Discussion in 'Corner Coffee' started by Matt N, 27th Mar 2019.
And yes, for the avoidance of any doubt, I'm being sarcastic.
Ah good because they definitely aren't blue.
There are no real benefits of brexit, it might not be as damaging as some would say, though it’s hardly been a particularly successful project so far (despite what some in the media and government would have you believe).
It will however give the rich and powerful in this country more power and that was what it was all about in the first place.
If there are no benefits and numerous cons, then why did 17.4 million people vote for Brexit? I am almost certain that most, if not all, of the people who voted for Brexit had some sort of valid benefits in mind that it would supposedly bring, and they had a valid, informed reason as to why they wanted to leave the EU.
Surely no one living in the UK would have voted to risk the economic wellbeing and position of the UK in the wider world if it wasn’t going to bring some form of feasible benefits that outweighed the cons?
I’m not saying your opinion is wrong by any means, I’m just confused as to why people would vote to risk the country’s position if it didn’t bring some form of feasible benefit?
Among other things, the alleged promise of £350m a week to go to the NHS could well have swung it for some people. Put anything on a bus and people will believe it, no matter how outlandish it seems.
If you are in certain businesses that found the EU rules stifling you will find some benefit. For the rest it was really a lot of propaganda and lies about the situation mixed with a genuine desire to be less beholden to the EU political structure However bare in mind that nearly all brexit supporting politicians promise varying degrees of connectivity to the EU after brexit that haven’t happened (Staying in the single market, over ready trade deal) that what people voted for and what we got are not the same. It’s why the brexit supporters where dead against another referendum as the reality has proved it all to be a bit of a damp squib.
No one can predict the future, maybe the EU will have a spectacular fall from grace but as it stands there are no benefits for the average person, just some rich folk.
The theory goes that it allows us to forge our own way in the world as a a singular entity without having to conform to the laws and, in some cases, diktat of the European Union. We will be able to deal and trade with whoever we choose, previously we traded as Europe allowed. Whether the might of the union or the ability to trade outside of Europe's trade deals is better or worse remains to be seen...
It also means we don't pay in to the union, which regardless of your political persuasion has to be considered is a huge sum of money. Whether that payment in is good value for the benefits we take out really is the crux of the matter. It certainly 'buys' a lot of tariff free trade, but in stark 'contribution Vs payout' we get back a lot less back than we pay in, which is not the case for a lot of economically smaller countries.
It also, and this is the most contentious matter probably, returns/retains UK sovereignty. The UK courts become the highest in the land and their decisions cannot be overturned by a European court. This is incredibly important to many, even if some of it is to an extent based on misconceptions.
I'm not sure even the most ardent brexiteer believes that the UK will be financially better of in the short term, but many believe it gives greater opportunity in the longer term. Time will tell...
But again in all this you have falsehoods. Best example of this is sovereignty of UK courts (as you alluded to). Once a trade deal is reached with another country an effective court is created (trade tribunal) that has no oversight and often results in country’s being successfully sued by private corporations resulting in the corporations effectively controlling policy. With the EU courts we had some say in how they where comprised, we don’t get that luxury with trade deals.
Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. But then again those agreements can be made individually and on terms we find acceptable rather than in consideration of a much wider group which might not be to our benefit. They'll still be binding to international law, but cannot be imposed from outside rather agreed from inside before they become binding.
I know that's a massively simplified version of reality, but there is a level of potential benefit to us trading individually rather than as part of the union.
And that's before we get to domestic criminal law...
In reality though the terms of the tribunal favour the bigger and more experienced trading partner. The fact is we will nearly always be the more junior partner as we have no existing trade routes and will be seen as desperate for a deal. Add to the fact we are looking at having no deal with our geographical neighbours suggests our supply chains will be putting a lot of pressure on the government to make deals quickly and inevitably you end up with a balance of power in favour of everyone but us.
The US and Canada are not going to do us any favours, they will squeeze us for everything as will everyone else, and if the gov are stupid enough to allow a no deal in December we are going to be desperate, we don’t produce anywhere near enough in this country to keep basic needs met.
And the irony is they will have the same demands the EU currently have, yet everyone gets so stressed by the EU trade deal.
Potentially yes, but also potentially no. I'm not saying it's a good thing over all (or even at all), but to deny there cannot be opportunity in at least some areas is probably a bit short sighted.
Well that's the thing about trade... you either do it through a union where you have a say in the rules, or do it using a trade deal where you have little influence and the big countries have all the power. The irony is calling the former undemocratic and the latter sovereignty, but Brexit is full of such nonsense.
In any case I feel like this question sheds lots of heat but no light. Remainers can see tangible losses while leavers seem to see intangible benefits; things that can't be measured but are seemingly important. I've given up trying to understand.
The trade deal talks at the moment aren't going brilliantly, as I understand it. One area that is stalling progress is fishing, despite being 0.1% of the UK economy it seems to be a red line politically that the government doesn't want to cede... but maybe it'll all work out in the 11th hour.
As I renewed my passport this year I won't even have a blue/black passport as they sent me a burgundy one
I as yet haven’t seen these “opportunities” for the average person, for sure there are benefits for corporations, particularly in being able to drop Various standards and employment rights to be more competitive on the world market. But I’m comfortable that the millionaires and billionaires running those companies have enough cash already and don’t need the extra profit at the expense of their workers.
So yeah there are potential benefits if you look at it coldly, what I am yet to see is any tangible benefit for the majority of people in this country.
The individual level isnt where that direct advantage would be evident, the idea being if businesses prosper by trading externally they can employ more people, they can pay people better, those people well spend their money at other businesses and so on. A strong economy is good for individuals overall.
Employment rights would only fall if the government allowed them to, probably wouldn't be much if a vote winner but we'll see...
These aren't my thoughts, these are the potential benefits @Matt N was asking about.
It all pales into insignificance now anyway with the financial repurcussions of Covid. Any narrow financial benefits or setbacks due to Brexit will be swallowed up and lost in the aftermath of this virus. The country just went from screwed to totally screwed, Brexit or No Brexit.
Trickle down economics is one of the best examples of corporate propaganda of all time. It has been proven to not happen multiple time’s, any increase in sales goes to increase profits, it never goes to workers and never has.
It’s amazing how people think this still exists as a valid economic theory when it has been debunked so often.
I'm not talking about trickle down economics, it's not about tax relief for business etc that that usually refers to.
It's simply about people having jobs Vs people not having jobs. A gainfully employed population will lead to prosperity, a nation of people relying on state aid as they have no job will not. People with no money can not spend money. T
It's the idea that we can trade with anyone outsider of Europe's constraints that could give that opportunity.
I fail to see how trading outside of the EU increases job growth, we had around 120 trade deals with the world as part of the EU we are not going to get better terms as an independent nation.
The number of jobs doesn’t really matter, it’s the quality and pay level that should be factored in. If someone has to work 60hrs a week just to make ends meet (as they often have to in America) they are not spending either.
There is no job creation to be gained here, you might shift jobs into other industries as a result of the change in trade but these are not new jobs, just repurposed ones.
In fact trade with the US could destroy jobs unless the government reduces worker protections as they can produce much of what we produce cheaper as they see the worker as a commodity with little value. For UK industry to compete we would have to compete on cost and you only do that by cutting things like minimum wage and annual leave rights.
The only sort of jobs I see benefiting are mine, customs brokerage, outside of that it's a net loss.
Separate names with a comma.