Brexit Is Costing the UK £100 Billion a Year in Lost Output

[northernladuk]

Genuine question.... what 'potential benefits' ? I've yet to see any Brexit supporter give a tangible benefit which could not have be realised within the EU.

Brexit wasn't just about the finacial aspect. Granted it's been a bit of a mess etc but they underlying concept was to take back our sovereignty, and national idendty bring with it the ability to create our own laws and the such away from the EU. Admittedly we've stopped free movement but illegal immigration has increased exponentially so the idea of being able to deal with immigration hasn't worked very well. We also took most of the EU laws and stuck them in to ours wasn't the point either so does look like a complete miss. I do think, despite the short term setbacks, having that power back is absolutely key. If we'd stayed in the EU we'd be moaning and unhappy so just a different type of moan and unhappiness. At least we have that sovereignty back and can start to work on it. I know it's not tangible and people will say yeah right whatever but it's a bit like having free speech. We don't generally need it and doesn't make much difference to our daily life but we all know that free speech is key and must stay that way if you get me.

Financially it's not great. No one can deny that but I genuinely don't think we would have been amazingly better off if we'd stayed in. World went to rat tulip about the time we left so it's too easy to blame brexit.

Question is can we turn that short hurt around and do something with it. Call me an optimist but writing a hugely complex situation off after only two years whilst we've had covid and a war on isn't the way.

That said it's highly likely we won't and we will be even more fked than we are now

[malvolio]

Can you elaborate on that? I.e. who is it that you think is unelected?

All of them, unless you think MEPs are anything other than a talking shop for failed national politicians. Like here they define pol,icy, but an army of civil servants make up the rules to meet that policy. The policy is, of course, to support the EU, not individual nations.

As I understand it, there are direct elections, e.g. I used to vote for MEPs. There are also indirect elections, e.g. national leaders vote for the President of the EU Commission.

Well, it's a point of view.

Looking at the UK, there's a similar indirect process. E.g. the last few Prime Ministers have been elected by Conservative MPs and/or Conservative party members, but I never got a vote in that.

There's a longer article here:
Is the European Union governed by 'unelected bureaucrats'? | LSE Undergraduate Political Review

We don't elect the Prime Minister, we elect a UK party party to govern the UK. How that party chooses its leader is up to them. The current systems are at least 120 years old.

And I wouldn't put too much weight on the views of the LSE either.

[WTFH]

We don't elect the Prime Minister, we elect a UK party party to govern the UK... The current systems are at least 120 years old.

No, “WE” don’t elect a party. We, the voting public get to vote for individual candidates in particular constituencies. That candidate may be from a party or may be independent. That candidate may fully and unquestioningly support the leader of that party, or they may have different opinions. The candidate with the most votes in a constituency is elected to be the member of parliament for that constituency and is supposed to represent that constituency in parliament, NOT just represent the party.

While GBeebies, Boris and others may have strong backing from Russia, we are not a country where your vote is for the only party, even if that may be how you see your vote.

If the UK had Proportional Representation, then your vote for a candidate is closer to voting for a party, but we would still have the freedom to vote for independents.

[malvolio]

No, “WE” don’t elect a party. We, the voting public get to vote for individual candidates in particular constituencies. That candidate may be from a party or may be independent. That candidate may fully and unquestioningly support the leader of that party, or they may have different opinions. The candidate with the most votes in a constituency is elected to be the member of parliament for that constituency and is supposed to represent that constituency in parliament, NOT just represent the party.

While GBeebies, Boris and others may have strong backing from Russia, we are not a country where your vote is for the only party, even if that may be how you see your vote.

If the UK had Proportional Representation, then your vote for a candidate is closer to voting for a party, but we would still have the freedom to vote for independents.

Well whatever. After following such stuff for many years, I've a very clear idea how it works, both in theory and in practice. I don't need lectures.

As for the bold bit above, that destroys any pretence you may make about creditability.

[WTFH]

Well whatever. After following such stuff for many years, I've a very clear idea how it works, both in theory and in practice. I don't need lectures.

Since you were completely wrong, it appears you need educating, but to learn, you have to want to learn, and that appears to be beyond you.

As for the bold bit above, that destroys any pretence you may make about creditability.

Are you claiming that there is no Lebedev in the House of Lords, and that Boris didn’t give him that life peerage?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ning-3dp6sw29x

[d000hg]

Genuine question.... what 'potential benefits' ? I've yet to see any Brexit supporter give a tangible benefit which could not have be realised within the EU.

Idealogical mainly obv.
Though it does allow for trade deals with nations/blocs the EU doesn't have any with. Theoretically.

[malvolio]

Since you were completely wrong, it appears you need educating, but to learn, you have to want to learn, and that appears to be beyond you.



Are you claiming that there is no Lebedev in the House of Lords, and that Boris didn’t give him that life peerage?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ning-3dp6sw29x

If I need education I'll go to a reliable source, not some lefty biased nonsense.

HTH. BIDI.

[WTFH]

If I need education I'll go to a reliable source, not some lefty biased nonsense.

HTH. BIDI.

OK, if The Times is "lefty biased nonsense", will you accept the parliament website?
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4900/career

[malvolio]

OK, if The Times is "lefty biased nonsense", will you accept the parliament website?
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4900/career

Precisely my point. He is a crossbencher, not a Tory peer. That is at some odds with your "While GBeebies, Boris and others may have strong backing from Russia" nonsense. The security issues were raised by Starmer and the Lib Dems (gosh...) and reported at length in the Times at the time. Given he is a British citizen, owns the Evening Standard, lived here since childhood, and was appointed through the usual nomination and vetting channels, I'm not really convinced he is a Putin agent in disguise

You really need to separate political gameplay with actualité. Reds under the Beds died out in the 60s - or hadn't you noticed? These days we know exactly who the bad guys are.

Still, if it makes you happy...

[b0redom]

Apart from not being directed by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels (or is it Strasbourg this week), not having our legal system subject to another court system entirely, not being able to trade freely with our Commonwealth partners (ask New Zealand about that one...) and having another 4000 or so largely unnecessary, and often inferior regulations foisted on our businesses.

You're not a member of the Palestine Liberation Front or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine by any chance...?

It's not all about the economy, important as that is. It's about sovereignty. The people that signed up for the EEC under the great statesman Heath did not sign up to be a part of a federal European state under those other major statesmen, Blair and Major.

Except we've got less control over our sovereignty now than we had before. Previously the UK the the right to veto EU rules it didn't like. Now if we want to trade with the EU we have to follow its rules with no say at all. If you think trade with NZ is in any way compensating, perhaps you should read what the farmers say:

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-an...nd-trade-deal/

I presume the other court system you're referring to is the ECHR? You know the UK was instrumental in setting that up right?

All this waffle about unelected bureaucrats is just bollocks spouted by the Daily Mail etc. It's like the whole free movement of people. That was *never* a thing. It's free movement of labour. The UK under successive governments just never bothered to administer it properly unlike France, Germany etc.