thatcherite constructs.....

And getting them rewritten would be essentially impossible given the ascendency of Thatcherites across Europe. It would be essentially impossible to win the vote over the replacement directives.



Go to the EU law website and read the likes of the Electricity Directive.

I've read the Wikipedia page on it....and...??? As a mere customer and user of power, I'm perfectly happy with my supplier, it's customer service and it's pricing, OVO.

Electricity customers should be able to choose their supplier freely and ensure they have a real and effective right to choose their supplier.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Market_in_Electricity_Directive

Where's the negativity? (er, see what I did there??)

 

[HSTEd]

I've read the Wikipedia page on it....and...??? As a mere customer and user of power, I'm perfectly happy with my supplier, it's customer service and it's pricing, OVO. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Market_in_Electricity_Directive

Where's the negativity? (er, see what I did there??)

It requires the currently overly complex, dysfunctional and expensive energy market be maintained forever.
It means that the government cannot use its borrowing powers to build low lived generating plant with extremely low marginal operating costs.

We could have electricity prices below the current price of domestic gas.
But EU says no.

And we could have a simple pricing structure that everyone could understand and could be described with a short document, but the EU says no.

There is no real reason to have this insane treadmill where people get ripped off unless they are constantly changing suppliers, beyond the fact that the Thatcherites want speculators and businessmen to make vast sums of money for doing very little of value.

 

[Howardh]

It requires the currently overly complex, dysfunctional and expensive energy market be maintained forever.
It means that the government cannot use its borrowing powers to build low lived generating plant with extremely low marginal operating costs.

We could have electricity prices below the current price of domestic gas.
But EU says no.

And we could have a simple pricing structure that everyone could understand and could be described with a short document, but the EU says no.

As a consumer this means nothing to me. My supply is easy to understand, cheap enough and people using less to save helps the environment. But I'll take your word for it that suddenly everything will become better after we leave; I'll take note and watch.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be interesting if, for Brexit to go ahead, the government offered shares in Brexit, so if our economy improves after we leave, shareholders can get a nice dividend, and if Brexit fails then their shares they have bought become worthless. In other words, put money where their beliefs are. Just wonder how many shares the public would buy? Could we raise £10bn??
If that sounds a bit flippant, well the financial reality of a declining economy is we get much less in tax, so we can't fund health, education, defence etc so we have to raise taxes, meaning people have less to spend to boost the economy etc. A downward cycle. The one plus is that Sterling would collapse thus benefitting our tourist industry...which we would be putting off by insisting on visa-waivers, long queues at immigration...
If shares were available today for the country if we remained, I'd lob a couple of grand right now!

Isn’t that called the Stock Market?

 

[Bromley boy]

Care to give us examples of policies dictated to by Brussels affecting your everyday daily life?
Apart from the fact that the UK used to be a major player within the EU when it comes to legislation and directives (which means that many things eurosceptics love to complain about, the British actually had a hand in creating, meaning that those certainly weren't "dictated by Brussels"), how many EU directives and laws actually negatively affect you on a daily basis?

50,000 plus laws originated by Brussels.

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/p...llenge-facing-lawmakers-following-brexit.html

A total of 52,741 laws* have been introduced in the UK as a result of EU legislation since 1990, according to the Legal business of Thomson Reuters, the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals.

Asking whether they affect me negatively missed the point. Whether they are positive or negative is irrelevant when my objection is to their existence in the first place.

Where's the negativity? (er, see what I did there??)

All together now, it’s time to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and embrace Brexit!

The football is on later so we will get to watch another bunch of overpaid clowns making a mess of things, makes a change from PMQs.

 

[AM9]

... No you wouldn't. The only people who would are those who have money invested in certain ways that mean they will see a nice return from it.
For the rest of us, a no deal situation would be a very bad thing.

