Jump to content

Brexit - merged threads


scouser
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On ‎20‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 17:31, Retsdon said:

It's not a burning plane, it's a ship that's still sailing along. This idea that the EU is on the verge of breaking up is a dangerous wishful fantasy. The EU might change, it might even undergo severe infighting and convulsions, but for its members the benefits of belonging and the economic power that membership of the union brings will always trump everything else. No, if Theresa has her way...or rather if she lets Rees-Mogg have his way...after March Britain is going to be like the kid who stormed out of the party looking in at the window of the locked door while the cake and sausage rolls go round. Seriously, I don't like the EU, but the future for the UK at the moment is not bright, not bright at all.And it needn't have been like this. The government has managed the whole thing so  badly....

The benefits of belonging to the EU are largely illusionary but we have been chanting it like a mantra so many times over decades that it has been accepted as the perceived wisdom. It most certainly doesn't trump the other options. The EU is a lot less fertile as a market for us because the majority of the other member states are skint.

The EU is undoubtedly  becoming increasingly controlling and bullying. It is probably a good time for us to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU collects money from all member states, and spends that money in all member states.  From what is collected, there is a significant portion diverted off for 'administration' (roughly £10 billion, or 7% of the overall EU budget) paying for the commission, EU parliament, 3 x major EU headquarters, meetings, employees, translators, civil servants, expenses claims, pensions, travel and transport for MEPs and EU civil servants, bureaucracy, JC Junckers bar bill etc.)

The remainder is spent in the member states, but 'redistributes', such that in effect the 'rich' states (Germany, UK, Holland, France Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Finland) make a net contribution, whereas the other 16 are net beneficiaries.  The UK has the second largest net contribution (£3.5 billion) after Germany.

What the EU is basically doing is collecting money from the 'rich', and redistributing it to the 'poor' - the normal socialist system, and 'creaming off' a pretty hefty administration charge on the way.

Does this make real sense?  Not in my book.

As an aside, the EU also persuaded (bullied) countries like Greece to join the Euro - a move that was (as hindsight has shown) not appropriate to their relatively fragile economy, and has cost them dearly.  You cannot make countries with fragile economies like Greece follow the same economic system as strong industrial powerhouses like Germany.  It won't work.

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

......collecting money from the 'rich', and redistributing it to the 'poor' - the normal socialist system......

I thought the normal socialist system was "We'll have a share out, and when I've spent all of mine we'll have another share out"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McSpredder said:

I thought the normal socialist system was "We'll have a share out, and when I've spent all of mine we'll have another share out"

When they get those new powerhouses of industry joined up, like err Albania and Macedonia, they can benefit from their 'contributions' too ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McSpredder said:

I thought the normal socialist system was "We'll have a share out, and when I've spent all of mine we'll have another share out"

Well, that is actually 'Phase 2'.

The final phase is the note left by Liam Byrne (Labour Treasury Secretary) for his successor "there's no money left"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

What the EU is basically doing is collecting money from the 'rich', and redistributing it to the 'poor' - the normal socialist system, and 'creaming off' a pretty hefty administration charge on the way.

 

And that is the crux of the EU, anyone arguing on a purely long term financial basis that we're better off in the EU is talking nonsense, how can it benefit us when the EUs goal is to redistribute our wealth with other poorer countries? The answer of course is, it doesn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The benefits of belonging to the EU are largely illusionary but we have been chanting it like a mantra so many times over decades that it has been accepted as the perceived wisdom. It most certainly doesn't trump the other options. The EU is a lot less fertile as a market for us because the majority of the other member states are skint.

The EU is undoubtedly  becoming increasingly controlling and bullying. It is probably a good time for us to leave.

A very good time!  The nations outside the Eu whose economies are growing India, China, Australia, USA etc are NOT in the EU! The EU is stagnating! It may not completely break up, but when some of the recipient countries realise that, with our absence, they will have to start paying in, that,s when the doo doo hits the fan!

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The EU collects money from all member states, and spends that money in all member states.  From what is collected, there is a significant portion diverted off for 'administration' (roughly £10 billion, or 7% of the overall EU budget) paying for the commission, EU parliament, 3 x major EU headquarters, meetings, employees, translators, civil servants, expenses claims, pensions, travel and transport for MEPs and EU civil servants, bureaucracy, JC Junckers bar bill etc.)

The remainder is spent in the member states, but 'redistributes', such that in effect the 'rich' states (Germany, UK, Holland, France Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Finland) make a net contribution, whereas the other 16 are net beneficiaries.  The UK has the second largest net contribution (£3.5 billion) after Germany.

