On 01:38 10 Oct 2017, Yellow wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:47:41 +0100, pamela <***@nospam.com>
>> On 20:50 9 Oct 2017, Yellow wrote:
>> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 18:28:51 +0100, pamela
>> > <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> On 17:15 9 Oct 2017, Yellow wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:19:04 +0100, pamela
>> >> > <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Ask those who advocated Brexit. They got us into this
>> >> >> mess.
>> >> >
>> >> > The mess being that the EU, in your view, have the whip
>> >> > hand?
>> >> The mess is to do with progress we are making and the
>> >> outcome we may get with leaving the EU, the arrangements we
>> >> will have with the EU after we leave and the arrangements we
>> >> will have with non- EU trading partners.
>> > Did you think a deal would have been struck by now then?
>> I ownder, did you?
> So you didn't think a deal would be struck by now? Which is it?
>> >> > Given you do not however think this is sufficient for the
>> >> > UK to change its mind and stay in the EU, I guess the next
>> >> > question has to be - so what?
>> >> The UK would do better to stay in the EU.
>> > Why?
>> The real question is why is it better to leave rather than
> Because that was the result of the referendum.
That is one definition of "better". Better because it reflects
However it is not better economically. Nor for our own free
movement through EU countries. Nor for international
environmental agreements. Nor pan-European research. Nor for
British farmers. Etc.
>> > Because it is too hard to leave?
>> Of course, the difficulty of leaving does not even arise if you
>> choose to stay and staying has its own advantages too.
>> >> We are not getting £350 million a week but having to pay out
>> >> divorce money to the EU.
>> > But you do realise that the settlement will be a one off,
>> > yes?
>> How many billion do you estimate the settlement will be?
> I don't know. Less is better but it is not something I am going
> to get het up over, as long as payments stop after.
> As a net contributor, leaving is always going to be cheaper than
The Leavers' calculations of net contribution were selective and
stated with the misleading idea that we would be better off to the
tune of £350 million per week.
>> I guess we should now add the two additional years Theresa May
>> propose during which time it was be surprising if the EU
>> invests in the UK as heavily as when it had not triggered
>> Article 50.
> One of the EU's demands is that the UK pays to the end of the
> current budget period, your "extra 2 years" - so this is not
> additional but instead is what the UK has said it will agree to.
Not cheap, is it.
>> >> EU immigrants will be replaced by ROW immigration.
>> > They will? This is news.
>> "more recent figures we have suggest we might be seeing a
>> return to having more immigration from the rest of the world
>> than from the EU."
> But you said "replaced" - which is clearly rubbish.
Depends what you mean by replaced. You have chosen just one
meaning but the article uses a more common meaning in their
context and I would agree with them.
> And so what if we have more people from outside the EU?
One of the biggest selling points fo Brexit was the significant
reduction in immigrants which control of our own borders would
In fact, we will end up with fewer EU immigrants and more ROW
immigrants. I don't know about you but I would far rather have EU
immigrants here than immigrants from other continents with their
>> >> Our trade with the EU might well incur significant tariffs
>> >> and trade with ROW has not been agreed.
>> >> Exactly what are the tangible benefits Britain gains by
>> >> leaving?
>> > In my opinion it is of benefit that will not longer be part
>> > of the Single Market or Customs Union and we will not ever be
>> > part of the EU's drive towards "ever closer union".
>> How tangible is that? I suggest it is not very tangible at
> Tangible - a thing that is perceptible by touch.
Exactly. Not dreamy fluffy notions like sovereignty for its own
sake. Sovereignty is of value if it brings real world tangible
> You mean like you want the benefits and pitfalls of EU
> membership to be cast in aspic?
Did you really mean "aspic"? It doesn't sound right.
>> > So, no more FOM, no more competing with 27 other countries
>> > for government tenders, the opportunity for non-EU trade
>> > deals, no more red tape for companies that do not export
>> > which is the same as if they did, no more laws that are not
>> > in the UK's interest, and did I mention - no "ever closer
>> > union"?
>> Does any of that have hard monetary value to us or do we only
>> end up with a warm feeling and less need for us to stay
> So, for example, you do not think that it might be in the UK's
> interest to purchase fit for purpose goods from a UK
> manufacturer, employing UK residents, rather than having to
> field (at £27,000 each according to LUL's purchasing department)
> tenders from across the EU, having to legally accept imported
> goods instead?
Competition is healthy. If we manufacture something better than
other countries do then we should be allowed to propose it on EU
government tenders. Of course, we also have to accept the
The consumer in the UK doesn't really want to subsidise British
jobs of the product supplied under a preferential deal is more
expensive or less good that from another source. If we have to
prop up a particualr industry then, rather than favouritism, we
can ask central government to help them direct.
> You also do not think it might be in the UK's interest to not
> have a flood of cheap labour to increase the profits of big
> business to save them having to train and employ UK residents?
Fortress Britain is not going to work in the modern world.
> And you do not think it is in UK's consumer's interest to be
> able to purchase food from outside the EU rather than having to
> pay extra to subsidise EU agriculture?
Don't forget the EU helps subsidise British agriculture. Farmers
were politically favoured to ensure self-sufficiency in times of
strife or war. Getting necessary food from half way across the
world in New Zealand is hardly a recipe for doing that.
>> There's just no need for all this "Rule Brittania, Britons will
>> never be slaves". France is a nation just as proud of its
>> indepedence as we are and it had no fear that its sovereignty
>> is going to be engulfed by the EU but to Brexiteers it is now
>> the primary objective.
> If you think France is so cool, please feel free to go and live
> there. I hope you are thin or you will not get a job.
I'm not sure how fat women in France relate to my statement that
France is a nation which is just as proud of its independence as
we are but has no fear that its sovereignty is going to be
engulfed by EU institutions which Brexiteers seem to think will
happen with Britain.
>> > Just off the top of my head of course.
>> >> > If they really do have us over your barrel, then our only
>> >> > options are to agree to the unreasonable terms "over a
>> >> > barrel" implies, or walk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Would you agree?
>> >> Now that the true details and costs of leaving are becoming
>> >> clearer, we should think carefully if we want to leave at
>> >> all.
>> > Because our membership of the EU is only about money? In your
>> > opinion, that is.
>> The biggest selling point the Leave campaign could think of
>> before the referendum was plastered across their battle bus and
>> it referred to £350 million per week.
> I ask again - do *you* think our membership of the EU should
> only be measured in terms of money?
>> What's the point of us making essentially the same laws as the
>> EU does (and whatever else you believe is the benfit of Brexit)
>> if that costs us a significant amount of money every year
>> together with a loss of jobs from fleeing industries?
> Because it is not (just) about the money.
Britain's place in the EU may be about more than money but that
does not mean it is about everything other than money. As Boris
and Gove who knew that their £350 million a week slogan, even if
false, had a major appeal to the British voter.