Yes I would as I'm not talking about pure money issues. I have sufficient resources to live in the style that I want. I have no mortgage, a reasonable amount of savings which would probably cover me for likely unforseen medical and social care needs, even without selling my house. For these resources to be exhausted, the nation would need to be so far down the route of general poverty that there would be riots in the streets. Even the most incompetant exit from the EU is unlikely to take us there unless we have a constitutional change that removes our right to free elections.
The above is not a boast, my resources are not exceptional (within the top 5-10% of the population), but I have not and will not have a life ambition to grab every penny whether I need it or not just because I can tread on other less fortunates around me. So my statement in post #9731 holds, it isn't to score points and this care for others is not a sanctimonious gesture. None of my pleasant lifestyle is down to any family (or other) financial/property inheritance either.

 

[Bromley boy]

But even in the event of a no-deal Brexit, they will still have a large amount of influence over your daily life. They're a large trading block, that means they get to set the rules if we want to trade with them, which we will. Our products will still be made to meet EU regulations, regulations which we will no longer have any say in setting, but will affect us none the less.

When even countries with the trading power of China are enacting EU regulations in order to make that trade easier, how anyone can even start to entertain the idea that we will just do as we want after a no deal is completely beyond me.

This is all very true of course, but I suppose I see Brexit as a step in the right direction.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes I would as I'm not talking about pure money issues. I have sufficient resources to live in the style that I want. I have no mortgage, a reasonable amount of savings which would probably cover me for likely unforseen medical and social care needs, even without selling my house. For these resources to be exhausted, the nation would need to be so far down the route of general poverty that there would be riots in the streets. Even the most incompetant exit from the EU is unlikely to take us there unless we have a constitutional change that removes our right to free elections.
The above is not a boast, my resources are not exceptional (within the top 5-10% of the population), but I have not and will not have a life ambition to grab every penny whether I need it or not just because I can tread on other less fortunates around me. So my statement in post #9731 holds, it isn't to score points and this care for others is not a sanctimonious gesture. None of my pleasant lifestyle is down to any family (or other) financial/property inheritance either.

So first of all none of that explains how you would benefit from a no deal Brexit (rather than it just not negatively affect you).

Secondly, you do realise a no deal Brexit means things like no flights between the EU and the UK, visas required for travel, chaos at ports which could easily lead to food and fuel shortages if not dealt with right, etc etc?
You say "even the most incompetant exit from the EU is unlikely to take us there" but a no deal Brexit is the exact thing that would.

 

[northwichcat]

50,000 plus laws originated by Brussels.

You mean like the law requiring a minimum of 20 days paid holiday per year for full time workers*, despite there being a UK law requiring a minimum of 28 days paid holiday per year for full time workers?

Or perhaps you mean like the one preventing employees being forced to work over 48 hours a week, the one which employees can opt out off if they don't like it?

Laws like these provide a useful insurance policy in the event of extremists ever getting in to government - the EU law doesn't prevent Westminster cutting or increasing minimum holiday requirements but it does prevent Westminster from excessively cutting it.

Or perhaps like Boris you think TOCs having to organise replacement transport or put you up in a hotel for the night if they cancel the last service is 'EU red tape.'

* Full time meaning working at least 5 days per week.

 

[thejuggler]

50,000 plus laws originated by Brussels.

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/p...llenge-facing-lawmakers-following-brexit.html




Asking whether they affect me negatively missed the point. Whether they are positive or negative is irrelevant when my objection is to their existence in the first place.



All together now, it’s time to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and embrace Brexit!

The football is on later so we will get to watch another bunch of overpaid clowns making a mess of things, makes a change from PMQs.

Nice big number, but we want details on the laws which have been dictated to the people of the UK.

None of those 50,000 plus have.

 

[Bromley boy]

You mean like the law requiring a minimum of 20 days paid holiday per year for full time workers*, despite there being a UK law requiring a minimum of 28 days paid holiday per year for full time workers?

Or perhaps you mean like the one preventing employees being forced to work over 48 hours a week, the one which employees can opt out off if they don't like it?

Again, the content of the laws isn’t the issue. It’s the fact they were initiated by the EU rather than Westminster.

