Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

Danzy wrote: »

The level of abuse and vitriol in the Telegraph Comment section towards Ruth Davidson is something to behold.

The level of abuse and vitriol in the Telegraph Comment section is something to behold.

Aegir wrote: »

Now, how’s about you doing the decent thing and backing up your statement that it nonsense with telling us all why

Well, the "gives us loads of over paid, self important politicians and public servants gives us loads of over paid, self important politicians and public servants" is just a bog-standard whinge that you can make about any government at any level.

The EU is actually a pretty slender organisation. It employs about 46,000 people across all the EU institutions, which sounds like a lot. But bear in mind that they serve a population of over 500 million, and then contrast that with the 34,000 people employed by Birmingham City Council to serve a population of 1.1 million.

The "try and treat us as all being the same and pass legislation based on some form of model eu citizen" jibe is just nonsense. Completely untrue, and - no offence - pretty ignorant. The principle of subsidiarity is deeply entrenched in the EU legal system - the principle that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level. This means that decisions are taken on an EU-wide basis only where there is need for matters to be decided at that level; the default is that they are taken at a lower level, whether that be nationally, regionally, locally or by the individual. Few, if any, decisions taken at the EU level are taken at that level because of "some form of model EU citizen".

And as for "sliding into a federal Europe", developments in or additions to the EU's powers and competence require the unanimous consent of all member states, which in some cases (including Ireland) requires approval in a national referendum. This isn't something that can happen by accident, and it isn't something the UK can be compelled into against its will.

Aegir wrote: »

Careful Tom, what I posted is pretty much in line with the shinner’s view on Europe (well, it was but their policies seem to be very flexible when it comes to Europe) thinking differently may sever the connection to the collective.

SF's anti EU rethoric dates back to around the same time as you guys where entering it willing.

Their opinions on it have changed...just as your guys opinions have changed. So apply the 'flexible' slander to all, or none at all.

You supply yet another example, by the way, of you lashing out at something...anything Irish to defend the UK. :rolleyes:

Aegir wrote: »

Decisions are taken at an EU wide level for whatever the EU thinks is within its powers. The recent changes to summer time being a good example.

Decisions are taken at an EU level only for what are actually within the EU's powers. The EU's powers are set by the treaties, which are made by the Member States. The EU only has such powers as its member states unanimously agree to confer on it.

By way of illustration, a good example is the fact that there have been no recent changes to summer time. The European Parliament has suggested changes, but it lacks the power to make them. The changes will require the agreement of the member states.

Aegir wrote: »

and the ones that oppose federalism? they become the second tier of europe?

If even one member state declines to agree to a treaty change, the treaty change doesn't happen for any of the member states.

The "second tier of europe" will be those states which withdraw from the process, and so lose the ability to influence or control it, even though it may profoundly affect them. Not looking at anyone in particular.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Annual cost of EU membership per Irish citizen is 50 euros. Best bargain ever.

It costs the Brits a bit more - about 70 euros a skull.

But in both cases the calculations just look at the cost; they ignore the economic return accruing from EU membership.

It was estimated in 2016 by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that UK participation in the single market had raised UK GDP by 4% over what it would otherwise have been. That means an annual benefit to the UK of about EUR 1,440 per capita. Not a bad return for an investment of 70 euros.

Aegir wrote: »

So the EU is a good idea, I think we agree on that.

Imagine how much extra benefit the eu could give, if it wasn't pissing away so much money on gold plated pensions, parachute payments and rather generous schooling allowances for the kids of EU commissioners and presidents.

How many schools, hospitals or other actual needed services could the eu fund every year if it just stopped the almost criminal act of moving parliament to Strasbourg every now and then.

I'm very content with the performances of the EU Commission and Parliament over the past three years. In fact, I'd be happy if Barnier got a bonus.

Aegir wrote: »

So the EU is a good idea, I think we agree on that.

Imagine how much extra benefit the eu could give, if it wasn't pissing away so much money on gold plated pensions, parachute payments and rather generous schooling allowances for the kids of EU commissioners and presidents.

How many schools, hospitals or other actual needed services could the eu fund every year if it just stopped the almost criminal act of moving parliament to Strasbourg every now and then.

This is what happens when reform is attempted in the EU.

But the European commission said in a statement that EU rules allow member states to substantially cut CAP “basic payments” to large landowners, such as most of those cited in the Greenpeace report, by applying a ceiling. Nine countries do so, the commission said, including Britain which applies an upper limit in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where the funds generated are generally spent on rural development projects.


“The UK government chooses not to apply a ceiling in England,” the commission said, adding that repeated proposals for more radical reform – including a compulsory ceiling on basic payments to large landowners – have “consistently been watered down by national ministers”.

Brussels sources said Britain played a leading part in a small group of EU members that opposed the measure. As a result, a major 2014 CAP reform package did not include a compulsory upper limit – but left open an optional ceiling that could be applied at national level.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/29/eu-farming-subsidies-uk-cap-ceiling-england

seamus wrote: »

The UK has 60 million people and produces enough food for 33 million.

Pretty simple. You won't starve, but thing are about to get lean. Like world-war-rationing, lean. And certain foodstuffs that you take for granted will get really expensive.

I don't know if you've ever tried growing anything, but it takes time. And land. You can't double your output in the space of year, or even five.

Hyperbole is no good for anyone, it ruins the debate and makes you look silly.
Ration books will not be coming back to the UK. What the UK is likely to see if a lack of fresh imported produce on it's shelves - no strawberries in December.

Brexiteer wrote: »

To use the words of the man himself, "im afraid this chap doesnt know what he is talking about"

Search for "Jeremy Corbyn Attacks Jacob over his Investment Fund (Again)" on youtube. it wont let me post links. it shows the response to this by rees mogg himself

it is hilarious that any normal profits made by any brexiteer in the last 3 years is now seen as fishy by the desperate!

But as we know from yesterday, Rees-Mogg is a bare-faced liar. So his rebuttal of criticisms is, um, not to be taken as gospel.

I'm not saying he is moving his money abroad. My guess would be that much of it has always been abroad. All I'm saying is that his own statements about what he is doing and why are not particularly compelling.

Brexiteer wrote: »

To use the words of the man himself, "im afraid this chap doesnt know what he is talking about"

Search for "Jeremy Corbyn Attacks Jacob over his Investment Fund (Again)" on youtube. it wont let me post links. it shows the response to this by rees mogg himself

it is hilarious that any normal profits made by any brexiteer in the last 3 years is now seen as fishy by the desperate!

I cant see any video by that title on youtube.
To be honest I prefer to deal in facts.....Jacob Rees Mogg is a seriously slippery customer.


once again.


Richest in Britain got 25BN richer since Brexit vote
- Their combined net worth is £83.6bn. Two Brexiteers are responsible for most of the gains.

Jim Ratcliffe and James Dyson, the founder of Dyson Ltd, have added a combined £15bn since the vote, according to the ranking, with Mr Ratcliffe displacing Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, as Britain’s richest person.

---

To be honest if the whole Brexit thing wasnt going to impact on the economy in Ireland (and EU as a whole) I would say work away...go on set yourselves on fire!...but you know what it will.

Ireland hasnt been bullied into anything thankfully despite the efforts of Priti Patel and the like. In fact Ireland seems better prepared for a No deal brexit currently than the UK (when it comes to use of ports etc anyway).

What meaningful solution is Boris offering? He doesnt want the backstop.....him/DUP dont want a border so what is the solution Northern Ireland will no longer be in the EU? Seemingly Boris etc are saying "technology" - which hasnt been invented...and needs to be implemented by the end of October....lol

Aegir wrote: »

aah, ok. so because the return is so small, we should close our eyes to politicians and civil servants pissing away millions in their own self interest?

No. I'm just saying that Brexit isn't a rational or proportionate response to the problem. It's a response that does far, far more harm to Britain than the problem does.

Aegir wrote: »

so what you are saying is that we should turn a bling eye if Leo decides to give himself a €500k pay rise, because in the grand scheme of things, it makes very little difference to the total state budget?

Again, no, I'm not saying that.

Aegir wrote: »

as I said earlier, it is a bogus analogy. The UK is a state and therefore provides direct services to its citizens. It has a police force, a military, it has border control, education, welfare, income tax to collect etc.

The EU is not a state, it does not provide direct services to its citizens, because it has none. Zero, zilch. All is actually has is the 45,000 or so people that work for it. 45,000 people who need three Presidents (all on over €300k per year, plus substantial living allowances and parachute salaries when they leave the role) to look after them.

It is civil service on steroids.

Nitpick: The EU has 500 milliion citizens.

I don't think you can claim that the EU is overstaffed by pointing to the things it doesn't do; I think you have to look at what it does do. And what it does do, of course, is (among other things) enable, facilitate and implement the single market.

I mentioned earlier that participation in the SM was calculated to have benefited the UK to the tune of 4% of GDP. It has benefitted all member states to a greater or lesser extent; UK is about mid-range. Taking 4% as the average, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the EU creates about 680 billion euros of wealth for its member states each year. So, produce a reasoned argument, please, as to whether the cost of paying for the EU bureacracy is disproportionate to the wealth created by participation in the EU. Otherwise, stop banging on about this. It's a problem, but if you can't make that argument it's not a problem that's terribly relevant to Brexit.