Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Options
1…121122124126127…203

Comments

  • Options
    #3692
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    ...and got nothing back in return :rolleyes:

    Effectively if you are a net contributor, you just get a portion of your own money back in return.

    Another idea is that you could just never send it in the first place and use it all for domestic priorities.


  • Options
    #3693
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    davedanon wrote: »
    And anyway, isn't it shared debt? Isn't that partly why the Frugal 4 were so dead against it?
    Sweden barked once and then rolled over and signed up.


  • Options
    #3694
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    theological wrote:
    Another idea is that you could just never send it in the first place and use it all for domestic priorities.


    All 0.3% of GDP of it. A fraction of what they are going lose by walking out of the market that takes 46% of their exports.


  • Options
    #3695
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    First Up wrote: »
    All 0.3% of GDP of it. A fraction of what they are going lose by walking out of the market that takes 46% of their exports.

    It seems like you're seriously suggesting that on January 1st the UK is going to lose all of its 46% share to the EU.

    Firstly, I'm still pretty hopeful something will be agreed.

    Secondly, even if nothing is agreed, there will still be a sizeable amount trade between them.

    I'm also not sure how you've calculated 0.3% of GDP considering we're talking about the €750bn EU coronavirus fund. I tend to agree with biko, the UK can manage its own coronavirus funds according to what it needs.

    This idea that constantly the EU needs to be doing more and not less has always been an odd one to me. When people talk about reforming the EU, it is always about ceding more sovereignty to the EU rather than the other way around.


  • Options
    #3696
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,547 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    It is about solidarity. Those that can help those that can't. On the basis that in other times it will be returned or other benefits.

    Take Ireland for example. The EU stood up to the UK shoulder to shoulder with Ireland, forcing the UK to adhere to its obligations which quite clearly it was happy to avoid.

    With the benefits that an EU that bounces back quicker means better economy for everyone and open up of travel for UK citizens.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3697
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    The EU are borrowing billions for its budget the next seven years.
    The member states are now binding themselves to help repay this debt,
    essentially blocking themselves from being able to leave and also tying
    themselves down until 2058 when the EU's debt is supposed to be repaid.

    When our children are our age they will still pay off this debt agreed now.


  • Options
    #3698
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    It is about solidarity. Those that can help those that can't. On the basis that in other times it will be returned or other benefits.

    [...]

    With the benefits that an EU that bounces back quicker means better economy for everyone and open up of travel for UK citizens.

    So you're suggesting that there's advantages to the UK saddling itself with debt to pay for other countries to let them in to go on holiday?

    If the UK was genuinely a bigger concern from a public health perspective, the funds shouldn't be correlated to more travel.

    Also, I don't see any reason why the UK should borrow money so that they can travel. Travel is primarily a benefit to the receiving countries economically, it isn't a benefit to the UK.

    I agree with biko, determining UK policy on this and other related areas in parliament is a better call.


  • Options
    #3699
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    theological wrote:
    It seems like you're seriously suggesting that on January 1st the UK is going to lose all of its 46% share to the EU.

    Nice try (not).

    Leaving the Single Market is going to hit UK exports and the hit to UK GDP will be a lot more than it contributes to the EU's budget.
    theological wrote:
    I'm also not sure how you've calculated 0.3% of GDP considering we're talking about the €750bn EU coronavirus fund. I tend to agree with biko, the UK can manage its own coronavirus funds according to what it needs.

    You could always look it up. 0.32% - fourth behind Netherlands, Germany and Sweden as a percentage of GDP.

    I'm not talking about coronavirus funds - just the numbers that Farage and company were sticking on buses to persuade the more gullible dunces.


  • Options
    #3700
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    First Up wrote: »
    Nice try (not).

    Leaving the Single Market is going to hit UK exports and the hit to UK GDP will be a lot more than it contributes to the EU's budget.



    You could always look it up. 0.32% - fourth behind Netherlands, Germany and Sweden as a percentage of GDP.

    I'm not talking about coronavirus funds - just the numbers that Farage and company were sticking on buses to persuade the more gullible dunces.

    We (the rest of us on the thread) were referring to the coronavirus fund. biko suggested it was a lucky escape for the UK, I think he's right.

    I'm not interested in rehashing the topic of general EU budgets. My opinion on that is already very clear.


  • Options
    #3701
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,366 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    biko wrote: »
    The EU are borrowing billions for its budget the next seven years.
    The member states are now binding themselves to help repay this debt,
    essentially blocking themselves from being able to leave and also tying
    themselves down until 2058 when the EU's debt is supposed to be repaid.

    When our children are our age they will still pay off this debt agreed now.

    1. Wait until you see how much the UK will be borrowing.
    2. We need to borrow money. Fact. If we opted out of the EU borrowing and budget, your children would have nothing to repay because nobody would lend us any money.
    3. Without the EU, your children would be living in a 1950s Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3702
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    theological wrote: »
    We (the rest of us on the thread) were referring to the coronavirus fund. biko suggested it was a lucky escape for the UK, I think he's right.

    You are aware that Britain is going to have to borrow similarly large amounts of money to ameliorate the negative effects of Corona, aren't you? In just the same way as the EU is doing, except they (the EU) are doing it collectively. The debt is shared, and guaranteed by a huge bloc's central bank. I rather think this will make it less expensive than Britain's borrowing.

    Also: the EU budget for the next 7 years isn't 'borrowed' money, that 'our children will have to pay off'. The EU budget comes from the 27 members.


  • Options
    #3703
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    davedanon wrote: »
    You are aware that Britain is going to have to borrow similarly large amounts of money to ameliorate the negative effects of Corona, aren't you? In just the same way as the EU is doing, except they (the EU) are doing it collectively. The debt is shared, and guaranteed by a huge bloc's central bank. I rather think this will make it less expensive than Britain's borrowing.

    Also: the EU budget for the next 7 years isn't 'borrowed' money, that 'our children will have to pay off'. The EU budget comes from the 27 members.

    Britain will have to borrow money for itself and domestic needs sure. It won't have to borrow even more money for other countries however.


  • Options
    #3704
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    theological wrote:
    We (the rest of us on the thread) were referring to the coronavirus fund. biko suggested it was a lucky escape for the UK, I think he's right.

    You were assuring us long before coronavirus that the UK would prosper outside the EU. This virus is just your latest straw to clutch and that's not going to work either.


  • Options
    #3705
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    First Up wrote: »
    You were assuring us long before coronavirus that the UK would prosper outside the EU. This virus is just your latest straw to clutch and that's not going to work either.

    biko brought this up on the thread, not me. I was simply responding to his point which is a good one.

    You really ought to read the discussion before contributing out of context.


  • Options
    #3706
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    theological wrote: »
    Britain will have to borrow money for itself and domestic needs sure. It won't have to borrow even more money for other countries however.

    I think you misunderstand the way this is going to work. The EU is funding a coronavirus aid package collectively. No-one is 'borrowing even more money for other countries'. [/QUOTE]


  • Options
    #3707
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    davedanon wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand the way this is going to work. The EU is funding a coronavirus aid package collectively. No-one is 'borrowing even more money for other countries'.


    Think about it logically. If the UK was a net contributor, that means that it would give more money than it receives. That means that the money that it doesn't receive back is going to be spent in and for other countries.

    If the money for this fund was borrowed, then that would mean that the UK would be borrowing more money for other countries than what it would spend domestically.

    That's fine if you think that's how it should work, but be transparent about it.


  • Options
    #3708
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    biko wrote: »
    The EU are borrowing billions for its budget the next seven years.
    The member states are now binding themselves to help repay this debt,
    essentially blocking themselves from being able to leave and also tying
    themselves down until 2058 when the EU's debt is supposed to be repaid.

    When our children are our age they will still pay off this debt agreed now.

    Have you looked at how much the UK has borrowed due to first, Brexit, and then the SARS-Covid-19 virus?

    No deal Brexit to push UK debt to 50-year high

    UK borrowing surged to record £128 billion during lockdown

    What makes you think that's any less of a problem for future generations of British children?


  • Options
    #3709
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,272 ✭✭✭fash


    theological wrote: »
    I've explained why I support Brexit extensively on this thread, and in its predecessor.
    No you haven't. And if you had you would be able to link to a post where you have done so. But you can't because you haven't.
    All you've done is ignore questions, say "I have or will explain somewhere else", then don't.


    You can use the search function to explore the reasons I have for this. There's no need to repeat it.
    Done. You don't explain anything.

    The reason why I don't continually repeat it at this stage is because it is a stale argument.
    The reason is you haven't and can't.

    There's no value explaining this to people who aren't really interested in the other side of the argument. The UK has left the EU and this just needs to be finished in December.
    I'm very interested in the other side of the argument. This has obviously been beneficial for the parasites who wish to feast on the rotting carcass of the UK and Russia - if there are other beneficiaries, I would certainly be happy to hear.


  • Options
    #3710
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    theological wrote:
    biko brought this up on the thread, not me. I was simply responding to his point which is a good one.

    You really ought to read the discussion before contributing out of context.

    What context would that be?


  • Options
    #3711
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    First Up wrote: »
    What context would that be?


    The context of where we are in the thread that you're posting in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3712
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    theological wrote:
    The context of where we are in the thread that you're posting in.


    You mean the thread where you are predicting that the UK will be better off on it's own than as part of a wider community of nations?