Laws like these provide a useful insurance policy in the event of extremists ever getting in to government - the EU law doesn't prevent Westminster cutting or increasing minimum holiday requirements but it does prevent Westminster from excessively cutting it.

And what if the extremists end up in the EU? If extremists get into power in the U.K. that will be because we will have elected them through the democratic process. I don’t want an external body fettering the discretion of parliament.

 

[HSTEd]

As a consumer this means nothing to me. My supply is easy to understand, cheap enough and people using less to save helps the environment.

A high electricity price is very bad for the environment.

The kinds of generating plant I would be talking about would be things like Tidal Barrages/Dynamic Tidal Power and Nuclear Power - they are non emitting and low impact compared to other energy sources - at which point their is no environmental reason to restrict consumption.
A low electricity price would lead to electricity totally displacing all other energy sources in our society, which would be good for the environment since we wouldn't be burning vast amounts of gas and mineral oil.

I was referring to something like the Electricity Rates published by Hydro Quebec, which indicate in a single document all the charges for all the services you can obtain from them.
Even with explanations the handbook is only ~165 pages long in relatively large print and the summary fits into a few pages.

If electricity cost 3-4p per unit and pricing was transparent and stable, are you really saying consumers would not be substantially better off?

But I'll take your word for it that suddenly everything will become better after we leave; I'll take note and watch.

I never said that it would necessarily become better, I only say it cannot become better within the EU.

 

[Bromley boy]

Nice big number, but we want details on the laws which have been dictated to the people of the UK.

None of those 50,000 plus have.

If they were originated by the EU than Westminster than they have been.

 

[Darandio]

Nice big number, but we want details on the laws which have been dictated to the people of the UK.

None of those 50,000 plus have.

You went through that lot pretty quickly. Let's start with a simple one from the past, bananas. That was dictated to us, but how on earth did it help us, or anyone?

 

[WelshBluebird]

If they were originated by the EU than Westminster than they have been.

Apart from the fact that for many of them, the UK would have either had a fairly big hand in them, or supported them.
There are very few that we have disagreed with, and for those that we have done, for a fair few of them we ended up getting opt outs.
So I don't think you can say the EU dictated laws to us when the UK was either involved in or agreed with those laws!

 

[EM2]

Again, the content of the laws isn’t the issue. It’s the fact they were initiated by the EU rather than Westminster.

But why is that a bad thing? What's wrong with the UK saying 'Yes, we like that' and accepting it into law, and saying 'No, we don't like that' and using our veto?

 

[Bromley boy]

Apart from the fact that for many of them, the UK would have either had a fairly big hand in them, or supported them.
There are very few that we have disagreed with, and for those that we have done, for a fair few of them we ended up getting opt outs.
So I don't think you can say the EU dictated laws to us when the UK was either involved in or agreed with those laws!

But not all of them.

In any case, why is EU “law” necessary when we have our own parliament? The whole thing has been blown out of all proportion.

I simply want all laws governing the U.K. to be originated by the U.K. legislature/judiciary.

While we are at it I would like to repeal the human rights act (seperate from the EU) and withdraw from the ECHR. It’s essentially just a criminals’ charter.

 

[Bromley boy]

But why is that a bad thing? What's wrong with the UK saying 'Yes, we like that' and accepting it into law, and saying 'No, we don't like that' and using our veto?

So why not just cut out the middle man and make our own laws. The EU should be nothing more than a trading bloc in my view.

 

[EM2]

A high electricity price is very bad for the environment.

The kinds of generating plant I would be talking about would be things like Tidal Barrages/Dynamic Tidal Power and Nuclear Power

Yet the current Government has greenlit Hinckley C, but also has just stymied a tidal barrage in Swansea Bay.
So they have the opportunity to do what you want to see already.

 

[EM2]

So why not just cut out the middle man and make our own laws. The EU should be nothing more than a trading bloc in my view.

Because sometimes other people have better ideas?