So much cobblers talked about Brexit.
Discussion
Indeed, as expected there's been near two years of utter diatribe discussed and bantered around by the politico-punters and tabloid reading vox populi. No matter how we finally complete Brexit we will at last be free from the ridiculous socio-economic constraints of Brussels and, especially, Junkers and his self-serving cronies. Read here to understand the recent real Nett cost to rebate
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
For those too lazy to read in entirety...
>>In 2016/17 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £12.2 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.1 billion. There are different ways to measure the funds the UK receives from the EU. The above figure of £4.1 billion includes only funding allocated to UK government to manage. However, the European Commission also allocates funding directly to UK organisations, often following a competitive process. In recent years these funds have been worth around £1 billion - £1.5 billion to the UK. Accounting for these receipts results in the UK making an average net contribution of £7.1 billion between 2010 and 2014.<<
However, table.1 page.6 gives a far clearer statement of account...and that's excluding the proposed £35-39 billion release cost to be paid by 2022...and even worse, the forecast final annual payments 2018-2022 totalling some £52.7 billion
FY Nett Payment £££Bn
2018 9,100
2019 11,000
2020 11,200
2021 10,800
2022 10,600
To end, whilst there's been many millions of press written Brexit words [read: cobblers], who in their right mind could/would possibly want to habitually piss away £7-11 billion of UK tax payers money.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
For those too lazy to read in entirety...
>>In 2016/17 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £12.2 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.1 billion. There are different ways to measure the funds the UK receives from the EU. The above figure of £4.1 billion includes only funding allocated to UK government to manage. However, the European Commission also allocates funding directly to UK organisations, often following a competitive process. In recent years these funds have been worth around £1 billion - £1.5 billion to the UK. Accounting for these receipts results in the UK making an average net contribution of £7.1 billion between 2010 and 2014.<<
However, table.1 page.6 gives a far clearer statement of account...and that's excluding the proposed £35-39 billion release cost to be paid by 2022...and even worse, the forecast final annual payments 2018-2022 totalling some £52.7 billion
FY Nett Payment £££Bn
2018 9,100
2019 11,000
2020 11,200
2021 10,800
2022 10,600
To end, whilst there's been many millions of press written Brexit words [read: cobblers], who in their right mind could/would possibly want to habitually piss away £7-11 billion of UK tax payers money.
v8250 said:
To end, whilst there's been many millions of press written Brexit words [read: cobblers], who in their right mind could/would possibly want to habitually piss away £7-11 billion of UK tax payers money.
What is the total cost to replace the EU institutions we will no longer be part of here in the UK?What will the total cost to British businesses be of not only increased costs/red tape trading with EU countries, but also the many countries we benefit from trade agreements with as members of the EU?
Don't fall in to the common Leaver fallacy of assuming we don't get anything for our costs of membership
mx5nut said:
Funkycoldribena said:
I'll never understand this total obsession with belonging to a club hundreds of miles away unless you've got your fingers in the pie.
I'll never understand this total obsession with damaging our own country because some can't stand the idea of working more closely for mutual benefit with people who happen to have been born a few hundred miles away.No thanks, not for me I have always preferred a more individual approach to life. Preference for me to decide from who I purchase and sell to rather than the club decide.
As for damage to the Country, to early for any person or group to be able to suggest one way or other.
There was substantial public debate about joining the EEC for much of the 1960s. Even the Daily Mail was mad keen to join the EEC. There was then a fully argued referendum campaign in 1975, with the political issues front and centre. Things then went a bit quiet, not least because even Margaret Thatcher was pro EU (she also negotiated effectively to secure Britain a good deal, as did Major and Blair), and also because the fruits of membership began to be seen and the UK got off its arse.
There was always a stubborn Eurosceptic group, populated for the most part by extreme right or extreme left politicians, who hated the EEC/EU for different reasons. Gradually their voices became louder, and as press barons realised that the EU was not good for offshore billionaires, the mostly right leaning mass media started a steady campaign of lies about the EU that built up in public consciousness, to the extent that there is a website debunking the anti EU myths (but they are still believed).
The EU itself blundered badly by (1) mishandling the currency and debt issues, (2) expanding too fast, and (3) failing to engage with voters and appearing remote. Throw in general effects of globalisation, the left behinds, refugee crises, and abiding ideas of British specialness and greatness based on a vanished Empire, Dunkirk etc. Thus Brexit.
There was always a stubborn Eurosceptic group, populated for the most part by extreme right or extreme left politicians, who hated the EEC/EU for different reasons. Gradually their voices became louder, and as press barons realised that the EU was not good for offshore billionaires, the mostly right leaning mass media started a steady campaign of lies about the EU that built up in public consciousness, to the extent that there is a website debunking the anti EU myths (but they are still believed).
The EU itself blundered badly by (1) mishandling the currency and debt issues, (2) expanding too fast, and (3) failing to engage with voters and appearing remote. Throw in general effects of globalisation, the left behinds, refugee crises, and abiding ideas of British specialness and greatness based on a vanished Empire, Dunkirk etc. Thus Brexit.
StevieBee said:
jsf said:
sidicks said:
Which they did. Just as the public voted to go in, in the first place.
The public did no such thing.So, whilst they may not have voted on the decision to join, they had the opportunity to vote once the scope of involvement had become known.
The people were not asked if they wanted to join a political Union which would be known as the EU., if they had been, the vast majority would have voted no. Even now the scope of the EU is a complete unknown, so how could you expect people in 1975 to really know what they were voting for?
If the government had taken the UK out of the EU in 2016 in the same dishonest and sneaky way it got the UK into the EU in 1975, there would be outrage from the remainers, but it seems their highly selective view of the way things like this should be done is acceptable in their view.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Totally and utterly wrong, The political elite may have had some idea that joining the EEC would eventually mean that the UK would become part of a political union. but the general public most certainly did not, most believed they were voting to join a trading bloc, and nothing more.
If you had asked any thousand people in the street what the EU was in 1975, the vast majority would not have had a clue or an answer. There was no internet or many of the media communication outlets then, that we take for granted now, and even only a few channels on TV. so unless the almost every member of the public read ALL of ALL the newspapers of the day most would have any idea of what joining the EEC would mean for the UK.
Remainers whinge that people now don't know what leaving the EU would mean, but back in 1975 most people didn't have a clue what joining the the EEC would eventually mean. The only Myth is that you believe that the media was as widespread and as te simply it was notaccessible to the many n 1975 as it was in 2016. Quite simply it was not, or did you see hordes of miners and dock workers buying the Times or telegraph every single day to keep their finger on the political pulse in 1975?
As for democracy it has to be enacted, otherwise it is absolutely nothing at all, just hot air, or is democracy only democracy when it returns the result `you' wanted , but anything other than that, is not democracy and must be overturned or subverted?
Selective remainer democracy in action it would seem.
You didn't have to read the Times or the Telegraph in 1975 to get informed opinion as the tabloids had not yet dumbed down into comics for the hard of thinking. And the internet didn't exist for lies such as Turkey joining the EU to gain such credence.If you had asked any thousand people in the street what the EU was in 1975, the vast majority would not have had a clue or an answer. There was no internet or many of the media communication outlets then, that we take for granted now, and even only a few channels on TV. so unless the almost every member of the public read ALL of ALL the newspapers of the day most would have any idea of what joining the EEC would mean for the UK.
Remainers whinge that people now don't know what leaving the EU would mean, but back in 1975 most people didn't have a clue what joining the the EEC would eventually mean. The only Myth is that you believe that the media was as widespread and as te simply it was notaccessible to the many n 1975 as it was in 2016. Quite simply it was not, or did you see hordes of miners and dock workers buying the Times or telegraph every single day to keep their finger on the political pulse in 1975?
As for democracy it has to be enacted, otherwise it is absolutely nothing at all, just hot air, or is democracy only democracy when it returns the result `you' wanted , but anything other than that, is not democracy and must be overturned or subverted?
Selective remainer democracy in action it would seem.
Breadvan72 said:
There was substantial public debate about joining the EEC for much of the 1960s. Even the Daily Mail was mad keen to join the EEC. There was then a fully argued referendum campaign in 1975, with the political issues front and centre.
I can only imagine those claiming otherwise are either too young to remember or are being deliberately and selectively forgetful because reality doesn't fit their narrative.Pan Pan Pan said:
If you had asked any thousand people in the street what the EU was in 1975, the vast majority would not have had a clue or an answer. There was no internet or many of the media communication outlets then, that we take for granted now, and even only a few channels on TV. so unless the almost every member of the public read ALL of ALL the newspapers of the day most would have any idea of what joining the EEC would mean for the UK.
We weren't all as thick back then as you like to suggest back then. We could get information about voting before the internet and social media came along!Some of us even had electric lighting!
v8250 said:
Indeed, as expected there's been near two years of utter diatribe discussed and bantered around by the politico-punters and tabloid reading vox populi. No matter how we finally complete Brexit we will at last be free from the ridiculous socio-economic constraints of Brussels and, especially, Junkers and his self-serving cronies. Read here to understand the recent real Nett cost to rebate
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
For those too lazy to read in entirety...
>>In 2016/17 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £12.2 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.1 billion. There are different ways to measure the funds the UK receives from the EU. The above figure of £4.1 billion includes only funding allocated to UK government to manage. However, the European Commission also allocates funding directly to UK organisations, often following a competitive process. In recent years these funds have been worth around £1 billion - £1.5 billion to the UK. Accounting for these receipts results in the UK making an average net contribution of £7.1 billion between 2010 and 2014.<<
However, table.1 page.6 gives a far clearer statement of account...and that's excluding the proposed £35-39 billion release cost to be paid by 2022...and even worse, the forecast final annual payments 2018-2022 totalling some £52.7 billion
FY Nett Payment £££Bn
2018 9,100
2019 11,000
2020 11,200
2021 10,800
2022 10,600
To end, whilst there's been many millions of press written Brexit words [read: cobblers], who in their right mind could/would possibly want to habitually piss away £7-11 billion of UK tax payers money.
All to pay for a billion pounds a year trade deficit for almost the entire time the UK has been a member which was 71 billion pounds worth in 2016 alone, and also for fines if the UK does not spend its OWN money the way the EU tells it to. Not to mention the seizure of 80% of the fish stocks in UK territorial waters by the EEC for which the UK received no balancing compensation whatsoever, And let us not forget that Blair gave away a large chunk of the UK`s EU rebate for amendments to the CAP, where the EU took the extra billions off the UK taxpayer, and proceeded to make no amendments to the CAP.http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
For those too lazy to read in entirety...
>>In 2016/17 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £12.2 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.1 billion. There are different ways to measure the funds the UK receives from the EU. The above figure of £4.1 billion includes only funding allocated to UK government to manage. However, the European Commission also allocates funding directly to UK organisations, often following a competitive process. In recent years these funds have been worth around £1 billion - £1.5 billion to the UK. Accounting for these receipts results in the UK making an average net contribution of £7.1 billion between 2010 and 2014.<<
However, table.1 page.6 gives a far clearer statement of account...and that's excluding the proposed £35-39 billion release cost to be paid by 2022...and even worse, the forecast final annual payments 2018-2022 totalling some £52.7 billion
FY Nett Payment £££Bn
2018 9,100
2019 11,000
2020 11,200
2021 10,800
2022 10,600
To end, whilst there's been many millions of press written Brexit words [read: cobblers], who in their right mind could/would possibly want to habitually piss away £7-11 billion of UK tax payers money.
That is really fair and great club to be in. Not.
Breadvan72 said:
That is historically inaccurate and it is you who have the facts wrong. Try some research - the info is mostly online. The political issues were very much debated in 1975. The EEC was not called the EU then, but apart from that you are mistaken.
Debated by who?, The general public of 1975 you really need a lesson in history. I voted in teh1975 election and I can guarantee you no mention of what the EEC would morph itself into was ever made available to the general public at that time. P.s a tiny article in the corner of one newspaper does not count in terms of making the general public aware of what the EEC would turn itself into.Breadvan72 said:
That is historically inaccurate and it is you who have the facts wrong. Try some research - the info is mostly online. The political issues were very much debated in 1975. The EEC was not called the EU then, but apart from that you are mistaken.
