The economic consequences of Brexit
Poll: The economic consequences of Brexit
Total Members Polled: 732
Discussion
FiF said:
And yet in another full fact piece we read “There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal” source Bank of England
I should have made it clearer.I think (and I may have skim read) that the consensus has agreed that our membership UP TO NOW has been a good thing.
As for what happens when we leave - yes, no definitive study.
I was trying to respond to this which I felt was wrong.
Murph7355 said:
It's utterly impossible to note with any degree of certainty that we have benefitted materially from the EU as it has evolved.
Note - that's in the past tense.Putting economics to one side for a moment, isn't it wonderful that the world now equates the UK with this man?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/world/europe/nig...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/world/europe/nig...
alfie2244 said:
Here's a vid of his previous encounter with Brillo 
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/watch-james-m...
The look on McGrory's face was a sight to behold.http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/watch-james-m...
Edited by alfie2244 on Wednesday 21st December 10:56
I bet that not a single Remainer will even try to defend McGrory.
Open Britain still have the misleading video on their YouTube page.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjzVCNhJ_c_1i99_f...
No shame... not an ounce of shame.
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more 
and large gap before 
and a further gap before 
But other than that
B'stard Child said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36619203/vot...
don4l said:
B'stard Child said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36619203/vot...
Since June I am applying the same caution to BBC links......
walm said:
I think (and I may have skim read) that the consensus has agreed that our membership UP TO NOW has been a good thing.
Isn't that comparing 'being in the EU ' with 'not being in the EU (in isolation)', not comparing being in the EU with a variety of alternatives that would have been possible instead? Especially when you come across Gems like this
http://this-is-sunderland.co.uk/guardian-article-2...
Gogoplata said:
BlackLabel said:
Or not as an article linked in the comments suggests: 
http://this-is-sunderland.co.uk/guardian-article-2...
walm said:
FiF said:
And yet in another full fact piece we read “There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal” source Bank of England
I should have made it clearer.I think (and I may have skim read) that the consensus has agreed that our membership UP TO NOW has been a good thing.
As for what happens when we leave - yes, no definitive study.
I was trying to respond to this which I felt was wrong.
Murph7355 said:
It's utterly impossible to note with any degree of certainty that we have benefitted materially from the EU as it has evolved.
Note - that's in the past tense.If the consensus was that so far membership had been a good thing then one wonders why this wasn't a major feature of the Remain campaign. I was actively wanting the killer argument for Remaining in the EU, or at least a telling point or two to emerge. That such points didn’t emerge suggested to me that they didn't exist.
Mrr T said:
barryrs said:
ATG said:
No, but let's keep a handle on the scale of the contributions.
Poland gets about 10bn euros net from the EU, far more than any other recipient. UK provides about 10% of total funds to the EU, so you could say that the UK tax payer gives Poland about 1 billion euros per year. To put that into some kind of perspective, we export about 4 billion euros worth of goods to Poland and the UK private sector invests about 3 billion euros in Poland per annum. And that's the "worst" case by a mile. Croatia, for example, receives about 150million pa, which is chicken feed.
UK net contribution is about 10 billion quid, total UK economy is about 2300 billion quid, so UK net contribution to EU is about 0.4% GDP ... smaller than our foreign aid budget, about 1/20th of benefits payments, 1/10th of the cost of the NHS, about 1/20th of the value of our exports to the EU.
I dont think those figures include the UK's vat & tariff contributions towards the EU budget?Poland gets about 10bn euros net from the EU, far more than any other recipient. UK provides about 10% of total funds to the EU, so you could say that the UK tax payer gives Poland about 1 billion euros per year. To put that into some kind of perspective, we export about 4 billion euros worth of goods to Poland and the UK private sector invests about 3 billion euros in Poland per annum. And that's the "worst" case by a mile. Croatia, for example, receives about 150million pa, which is chicken feed.
UK net contribution is about 10 billion quid, total UK economy is about 2300 billion quid, so UK net contribution to EU is about 0.4% GDP ... smaller than our foreign aid budget, about 1/20th of benefits payments, 1/10th of the cost of the NHS, about 1/20th of the value of our exports to the EU.
Thats another £3 billion
In which case the figures lower at £8.5 billion for 2015.
B'stard Child said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
I subscribe to the FT but it's behind a firewall and so there's no point in posting anything here.
For day to day news I look at what the various broadsheets have to say (but not really the Times as that's also behind a firewall and I see no reason to pay for that particular content).
I have a look at what the BBC have to say.
I also read the Standard but that's more for local news.
I also talk to friends, neighbours, colleagues and customers to see what they're thinking.
TBH it doesn't matter where I find any content - if it's not firmly pro-Brexit it gets shouted down as being "biased" in some way.
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
It's pointless, you just can't help but post negative bias.
So for once, I took the piss, because that is all your post warranted.
jsf said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
It's pointless, you just can't help but post negative bias.
So for once, I took the piss, because that is all your post warranted.
As I've said before, other view are available.
jsf said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
It's pointless, you just can't help but post negative bias.
So for once, I took the piss, because that is all your post warranted.
AC43 said:
jsf said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
It's pointless, you just can't help but post negative bias.
So for once, I took the piss, because that is all your post warranted.
July, Aug, Sept, October, November and we are nearly finished with December......
I think I understand why
- you started your research after the referendum result
Sorry fella I wish you had said so earlier - all the really good stuff on the benefits of Brexit were published before the referendum and as a result of the sensitivity of the information it's been sealed in a time capsule and we are only allowed to request opening under freedom of information in 50 years.
AC43 said:
As I've said before, other view are available.
They are indeed B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
It's pointless, you just can't help but post negative bias.
So for once, I took the piss, because that is all your post warranted.
ATG said:
No, but let's keep a handle on the scale of the contributions.
Poland gets about 10bn euros net from the EU, far more than any other recipient. UK provides about 10% of total funds to the EU, so you could say that the UK tax payer gives Poland about 1 billion euros per year. To put that into some kind of perspective, we export about 4 billion euros worth of goods to Poland and the UK private sector invests about 3 billion euros in Poland per annum. And that's the "worst" case by a mile. Croatia, for example, receives about 150million pa, which is chicken feed.
UK net contribution is about 10 billion quid, total UK economy is about 2300 billion quid, so UK net contribution to EU is about 0.4% GDP ... smaller than our foreign aid budget, about 1/20th of benefits payments, 1/10th of the cost of the NHS, about 1/20th of the value of our exports to the EU.
You make some excellent points.Poland gets about 10bn euros net from the EU, far more than any other recipient. UK provides about 10% of total funds to the EU, so you could say that the UK tax payer gives Poland about 1 billion euros per year. To put that into some kind of perspective, we export about 4 billion euros worth of goods to Poland and the UK private sector invests about 3 billion euros in Poland per annum. And that's the "worst" case by a mile. Croatia, for example, receives about 150million pa, which is chicken feed.
UK net contribution is about 10 billion quid, total UK economy is about 2300 billion quid, so UK net contribution to EU is about 0.4% GDP ... smaller than our foreign aid budget, about 1/20th of benefits payments, 1/10th of the cost of the NHS, about 1/20th of the value of our exports to the EU.
The UK makes nett contributions of £10Bn and Poland recieves €10Bn.
You also highlight that Cameron increased our Foreign Aid budget from £4Bn to £12Bn.
Straight away, you can see how we can reduce the deficit by more than 25%.
Never mind... our kids and grandkids won't mind working to pay off the debts that you ran up just so that you could feel morally superior.
Potholes in our roads are a small price to pay for improved Romanian infrastructure.
jsf said:
AC43 said:
B'stard Child said:
jsf said:
3/10 needed more and large gap before and a further gap before But other than that
It's pointless, you just can't help but post negative bias.
So for once, I took the piss, because that is all your post warranted.
Murph7355 said:
///ajd said:
You miss the basic point that EASA - and through the JAA before it - harmonised regulation of many facets of aviation.
As supposedly intelligent posters, I really didn't think this would be a hard concept to grasp.
Having worked with EASA to type certify a new aircraft, I find the fact that a poster above "decided to look it up = has googled JAA and decided to tell me I'm wrong" highly amusing.
You really don't need experts with the internets to look stuff up, do you?
What prize lemons!
Rather than be your usual prize plum about it (fruit tags being de rigeur), why not explain what the EASA offers that the JAA did not. As supposedly intelligent posters, I really didn't think this would be a hard concept to grasp.
Having worked with EASA to type certify a new aircraft, I find the fact that a poster above "decided to look it up = has googled JAA and decided to tell me I'm wrong" highly amusing.
You really don't need experts with the internets to look stuff up, do you?
What prize lemons!
After all, if you can understand it I'm sure you'll be able to explain it to a "prize lemon"
You might then want to elaborate on how EASA actively helped Airbus compete...and why Airbus couldn't compete in the 30yrs before EASA.
I tend to use the quality of response from experts as the primary barometer in whether to listen to their opinions or not. If I tend not to trust their opinion I go off and have a read so I can ask more questions. I expect my clients to do the same with the advice I give them. I tend not to resort to name calling when they ask perfectly reasonable questions
You say you want it explaining, but you don't really do you? You'll never be convinced of any benefit of the EU or its agencies because you've already been brainwashed to think its all bad.
The JAA evolved into EASA because of an "evil repressive EU plan to do something stupid" is the way your mind appears to be working.
Your mocking style of a perfectly reasonable point made about (in this case EASA) is widespread amongst many hard core brexiteers who seem to have an unshakeable belief that the EU is bad, anything European is bad, and it all must be destroyed.
It's really quite bizarre.
Do you think we should abandon EASA then, and set up our own aviation regulator, duplicating and diverging?
It really is a wonderful example of how stupid some brexiteer logic is - "take back control of our laws! Yeehar! Who wouldn't think that sounds good!!" What, so we can force new and different rules on the aviation community and increase their costs which will then be passed onto us as consumers? Stupid on stilts.
Is there a plan yet? Still no?
Still no economic case? Nope! Quite the opposite.
As widely predicted, we're heading for something Norway like - what a total waste of time, resources and resulting in a badly divided Nation that is widely mocked around the world for doing something very stupid to just try and settle petty internal political party arguments.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff