BREXIT

[weavis]

Logically, Do you think any EU country will stop trading with the UK once the UK has left? Germany will not. They have tacitly said so. Spain will not. Italy will not. France? probably will continue plus all the other countries.

My gut feeling is that once everyone sees the UK thriving, Spain and Italy will consider leaving too........ If I were Italy, Id be leaving now due to the heavy fines levied by the EU for them not following the directives on cutting their debt/spending in the manner prescribed by Brussels.

It is not for Brussels to dictate how a country runs itself.... or is it?

[atoll]

Originally Posted by weavis

One of the things I was observing for HM gov, was how to deal with the issue of exchangable health coverage if UK left the EU. Spain has excellent coverage for its citizens. If a person has a heart pain in the street,, just drop in any hospital and they will be having EKG/ECG within 15 mins, no payment required. Those with residency card have the same cover after a year or 2 depending on where.

However......it seems that will change.

I see from proposal and discussion going on the EU wants to play hardball on getting agreements from Britain. Brits to purchase a 3 year visa with time limits in the EU, ...ahh there is so much Im reading Icant be bothered. Depend on whether Johnson REALLY wants a good deal for Britain or he locks us in to a heap of restrictions just so he can say he did the deal.

Leaving on WTO would be cleaner and save £40 billion.

the only people our mighty leader wants a good deal for are his backers,the ERG and the bankers,which would require us cutting ties on the 31st,or we will have to sign up to the new EU banking laws,which require ALL offshore and onshore assets identified and linked to an identifiable individual or individuals.....not a faceless shell company behind a trust,owned by another obscure lawfirm in the west indies,panama,jersey or isle of man.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by weavis

How do you get to that conclusion?

I imagine there must have been all sorts of reasons why different people supported Brexit. Does anyone have a link with a good summary of those?

I don't understand why a no-deal exit to WTO rules would be preferable or beneficial to the UK. By most accounts, it would be messy, complex and has a lot of uncertainty. Maybe really messy.

I have to say I'm a bit sad after reading this thread and finding out that British with the means or skills will be able to buy their way back into all the benefits of EU citizenship and free movement, while most of the working class will have to bend to whatever Brexit brings.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have to say I'm a bit sad after reading this thread and finding out that British with the means or skills will be able to buy their way back into all the benefits of EU citizenship and free movement, while most of the working class will have to bend to whatever Brexit brings.

How on earth did you get to that conclusion? The only way to have EU benefits is to have an EU passport.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by weavis

How on earth did you get to that conclusion? The only way to have EU benefits is to have an EU passport.

which is what we Brits are effectively giving up ie our eu citizenship that goes with being a member of the EU,and a massive curtailment in personal freedom in real terms ,far more than we gain by leaving

[Hartings]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I imagine there must have been all sorts of reasons why different people supported Brexit. Does anyone have a link with a good summary of those?



I don't understand why a no-deal exit to WTO rules would be preferable or beneficial to the UK. By most accounts, it would be messy, complex and has a lot of uncertainty. Maybe really messy.



I have to say I'm a bit sad after reading this thread and finding out that British with the means or skills will be able to buy their way back into all the benefits of EU citizenship and free movement, while most of the working class will have to bend to whatever Brexit brings.

Very few on here, if any, have the foggiest idea of what post-Brexit UK will look like or how it will fare. The new Government doesn’t really know either. The EU is also in the dark. This is not political point-scoring - I’m just stating what appears to be the reality of the (current) situation. By the time we get to 31st Jan 2020 things may a little clearer although I personally doubt that.
My take is that Johnson has postured as a hard-Brexit man to garner the votes from that cohort and to nullify the potential effects of the Brexit Party but in the end may well turn out to prefer a much softer version of Brexit. Only time will tell and anyone who claims to ‘know’ is full of wind.....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't believe anyone should be raped (literally or figuratively).
However, further to your literary allegory, I’d, more accurately, characterise the 1% as the rapist, rather than the victim.

According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute (previously linked), you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. to be in the top 1% in the world. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”

As Credit Suisse reports:
“While the bottom half of adults collectively owns less than 1 percent of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10 percent of adults) owns 85 percent of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for almost half of all household wealth (47 percent).”

Eighty-two percent of the money made in 2017 went to the richest 1 percent of the world’s population, according to a report by anti-poverty charity Oxfam. In their 2018 report, the richest 42 people in the world had as much wealth as the poorest half.

These numbers reflect the extreme level of persistent wealth inequality.

These sorts of commonly cited statistics, while probably not inaccurate, always seem to be missing a punch line. Namely how exactly the existence of all these millionaires are the reason why the remaining 99% or whatever are worse off. IOW, evidence supporting the implication that the reason a relative few are wealthier is because their wealth or income comes at the expense of the rest. The "logic" being that we could simply redistribute the wealth of the relative few and the remaining 99% would be well fed and all would be right in the world, right? The economic reality, however, is that 1%'ers don't keep their stash under their mattresses. Their invested capital is an indispensable component of the overall economic system and, whether politically correct or not, when the millionaires are doing well more often than not middle/working class are also doing well.

But it's easier I suppose to draw facile analogies to "rape/victim" scenarios, and certainly more fashionable to use derogatory & divisive terms such as "oppressors" and "privilege." Then there's singling out the evil US as the "devil" as we've just read, the ever-present and always pleasant labels & stereotypes concerning race, age, gender and ______, and you have a "cause" worthy of casting a vote over!

The US, for example, has one of the most (small p) progressive income tax systems in the world. But "soaking the rich" isn't necessarily the best path towards addressing inequalities. As this 2017 article from the Washington Post explains, effectively addressing problems associated with wealth/income inequalities is far more complex than how politicians & ideologues make it out to be. Merely citing statistics without also establishing cause & effect only increases the distortions surrounding the issue, and is of course divisive. But that's what wins votes these days.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Rumpi

While we all wait for Mr. Johnson to "get Brexit done" can someone please enlighten me about it's benefits? Why do the british want out anyway? I get the emotional "we don't want to be ruled by continentals" but that can not be the only reason. There must be some hard economic and social benefits of brexiting, so what are those?

I asked similar questions of my British clients when I was last visiting them in London. As a Montanan, I desired to know why their country would desire to leave the Union they were so integral to. I asked if any of the Leave politicians had written a comprehensive declaration of why they desired to assert independence from the European Union. I gave my country's [the USA] declaration of independence as a clear and concise example of such a document. My British clients indicated that they knew of nonsuch declaration. This lead to a discussion of the USA's declaration of independence and its structure of content and then into detailed discussion of the listed key reasons for severance from sovereignty; it became an interesting historical educational exercise for my British clients to learn what the perspectives of their American separatist-oriented colonists were back in 1776.

Amongst my British clients, there was considerable discussion of economic sovereignty issues, but the fundamental underlying motivation that they expressed [but which they personally largely did not hold agreement with] was British nationalism, xenophobia and bigotry towards "foreigners".

We generally agreed that it would be a wise exercise to have the UK explicitly list each of their agreed to reasons for leaving the EU, if for no reason other than as my country declaration of independence stated in its Introduction and continuing into its Preamble the following:

Introduction

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Note: Bolding added.

Preamble

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Note: Bolding added.


The USA's Declaration of Independence thence continues on to a listing of 30 specific wrongings. Collectively "the Indictments". Expressions of the causes - abuses and usurpations.

Which in turn is followed by a Denunciation of the British as a whole [not just of the King's official actions] and a Conclusion and finally the signatures [John Hancock's being the first and most boldly and famously executed for King George to be able to clearly see].

The Denunciation:

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

The Conclusion:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

This fashion / method of separation would today be called a "hard" Brexiting.

I would welcome reading and thus learning the reasoning for the UK's Brexit via such a similar debated specific declaration that would come from Parliament. IMHO, the British too should desire such specific, eloquent expression of their reasoning for exiting the European Union. With due respect, the other countries of the EU deserve such.

[weavis]

OK.. Please put aside discussions of America and taxation and concentrate on the BREXT issues.

Thread drift is pretty normal but this is a step too far..

This is how threads get closed when the bun fight starts.

We will start removing non relevent threads until it is not viable to and another boating thread, as in how it will affect travel will close...

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm a capitalist, I believe I should have the right to work at what I want, and to be rewarded based on effort. I suspect we all are, because I know of no socialist program that hands out boats. But our home country and it's systems, laws and infrastructure are the soil that nurtured our roots and support us, even when we or our businesses fail. It makes sense to me that those of us who have benefited the most should pay the most. If there's a shortfall or a new requirement, who else should be making up the difference - the poor?

I was going to quibble with this by using Sweden as an example. But it turns out that despite their program of wealth redistribution they identify as Capitalist

What did surprise me is that Portugal identifies as socialist... who knew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...%80%93Leninist

[Rumpi]

Originally Posted by weavis

How do you get to that conclusion?

Simple. I asked why the UK wants out and what the economic and social benefits are. Transmitterdan was the only one to answer with some reasons and said there is probably no economic benefit. Now the reasons transmitterdan provided for leaving and wich I have no reason to doubt, namely immigration and security, financial bailouts and laws made in Brussels are only reasons to leave if one is uninformed. The UK is not an eurozone country and under no obligation to bailout anybody. In fact the only aid they provided was to Ireland and Portugal and it was voluntary. The Brussels made laws are not god given, the UK has a say in them as long as it is a member. Immigration and security are also misrepresented, the UK is not in Schengen and has full control over its borders (and would have it even if in Schengen) and asylum seekers that have a residency card in a EU country do not enjoy EU freedom of labour. And the UK is not a significant point of entry and as such has full benefits from the Dublin agreement.

I am ready to believe there are other reasons for brexit, ones that are not based on uninformed emotional reactions. Likewise I would want to know what the economic and social benefits Brexit will bring. So please educate me.

[weavis]

Save £40 billion, no impositions and saves years of the EU putting obstacles in leaving. Do you really think Theresa May didnt drag it out and when the deal was examined, it tied Britain forever to EU and with no say in the matter.

Oh wait, Johson is using the same deal!

WTO obviates all this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I imagine there must have been all sorts of reasons why different people supported Brexit. Does anyone have a link with a good summary of those?

I don't understand why a no-deal exit to WTO rules would be preferable or beneficial to the UK. By most accounts, it would be messy, complex and has a lot of uncertainty. Maybe really messy.

I have to say I'm a bit sad after reading this thread and finding out that British with the means or skills will be able to buy their way back into all the benefits of EU citizenship and free movement, while most of the working class will have to bend to whatever Brexit brings.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The "logic" being that we could simply redistribute the wealth of the relative few and the remaining 99% would be well fed and all would be right in the world, right?

The most compelling argument against extreme inequality, in my opinion, is that above some level, wealth and power are equivalent. Those with massive wealth, doesn't matter how it was obtained, have the ability to shape and control governments. We're turning into plutocracies, and the idea of "one person, one vote" is being attacked. Voter suppression through gerrymandering and other measures is more prevalent. Equality of opportunity, and the chances for anyone to "make it" are also being eroded.

No buns, weavis. Brexit is very much tied in with world economic trends, including the very wealthy, and London's role in such. But yeah, we'll try to stay more focused on the UK and Europe.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by weavis

Save £40 billion, no impositions and saves years of the EU putting obstacles in leaving. Do you really think Theresa May didnt drag it out and when the deal was examined, it tied Britain forever to EU and with no say in the matter.

Oh wait, Johson is using the same deal!

WTO obviates all this nonsense.

great so we get 1 million pensioners returning to the uk who no longer qualify for residence in the eu as they cannot show an income above 1000 euros a month each and property valued at above 400,000 euros,plus cant afford private health insurance.

don't forget the 500,000 self employed brits in europe that will not qualify for work permits in the eu

law of unintended consequences

how is that going to work,we already have a housing problem without a mass influx,and a mass increase in the need for old age care will really put an overstreched NHS in crisis

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Rumpi

Simple. I asked why the UK wants out and what the economic and social benefits are. Transmitterdan was the only one to answer with some reasons and said there is probably no economic benefit. Now the reasons transmitterdan provided for leaving and wich I have no reason to doubt, namely immigration and security, financial bailouts and laws made in Brussels are only reasons to leave if one is uninformed. The UK is not an eurozone country and under no obligation to bailout anybody. In fact the only aid they provided was to Ireland and Portugal and it was voluntary. The Brussels made laws are not god given, the UK has a say in them as long as it is a member. Immigration and security are also misrepresented, the UK is not in Schengen and has full control over its borders (and would have it even if in Schengen) and asylum seekers that have a residency card in a EU country do not enjoy EU freedom of labour. And the UK is not a significant point of entry and as such has full benefits from the Dublin agreement.

I am ready to believe there are other reasons for brexit, ones that are not based on uninformed emotional reactions. Likewise I would want to know what the economic and social benefits Brexit will bring. So please educate me.

Well.. I could break down every point youve accepted........ but the reality is this. Britain is denied trade with other countries outside the Union to a large degree. Note that EU regulations have to be written in to the UKs laws. A lot of things have changed in the Uk which have destroyed traditions, food, kept prices high where the country could buy outside of the EU cheaper, and finally EU laws do not allow Britain to police itself without oversight. The straw that broke the camels back is that the UU demanded that the UK take 1 million refugees, house them, feed them and give them money to live on.

Britain is as racist as the next country when it comes to self preservation.

Now.

I like being part of Europe. I work in Spain and love the people. I also work in Asia and love the people.

Not having a membership card of the EU will not stop me traveling. Its a fallacy of a "passportless" crossing of borders. I have to show my ID at every border. Most British vacation in Europe for max a month....... so it will not affect them. Vacationers have to purchase insurance for travel. Whilst Europe WILL treat everyone, unless you have filled out the requisite forms for exchange medical treatment PRIOR TO GOING......... you will get a bill.

The big difference will be goods, VAT customs, declaration and tariffs. However this will depend on whether Europe wants to pay tariffs coming into the UK.

It will balance out.

The cost of membership is high. If the EU stuck to just exchange and trade deals, all will be good. BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO FORM A GOVERNMENTAL UNION.

It will mean Britain being forced into conflicts it disagrees with because the UK forces will be controlled by Brussels. There is a history of France supplying countries with military aid that Britain had conflicts with.... the Falkands episode for one. Did the EU reprimand France? No.

So whilst I would prefer to continue with a European alliance, None of the UK signed up for losing their sovereignty.

What came out in the wash is that the UK government is capable of denying the people what they voted for.

Johnson is not standing up for the rights of people, he is using the situation to gain personal power.

Im of an opinion that Britain will not get the deal they voted for and will be stuck in limbo tied to EU with no say and still paying for it.

It doesnt matter. We will get what we get. The government dont listen to us and do what they want anyways.