I can’t recall the debates around joining the common market at all other than some French Prime minister named de gaulle kept refusing our entry into the C M.Back then of course we only had newspapers, television and radio, no Prime Ministers QT, Daily Politics, Peston on Sunday and the rest we we take for granted now, along with Internet of course. Many things have changed in our World to the extent that our history of common market and morphing into the eu are largely irrelevant save for academics.
Breadvan72 said:
That is historically inaccurate and it is you who have the facts wrong. Try some research - the info is mostly online. The political issues were very much debated in 1975. The EEC was not called the EU then, but apart from that you are mistaken.
It was the 'Common Market'
No bad thing, but certainly NOT the United States Of Europe governed by the unelectable.
Ali G said:
Breadvan72 said:
That is historically inaccurate and it is you who have the facts wrong. Try some research - the info is mostly online. The political issues were very much debated in 1975. The EEC was not called the EU then, but apart from that you are mistaken.
It was the 'Common Market'
No bad thing, but certainly NOT the United States Of Europe governed by the unelectable.
Breadvan72 said:
That old myth again! The plan for political union was clear at the time of joining in 1973, and the public had more and better information available to it in 1975 than it had in 2016. Political union was plainly discussed. The EEC was still called the EEC, but all the stuff about sovereignty etc was on the table. It is a Leaver myth that this was not so.
No referendum sets in stone the will of the people, just as no election does. Democracy is a continuing thing, not a once and for all event.
Interestingly there was evidently enough detail in 1975 to understand what "ever closer union" meant, but not enough in 2016 to understand what "leave the EU" meant...No referendum sets in stone the will of the people, just as no election does. Democracy is a continuing thing, not a once and for all event.
Totally agree on democracy. Let's implement the last result, meanwhile get a party together to stand on a referendum for re-entry to the EU. Get them elected, have the referendum, and if enough people want to go back in, bingo. Everyone's happy. (Or probably not, but hey ho. Democracy has it's say again).
Breadvan72 said:
Ali G said:
Breadvan72 said:
That is historically inaccurate and it is you who have the facts wrong. Try some research - the info is mostly online. The political issues were very much debated in 1975. The EEC was not called the EU then, but apart from that you are mistaken.
It was the 'Common Market'
No bad thing, but certainly NOT the United States Of Europe governed by the unelectable.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
[Pages 11 & 12]
WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?
Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.
What are the facts?
Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.
Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.
Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.
Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.
It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.
Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."
Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.
The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.
Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170 in favour of staying in on the new terms.
[Pages 11 & 12]
WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?
Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.
What are the facts?
Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.
Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.
Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.
Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.
It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.
Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."
Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.
The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.
Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170 in favour of staying in on the new terms.
Edited by chrispmartha on Tuesday 23 January 14:50
mx5nut said:
I'll never understand this total obsession with damaging our own country because some can't stand the idea of working more closely for mutual benefit with people who happen to have been born a few hundred miles away.
I’ll never understand how you can repeatedly get so much wrong, how you can ignorantly misrepresent the views of others and how you’re still able to post on this forum despite your constant trolling that must break numerous forum rules.If you don’t understand the difference between trading with other nations and a political union, you only have to ask an adult and they will explain it to you.
Breadvan72 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Totally and utterly wrong,....
History is recorded. The documents are there, including the clear leaflets sent to all households on 1975. The facts do not fit your prejudices and support leaver mythology, but they won't change to suit you. In any case if it was like the biased booklet each household received in 2016, it would just have been part of lying project fear campaign on behalf of the political elite and gravy trainers, e.g. not even worth using in the smallest room
Pan Pan Pan said:
Breadvan72 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Totally and utterly wrong,....
History is recorded. The documents are there, including the clear leaflets sent to all households on 1975. The facts do not fit your prejudices and support leaver mythology, but they won't change to suit you. In any case if it was like the biased booklet each household received in 2016, it would just have been part of lying project fear campaign on behalf of the political elite and gravy trainers, e.g. not even worth using in the smallest room
Your second paragraph is priceless.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff