Quantcast

Discussing the impact of Brexit

sploo

Active Member
Sigh, Point being. The UK will be £10 billion a year better off. Clear?
The UK will not, under any circumstances whatsoever be £10b a year better off. This would only be the case if there were absolutely zero financial benefits from membership.

Massively oversimplified example: If you had a membership of some sort of cash and carry (let's say it cost £100 a year) and shopping at the cash and carry saved you around £60 a year vs your local supermarket, then ceasing that membership (and shopping at your local supermarket) would not make you £100 a year better off. You would cease to spend £100 on membership; sure, but that's not the same as being £100 a year better off.

PS Irony 101: £10b a year is approx £200m a week. I thought we were saving £350m a week... but I guess that argument changed too.
 

sploo

Active Member
You'll be here all day if you have to explain the jokes as well as correct the spelling. :)
I'll put my hand up and say it was a cheap shot at Bigfingers (a childish response to a childish post), and the UKIP context was not clear in that original post (so, apologies to Bigfingers on that). But yes, the irony of having to then explain the "are country" line is tremendous. Let's be positive and assume that because Sonic67 wouldn't have used that spelling himself, and wasn't aware there are morons that do it accidentally, his pointing out of the mistake was innocent.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
The UK will not, under any circumstances whatsoever be £10b a year better off.
The £10 billion will be spent in the UK and not funding our rivals. How many businesses give money to their own competitors?
This would only be the case if there were absolutely zero financial benefits from membership.
Sounds about right.
 

sploo

Active Member
You got an actual apology and Sonic got a low key compliment but you're still not happy? It's more than I'd have given you two. Cheer up.
Maybe that's why Brexiteers are so grumpy; they're constantly waiting for things to get better. There'll always be a charlatan along, with clear views on who's to blame for their ills, and to promise riches (if you'll only vote for me). Pointing out the deception is bound to go down badly.

A desperate need for "the other lot" to fail seems to be a common theme too (zero-sum game and all that).
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
Maybe that's why Brexiteers are so grumpy; they're constantly waiting for things to get better. There'll always be a charlatan along, with clear views on who's to blame for their ills, and to promise riches (if you'll only vote for me). Pointing out the deception is bound to go down badly.

A desperate need for "the other lot" to fail seems to be a common theme too (zero-sum game and all that).
As we've already heard from one or two on here, the reason why we're not already living in a land of milk and honey is because of the 'remainers' dragging their feet for the last 3 years.
 

sploo

Active Member
The £10 billion will be spent in the UK and not funding our rivals. How many businesses give money to their own competitors?
Sounds about right.
If you believe there are no financial benefits to the UK from the UK's EU membership then there's not really much more to say.

Plus, the idea that our EU membership costs are purely about "funding our rivals" is a bizarre notion (hardly borne out by the benefits of the membership). If anything, it's actually quite sad.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
If you believe there are no financial benefits to the UK from the UK's EU membership then there's not really much more to say.

Plus, the idea that our EU membership costs are purely about "funding our rivals" is a bizarre notion (hardly borne out by the benefits of the membership). If anything, it's actually quite sad.
It's a ridiculous assertion (that we get no benefit).

We could (and do, and have) argue all day, years long about whether the outlay is worth the return, but to suggest there is no benefit at all just shows how little some understand about the UK's (former) relationship with the EU.
 

sploo

Active Member
As we've already heard from one or two on here, the reason why we're not already living in a land of milk and honey is because of the 'remainers' dragging their feet for the last 3 years.
Indeed. I mean, it's not as if May's WA wouldn't have been voted through if the ERG members had supported it is it...
 

sploo

Active Member
It's a ridiculous assertion (that we get no benefit).

We could (and do, and have) argue all day, years long about whether the outlay is worth the return, but to suggest there is no benefit at all just shows how little some understand about the UK's (former) relationship with the EU.
The common theme I've come up against in many (far too many, frankly) such discussions on the topic is that there are many who know the EU is wholly bad. Any evidence presented to the contrary results in discomfort, and often an aggressive response.

There are many problems with the workings of the EU parliament, and the way the EU has morphed into something much greater than it originally was. Nothing is perfect; but whenever someone has a completely black and white (all good/all bad) view of something, it's going to be hard for a rational discussion to occur.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
If you believe there are no financial benefits to the UK from the UK's EU membership then there's not really much more to say.

Plus, the idea that our EU membership costs are purely about "funding our rivals" is a bizarre notion (hardly borne out by the benefits of the membership). If anything, it's actually quite sad.
It's quite sad you are fine with funding our rivals to the tune of half a trillion and can't see a problem with it.

Again we joined a trading block. We were not told it was going to be membership of a superstate and when we did get a say we voted out.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Indeed. I mean, it's not as if May's WA wouldn't have been voted through if the ERG members had supported it is it...
Given the amount of MPs in parliament it's bizarre there wasn't enough to vote it through...
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
The common theme I've come up against in many (far too many, frankly) such discussions on the topic is that there are many who know the EU is wholly bad. Any evidence presented to the contrary results in discomfort, and often an aggressive response.

There are many problems with the workings of the EU parliament, and the way the EU has morphed into something much greater than it originally was. Nothing is perfect; but whenever someone has a completely black and white (all good/all bad) view of something, it's going to be hard for a rational discussion to occur.
I'm relatively happy with the way things are going. I would have preferred to remain, but I'm positive about leaving.

I think I'd struggle to list too many things I'm personally missing, or will miss about being in the EU, and that's a failure of the EU and previous British Governments imo.

But then I'd have struggled to list many things that annoyed me about the EU either. Thus my decision to vote Remain.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Maybe that's why Brexiteers are so grumpy; they're constantly waiting for things to get better.
? You should have been here on Independence night a few weeks ago. Or June 2016. Or December 2019.
 

SteakAndCake

Distinguished Member
If you believe there are no financial benefits to the UK from the UK's EU membership then there's not really much more to say.

Plus, the idea that our EU membership costs are purely about "funding our rivals" is a bizarre notion (hardly borne out by the benefits of the membership). If anything, it's actually quite sad.
As you correctly pointed out, it's a zero sum mentality, the same that infects Trump and his trade deals. The idea that the only way to win is for others to lose, rather than both sides finding a common way to both benefit.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
As you correctly pointed out, it's a zero sum mentality, the same that infects Trump and his trade deals. The idea that the only way to win is for others to lose, rather than both sides finding a common way to both benefit.
Bingo!
 

SteakAndCake

Distinguished Member

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
If others are unaware of what Zero Sum looks like in political practise, it's the most recent and high profile example and one most people can look at to see why it's a mistake. It's not as though I simply threw his name in for no reason.
Flawed argument and a flawed example but it got your daily quota in.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
Surely the Transition period is to trial and test systems prior to next year. They can't just wait until then can they?
But surely only by agreement, not unilaterally by airports? I'd say this is different from the Louvre situation earlier this month. If this is happening in Holland it should be happening in France, Germany et al too?
 

sploo

Active Member
It's quite sad you are fine with funding our rivals to the tune of half a trillion and can't see a problem with it.
That's exactly my point; the notion that our EU membership is wholly/mostly about "funding our rivals" is not only factually incorrect, it's a deeply sad and negative way to see the world.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

BBC licence fee to be scrapped?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Mini LED Active Matrix to boost market uptake
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bristol Hi-Fi Show 2020 - What to expect
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Q950TS 8K QLED in Europe
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LCD panel prices increase after factory shutdowns
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom