Should we be getting behind Brexit by boycotting German cars

[InitialDave]

Ron99 said:

I think if the vote had been 'remain', the politicians would have taken it as a big thumbs up to fully join with the EU. Accounting for just 10% of the EU population, the UK voters would have been an insignificant minority voice in the EU thereafter; unable to set their own policies and unable to have a significant influence on EU policies.

That doesn't contradict what I said. If that happened and it was a problem, you could choose to leave later.

[RobM77]

TooMany2cvs said:

InitialDave said:

mr alan said:

Don’t you think they would want our billions if we ever applied to rejoin ? After all they need as much as possible to prop up failing economies of certain countries

Of course they would. Because they wouldn't have to honour the preferential terms of our original membership.

<nods>
No rebate.
No Euro opt-out.
No Schengen opt-out.

And that's just a start.

This is one of the main reasons why people are so upset over Brexit. We had a shockingly good deal from the EU that we won't be getting back. Plus, not only was the membership fee quoted by 'Leave' a lie, but it failed to take into account the extensive benefits that we got back. As an analogy, leaving for financial reasons was like quitting a lucrative job in the city to save on the £20 a day train fare

It goes beyond the straight money that exchanged hands too, obviously the benefits of being in the single market were enormous, both in terms of cheaper products for us as consumers, but also in terms of taxed business that took place in the UK. We also benefitted enormously from freedom of movement of people; on average they contributed more than native Brits, so that's another tax hole we're going to have to fill, along with the jobs they did that we benefitted from (nurses for example; in some areas of the UK EU staff are in a majority, and we need nurses now more than ever).

Science funding is another one to add to the list above: we received a huge amount of funding for that and it was, to be honest, rather unfair compared to other nations. As you say, the list is fairly long!

[TooMany2cvs]

Ron99 said:

I think if the vote had been 'remain', the politicians would have taken it as a big thumbs up to fully join with the EU.

Really?

I don't.

I think it'd have just given the OK to continue as-was.

Ron99 said:

Accounting for just 10% of the EU population, the UK voters would have been an insignificant minority voice in the EU thereafter; unable to set their own policies and unable to have a significant influence on EU policies.

The UK has been an "insignificant minority" since we joined - when we were 56m in an EEC of just under 270m.

[otolith]

TooMany2cvs said:

<nods>
No rebate.
No Euro opt-out.
No Schengen opt-out.

And that's just a start.

To be honest, had we voted to remain I would be arguing that we should get on board with all of that anyway, and stop being sniping malcontents on the periphery perpetually wanting to be a special case and trying to slow the progress of EU integration. Properly, enthusiastically in, or out.

[Ron99]

Zod said:

Yes and 50 million Turks would have arrived immediately at Heathrow.

I don't know about that, but there would certainly have been a push for more 'equality' across Europe.
Equality is great when you're on the receiving end of the wealth redistributions but not so great when you're the one who has to subsidise someone else.

[Ron99]

InitialDave said:

That doesn't contradict what I said. If that happened and it was a problem, you could choose to leave later.

'Later' we'd be in too deep or even simply unable to leave because we had given total control to central EU government, with our government little more than local councillors.

[TooMany2cvs]

otolith said:

TooMany2cvs said:

<nods>
No rebate.
No Euro opt-out.
No Schengen opt-out.

And that's just a start.

To be honest, had we voted to remain I would be arguing that we should get on board with all of that anyway, and stop being sniping malcontents on the periphery perpetually wanting to be a special case and trying to slow the progress of EU integration. Properly, enthusiastically in, or out.

I'm generally very pro-EU, but I was never a fan of the Euro - and I'm fairly unsurprised at how it's sitting. It's hard enough setting monetary policy to suit all of the UK, let alone such widely differing economies.

I don't see a huge problem with Schengen, but I can see why it'd be politically toxic, especially given how all the shouting about "taking back control of migration" ignores that the UK has ALWAYS had 100% control of non-EU migration, and Schengen membership would cede that. For the contiguous countries of the continent, with huge land borders, it makes a lot more sense than for an island with only a very short land border to one other country that we've always had the Common Travel Area with.

The irony is that Scottish independence is more likely to force our hand on that one - if they join the EU, it'd be either a Schengen land border or rUK joining Schengen, even if rUK is outside the EU... Not all current Schengen countries are EU, of course.

[InitialDave]

Ron99 said:

'Later' we'd be in too deep or even simply unable to leave because we had given total control to central EU government, with our government little more than local councillors.

It is highly unlikely we would ever sacrifice the ability to have an escape hatch in the form of the "members may leave" clause.

If your point is that leaving would be a clusterfk of disorganisation, that doesn't seem to have concerned leave voters this time round.

[anonymous-user]

Zod said:

Your argument is self-defeating: if you have to follow what people vote for, then you can't complain if they are offered another vote and vote differently. Why 40 years? We re-elect Parliament every five years.

I am sure you can work out why 40 years.

[Ron99]

InitialDave said:

That doesn't contradict what I said. If that happened and it was a problem, you could choose to leave later.

I meant to add:

I felt that if there had been three options, the outcome would have been very different.

1. Leave.
2. Remain and continue as we are.
3. Remain and head for full integration.

I feared that a vote to remain would be taken by politicians (current or next government) as a signal to carry out option 3.
Therefore I voted option 1.
If there had been an option 2, I think it would have achieved an overwhelming majority.

[TooMany2cvs]

Ron99 said:

I felt that if there had been three options, the outcome would have been very different.

1. Leave.
2. Remain and continue as we are.
3. Remain and head for full integration.

I feared that a vote to remain would be taken by politicians (current or next government) as a signal to carry out option 3.
Therefore I voted option 1.
If there had been an option 2, I think it would have achieved an overwhelming majority.

Surely a fourth...

1. Leave completely.
2. Leave, but remain inside single market or EEA.
3. Remain and continue as we are.
4. Remain and head for full integration.

Trouble is, you get to that level of detail, and you start to actually assume a reliable level of factual understanding on the part of the electorate. We all know what the level of that was this time round.

And that's why Referenda are inherently flawed for complex questions.

[otolith]

TooMany2cvs said:

otolith said:

TooMany2cvs said:

<nods>
No rebate.
No Euro opt-out.
No Schengen opt-out.

And that's just a start.

To be honest, had we voted to remain I would be arguing that we should get on board with all of that anyway, and stop being sniping malcontents on the periphery perpetually wanting to be a special case and trying to slow the progress of EU integration. Properly, enthusiastically in, or out.

I'm generally very pro-EU, but I was never a fan of the Euro - and I'm fairly unsurprised at how it's sitting. It's hard enough setting monetary policy to suit all of the UK, let alone such widely differing economies.

I don't see a huge problem with Schengen, but I can see why it'd be politically toxic, especially given how all the shouting about "taking back control of migration" ignores that the UK has ALWAYS had 100% control of non-EU migration, and Schengen membership would cede that. For the contiguous countries of the continent, with huge land borders, it makes a lot more sense than for an island with only a very short land border to one other country that we've always had the Common Travel Area with.

Oh, they are problematic in various ways, and probably not in our national interest, but I think if you want to be properly in it you have to set aside national interest and welcome collective decision making.

[anonymous-user]

NO! Hope that helps!

[TooMany2cvs]

otolith said:

but I think if you want to be properly in it you have to set aside national interest and welcome collective decision making.

ISWYM, but the flip side is that the EU should be prepared to allow opt-outs from semi-arms-length groupings like those - which it always has been so far.

Let's face it, the UK is not the only one to opt out of either of those. There's five opt-outs currently in place, and the UK is part of four of them, but always with at least one other country.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

The irony is that Scottish independence is more likely to force our hand on that one - if they join the EU, it'd be either a Schengen land border or rUK joining Schengen, even if rUK is outside the EU... Not all current Schengen countries are EU, of course.

Brexit means Scottish independence is far less likely. With the UK as members of the EU, the ties to the UK internal market are far less important, because they would have access via the EU membership (bear with me, the scots think they can stay EU members).

With the UK outside the EU, Scotland would be leaving their most important market (the UK), that's far more risky for them than leaving whilst the UK was a member of the EU as it gives them no easy way into the market.

The reality the Scottish don't agree with, is that they wont be allowed to join the EU (Catalonia could potentially see how true this is), so either scenario is pretty dire anyway, but UK being in the EU is far less risky for them in a breakaway scenario if they did manage to wangle EU membership.

[Salamura]

Why stop at German? Boycott the French, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish cars too! And how could we forget the eastern Europeans, the biggest problem of this country! Boycott the Slovak, Czech, Polish and Romanian cars as well!

And why stop at cars? Just boycott everything from Europe! Now, that's a recipe for prosperity!

[Zod]

jsf said:

Zod said:

Your argument is self-defeating: if you have to follow what people vote for, then you can't complain if they are offered another vote and vote differently. Why 40 years? We re-elect Parliament every five years.

I am sure you can work out why 40 years.

Shouldn’t it be 41 then?

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Oh, indeed. Point out all those other supranational organisations, and they glaze over.

[anonymous-user]

Zod said:

jsf said:

Zod said:

Your argument is self-defeating: if you have to follow what people vote for, then you can't complain if they are offered another vote and vote differently. Why 40 years? We re-elect Parliament every five years.

I am sure you can work out why 40 years.

Shouldn’t it be 41 then?

Nope, it was 1975 to 2016 for the last time gap = 41 years
We had our referendum last year, so 40 years from now equals that out.

[boxedin]

https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company/production.htm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_G...

Never mind where the parts are all sourced from.

Brexit, I don't think they really give two monkeys, other than the politics. I suspect the 'Germans' are more worried about the loss of 600,000 in country jobs in relation to EVs.

http://fortune.com/2017/09/11/european-carmakers-e...