What the EU is basically doing is collecting money from the 'rich', and redistributing it to the 'poor' - the normal socialist system, and 'creaming off' a pretty hefty administration charge on the way.

Does this make real sense?  Not in my book.

As an aside, the EU also persuaded (bullied) countries like Greece to join the Euro - a move that was (as hindsight has shown) not appropriate to their relatively fragile economy, and has cost them dearly.  You cannot make countries with fragile economies like Greece follow the same economic system as strong industrial powerhouses like Germany.  It won't work.

A lot of truth in that.........

2 hours ago, McSpredder said:

I thought the normal socialist system was "We'll have a share out, and when I've spent all of mine we'll have another share out"

Hits the nail on the head!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work for a finance multi national and under the covers they are shifting everything to Europe now. I work in IT and the migration of IT stuff is getting scary and this is common. We have good European guys who who will no longer consider a posting to UK and we are having to offload stuff to Eastern europe to keep going. From my perspective Brexit is insular and approacing xenophobic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The EU collects money from all member states, and spends that money in all member states.  From what is collected, there is a significant portion diverted off for 'administration' (roughly £10 billion, or 7% of the overall EU budget) paying for the commission, EU parliament, 3 x major EU headquarters, meetings, employees, translators, civil servants, expenses claims, pensions, travel and transport for MEPs and EU civil servants, bureaucracy, JC Junckers bar bill etc.)

The remainder is spent in the member states, but 'redistributes', such that in effect the 'rich' states (Germany, UK, Holland, France Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Finland) make a net contribution, whereas the other 16 are net beneficiaries.  The UK has the second largest net contribution (£3.5 billion) after Germany.

What the EU is basically doing is collecting money from the 'rich', and redistributing it to the 'poor' - the normal socialist system, and 'creaming off' a pretty hefty administration charge on the way.

Does this make real sense?  Not in my book.

As an aside, the EU also persuaded (bullied) countries like Greece to join the Euro - a move that was (as hindsight has shown) not appropriate to their relatively fragile economy, and has cost them dearly.  You cannot make countries with fragile economies like Greece follow the same economic system as strong industrial powerhouses like Germany.  It won't work.

There was a nieve assumption that the wealth 'redistributed' to the poorer member states would be used to improve their infrastructure and produce economic growth. That in general has not been the case, instead the poorer countries, most of them ex communist, have just used the money as a gravy train. They use it as a subsidy, to pay their day to day Government expenses. Meaning they treat the EU like a benefits scheme.

They should never have been allowed to join in the first place, they are never going to buy any goods or services worth talking about from Britain. So the fundamental principle on which the EU was founded, mutual trade, falls at the first hurdle. The money we pay to the EU is dead money.

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, smokingdragon said:

I work for a finance multi national and under the covers they are shifting everything to Europe now. I work in IT and the migration of IT stuff is getting scary and this is common. We have good European guys who who will no longer consider a posting to UK and we are having to offload stuff to Eastern europe to keep going. From my perspective Brexit is insular and approacing xenophobic.

Does this multi national have offices in other non eu countries? If so why pull out of one thats becoming non eu but still European? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, smokingdragon said:

I work for a finance multi national and under the covers they are shifting everything to Europe now. I work in IT and the migration of IT stuff is getting scary and this is common. We have good European guys who who will no longer consider a posting to UK and we are having to offload stuff to Eastern europe to keep going. From my perspective Brexit is insular and approacing xenophobic.

I am seeing so much of this happening now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, smokingdragon said:

I work for a finance multi national and under the covers they are shifting everything to Europe now. I work in IT and the migration of IT stuff is getting scary and this is common. We have good European guys who who will no longer consider a posting to UK and we are having to offload stuff to Eastern europe to keep going. From my perspective Brexit is insular and approacing xenophobic.

It’s been happening for years. Nothing to do with Brexit just wage arbitrage. It started off with offshore to India then  ‘nearshore’ to Poland, Czec Republic, Ireland etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AVB said:

It’s been happening for years. Nothing to do with Brexit just wage arbitrage. It started off with offshore to India then  ‘nearshore’ to Poland, Czec Republic, Ireland etc. 

This is not the same. Euro workers that would have come here previously feeling uncomforfortable to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU has always had a practice of 'encouraging' businesses to move to 'less favoured' areas.  For some years South Wales was such an area (enthusiastically promoted by the Kinnock clan).

I worked for a short time (got dragged in involuntarily through a takeover, and got out voluntarily as soon as reasonably practical) with a firm who ruthlessly exploited this by buying up slightly ailing companies with a suitable product, and up-routing them and moving to South Wales ...... collecting a massive subsidy for doing so.

Ultimately, the company ran on EU subsidy, and would have failed otherwise.  The (then) management knew how to benefit from the EU system, and I cannot believe the Kinnock clan didn't gain major benefits personally.

This is often why businesses move - and is where a lot of EU money ends up - in the pockets of people who prefer to have a 'business' to 'exploit the system' rather than make and sell products.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Interesting to watch Sir John Major ex PM still stating that "people should come to their senses" whilst calling for a second referendum on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC.

 

Still a condescending **** then, no change expected in the future either.

hello, maybe he should have done that himself when he had an affair with Edwina Curry, do you know i am sick of these so called  self righteous Politicians, 

Edited by oldypigeonpopper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The EU has always had a practice of 'encouraging' businesses to move to 'less favoured' areas.  For some years South Wales was such an area (enthusiastically promoted by the Kinnock clan).

I worked for a short time (got dragged in involuntarily through a takeover, and got out voluntarily as soon as reasonably practical) with a firm who ruthlessly exploited this by buying up slightly ailing companies with a suitable product, and up-routing them and moving to South Wales ...... collecting a massive subsidy for doing so.

Ultimately, the company ran on EU subsidy, and would have failed otherwise.  The (then) management knew how to benefit from the EU system, and I cannot believe the Kinnock clan didn't gain major benefits personally.

This is often why businesses move - and is where a lot of EU money ends up - in the pockets of people who prefer to have a 'business' to 'exploit the system' rather than make and sell products.

 

This is the work I did for Government. It would be hard to see how money could be extracted. The most beneficial project was a large shed built for wafer fab in Scotland that was never occupied. The company paid that money back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oowee said:

This is the work I did for Government. It would be hard to see how money could be extracted. The most beneficial project was a large shed built for wafer fab in Scotland that was never occupied. The company paid that money back. 

I cannot comment in any detail (it would be wrong to detail any specific company, it was a long time ago, over 25 years, and I got out as soon as I could), but businesses were being re-located to collect the subsidies - and the company was only viable (at that time anyway) due to the subsidy monies it was receiving.  Many of the relocated businesses 'fizzled out' once they ceased to earn subsidies as they were no longer of use to the parent company.  It was about building 'houses of cards'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The benefits of belonging to the EU are largely illusionary

And that will no doubt become obvious next year once Britain leaves - the way things are going -  sans deal of any kind. Interesting times in the offing.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

And that will no doubt become obvious next year once Britain leaves - the way things are going -  sans deal of any kind. Interesting times in the offing.....

No deal is OK, its what we want. Anyone who thinks for one moment that any deal we could possibly negotiate would benefit the UK would have to believe in fairies 

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oowee said:

This is not the same. Euro workers that would have come here previously feeling uncomforfortable to do so. 

What are you insinuating ?
They would feel uncomfortable because theyre job security isnt certain.
Or are you saying they fear to come because of our new found Brexit xenophobia and racism, that we obviously didnt have before we voted to leave.
Either way the arguments dont really hold water, unless in the former, the job SPECIFICALLY  relies on EU membership, as in working for or liasing with the EU.
The latter is simply left wing rag B.S.

I know the numbers are down, but you could easily put that down to the fact, that come next year the literal 'benefits' of coming here will be far less attractive.

9 hours ago, smokingdragon said:

I work for a finance multi national and under the covers they are shifting everything to Europe now. I work in IT and the migration of IT stuff is getting scary and this is common. We have good European guys who who will no longer consider a posting to UK and we are having to offload stuff to Eastern europe to keep going. From my perspective Brexit is insular and approacing xenophobic.

I suppose moving to Eastern Europe has got nothing whatsoever to do with cost cutting then, cheaper wage bills ect ?

You say its  'under the covers' ? Why ? Why not make it public and obvious, then you can get on the band wagon and tell everyone how Brexit is wrecking the country.

'Insular and xenophobic' tired old lines, I wont ask how you voted ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you negotiate for something, you get the best deal for yourself/your side, it is not in your interests or your responsibility to get the best deal for the other party/parties!

If our UK negotiators can't get a deal that benefits those they represent (us!) they should get someone who can........or walk away! In the certainty, that in this scenario, the EU will also end up with nothing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...