  • Options
    #3713
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    theological wrote: »
    We (the rest of us on the thread) were referring to the coronavirus fund. biko suggested it was a lucky escape for the UK, I think he's right.
    (...)
    Luckier escape for the EU27, considering the parlous state of the UK's public finances and the unaccountability of those in charge (-LOL!) spending public money it doesn't have on mates' shell companies.

    How many Cummings* is the UK in by now, over cancelled Covid projects?

    (*1 Cumming = £108m)


  • Options
    #3714
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    theological wrote: »
    Think about it logically. If the UK was a net contributor, that means that it would give more money than it receives. That means that the money that it doesn't receive back is going to be spent in and for other countries.

    If the money for this fund was borrowed, then that would mean that the UK would be borrowing more money for other countries than what it would spend domestically.

    That's fine if you think that's how it should work, but be transparent about it.

    So you think EU membership can be summed up as a zero-sum game. A simple binary.

    Net recipient = good

    Net contributor = bad

    My God, that is incredibly revealing. Do you think that countries want to join the EU because they just think there's a few quid in it?


  • Options
    #3715
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,208 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    theological wrote: »
    Think about it logically. If the UK was a net contributor, that means that it would give more money than it receives. That means that the money that it doesn't receive back is going to be spent in and for other countries.

    If the money for this fund was borrowed, then that would mean that the UK would be borrowing more money for other countries than what it would spend domestically.

    That's fine if you think that's how it should work, but be transparent about it.




    UK will spend hundreds of millions putting up customs and border infrastructure that was not previously needed. Paying money to change to a system that will hurt both them and their potential trading partners. This is scenario 1.



    A far better investment might be to give say half of that money to a weaker trading partner and not put up the barriers.


    Compared to scenario 1, the UK spends half as much cash. Trade is increased rather than decreases. And for the trading partner, not only do they have more trade now, they can invest the grant money to improve themselves so that in the future they have even more money to buy nice things from the UK!


  • Options
    #3716
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    1. Wait until you see how much the UK will be borrowing.
    2. We need to borrow money. Fact. If we opted out of the EU borrowing and budget, your children would have nothing to repay because nobody would lend us any money.
    3. Without the EU, your children would be living in a 1950s Ireland.
    I'm not sure why you number your guesses like they were facts.

    Ireland joined EEC in 1973, was it 1950s during the 60s too?
    If EU is so good, why did it take 20 years until the 90 for things to change?

    Right now, Ireland is among the four worst EU countries for increased rates of poverty or social exclusion, according to a study looking at developments in all 28 member states.
    EU didn't lift Ireland. Ireland lifted itself.

    Anyway, this thread is about UK.


  • Options
    #3717
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,547 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    davedanon wrote: »
    So you think EU membership can be summed up as a zero-sum game. A simple binary.

    Net recipient = good

    Net contributor = bad

    My God, that is incredibly revealing. Do you think that countries want to join the EU because they just think there's a few quid in it?

    But the reality is even worse. The UK is a net recipient of the EU, just not in direct payments. The growth of export markets, FDI (the much talked about car plants for example) are, in part, due to the EU and the SM and CU.

    Financial Services. Sure London was always a main hub, but they have consolidated that already strong position by being the hub for all of Europe, rather than just the UK. Do people really believe, had the UK stayed outside of the EU, that the UK FS sector would have grown so much?


  • Options
    #3718
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,547 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    biko wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you number your guesses like they were facts.

    Ireland joined EEC in 1973, was it 1950s during the 60s too?
    If EU is so good, why did it take 20 years until the 90 for things to change?

    Right now, Ireland is among the four worst EU countries for increased rates of poverty or social exclusion, according to a study looking at developments in all 28 member states.
    EU didn't lift Ireland. Ireland lifted itself.

    Anyway, this thread is about UK.

    UK was the sick man of Europe when it joined the EEC. It takes time to change an economy, the UK have been struggling for 10 years with austerity.

    There is no doubt that Ireland lifted itself, but with massive direct and indirect help from the EU (or its previous iterations). Money to help build motorways, sports facilities, funding training. FDI which lead to increased taxes, better job prospects and even greater confidence of the Irish to act on an international stage.

    And the latest example, where the UK attempted to bully Ireland over the NI border, but with the support of the EU together we forced the UK to live up to their obligations and to accept their responsibilities. Do you honestly believe the UK would have agreed such a deal with Ireland on its own?


  • Options
    #3719
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,530 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    biko wrote: »
    EU didn't lift Ireland. Ireland lifted itself.

    Wow


  • Options
    #3720
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,934 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    biko wrote: »
    EU didn't lift Ireland. Ireland lifted itself.

    Based on what?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3721
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,045 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    biko wrote: »
    EU didn't lift Ireland. Ireland lifted itself.

    Charlie Haughey. What a patriot :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Advertisement